Symmachus the Pope

ON ST. SYMMACHUS THE POPE,

AT ROME.

IN THE YEAR 514.

HISTORICAL COLLECTION.

Symmachus, Pope, at Rome (S.)

BY THE AUTHOR J. B. S.

§ I. The cult, country, age, election, schism, and councils held.

The cult of this holy Roman Pontiff was rendered almost doubtful, at first sight, by the silence of all the ancient Martyrologies or ecclesiastical Tables concerning him,

so that his first memory in the Fasti seemed to have to be attributed to some Usuardine codex, His late [appearance in the sacred Fasti,] which Grevenus followed, not on this day but on the 21st of February, in these words: At Rome, of Symmachus, Pope and confessor, whom he afterward repeats on this day, Molanus following him. Others are cited in the Passed-Over for the 21st of February, namely Maurolycus, Galesinius, Witford, Canisius, and the Calendar which is prefixed to the Breviary of Évora printed in the year 1548. Maurolycus has thus: Likewise of Symmachus the Pope, who ordered the Gloria in excelsis to be sung on feasts: which Galesinius thus amplified: Likewise of St. Symmachus the Pontiff. He, with the utmost vigilance in rightly administering the pontificate, and by the example of pontifical charity, supplied daily nourishment to two hundred and twenty bishops relegated to Sardinia for the cause of the faith by Thrasimund king of the Vandals: and he ordered the hymn Gloria in excelsis to be sung in the sacrifice of the Mass on feast days. Thus there Galesinius.

[2] But the same in his notations confesses that he had assigned the birthday of SS. Hilarius and this Symmachus, Pontiffs, in that place, and his memory on various days, following the Martyrology of Maurolycus, but in another edition, he says, since we now think otherwise, we will place it in its own place. Namely, I think, on this day Symmachus, whom, almost against his custom, Canisius or Walasser honored with a singular eulogy, which, translated from the German into Latin, sounds thus: Likewise at Rome, of the holy Pope and confessor Symmachus, born in Sardinia, who was an upright man, a cherisher of the clergy and of the poor. He suffered many things from false brethren, and cleared himself before an ecclesiastical judgment. He drove the Manichaeans from Rome, and ordered their books to be burned. He freed many captives, adorned and built very many churches. At last, full of good works, he rested in peace, gleaming with miracles after his death. Of the same more briefly in the same place on this day, the year 494 being wrongly noted in the margin. Witford added nothing that deserves to be observed. Finally Baronius, citing here no Martyrology, inserted him into the Roman in this phrase: At Rome, of St. Symmachus the Pope, who, long wearied by the faction of the schismatics, at last, conspicuous for holiness, migrated to the Lord.

[3] Then of him he subjoins in the notes: He succeeded Anastasius II, rendered the cult doubtful and gained great praise and the title of holiness, because he stood intrepid against the schismatics: but we do not cease to marvel why only in the last centuries his name found a place in the Martyrologies; by which common silence of the ancient Fasti I suspect Castellanus was moved—elsewhere a diligent unearther of the Saints rather than a dislodger—not to inscribe him among the Saints by his own suffrage: for although on this day he reports the whole text of the Roman Martyrology, yet in the index he marks him with those letters with which he is wont to note those whom he does not acknowledge for true Saints. That you may perceive this more manifestly, on the 6th of April, among his additions, he did not hesitate to write: In the same place (namely at Rome) the death of the venerable Symmachus the Pope, under whom the first Roman synod was held. Here Castellanus is mistaken, I think, in the choice of the day, following those chronologers who will have St. Symmachus consecrated on the 13th of September, but dead on the 6th of April, which we shall soon show to be diametrically opposed to Anastasius the Librarian; but for the rest he sufficiently opens his mind concerning the cult, in his opinion not everywhere due to this Pontiff.

[4] not sufficiently established in the Roman monuments. Nor indeed are any sacred monuments erected or indications of veneration known, from which the ecclesiastical cult exhibited to him in ancient times could be established; at least I am forced to confess that these, though I have inquired very diligently, have by no means reached my knowledge; no more than his memory in any ancient Martyrologies. The histories of the basilica of St. Peter by Petrus Manlius and Maffeo Vegio, published by us in volume 7 of June, where they make mention of Symmachus and the works built by him, add nowhere anything peculiar to him, whereby he should be adorned above the other Roman Pontiffs with the appellation of Saint. Nevertheless, since he is celebrated in the Fasti cited above, and afterward marked in the very Roman Martyrology, no doubt remains but that in this work a place must be assigned to St. Symmachus. But since there exists no Life which comprises the series of his deeds, besides the few things which Anastasius has, it is certain that we must follow him as our guide, explaining some things which shall seem to need illustration; in which Baronius and many others who have published Commentaries on the Roman Pontiffs will go before us with their light. The lessons which are exhibited in the proper Vatican Offices, published in the year 1674, where he is venerated on this day under a double rite, since they are almost entirely taken from Anastasius himself, can contribute nothing greatly to the elucidation of the history. An error has crept in there in the day of death, so that for the 10th of the Kalends the 14th of the Kalends of August must be substituted.

[5] Of his country there is no need to dispute, Of the country of St. Symmachus perhaps no doubt would occur, had not some copyist suggested it, when in both editions, both the Mainz and the Paris, Symmachus is said to be by nation a Roman, other codices being nevertheless noted in the margin, in which it is better read that he was by nation a Sardinian, his father Fortunatus. That we may not stick here longer, let it suffice that today the most received consent of all is that the holy Pontiff was by race a Sardinian, not a Roman. Neither of his life led before the pontificate, nor of the determinate age which he had reached before the pontificate, does the praised Anastasius hand down anything, nor do I understand that it can be drawn out from elsewhere: this is more expressly stated, that he succeeded his predecessor Anastasius, who died on the 13th of the Kalends of December, four days after, or on the fourth day from his death, and so that the beginning of his pontificate must be fixed at the 10th of the Kalends, or the 22nd of November; that he sat moreover 15 years, 8 months, 26 days; and was in the times of King Theodoric and Anastasius the Augustus, from the 10th of the Kalends of December, up to the 14th of the Kalends of August, from which reckoning of Anastasius there is nothing at all that compels us to depart.

[6] There are not lacking, I confess, those who think this reckoning of times must be arranged otherwise, nor concerning his age must we depart from Anastasius. and who would have it, that St. Symmachus, initiated into the supreme pontificate on the 13th of September, held the see for 15 years, 6 months, 25 days, running from the said 13th of September of the year 498, to the 6th of April 514. But if we rightly weigh these things, they seem to be almost systems, not of things done, but of things to be done, so that the whole series of the Pontiffs may be fitted to preconceived opinions, and more aptly arranged. I indeed see nothing to be refuted in Anastasius, nothing which cannot be conveniently admitted, and reconciled with the whole history of that time, as Antonio Pagi long ago, after Baronius, accurately reckoned at the year 498, so that consequently, from the more received opinion, confirmed from various catalogues, it must be established that St. Symmachus on this very day, the 19th of July, flew to the heavens, whatever is marked in some more recent Martyrologies on the 21st of February, as was already sufficiently said above, or the 6th of April, as it pleases Castellanus, and those whose chronology we just now rejected.

[7] These things being disputed in passing concerning his age, there follows a difficulty a little more intricate in relation to the schism, whose phases, In the order of the schism a greater difficulty, so to speak, or symptoms, remain to be shaken out by us, the words of Anastasius being premised, to which the office of a commentary will be supplied by the things which we here undertake to expedite in order. Behold the words of our writer: He (namely St. Symmachus) was ordained amid contention on the same day with Laurentius. Symmachus in the Constantinian basilica, but Laurentius in the basilica of blessed Mary. From which cause the clergy was separated, and the senate divided: some with Symmachus, but others with Laurentius. And when contention had arisen, the parties determined this, that both should go to Ravenna to the judgment of King Theodoric; who, when both had entered Ravenna, found this judgment of equity: that whoever had been first ordained, or where the greater part should be recognized, he should sit in the Apostolic See: which at last equity found in Symmachus, the knowledge of the truth: and Symmachus was made Prelate. Thus far the beginning of the dire schism, lulled indeed by the authority of Theodoric, but not so extinguished, but that afterward it broke out worse, as the series of events will teach, drawn out more fully long ago by Baronius and others, but here, as far as can be done, to be briefly arranged.

[8] Anastasius suffered his diligence to be not a little wanting, from Anastasius or whoever is the author of the Pontifical book, when he so entangled the history of the schism, in a manner repeated, that he neither so distinguished its origin, nor the councils held to extinguish it, nor the other circumstances, that an accurate series of things done could be drawn out: for which I see three chief points chiefly to be unfolded and illustrated. First, namely, what was the origin and cause of the schism; second, what remedies were applied that it might be quickly removed; third, finally, in what order all things were done which that writer mingled together. To the first some light is brought by Theodorus Lector in the Excerpts of ecclesiastical history, book 2, in Valesius, page 560, where he brings forward Festus, a Roman senator, who, sent to the emperor Anastasius for certain civil affairs, machinated those things at Constantinople from which a deadly conflagration blazed up at Rome. Namely, having flattered the crafty emperor, he had conceived that he would bend the mind of Anastasius the Pontiff (predecessor of St. Symmachus) to receive the famous Henoticon of Zeno, of which there is no need for me here to discourse at length, since the history of the ill-omened little book is most well known to the learned. Let us hear Theodorus himself.

[9] and from Theodorus Lector, Furthermore, Festus had secretly, as they say, suggested to the emperor, that he should persuade the Roman Bishop to subscribe to the Henoticon of Zeno. But when he had come to Rome, he found bishop Anastasius already dead. Wherefore he took pains that, one promoted through schism, should subscribe to that edict. Many therefore being corrupted with money, he brought it about that, against the received custom, a certain Roman, named Laurentius, was elected Bishop. Two therefore were ordained; and by the greater part indeed was ordained Symmachus, one of the deacons; but by the others, Laurentius. For which causes slaughters and plunderings, and other innumerable evils were perpetrated at Rome. And when a disturbance of this kind had persevered three continuous years in the city of Rome, Theodoric the African, who then reigned at Rome, although he was of the Arian sect, yet, a synod of bishops being gathered, confirmed to Symmachus indeed the episcopate of the city of Rome, but constituted Laurentius bishop of a certain city which is called Nuceria. Laurentius, however, by no means kept quiet, but did not cease still to aspire to the episcopate of the city of Rome. For which cause Symmachus took care that he should be deposed and sent into exile, and in this manner the sedition was lulled.

[10] rightly understood, You have here somewhat more explained the things which pertain to the first point, namely the primeval origin of the whole pernicious schism, traced back to the evil arts of Faustus: but Theodorus has not yet spoken so clearly as to elucidate the whole matter sufficiently, which it is a wonder that Pagi and other critics did not observe. To me indeed it does not seem probable that Festus, returning from the East,

found Pope Anastasius dead, and nevertheless had time enough to corrupt with money then all those whom it was necessary to induce to his purpose, that he might bring the Pontiff designated by himself whither he wished; namely about three days in which the whole machination was arranged. For as to the fact that the more recent French Legend-writer, I know not whence, builds up for us a longer interpontificate; he deserves no greater credit in this than in very many other things wrongly arranged concerning St. Symmachus, which nevertheless I judged not worthy of refutation. As to what pertains to that shorter space of time, I would believe that all things were first arranged through the confederates of Faustus, Probinus and other Roman senators, so that, returned to the City, he found all minds disposed, to execute what he had promised to the Emperor; to which Binius rightly observed that Festus foreknew that Laurentius would acquiesce in the impious demands.

[11] However these things may have been, the matter itself is certain from Anastasius and from Theodorus Lector, that two Pontiffs, to be explained and settled. and indeed on the same day, were ordained; and likewise that the disturbance arisen thence persevered three whole continuous years, as Valesius translates, although in the Greek it is read only τριῶν ἐνιαυτῶν, three years; or four, as Anastasius speaks, by what reckoning they are to be computed it will have to be inquired a little more accurately, those things being set aside for a while which in Theodorus must be corrected, as Baronius rightly long ago noted, namely that he would have Theodoric confirm to Symmachus the episcopate of the city of Rome, but constitute Laurentius bishop of a certain city which is called Nuceria: which indeed are said very crudely, and must be imputed to the iniquity of those times, when an Arian prince, though otherwise not altogether wicked, did many things violently, which the Greek writer did not explain aptly enough, but which have long since been sufficiently set forth by the most Eminent Annalist and by others: let us now come to the order of the synods.

§ II. The series of the synods disturbed by Pagi.

Of those synods Antonio Pagi disputes at length at the year 499, numbers 2 and 3, and the following years, In refixing the order of the synods, from whom his nephew Francis reported most things into his Breviary: we shall here touch on those things which pertain chiefly to St. Symmachus, compared with those which shall seem to be referred hither from the synods themselves. The whole controversy with Pagi therefore will be, in relation to the synods held at Rome, to arrange those things which the holy Pontiff suffered by reason of the schism up to that Palmar synod, in which he triumphed over his adversaries; suffering meanwhile not a few things out of humility, to which he could be compelled by no human authority: we here intend to arrange only the series of the matter. And first indeed we easily agree with Pagi in those things which surround the time of the ordination, and the schism which followed on the same day, and then the declaration of Theodoric in favor of St. Symmachus; finally in fixing the first synod at the Kalends of March of the year 499, of whose decrees Baronius treats at length, which may be seen in the Councils in Labbe, Harduin, and others. And here too Pagi agrees, writing at the said year, number 2: The first Roman synod was celebrated in the current year after the consulship of Paulinus, a most distinguished man, on the Kalends of March, as its common editions have: in the following number also bringing forward the things which were defined in the synod, to be seen in the places already cited. But the praised Pagi had premised in that number 2 that Baronius and all the rest had erred, who thus far arranged the synods under Symmachus, all which he had, forsooth, restored to their integrity. Let us hear his words:

[13] The Roman synods, celebrated while Symmachus sat, Pagi labored in vain. not hitherto placed in their order in the collections of councils and in the ecclesiastical Annals, were the cause of various hallucinations. That this order was there disturbed, Sirmond observed, and assigned to the fourth synod its place. But there remains the chief difficulty, to be proposed below, which we think we have at last struggled through, and have restored all six Symmachian Roman synods to their integrity. How happily, will soon appear; here certainly he begins to pave the way to a new series of the aforesaid synods, first devised by himself and adopted by his nephew Francis, when he says that Baronius reports, number 10, that Laurentius, created in the schism against Symmachus in the previous year, was in the present year made bishop of Nuceria, for which matter he cites Anastasius the Librarian. But he does not record the year of the deed, and from what we shall say below it will be established that Laurentius obtained that episcopate only in the second Roman synod. Namely Pagi both invented synods, and two diverse schisms, separated by a longer interval; the first, which around the election was soon lulled, but the other, which only in the year 503 put forth its venom; and thus he wondrously distorts the years marked by Theodorus and Anastasius.

[14] There is no synod of the year 500; He would have it therefore that Laurentius was not before the year 500, and indeed in some second Roman synod, invented by himself, declared bishop of Nuceria, inasmuch as he subscribed to the first synod of the preceding year 499: I, Caelius Laurentius, archpresbyter of the title of St. Praxedis, here subscribed and consented to the synodal constitutions, and in this I profess that I remain of this opinion. That subscription I gladly admit; but who suggested to Pagi even by a shadow that he remained at Rome up to the following year 500, and that then a synod was held for his cause alone? I know that Anastasius writes that at the same time Pope Symmachus gathered a synod, namely that very one which we just now admitted. I admit also that he constituted Laurentius bishop in the city of Nuceria, out of regard for mercy, not indeed in the synod itself, which was not necessary, but, let us say boldly, after the synod was finished, yet so that it was done at the same time, and so in that very month of March of the year 499; in which certainly Baronius was not to be corrected, who most rightly judged that Laurentius was sent away in that year, whom Pagi wrongly thinks to have been absent from Rome then for three whole years, and only in the year 503 accusations against Symmachus to have been brought to Theodoric, and in the same year at last rejected in the Palmar synod.

[15] Let us again hear him pursuing his matter by his preconceived way, nor is a double schism to be built up. at the year already said 499, number 11. He has thus: Anastasius the Librarian, after he had narrated the things which had been done in the first schism against Pope Symmachus, speaks of the second, in which certain clerics and certain senators again accused Symmachus, and secretly recalled Laurentius, which moved Theodoric king of Italy to give Peter, bishop of the city of Altinum, as visitor of the Apostolic See. The time of the deed Anastasius expresses, cited by Baronius, when he affirms that this was done after four years, namely from the second Roman synod, in which Laurentius was made bishop of Nuceria, as will appear from what is to be said. Wherefore Peter, bishop of Altinum, was sent as visitor to Rome only in the year 503; for that is the fourth year from 500, and therefore after Theodoric was at Rome, but not before, as Baronius thought, who therefore wrongly reproves Anastasius, as if he had erred in recording the time. Of this last point, whether he was sent before or after the coming of Theodoric, I have no great question with Pagi; that is false, that the man of Altinum was sent as visitor to Rome only in the year 503. But lest here things be too much mingled, I will go on to propose the rest of Pagi's arguments, to be dissolved in the following paragraph.

[16] At the year 500, number 6, he thus again attacks Baronius: he wrongly censures Baronius, The things which Baronius narrates were done this year in the second Roman synod, pertain to the year five hundred and three, in which the second schism against Symmachus was kindled, and the fourth Roman synod, called Palmar, was celebrated, as we shall see at that year, to which therefore must be referred what Baronius here narrates of the visitor sent by King Theodoric, to take cognizance of the offenses of the bishops. But because not only by Baronius, but also by all the collectors of the councils, and other writers, the order of the Roman synods under Symmachus has been arranged preposterously, to avoid confusion, I will here propose the right order of them… and will solidly confirm it in its places: namely, like all the rest. Then, numbers 7, 8, and 9, from his codices he arranges, according to his mere pleasure, the aforesaid Symmachian synods, and thinks that he draws these out from the above-cited Theodorus Lector, which we shall try presently to arrange a little more sincerely and rightly from the very precepts of King Theodoric and the Acts of the synod truly or pretendedly Palmar, to which that Pagi did not sufficiently attend will, unless I am mistaken, be manifestly demonstrated.

[17] Let us follow Pagi at the year 501, number 2, weaving on the thread begun by himself: wrongly establishing all things quiet in the year 501, This and the following year all things were quiet at Rome, because Laurentius the schismatic, who in the previous year, out of regard for mercy, as Anastasius speaks, had been created bishop of Nuceria, did not again invade the Roman See before the year 503. Wherefore neither this nor the following year was any synod held at Rome in the cause of Symmachus, although Baronius in the following year records a fourth synod, commonly called Palmar, and others commonly in the current year, because it is said in the Acts, which have hitherto come forth, to have been celebrated when Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus was consul. But that that consulship was intruded into those Acts, and that fourth synod held only in the year 503, will be established for certain from what is to be said. By no means; for whatever Pagi has sweated in vain, neither has he proved it, nor will any defender of his ever prove it, unless equal presumption be indulged in mutilating, changing, or erasing the consular marks according to his mere pleasure. I will bring it about that you shortly perceive that mark of the consulship of Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus to be most true, and so often repeated this year, that I do not cease vehemently to marvel that both Pagis struck upon that rock.

[18] At the year 502, in all six numbers from 2 to 8, Pagi again distorts and vexes himself to assign there some synod, and the synod of the year 502 which, from the re-inculcated manuscript codices, is to be called under Symmachus the THIRD, held when Flavius Avienus the Younger, a most distinguished man, was consul, on the 8th of the Ides of November in the basilica of blessed Peter. But persevering to play longer on "the third," he thus almost subsumes: But in all these manuscript codices this synod is reported before the Palmar. Wherefore it is manifest that the Palmar, in which Symmachus was declared innocent, was in order the fourth. Let the rest be read, twisted and re-twisted, born only to move nausea, when you shall have understood below from the most approved monuments that there is an empty logomachy in distinguishing that third and fourth synod, for which he brings forward Sirmond and others, in vain, if ever, alleged hither. Finally, from his long premises he would have this follow, that the Palmar synod could not be held before the year 503. Namely, to repeat again, the consular mark cited above; the 10th of the Kalends of November, Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus, a most distinguished man, being consul, added by some smatterer; and the fourth Palmar synod,

in which Symmachus was absolved, gathered only in the following year.

[19] understanding it preposterously: The more words with which Pagi wraps up and entangles all these things, the more he shows the weakness of his whole reasoning. Namely, that already mentioned third synod was certainly held in the year 502, because it is marked with the consular note "Flavius Avienus the Younger, a most distinguished man." Most rightly; we grant him this readily and liberally, whence he will draw out not a jot which could enfeeble ours even the least; so that here, if ever, that trite philosophical saying may come about: let the whole pass, except that Pagi may conveniently be throttled with that very weapon. What if someone should attack him, who, with equal right as himself, should assert that temporary note "Flavius Avienus the Younger, a most distinguished man," to have been stitched on by some smatterer, whither at last will that long argumentation, adorned with so many paralogisms, escape? Let us not trifle: from that very synod of the year 502, which we embrace with both arms, it is most luminously demonstrated against Pagi that that other synod, which it pleases him repeatedly to call Palmar, "Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus, a most distinguished man, being consul," most evidently preceded that third one (held when Flavius Avienus the Younger was consul) by almost a whole year, as will appear below to the eye. Let us peaceably follow the rest of the arguments of his critique.

[20] nor better his Palmar Finally we reach the year 503, in which Pagi laboriously tries to prove his conclusion so often threatened, and hither he recalls the pretended visitor, the bishop of Altinum, the return, after three years, of Laurentius of Nuceria, in a word all the disturbances and tumults, slaughters, plunderings, sacrileges, etc., committed by the schismatics. From his number 2 you will pass judgment on the rest. In the previous year, he says, we deferred to the present year the explanation of the fourth Roman Symmachian synod, commonly called Palmar, of which in the same place Baronius from number 1 to 22. Wherefore here we must treat of it, before we come to those things which Baronius has this year. That the same Palmar synod pertains to the present year, although hitherto it has never been assigned to the same year by writers, Anastasius first demonstrates, who in the Life of Symmachus, after he had reported that Laurentius the schismatic, out of regard for mercy, was constituted bishop of Nuceria, narrates the things which happened this year at Rome, and reports those things which conduce very much to understanding better the Palmar synod. Hear the words of Anastasius, and observe the distortion of Pagi. He says "after four years"; but the latter bends it; namely from the year of Christ 500, in which the second Roman synod (imaginary) was held, and Laurentius was called bishop.

[21] attaching it to the year 503. What is it to practice deception, if this is not? Anastasius sincerely narrates all things done from the election of St. Symmachus up to his so-called absolution; and all these he circumscribes within four years, which most certainly are to be taken as incomplete, as in similar cases six hundred times, nay even in this very place Pagi is compelled to reckon: incompletely, I say, or three continuous years, as Theodorus wrote, and Valesius did not translate so badly, from which writer neither our critic nor any other will ever hammer out more years. Let us adhere to the four years of Anastasius, namely from the year 498 to 501; those years we shall most easily draw out, so that on that account it is not necessary to transcribe here the longer discourse of Pagi, spread over eleven numbers; for all things are wrapped up in exactly the same manner, so that St. Symmachus's victory is drawn out into this year 503, which most certainly happened in the year 501, two whole years earlier than Pagi, one against all, so laboriously contends; with the one intent, as he says, of arranging the synods (of which he nowhere finds the second): in which indeed I do not see that one need labor so greatly; I have undertaken here to elucidate the chief point of the whole matter, namely in what year that synod was celebrated in which an end was put to the schism, called by the rebels the synod of the incongruous absolution, which in the judgment of almost all has hitherto been and must be the year 501, as in the following paragraph we are about to demonstrate, the other arguments of Pagi being abundantly dissolved, and to Labbe and others their full and entire authority restored, whatever the documents may not have reported in precisely their own order.

§ III. Here restored to their ancient order.

From what has been disputed thus far, it is clear, I think, that the chief point of the controversy is reduced to this, that the synod of the absolution, The critique of Pagi falsely supposes, otherwise Palmar, be restored to the year 501, whence Pagi drove it away. That we may rightly expedite this, the epitome of the whole matter must be continued almost in the words of Anastasius himself, to which, from the synod itself, whether one or manifold, whether the Julian or the Sessorian or the last, held on the 10th of the Kalends of November, those points will be added, so that it may manifestly appear that Antonio Pagi distorted all things, that he might defend the series of the synods, forsooth first struggled through by himself. But lest we seem to do what has been done, since the whole history itself has been sufficiently fully drawn out by Baronius at the year 502, it remains to dispute with that critique of Pagi alone, which we judge must be altogether overturned from Anastasius, Theodorus Lector, and the synodal actions. This indulgence must be granted us, that the things which were narrated by Anastasius in a confused method, we may reduce to a somewhat more orderly arrangement. Behold now the sequence of the whole matter.

[23] After, by the right judgment of King Theodoric, as arbiter between the contending parties, that all things were pacified in the year 499, Symmachus was made Prelate, Laurentius had nothing that he could more presumptuously mutter; and so the holy Pope Symmachus, providing lest disturbances of that kind should arise in future, having called out from Italy, as many bishops as he could through the winter, at the same time, namely on the very Kalends of March, gathered a synod, and, whether by the consent of the synod or by his own authority, as I think, constituted Laurentius bishop in the city of Nuceria, out of regard for mercy, no vestige, even the least, anywhere appearing that any synod was then held for his cause, at least that he might be inaugurated as bishop. He being absent, the storm that had arisen by no means quieted, Festus and Probinus machinating by another way to dislodge St. Symmachus from the pontifical throne, to whom that from then the machinations of the deacon Paschasius with the clergy were added, is certain enough, and recourse again to Theodoric, so that he himself was compelled by his presence to restrain those making tumult, magnificently received at Rome in the year 500; of whose triumphs and munificence toward the Romans Baronius is to be read at this year.

[24] It is not credible that any of the schismatics then dared to mutter at his commands, which by the presence of Theodoric in the year 500 were scarcely repressed. but when he himself departed from Rome, the hatred against the holy Pontiff most vehemently broke out afresh, so that after four years, as we reckoned above, understand by the course of four years, or rather, as Theodorus has it, after a disturbance of this kind had persevered three years in the city of Rome, namely from the pontifical election of the year 498, some of the clergy, led by zeal, and others of the senate, especially Festus and Probinus, incriminated Symmachus, and suborned false witnesses, whom they sent to Ravenna to King Theodoric, accusing blessed Symmachus, and secretly recalled Laurentius after a libel made at Rome, and made a schism, and again the clergy was divided, and some communicated with Symmachus, others with Laurentius, under the leadership, namely, of that Paschasius, a man indeed of noted holiness, but of greater simplicity, whose history, described by St. Gregory the Great, I judge sufficiently known from the ecclesiastical Annals, and can be seen entire in our Acts on the 31st of May.

[25] After whose departure it blazed up more than usual; That these things were not done in the sight of Theodoric, I think is beyond controversy; but that a little after his departure from the City the Laurentians made tumult more furiously than ever before, is undoubted. For then Festus and Probinus the senators, defenders of Laurentius, sent a report to the king, and began to act that the king should give a visitor of the Apostolic See, whom some think to have come to Rome in that very year 499, painted in colors lively enough by St. Ennodius, whose words you have at the year 500 from number 4. And not much after, nay then, the king, the Pope and the bishops not being consulted, fearing greater disturbances at Rome, gave Peter, bishop of the city of Altinum, which the canons forbade. But he, joining the schismatics against the holy Pontiff, and his accusers, stirred up even more pernicious flames, to extinguishing which Theodoric applied himself wholly, urging as quickly as possible the bishops of Liguria, Aemilia, and the Venetias to hasten to Rome to a council, that at last public peace might be restored to the City: to which the various precepts, reports, and sessions of the king contributed, of all which a surer reckoning can neither be had nor devised than from the documents themselves, most clearly adduced in that very year 501, whose characteristic marks Pagi tried, by a wholly vain effort, to enfeeble.

[26] whence great disturbances in the year 501 And hither plainly must be recalled the things which Anastasius thus narrates as immediately done: At the same time blessed Symmachus gathered a hundred and fifteen bishops, and, a synod being held, is purged of the false crime, and Peter of Altinum, invader of the Apostolic See, is condemned, and Laurentius of Nuceria, because, while bishop Symmachus was living, they had invaded his See. Then by all the bishops and presbyters and deacons, and all the clergy and people, blessed Symmachus is restored to the Apostolic See, that he might sit with glory as Prelate before blessed Peter. To reconcile with the Acts of the synod Anastasius, who asserts that the council was gathered by Symmachus, whereas nevertheless it is there said to have been done by the precept of the most glorious King Theodoric, the notation of Binius in Labbe makes, from which also the order here placed by us is excellently confirmed. Thus, among other things, he observes that the Laurentians were driven by fury, because, against their hope, Theodoric, at the intercession of the Catholics and of others who were in the City, senators favoring Symmachus, was thinking of gathering a synod; and since he knew that it was not of his party to convoke orthodox prelates to a synod, attributing to himself nothing more than was fair, according to the custom of the ancestors, he took care that it should be accomplished by the authority of Pope Symmachus himself, as will soon appear: we return to Anastasius.

[27] in the same year lulled; But here, as often elsewhere, he suffered the exact order of the matter to be wanting; for the things which follow in him happened not after the council was held, but much before, as the very nature of the things done teaches: namely that the seditions, fights, dishonorings of consecrated virgins, blows, wounds, slaughters, homicides, perpetrated in the City for the sake of that schism, preceded the pacificatory synod; and the pains applied by Theodoric to that end so prove it, that one must be blind who does not evidently perceive it from the very narration of the synod. Hear now Anastasius describing the deplorable state of Rome thus: At the same time (namely of the schism) Festus, head of the senate, ex-consul, and Probinus, ex-consul, began within the city of Rome to fight with other senators and especially with Faustus, ex-consul; and slaughters and homicides in the clergy were done out of envy. But those who communicated with blessed Symmachus justly, publicly, whoever were found within the City, were slain with the sword. Also consecrated women and virgins, dragging them down from their monasteries or from their dwellings, laying bare the female sex, they wounded, afflicted with the blows of stripes, and every day fights

they waged against the church in the midst of the city.

[28] They even killed many priests, although they seem to be placed later by Anastasius, among them the presbyters Dignissimus and Gordianus, at the chains of St. Peter the Apostle and at SS. John and Paul; whom they killed with clubs and the sword, and many other Christians; so that there was safety for none of the clergy to walk in the city by day or by night. But Faustus alone, the ex-consul, fought for the Church. How incorrectly all these things are reported by Anastasius after the synod, I think is most manifest to all; so that it is no wonder if we do not judge his other narrations to be exactly measured. But as to the fact that he calls Festus and Probinus now senators, now ex-consuls, I do not see that we need pay great attention here; Festus Theodorus Lector called a senator; call him a patrician, for all I care: it is enough that both those were the leaders and standard-bearers of the whole horrible schism; but that Faustus, who alone fought for the Church, was not only an ex-consul, but held the consulship of that very year of which we treat, 501, is as certain as what is most certain.

[29] Nor will it seem less certain to anyone who weighs the matter a little more attentively, which are clear from the deeds of that year. that a man so zealously Catholic and a most keen defender of St. Symmachus used the occasion of his consulship to break the audacity of his raging adversaries. But by what means the most disturbed affairs were at last settled, how studiously, how instantly, and in what year Theodoric urged these things, this indeed remains to be demonstrated from his rescripts, from the reports of the bishops, from the whole context of the synod itself, whether one or triple; the same mark of time recurring everywhere, "Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus, a most distinguished man, being consul," so that one must speak against the sun who would contend that all those marks, as Pagi will have it, were added by some smatterer. There will go before us with their light not only the Labbean, but also Harduin's collections of the councils, although in them all the documents are not reduced to their most just order, inasmuch as the editors accurately followed the manuscript codices which they cite: but in the later as well as in the earlier edition, in the same place, namely after the Acts of the synod, are inserted the precepts and reports, which manifestly appear to have preceded. But in whatever manner they are arranged, we shall try to arrange all the acts in the following paragraph.

§ IV. The pursuit of the same subject.

In that year the repeated synod was held. The bishops of Liguria, Aemilia, and the Venetias, convoked, most of them came together to Ravenna, complaining of the illegitimate compulsion; suggesting that he himself, who was said to be impeached, ought to have convoked the synod, knowing that to his See, first the merit or primacy of Peter the Apostle, then, following the command of the Lord, the authority of the venerable councils, gave a singular power in the churches: and that the Prelate of the aforesaid See was not subject to the judgment of inferiors. When Theodoric had satisfied them by exhibiting the pages which it was established had been directed by Symmachus, it is most probable that they came to Rome before summer; abstaining at first, as Ennodius says, from the presence of the Pontiff, although they were intimately united to him by ecclesiastical communion. And not long after they were gathered in the basilica of Julius, to which it is established that St. Symmachus himself came: but when he proposed his conditions concerning the removal of the visitor, and the restitution of all his things violently taken away, etc., the bishops, despairing of settling the matter, began almost to look to their own homes, preferring to be gathered outside the disturbances at Ravenna, rather than to be present daily at the Roman tumults.

[31] precepts sent to the same [synod by Theodoric,] A precept therefore was sent by King Theodoric himself through the bishops Germanus and Carosus, which can be read. In this rescript he insists especially that the seditious movements be checked, and that the business be not so drawn out. The words of Theodoric are: Since our thought has dispersed itself into many ways, the care of counsel has turned itself to this path, that we have decreed the same number of priests to assemble again on the Kalends of September, the same day, which had a while ago been convoked. He excuses himself that he cannot summon a council at Ravenna, and urges by repeated turns that the royal city be no longer wearied by the storm of disturbances, but… return to quiet. The precept was given on the 6th of the Ides of August, Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus, a most distinguished man, being consul, in that very year 501, which Pagi vainly impugned. Another precept, which is called the fourth, was sent to the synod through the Mayor of the royal household, which bears the mark of the 6th of the Kalends of September, Rufinus (for Rufus) Avienus Faustus, a most distinguished man, being consul, so that nothing is more clear than that all things were done in the year already said, and that the king most instantly, and by so many repeated precepts, promoted the end of that council, or rather of the Roman disturbances.

[32] likewise a report of the bishops, To this precept followed a Report of the bishops to the king, in which they set forth the enormous audacities of the schismatics when St. Symmachus was hastening to the Sessorian basilica, where the council was held; who namely professes that he was cruelly maltreated. Thus the synod itself has it: And while amid these things it was being treated what was to be done, the aforesaid Pope came forward to plead his cause. Who, coming, was so handled by the impending crowds of his rivals, that to many presbyters who were with him it was, through the slaughter itself, an occasion of death, which the still recent traces of wounds prove; had not the illustrious count Aligernus, and the sublime men Gudila and Vedeulsus, Mayors of the royal household, provided against it. Other things likewise the holy Pontiff objects which he judged should be premised to the examination, as is. But Theodoric, attending nothing to these, sent back a new precept, given on the day of the Kalends of October, iniquitous indeed and injurious to the excellent Pontiff, but so mitigated in appearance, that he answered that it was in the arbitration of the synod to prescribe what should be followed in so great a business, and that nothing pertained to him besides reverence concerning ecclesiastical affairs.

[33] For the rest, again and again he most instantly asks then new insistences from the king, that the cause of God, which he had committed to the congregation of the bishops and the most ample senate, hoping for peace concerning the clergy, they should order as should seem good to them, and that a form of judgment should not be expected from him, but that they themselves should order as they wished: whether they should bring forth a sentence with the cause discussed or undiscussed, of which they were to render an account to the divine judgment, provided only, as he had often said, their deliberation should provide this, that peace be restored to the senate and people of Rome, all confusion being removed, lest any disturbance, which God forbid, he says, or any discord remain in the city after the judgment. This was namely the king's chief, nay sole solicitude, that a wished-for end might be put to the tumults, slaughters, and other crimes, agitating the whole City; which he at last obtained in the last session or that synod of complete absolution, most certainly held on the 10th of the Kalends of November, or the 23rd of October, Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus, a most distinguished man, being consul, after the Fathers had recurred also to the senate, admonishing and instructing them in the things necessary for instituting and settling the matter as legitimately as could be.

[34] All these things cannot be more certainly and solidly confirmed as the whole narration of the synod shows, than from the very report of the Acts in the cause of St. Symmachus, which they would have to be the Palmar synod itself, and which I here hold as inserted entire, to be read in both collections, in the Labbean indeed volume 4, but in the Harduin, volume 2, columns 967 and following. Various circumstances, there not sufficiently expressed, we are taught from the apologetic little book of St. Ennodius, from which Baronius hands down many other things at length in the Annals at the year 503. Furthermore, to the same little book in the Labbean collection is subjoined the notable epistle of St. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, to Faustus and Symmachus, Roman senators, written in the common name of the bishops of Gaul, concerning the Roman synod, in which he teaches that the bishops of Italy, who had come to it, were to be blamed, because inferiors undertook to judge concerning the cause of the Roman Pontiff. But let it suffice to have indicated these in passing; we do not turn aside from the proposed subject, in which, against both Pagis, we have undertaken to reduce and arrange all things to their pristine order.

[35] Whatever therefore both Pagis may construct concerning their synods, may turn and re-turn, which is almost the one and chief point of their whole system, they will never have proved that the most express characteristic mark, so often repeated, of the year already said 501, is base, supposititious, or fraudulent, and the most express mark of the year: in which that synod or synods were held, by which the cause of St. Symmachus was so far terminated, that Peter of Altinum, invader of the Apostolic See, and Laurentius of Nuceria were condemned… and by all the bishops and presbyters and deacons, and all the clergy and people, blessed Symmachus was restored to the Apostolic See; that he might sit with glory as Prelate before blessed Peter; from that time thenceforth so presiding over the remaining synods, that he was truly acknowledged not as an accused, but as the supreme head of the Church and of all the bishops: and this is so clearly perceived, that in the synod of the following year 502, which bears the title "of the affairs of the Church to be preserved," there sat already among the bishops, not Laurentius, previously punished with exile, but Aprilis of Nuceria, not then recently constituted, since after him subscribe bishops, doubtless younger than he, twenty-six in all, whence it certainly follows that at least in the preceding year Laurentius, the invader of the Apostolic See and the deviser of all evils, was removed.

[36] from which the former order of the synods There remains to be solved the one already mentioned argument of Pagi, which is taken from the order of the synods, which we think can be thus arranged, that the first must certainly be called that which was held on the Kalends of March 499, after which no synod of a true name is found up to that one whose chief standard-bearers were Laurentius of Milan and Peter, bishop of the church of Ravenna, and who in the report to the king most expressly call it the SECOND synod, which was celebrated in the Sessorian basilica, to which St. Symmachus, proceeding with his clergy, was cruelly maltreated. This was followed by the third (thus rightly indicated by Labbe), and that one peremptory in the cause of Symmachus, gathered on the 10th of the Kalends of November, in which, as far as regards men, the holy Pontiff was absolved, and at last the contentions of the City were lulled; although in the clergy there were not lacking those who went on to devise new things; no longer in open war, inasmuch as repressed by the royal authority, but by hidden little writings, from which at last emerged the famous little book against the synod "of the incongruous absolution," then first published, when the fourth synod, or Palmar, was held, as I at least think, on the 8th of the Ides of November, Flavius Avienus the Younger, a most distinguished man, being consul; namely in the year 502, in which St. Symmachus first arranged and ordered all things, whence the ulcer of the schismatics was again touched, and they dared to attack the synod by that same already mentioned little book.

[37] against the arguments of Pagi But that synod, held in the basilica of blessed Peter the Apostle, and I would believe called Palmar (as again), because then with full and absolute authority Symmachus could so speak: Well indeed has your fraternity, obedient to the ecclesiastical laws, under the fear of the divine judgment, defined the things that were to be established

and has reached the summit of justice, since it comprises all things sufficiently, and the fullness needs no addition, especially concerning the clerics whom the love of domination has invaded, and made to spurn the yoke of ecclesiastical discipline, who therefore made the schism, as was established before you: to whom nevertheless the mercy which God commands you did not deny to be bestowed on all (as was fitting), if the hardness of their heart does not acquire punishment for itself, while it despises the offered remedies, whose excesses it is difficult to narrate. You see that all these things refer to the preceding tragedies, and it is shown clearer than the midday sun that the Pagian Palmar synod, or of the absolution, most certainly preceded this one of which we now speak: which both Pagis would have perceived, had they read even that one article of the synod more attentively. Baronius's error must be pardoned, because he thought all things done in one and the same year.

[38] Nor yet do we believe that even after this Palmar council all things in the clergy were then plainly pacified, it is altogether vindicated. but that at that time the famous little book against the synod "of the incongruous absolution" came forth, against which St. Ennodius put forth that excellent apology of his, to which, by the unanimous consent of all the Fathers, a place was given in the councils between this synod and the following fifth, which is marked "after the consulship of Avienus," whence again all Pagi's efforts altogether fall, since that year "after the consulship of Avienus," understand the Younger, is certainly 503, in which he wished the beginnings of all the disturbances to be marked, whereas meanwhile, from the whole heap of things done here exhibited, it is most certain that by the authority of that fifth synod all things were so most fully reintegrated that even the last sparks of the schism were utterly extinguished. Add to these the sixth of the year 504, and you will find all the Roman synods held under St. Symmachus, all Pagi's windings and circuits being lost, by which he is so far from having struggled through the synods, that rather he has wrapped up the matter, of itself obscure enough, in new darkness. And these things concerning the synods sufficiently and abundantly: for what remains, let us pursue the other deeds of the holy Pontiff.

§ V. Other things done by St. Symmachus, almost passed over by Anastasius.

The remaining deeds of the most holy Pontiff the most Eminent Annalist Baronius, often already praised by us, laboriously collected, whatever perhaps was not more accurately attached each to its own years. To the remaining deeds of the Saint belong Material for some things was supplied by the notable defender of St. Symmachus, and himself so often here praised, the holy prelate of the church of Pavia, Ennodius, of whom in these Acts on the preceding day treatment had to be made not in passing: other material was supplied by the epistles found, given both to the Gauls and to the East, and received thence, and then those things which we know had to be dealt with against the crafty emperor Anastasius, most hostile to the holy Pontiff, as the monuments adduced in the collections of the councils prove, although perhaps not all deserve the same trust or authority, so that consequently Harduin thought not a few must be rescinded. All these things, therefore, being fully reported with the places cited, and all being now at hand, I see that not much labor need here be bestowed by us, except that the order of the deeds may somehow be arranged according to chronology, the readers being for the rest referred to the sources themselves.

[40] About the very beginning of St. Symmachus's pontificate, or about the year 499, there seem to have been sent to Rome the complaints of Aeonius, bishop of Arles, against the prelate of Vienne, a letter to Aeonius of Arles, that against the rules of the ecclesiastical constitution he had invaded the rights of his church. Wishing to provide for these, St. Symmachus, altogether desiring the statutes of his predecessors to be kept, soon enjoined Aeonius to direct someone to him, who might allege before him the truth of the cause, and to admonish the bishop of Vienne, that he too should direct his own man, who might competently set forth the allegations of his party. Let the letter be seen in the Annals at the said year, number 36, which Baronius thought should be inscribed to Caesarius, whereas the latter did not ascend the chair of Arles until two years later. They are had also in Labbe, volume 4, and 1293, on which Francis Pagi observes that from the marked characters they are not rightly arranged in order. Furthermore St. Symmachus, having received other letters from Aeonius, sent through the presbyter Crescentius, in which it was said that Pope Anastasius had ordered some things to be observed against the ancient custom, admonished Aeonius that in ordaining priests through the several cities (for there was a controversy between the two bishops concerning the ordination of bishops) the hoary and venerable antiquity should be kept, lest a novel constitution diminish the strength of the old sanction.

[41] concerning the division of the provinces: The matter is of the division of both provinces, made formerly by Leo the Great, which St. Symmachus would not suffer to be infringed, and therefore rescinds what had been established to the contrary by his predecessor Anastasius. But on the other side Avitus of Vienne complained to Symmachus that he had judged this controversy concerning the ordinations of bishops in favor of the church of Arles. The epistle written back to him, the twelfth in order, was given on the 3rd of the Ides of October, Avienus and Pompeius being consuls, and so in the year five hundred and one, in which St. Symmachus says that it is safe for him to allege what he shall think should be alleged, and to propose what he shall see should be proposed, etc., as you see in the epistle itself. But the full settlement of that controversy was deferred to the year five hundred and thirteen, as below will recur to be said in a few words. In Labbe is subjoined another epistle to Liberius the Patrician, concerning the elected bishop of Aquileia, to whose election the most holy Pontiff gives his assent. It was given in the 8th Indiction, on the 18th of the Kalends of November, and so not in the year 498, which Labbe marked, but more probably in the year 500, as Baronius placed it, unless the beginning of the Indiction is certainly reckoned from September.

[42] Things done with the emperor Anastasius. The epistle which, as written to Laurentius bishop of Milan, is subjoined in the Councils, is pseudepigraphic, rightly rejected in the last edition. We think it better to interpose here, in order of time, the things done in the schism reported above, so that to the year 502 may be referred the things which had to be decreed by St. Symmachus against the emperor Anastasius, although the synodal Acts concerning these are wanting, as with Baronius must be confessed: this alone is established for certain, as the younger Pagi has it, that St. Symmachus published his apology against the calumnies of the Emperor after the synod called "of the absolution," since in that apology he put this: amid showers of stones I wholly escaped. From that apology it is established that the emperor Anastasius, communicating with and favoring the memory of Acacius and the heretical enemies of the Council of Chalcedon, was excommunicated by Pope Symmachus. Wherefore, driven by fury, the Emperor published a famous little book against the Pontiff, in which, among other reproaches, he called him a Manichaean. It would be long to recount all the things which in that matter were done or written to and fro, which may be seen in Baronius at the year 503 from number 17.

[43] who, how excommunicated: Let it suffice to have noted that St. Symmachus answered the already mentioned little book with an apologetic epistle, in which of the excommunication of Anastasius he has this: You say that, with the senate conspiring with me, I excommunicated you. These things indeed I; but I without doubt follow what was reasonably done by my predecessors… if we treat you ill, persuading you to depart from the heretics, do you treat us well, whom you wish rashly to associate with the heretics?… We did not excommunicate you, Emperor, but Acacius; do you withdraw from Acacius, and you withdraw from his excommunication: do not mix yourself with his excommunication, and you are not excommunicated by us. And let it suffice to have exhibited these things as a brief specimen for our purpose; let those consult the sources to whom these shall not seem sufficient. In the same apology the holy Pontiff compares the pontifical with the imperial dignity, and shows that the successors of the Apostle Peter are superior to kings, and to be revered by them; and teaches that princes are not to be obeyed when they command anything against the law of God. I seem perhaps excessive in explaining things which are most well known to those skilled in these matters, but to others cannot be explained even by a longer discourse.

[44] You have also in the collections of the Councils the letters of St. Symmachus given to the Easterners and received from them in turn, letters to the Easterners; which Baronius too reports at the year 512 from number 34, and explains those things which then especially were ventilated in that most afflicted church, so that to me indeed it seemed plainly a wonder that Tillemont, in his ecclesiastical Commentaries, volume 16, studiously took to himself material especially for censuring these and the apology of the Saint, so as thus rather to pluck at than praise the deeds of the excellent Pontiff. It can be seen, page 671, and 725 and 726; he scarcely leaves untouched that epistle which was given to the Illyrian Catholics, in Baronius at the above said year, number 36. But we do not here dwell on these; nor do we think other censors of the most holy Pontiff should be enumerated; the sponge of Gretser wiped away most fully those things which the famous caviler Mornay ineptly dared to bark against, and no less long ago were castigated the fabrications of the audacious Launoy, so that we think it superfluous to pursue these at length. But with how great veneration, with what filial affection the Romans followed their most holy Pontiff, Ennodius teaches, describing his illness, in Baronius at the year 503, number 16.

[45] Among the epistles of St. Symmachus, the ninth in order is likewise to the bishops of Gaul. given to all the bishops of Gaul on the Ides of November, Probus, a most distinguished man, being consul, which Pagi, the author of the Breviary, thinks should be transferred from the year 502, where it had been placed before, to the year 513, in which namely, at the petition of Caesarius of Arles, he confirmed the division, of which we began to treat above, between the churches of Vienne and Arles, established by Pope Leo; to which year likewise he recalls the epistle, the fifth in order, to the same Caesarius of Arles, which comprises six answers to as many petitions of Caesarius; among which is that which exhibits the origin of ecclesiastical benefices, to be drawn more purely again from the very source. But finally to be noted is the epistle 11 to Theodore, bishop of Lorch in Noricum, by which the holy Pope grants him the use of the Pallium requested from the Apostolic See: the vicissitudes of whose bishopric are not here to be narrated by us. Of the Vandal persecution under King Thrasimund treatment had to be made more than once in this work, and indeed most recently in St. Eugenius on the 13th of July; since this is said to have begun in the year 504, between that year and the death of St. Symmachus, in the year 514, must be placed the things which Anastasius in passing records that the Saint did to relieve the misery of the exiled bishops, whose last article likewise needs some explanation.

[46] Thus it is there read: He established that on every Lord's day or the birthdays of the Martyrs the angelic hymn should be said, Of the hymn Gloria in excelsis. that is Glory to God in the highest. Pagi in the Breviary, number 25, adds this marginal note: He is not the author of the hymn Gloria in excelsis, which certainly Anastasius here does not assert, who had recorded that it was written under Telesphorus that he established; that before the sacrifice the angelic hymn should be said, that is Glory to God in the highest: to which place too the notation of Pagi is to be seen.

But to that decree, of whatever kind, this is more opposed, which is established from the Sacramentary of Gregory, edited by Menard: Likewise Gloria in excelsis Deo is said, if he be a bishop, only on the Lord's day, or on feast days; but by presbyters it is by no means said, except on Easter alone. From the editor's notes nothing great can be gathered. Of that hymn Cardinal Bona treated more fully in his Liturgical Works, book 2, chapter 4, rightly and candidly confessing that it is not known by whom it was first composed, or used in the Church: for the rest, that it was not unknown to St. Athanasius, the words cited by the praised Bona and Pagi prove; here only the question could be turned, whether the things which we have already cited from Anastasius must be attributed to St. Symmachus, or rather denied him, which we do not undertake to settle. This Bona shows in many places, that frequent changes were made in the rites of the Church, so that in the time of Symmachus things could be in use which, after a century, were restricted by St. Gregory.

§ VI. A brief synopsis of the Life from Anastasius.

He drove the Manichaeans from Rome, The remaining text of Anastasius will put a coping-stone on this little treatise, after we have above reported word for word and discussed all the other things which pertain to the election, to the Laurentian schism, to the slaughters and crimes perpetrated at Rome on that account, and at last settled. The author of the Pontifical book therefore subjoins: After all these things blessed Symmachus found Manichaeans in the city of Rome, all whose images or codices he burned in a fire before the doors of the Constantinian basilica, and relegated those very men into exile: so that even thence it may most manifestly appear how far the most holy Pontiff was from that impiety which nevertheless the mad emperor Anastasius had basely dared to reproach him with; of which matter Baronius treats a little more fully at the year 503, number 31. There follows in Anastasius: He was from the consulship of Paulinus up to the consulship of Senator. But these need not be repeated again in this place; of the age of our Saint enough has been said above in §1 of this Commentary. There remain the monuments of his liberality toward the Roman and other churches, of which the Life thus continues:

[48] and conferred various gifts on the churches: He made the basilica of St. Andrew the Apostle near blessed Peter the Apostle, where he made a canopy [] of silver, and the confession weighing one hundred and twenty pounds. Three silver arches, each weighing sixty pounds. An oratory of St. Thomas the Apostle weighing 300 pounds. In the confession [], twenty pounds. A silver arch weighing sixteen pounds. The confession of St. Cassian, and of SS. Protus and Hyacinth, of silver, weighing twenty pounds. A silver arch weighing 12 pounds. An oratory of St. Apollinaris of silver, and the confession with an arch of silver weighing thirty pounds. An oratory of St. Sosius [] of silver, in the confession weighing twenty pounds. Likewise at the font in the basilica of blessed Peter the Apostle, an oratory of the holy Cross of silver, the confession and a cross of gold with gems, where he enclosed the Wood of the Lord; the golden cross itself weighing ten pounds. He made moreover two oratories of St. John the Evangelist, in whose confession he placed silver arches weighing thirty pounds. Which chambers [] he built all perfected from the foundation.

[49] at St. Peter's But the basilica of blessed Peter he adorned with marbles; and adorned the basin of blessed Peter with the four-porticoed court with marbles, and adorned it with mosaic and crosses and palms []. And he joined together the whole atrium itself. But the steps before the doors of the basilica of blessed Peter he enlarged; and built other steps under the sign, on the right and left. Likewise in the same place he made episcopal residences on the right and left. Likewise under the steps in the atrium he placed another basin outside in the open field, and made it for the use of human necessity. Likewise he made other steps for those ascending to blessed Andrew, and placed a basin. He made the basilica of St. Agatha the martyr on the Aurelian Way in the estate Lardarum [], and built it from the foundation with a font, where he placed two silver arches. At the same time he made the basilica of St. Pancras, where he also made a silver arch which weighed fifteen pounds: and he made in the same place a bath.

[50] Likewise at blessed Paul the Apostle in the basilica he renewed the apse, at St. Paul's, which threatened ruin, and behind the confession adorned it with painting. And he made a vault and a matroneum, and above the confession placed a silver image with the Savior, and the twelve Apostles, which weighed one hundred and twenty pounds; and before the doors of the basilica he made steps in the atrium and a basin: and behind the apse he introduced water, where he also made a bath from the foundation. Within the city of Rome he built from the foundation the basilica of SS. Silvester and Martin, next to the Trajan baths, where also above the altar he made a silver canopy [*] weighing 120 pounds. Twelve silver arches, which weighed each ten pounds, a silver confession which weighed 15 pounds. At blessed John and Paul he made steps behind the apse. Likewise at the archangel Michael he enlarged the basilica, and made steps, and introduced water. Likewise at St. Mary.

[51] The oratory of SS. Cosmas and Damian he built from the foundation. at SS. Cosmas and Damian. Likewise on the Tiburtine Way at the twenty-seventh milestone from the city of Rome, asked by Aluinus and Glafira [], illustrious persons, doing it of their own, he dedicated from the foundation a basilica to blessed Peter in the estate Pacinianum. Likewise at blessed Peter and blessed Paul the Apostles, and at St. Laurence the martyr, he built dwellings for the poor. Likewise at blessed Peter he made twenty silver basins weighing each fifteen pounds, and 22 arches weighing each twenty pounds. He repaired the basilica of St. Felicitas, which now threatened ruin. [] He renewed the apse of blessed Agnes, which threatened ruin, and the whole basilica. And here is the end of St. Symmachus's gifts. There follows the last article of the Life concerning the hymn Gloria in excelsis, which we have just now tried to explain: then of his notable zeal, which he paternally exhibited toward the exiled African bishops and others afflicted; relics of the Saints being also sent into Sardinia, as Baronius a little more fully explains at the year 504 from number 41. Behold the close of the Life.

[52] His bounty toward the African exiles and others. He established that on every Lord's day or the birthdays of the Martyrs the angelic hymn should be said, that is Glory to God in the highest. He made the cemetery of the Jordani better on account of the body of St. Alexander. Every year, through Africa or Sardinia, to the bishops who were shut up in exile, he ministered money and clothing. He redeemed captives through Liguria and through Milan, and through the various provinces, with money [], and multiplied gifts and dismissed them. He made four ordinations in the city of Rome in the months of December and February; ninety-two presbyters, sixteen deacons, bishops through various places a hundred and seven []. Who also was buried in the basilica of blessed Peter the Apostle, and the episcopate ceased seven days, who also rested in peace as a confessor.

* ciborium.

* and the confession.

* Otherwise, Sossus.

* and he placed chambers.

* he made.

* in the estate Laiderium.

* ciborium.

* Albinus and Glaphyra being the sponsors.

* which ruin threatened.

* with monies.

* Otherwise, 17.