2 Romano, G., Le dominazioni barbariche in Italia, 175 f.Google Scholar

3 De laude Anastasii imperatoris, line 265.

4 Laurentius had some clerical following, as is shown by the case of the deacon Saint Pasehasius. The latter had a great reputation for sanctity, yet he sided with Laurentius throughout the whole conflict. See Saint Gregory's interesting account of his penance in purgatory (Dial. iv, 40).Google Scholar It was to Paschasius that Eugippius addressed his Vita Severini. Cf. Acta Sanciorum under 05 31.

5 The Lateran.

6 Hefele-Leelereq, , Histoire des Conciles, II, 1352 f.Google Scholar

7 This is learned from the Liber Pontificalis: Solus autem Faustus exconsul pro exconesia pugnabat.

8 The appointment does not appear in the records of the synod. No doubt it was considered as coming directly from the pope. This is Hefele 's view (Hefele-Leelercq, , Histoire des Conciles, II, 958)Google Scholar, who in this followed Sollerius (Acta Banotorum, 07. IV, 638).Google Scholar

9 Thiel, A., Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, I, 642 ff.Google Scholar; and Mansi, , VIII, 229 ff.Google Scholar

10 So Thiel and Mommsen; Mansi gives sixty-eight. The presbyters signed with the uniform subscription: M…… presbyter tituli N…… For the titular churches of Rome at the end of the fifth century see Gregorovius, , Gesch. der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, I, 261 ff.Google Scholar; and J. P. Kirsch, Die römisehen Titelkirchen im Altertum. Gregorovius gives an analysis of the titles found in the signatures to this synod.

11 The Latin word sacerdos as used here meant any member of the ecclesiastical order, more frequently bishop than presbyter. The English word priest is therefore an inadequate translation, but we have no word so inclusive.

12 Thiel, I, 644.

13 Si quis presbyter aut diaconus aut cierkus, papa incolumi et eo inconsulto, aut subscriptionem pro Romano pontificatu commodare, aut pittacio promittere aut sacrainentum praebere tentaverit aut aliquod certe suffragiuin polliceri, vel de hac causa privatis conventiculis factis deliberare atque decernere, loci sui dignit ate vel communione privetur. The meaning of pittacio promittere is not very clear. There are two objections to the translation usually given, “To promise a voting paper”; first it would be merely a repetition of what follows, and secondly it would presume a formal ballot.

14 Leclercq, Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, II, Appeudice VIIIGoogle Scholar. This article contains a full discussion of the whole subject. It is only possible here to give a short summary of the most important points.

15 Canon 23 of the Council of Antioeh held in 341. See Hefele-Leelercq, , Histoire des Conciles, I, 721.Google Scholar

16 See Duchesne, L., “La Succession du Pape Felix IV,” Mélange d 'Arch. et d'Hist., 131 (1883), 240–266.Google Scholar

17 This is the view of Duchesne: “II y avait done sur ce point un usage ancien, attesté par le coneile de 498, et Felix, en choisissant Boniface pour son suecesseur, ne faisait qu 'user d 'un pouvoir qui avait été reconnu aux pontifes romains bien longtemps avant lui.” (Ibid., 251). New light was thrown on the whole question by the discovery, in 1883, of three very important documents. Duchesne 's article was written in the light of that discovery.

18 This is Duchesne 's view: “Si Dioscore, … avait vécu, c 'est probablement lui qui figurerait maintenant au rang des papes légitimes et le nom de Boniface lui-même ne se trouverait que parmi ceux des antipapes.” “Vigile et Pélange,” Revue des quest. hist., 36 (1884), 369.Google Scholar

19 Liber Pontificalis, I, 281.Google Scholar

20 Another writer (Many, S., Revue de l'Institut cath. de Paris, 6 (1901), 141 ff.)Google Scholar, arguing from the same facts, come to a different conclusion. He claims it would be perfectly legal for a pope to appoint his successor, but not good policy save in exceptional cases.

21 Petronius Probinus, consul 489. For a convenient summary of what is known of his life see Sundwall, J., Abhandlungen sur Gesch. d. ausgeh. Römertums, 150Google Scholar. Lest we should form an altogether false impression of the character of these men, it is well to note that in his Opusoulum to Ambrosius and Beatus, which Sundwall dates in 512, Ennodius, the champion of the pope, speaks of their character in terms of highest praise. (Vienna Corpus, VI, 408 f.)Google Scholar.

22 Liber Pontificalis: Post annos vero IIII. That is after the elections in 498.

23 For a detailed discussion, see Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire des Conciles, I, 450ff.Google Scholar

24 See my article, “The Henotikon Schism and the Roman Church,” The Journal of Religion, 16, (1936), 78ff.Google Scholar

25 So the Laurentian Fragment. The Liber Pontiflcalis merely says: Inoriminaverunt Symmachum et subornaverunt testes falsos quos miserunt Rauennam ad regem Theodoricum, accusantes beatum Symmachum.

26 Histor, . Jahrbuch, 9 (1888), 273.Google Scholar

27 The Laurent ian Fragmest reads: Pro diebus autem paschalibus ab omnibus paene vir venerabilis Petrus, Altinatis episcopus, a rege visitator ecclesiae Romanae deposcitur. This, together with the phrase quod canones prohibebant of the Liber Pontificalis, shows clearly enough that Theoderie sent Peter of Altinum to Rome to function as a bishop during the paschal season. Since Symmachus had already celebrated Easter on March 25, this was really a double challenge to his authority. The ab omnibus paene is contradicted by a statement in the acts of the fourth synod, where the visitor is said to have been sent contra regulas maiorum (Thiel, I, 659)Google Scholar. But then it is all in the point of view.

28 The authorities for this schism are the Liber Pontificalis and certain letters, formally included in the tenth book of those of Symmachus, Q. Aurelius (PL. XVIII, 397–406)Google Scholar. These letters were first published by Baronius and comprise the official correspondence of another Symmachus, son or nephew of the orator, who was prefect of Rome at the time. See also Jaffé, I, 51–53. For a tree showing the family of Symmachus see MGH., Antor. Antiquiss., VI, 1, xl.Google Scholar

29 Sundwall, J. (Abh. zur Gesch. d. ausgeh. Römertums, 205 f.)Google Scholar places these synods a year later, which means a complete reconstruction of the chronology. Everything depends on the year in which Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus was consul, which W. Liebenam gives as 501, but Sundwall (Ibid., 97) claims was 502. The traditional date has such good company (Thiel, Hefele, Duchesne, and others) that I have preferred to follow it, though a reconstruction, starting from 502 would have some advantages. Bury (Later Roman Empire, I, 465, note 2)Google Scholar has followed Sundwall, but not accurately. A glance at the acts would have shown him that X Kalendas Novembris could hardly be termed early summer.

30 S. Maria in Trastevere.

31 Ex ordinatione antistitum, sicut decebat sanctum pro positum, prima fonte recederet. The translation given above seems to be the meaning of the passage, though prima fonte used in such a sense is exceptional to say the least.

32 Datum sub die VI Idus Augusti regnante supra dicto feliciter, Rufio Magno Fausto Avieno v. e. cons.

33 Hefele-Leelercq, II, 961, note 5. The last phrase is an explanation added by Leclercq.

34 Tertia synodus habita Romae. That is the third synod held during the ponticate of Symmachus.

35 Evidently the lost Adversus Synodum, afterwards circulated at Rome (see below), was based on this libellus, as there seems to have been a similarity in argument; but the Adversus Synodum must have been much longer.

36 Duchesne, (L'Eglise au VIe siécle, 118)Google Scholar places the attack on the pope before the arrival of the guard from Ravenna. To me the sources are quite clear on this point. It was on his way to the second synod of his trial, and not to the first, that Symmachus was attacked.

37 Ex secunda synodo. That is the second synod for the trial of the pope, namely the synod of September the first. Hefele (Hefele-Leclercq, II, 962) takes a different view. He translates synodo as session, and reckons this as the second session of the third synod, which presupposes that the synod of September 1 had several sessions. Duehesne, (L'Eglise au Vie siécle, 120, note 2Google Scholar) gives still another explanation of this phrase, but the simpler one seems preferable.

38 The pope's reply is in substance the same as given in the acts of the synod of October 23, but appears here in greater detail.

39 For the number and date of this synod, see Hefele-Leelereq, II, 964 ff. Duchesne (loc. cit.), goes back to Sollerius and Mansi and numbers it as the third synod. This notation is forced on him by the explanation he adopted for ex secunda synodo.

40 For a diacusgion of the vaviou yeferences see Grisar, H., Rom und die Päpste, I, 462, note 2, and 472 f.Google Scholar, with the notes.

41 In the Liber Pontificalis (Duchesno L. P., I, 323) the author says of Honorius: Item fecit basilicam beati Apollenaris martyris in urbe Roma, in porticum beau Petri aposto qui appellatur ad Palmata. Grisar hazards the guess that perhaps it derived its name from the fact that Symmachus himself had ornamented it with palms in mosaic. Ex musivo agflos et cruces et palmas ornavit. (Ibid., 262). Thiel (I, 88 f.) suggests the senate house.

42 The heading as given by Thiel (I, 682) is as follows: Exemplar constituti facti a domino Symmacho papa de rebus Ecciesiae conservandis, vel, Quinta Synodus s. Symmachi papae habita Romae. In a note he gives several alternative readings from other manuscripts. Mansi (VIII, 261) gives a heading in line with his own system of numbering the synods: Synodus Romana IV sub Spin macho alias Pal mans appellata.

43 The numbers are taken from the list as given in Thiel. A glance at Thiel 's notes will make it clear that these figures are by no means certain. Hefele has followed Mansi and gives thirty-four presbyters. Mommsen differs as to the number of bishops.

44 Consul 480. See Sundwall, , Abh. Gesch. des ausgehenden Römertums, 98 fGoogle Scholar; Thiel (I, 686, note) thinks that, Basilium hunc … non aliuin existimandum esse ab illo Caecina Basilio, consulari Romae spectatisssimo, in cuies laudem plura habet Sidonius Appollinaris epist. I, 9.

45 This statement of the case is not universally accepted. Felix, Dahn (Könige der Germanen, III, 203)Google Scholar and Malnory, A. (Saint Cesaire, 84)Google Scholar take this view, namely that this rule was merely for the election about to take place; while Franz, Staudenmaier (Geschichte der Bischofswahlen, 63)Google Scholar claims that it was intended to apply to all future elections.

46 This is the point stressed by Leelercq. (Hefele-Leclercq, II, 968, note).

47 One or two interesting facts may be gleaned by an examination of the signatures to the synods for which we have well authenticated lists, namely the first, fourth, and fifth. These represent in all about 125 sees. Those who attended the first synod came from two well defined districts, the neighborhood of Rome and the Campania. The most northerly diocese represented was Rimini, the most southerly, with the possible exception of Vito, Acherontia. Perhaps the best reason for the restricted attendance was the time of year, and the fact that the main issues had been decided at Ravenna by Theoderic. The bishops attending the fourth synod represent a more scattered constituency, from Vercellae to Sicily. The issues were more important, and the sunimons was sent out by Theoderie himself. There seems to have been some basis of selection, since Ennodius admits that all were not summoned, but he denied the charge that there had been unfair discrimination. The manuscript readings for this synod are more doubtful than for the first, and this makes absolute accuracy impossible. About seventy-five bishops signed, of which oily forty-four came from towns that had sent bishops two years before. A few places had new bishops. The fifth synod was signed by sixty-four bishops, of whom all but nine came cities represented at one or both of the preceding syiods. While the sees were widely scattered, those in the vicinity of Rome predominated.For a thorough study of these dioceses the reader is referred to Francesco Lanzoni, Le origini delle diocesi antiche d' Itatia, where he will find an exhaustive study. Gams, in his Series episcoporum, has cited all but forty-four. The nature of his work did not make it possible for hint to include all the minor bishoprics that early ceased to exist.

48 For such a reconstruction see Thiel, I, 735 ff. The best edition of Ennodius is found in the Vienna Corpus, VI.

49 Mansi omits the month, and Hefele follows his editing.

50 For the attitude of Theoderic, see Cassidorus, , Variae, ii, 29Google Scholar. For the edict, see MGH., , Leges I, 170.Google Scholar

51 Davenport, E. H., The False Decretals (Oxford, 1916), 4.Google Scholar