Letter 22: One does not petition ineffectively who commends strangers to the father of all.

From Ennodius to Pope Symmachus. The blessed and noble young man, to be commended to the father of all by the pontiff. (p. 1) Ennodius to Symmachus. He makes no ineffectual request who commends strangers to the father of all. To the noble a general support is owed, especially among those who bestow benefits unasked. This blessed and noble young man, the bearer of the present letter, will, if your crown deign to receive him kindly, adorn the pontiff's office distinguished after its custom. For he is one who deserves your favor both by his birth and by his character. For the worthy, brief praise suffices. Now, the services of greeting having been rendered, I ask that you relieve me, who love you, by the frequent dispensing of your conversation. Notice of letters no longer extant which pertain to the holy Pope Symmachus. I. [A.D.] 498-500. Symmachus' guarantee to Ennodius concerning the expenses to be incurred at the court of King Theodoric. In the bitter struggle which Symmachus sustained against his adversaries at the beginning of his pontificate, recourse had often to be made to the court of King Theodoric, and there, as was customary, various expenses had to be incurred. In this manner the bishop, as it appears, of Milan, paid out more than four hundred gold solidi to certain powerful men, the deacon Ennodius standing as surety. He testifies that for this purpose he had had letters of the holy pope (epist. III, 10), by which the latter ordered that whatever was necessary should be done, with [the obligation] to be fulfilled at Ennodius's [own?] surety; and on this account indeed, when the gold was being demanded back, he asked the illustrious and noble man Luminosus, then residing at Rome, and the deacons Hormisdas and Dioscorus, that they should act with the pontiff for its restitution (epist. III, 10; VI, 16 and 33). But at precisely what time this engagement of the pontiff was made, whether immediately at the beginning of the pontificate or after the schism had been renewed, where no less often the royal protection was demanded (Blanchini), cannot be determined. In any case it is to be placed between the years 498 and 506. II. A.D. 499-500. Symmachus' intercession with the Emperor Anastasius on behalf of the [persecuted] catholics. Moved by the frequent report of the persecutions of catholics in the East, he interceded with the Emperor Anastasius, [saying] that it had been made public that this man [Anastasius] was compelling with an armed hand those who had chosen to keep themselves from the contagion of the perfidious by many [...] [EPISTLES 23, 24. -- NOTICE OF LETTERS NO LONGER EXTANT. N. I-VI. 735] [...] to abstain, by force and arms, into the detestable fellowship of a betrayed communion (Symm. epist. 10 n. 11). And indeed Symmachus himself intimates that this was done soon after the beginnings of his pontificate. III. Around the summer season of the year 500. The report of Aeonius of Arles to Symmachus concerning a certain difference that had arisen between the churches of Arles and Vienne. Soon after the first schism had been settled, through the presbyter Crescentius letters were brought to Rome from Aeonius, bishop of Arles, by which it was announced that some struggle was arising between the church of Arles and that of Vienne concerning the ordaining of bishops in the neighboring [regions]: this happening, namely, by reason of the fact that Pope Anastasius of holy memory, in dealing with the confusion of the province, had ordered certain things to be observed contrary to the ancient custom. Symmachus, a vigorous champion of the ancient law, wrote back on the third day before the Kalends of October of the year 500 (epist. 3). Wherefore, since a special messenger had carried over those letters of Aeonius, it will be established that they themselves were scarcely written earlier than the summer season of the same year. IV. At the beginning of the year 501. Symmachus' letter of assent to King Theodoric concerning the convening of a synod. When at the beginning of the year 501 the adversaries of Symmachus had begun once more to conspire and were moving every stone with King Theodoric, and he was thinking about gathering a synod which might examine the matter, the pope himself too hastened to demonstrate his will by letters in favor of gathering a synod. And since the aforesaid king set those [letters] before the bishops in the synod gathered soon after the paschal festival of the year 501 (Symm. epist. 5 n. 2), it appears that those letters were written about the beginning of the year 501. V. Around the beginning of the year 501. The objection of Avitus, bishop of Vienne, to Pope Symmachus against the diminution of his see. In the year 501, on the third day before the Ides of October, Pope Symmachus wrote to Avitus of Vienne in this manner: "It ought not to have offended your charity that we recently wrote back to our brother and fellow-bishop Aeonius. For no prejudice was done to your right," etc. (Symm. epist. 5). Whence Avitus, having been informed in general about the pope's letter directed to Aeonius (Symm. epist. 3), which seemed to call into question the privilege granted by his predecessor Anastasius, appears to have [made representations] before him, lest the rights of his own see be diminished. VI. In the year 502. The pamphlet of the schismatics against the synod of Palma, under the title: Against the synod of an unfitting absolution. 1. When the synod of Palma had declared Symmachus wholly immune from the charges brought against him and the one legitimate pontiff, the adversaries published a pamphlet against the synod of an unfitting absolution. Ennodius, then deacon of Ticinum [Pavia], a man conspicuous no less for the integrity of his life than for the praise of his eloquence, and dear above all to Symmachus, refuted it in an apologetic little book, pressing upon it point by point and step by step, whence one may gather its accusations clearly enough. First, then, they alleged: "The [royal] authority did not summon all the priests of the king to the council, nor did all hold the same view in the judgment" (ed. Sirmond, Opera varia I, 974). For they wished it to be held that the adversaries of the Roman pope ought not to be called those who accused the aforesaid man by presenting petitions, since nevertheless the royal precepts had not summoned them by that name to the synod. "The city of Rome is witness," they emphatically added, "whether all the bishops, old and feeble, assembled." Then, gnawing at the repeated consultations of the bishops, they subjoined that by the royal precepts the cause had already been recognized as one of those to be summoned, and that he who governs the sum of affairs of Italy ought not [to be consulted?] anew about a fresh matter: "more was given to paper and to the writing of religion than to the princely presence." Departing from this, lest they should seem to wound the favor of the king and of all the honorable men, they praised in him the affection for good things, and wove together many words by which they testified that they supremely cherished innocence (loc. cit. 975). 2. Soon they added that in that very judgment, against the apostle, the assailants of the pontiff were not heard, who, mindful of the heavenly command, [withdrew] their part from the fellowship of adultery (for among other crimes they seem to have charged even Symmachus with this): "nay, that crime is in a way approved, for what is not excluded by the most mild [judges?] is approved." At the same time, taxing the liberty of the bishops who had suggested that the pope ought to convoke the synod as insulting to the king, they alleged that the priests had spoken against the [royal] precepts, and that it was a kind of sacrilege to feel anything about the command of an earthly lord [contrary to it], opposing: "Who ought to say to the king that the pope ought to have convoked the synod? Surely, what example stands in this matter? Him chiefly, who lay [accused] by the criminous propositions of many, whom it had been [the same thing] to condemn as to accuse, for whom the gainsaying of his own enemies had now seen the prerogative ascribed by heaven?" "To the sinner God says (Ps. [49,] 16): 'Why do you declare my righteousness?'" Therefore, by apostrophe they thus addressed the same bishops: "You forbid, then, since the pope is reckoned the vicar of the blessed apostle Peter, that his physician bring medicine to his body; how will you refuse to provide the healing of his soul?" "In such a way," they mocked, "you judge that the blessed Peter, with the privileges of his see, or his successors, received from God permission to sin." Against a presumption of this kind they boasted that the heavenly power was on their own side, in that they lent their helping right hands to the protection of the blessed apostle. "Why, finally," they added, "did you come to the prince, if it was permitted [to one] assailed to be heard?" (loc. cit. 976 and 977). 3. Then, to show that Symmachus had now lost the pontifical dignity itself, they compared him to Esau, who "had lost the benefit of the elder's nature by a poor exchange and had lost the dear dignity of the firstborn by obeying his appetites." And to show that the bishops themselves had in a way acknowledged this same thing, they said: "It is the bishops' true assertion that the protection of the apostolic see has never lain subject to the sentence of inferiors: why then was he brought forth to the judgment of a strict assembly?" (loc. cit. 978). Then they appear to have touched more broadly upon the council's sentence concerning the rejection of unsuitable accusers. To which they added: "That persons were ordered to be presented, whom the imperial authority had often demanded, pertains to the defrauding of the dignity of him who now sits in the apostolic see as in a certain citadel." And to prove that even witnesses of servile condition were further to be admitted, they brought forward that "our very Lord and Redeemer underwent the judgments of slaves, and that the maker of heaven willingly subjected himself to a certain particle of earth, when he testifies and says (Isa. 5, 3): 'O man of Judah, and you who dwell in Jerusalem, judge between me and my vineyard'; that the blessed Peter too did not shrink from this, nor Paul the apostle; that even Samuel, the wondrous prophet, implored the testimony of the crowd concerning the serenity of his conscience"; and they appear to have added other examples of this kind as well (e.g. of holy Athanasius) (loc. cit. 980). Then, to confute the appeal of the pontiffs to the ancient traditions, they said: "Therefore, the fasts you keep and the miracles of Elisha, which he performed while raising the dead, are condemned, if you follow only such things as are aged." 4. Passing to a new accusation, they disclosed: "Why did the pope, by the precedent of [...] the preceding [synod], convoke a synod, to take cognizance of the inquiry into his crimes?" (loc. cit. 981); and they argued the falsity of the synod's fathers, [...] that they should say the things which were written in the aforesaid matter were [merely] demands (loc. cit. 982). With most splendid style Symmachus was reproached, [asking] why he had entered the examination, anticipating the assembly, with crowds of peoples, and afterwards had spurned the judgments, when he had been summoned four times: above all, because mobs of women had assembled with the aforesaid man for judgment, they pursued [the matter] in urbane colors (loc. cit. 983). "The trial having been announced, the defenders being abandoned, the pope departed," they added, then setting forth the [accusations] of the forum and the streets. "But who," they perorated, "saw him contend in open battle, as they say, with the accusers? How," on the other hand they reproached the fathers of the synod, "did you treat first of the cause or its quality, when the synod did not yet have firmness?" "Nay," they rejoined, "the venerable bishops Laurentius and Peter themselves suspended themselves from communion with the pope" (loc. cit. 985). To prove further that the synod obtained firmness only by the pope's consent, they said: "Therefore, those councils of priests decreed yearly throughout the provinces by ecclesiastical laws, [because?] they do not have the presence of the pope, have lost their validity?" "That the prince was greatly offended, in that the fathers of the synod wished the appointed visitor to depart at the first appearance contrary to the ecclesiastical rules, and that nothing further was permitted [...] now to the vices, lest the tare should harden, lest the profane harvest, no discipline going before, should sink down with the authority cut by the sickle, and it should be thought permitted what the judges do not [...]" (loc. cit. 986). "For he himself gave visitors also to other bishops, and it is just that he be held by his own law" (loc. cit. 988). Then, taxing the excesses of Symmachus (loc. cit. [...]), they appear to have demanded that at least he, after the example of Eulalius and Bonifacius, should be expelled together with Laurentius. Finally they truly ridiculously [assailed] the very faith of the synod's fathers. "Because they said that they were committing the cause of Symmachus to the judgment of God himself, 'who can kill the body and send the soul into hell,' they have departed from the faith," these men upbraided, "they have held [it], not believing the resurrection of the body." They boasted also that the apostle John's writings had been violated, because from his words it was said in this way: "'if we say that we have no sin, we are liars and the truth is not in us'" (namely, in place of the words "we deceive ourselves," there putting "we are liars"; loc. cit. 991). 5. What crimes chiefly they imputed to Symmachus himself, Ennodius scarcely signifies even lightly. They accused his malice: that they had even objected fornication to him. For besides those things which we adduced in n. 2, these too they prove, that he is recorded to have taught that none was to be mingled with fornicators: the priests who entered into his fellowship they blamed as joined together by an obsolete communion and as guilty (loc. cit. 992). Several chapters of these accusations Ennodius openly said were to be buried, to be condemned in silence. "For he gives a name to crimes," he says, "who transmits the airing of them in manifold report to later [generations]. For many things were there" -- the same Ennodius being witness -- "which the love of sinning embraced with such filthy arms that they became unspeakable to relate. Many things levity dishonors," the same author adds, "while, the weights being withdrawn, your words are weighed, and concerning matters of religion a windy elocution is set before [the ears], having obtained a gravity suited to [its] breeze: which, in the abundance of chaff, is destined to bring nothing into the granaries from the wheat, while it lies to the farmers about the unfruitful scantiness of the stalks for grain, and about the hope from the luxuriance of the grass, concerning which the winnowing-fans find nothing but what is owed to fire and destined to perish by the burning" (loc. cit. 991). Wherefore, since the other sources are lacking, no more can be said. VII. [A.D.] 506. Symmachus' petition to King Theodoric concerning the restoration of the titular churches. When Laurentius, coming to the City, had held the Roman church for about four years, at last Symmachus addressed a petition to him (to Theodoric) through the Alexandrian deacon [...], asserting that a great prejudice was being done to him, and especially concerning the titular churches, which Laurentius held within the City (the anonymous author in Blanchini, in Muratori, Scriptores rerum Italicarum III, 2 col. [...]). This embassy will by its own right be placed at the beginnings of the year 506. [EPISTLES OF THE ROMAN PONTIFFS. I. 47] VIII. Soon after the year 506. The invective of the Emperor Anastasius against Symmachus. Soon, when Symmachus, the schism being extinguished, had returned into full concord with the Roman senate, the Emperor Anastasius published a pamphlet full of insults and curses, so that the pontiff deemed it a sin to be silent (Symm. epist. 10 n. 2 and 5). Wherein he reviled him as being a Manichaean and not consecrated in order (loc. cit. n. 6 and 7), and turned it into a peculiar reproach that the senate, conspiring with him, had excommunicated him and treated him ill (loc. cit. n. 10). To whom the pontiff replied in epistle 10, almost in the manner of a pamphlet, as he himself says, gathering what was to be brought forth, yet not pursuing the adversary's traces further. IX. The petition of the illustrious Alvinus and Glafyra to Symmachus concerning the dedication of the basilica of the blessed Peter on the Pacinian estate. Anastasius relates in the life of Symmachus: "Asked by the illustrious Alvinus and Glafyra, he dedicated the basilica of the blessed Peter on the Pacinian estate." We may not without reason suppose that this petition was made in writing; thus we are not able to say more about it. X. Symmachus established that on every Lord's day and on the birthdays of the martyrs the angelic hymn should be said, that is, "Glory to God in the highest." (Anastasius, Life of Symmachus.) XI. Decrees falsely ascribed to Symmachus. 1. The synod which is reported to have been held after the consulship of Avienus (A.D. 503) before the confession of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and is usually called the fourth synod of Symmachus (in Hardouin, Collectio conciliorum II, 983; Mansi, Collectio conciliorum VIII, 295), is a fabrication of Pseudo-Isidore; compare Ballerini, De antiquis collectionibus III c. 6 2; Knust, De fontibus et consilio Ps. Isid. p. 76; and the preliminary admonitions above, pages 90 ff. 2. The synod which is called the sixth, gathered at [the church of] the blessed Peter by Pope Symmachus (in Hardouin, Collectio conciliorum II, 989; Mansi, loc. cit. VIII, 295), proceeded from the same workshop of Pseudo-Isidore. Compare the preliminary admonitions above, pages 90 [ff.]. 3. [The letter] of Symmachus to Laurentius, archbishop of Milan, inscribed by Pseudo-Isidore and the editors of the councils (in Mansi, loc. cit. VIII, 210), and in Migne, Patrologia Latina LXII, 52, to Maximus of Padua, whose beginning is "Prodit religiosae," is nothing other than an oration of Ennodius (Ennodius, works ed. Sirmond p. 473). Compare the preliminary admonitions, above page 102. 4. [The letter] of Symmachus to Theodorus, archbishop of the church of Lauriacum, "In the days of your life" (Mansi, loc. cit. VIII, 228; Migne, loc. cit. LXII, 72), by which the use of the pallium is granted to that bishop, to show that he is master and archbishop, and that his holy church of Lauriacum is to be the metropolitan see of the province of the Pannonians. Concerning its falsity, compare what is said above in the admonitions, page 103. 739

Eunodii ad Symmachum papam. Beatum sublimem adolesceniem ponUfici parenti omnium insimusi. p.1 Ennodius Symmacho. Non inefficaciter poscit, qui parenti omnium peregrinos imsinuat Nobilibus generalis debetur assertio^ maxime apud eos^ qoi beneficia tribuunt non rogati. Beatum sublimem adolescentem , praesentinm bajulum; si corona vestra dignanter accipiat^ praeclarum juxta mo- rem pontificis omat officium. Est enim; qui gratiam ^ vestram et natalibus et moribus mereatur. Sufficit dignis stricta laudatio. Nunc servitiis salutationis exhibitis rogO; ut me amantem vestri crebri relevetis promulgatione colloquii. No t 1 1 1 a eplstolaram non exstantlum, quae ad s. Symmachain papam attinfnt. I. a. 498 — 500. Symmachi ad Ennodium de expensis in aula Theodoriei regii faciendis cautio. [R(l.] Iii irisli cerlamine. quod Syniniaciius initio pontificalus ciun adversariis snsti- nuil, saepc ad aulaui Theodorici regis recurrenduin, ibique ut moris variae ei* pensae faciendae erant. £o niodo episcopus ut videtur Nediolauensis plus quadria- gcnlos auri solidos certis potentibus erogavit, fidem dicente Ennodio diacoao. (Jui ad id litteras sancii papae se habuisse teslatur (epist. Ilf, 10), guibus Hle jussity quidquid opus esset fieri, cum (Ennodii) debere securiiale ccmpieri, 0»** propter hic quidem , quum repeteretur auruin , Luminosum vinim sablimem toac Romae degentem et llormisdam Dioscorumque diaconos , ut pro restituUone apn^ pontificem agerent, rogavit (epist. III, 10, VI, 16 et 33). Quo autem potissiMB tempore sponsio ista pontifids facta sit, num statim in initio pontificatiis aa posln schismate renovato, ubi non miuus regale praesidium saepe deposcebaiur ( Blanch.), definiri non potest. Utique inter annos 498 et 506 ponenda est. n. a. 499 — 500. Symmachi ad Anastasium imperatorem pro caihoiicis talibus intercessio. Frequenti fama de cathulicorum in Oriente persecutionibas molus apud Anastasium imperatorem intercessit, vulgatum fuisse^ quod liic iitari manu compelleret eos^ qui se a contagione perfidorum multis l EPISTOLAE 23. 24. — NOTITIA EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N.I— VI. 735 ahsiinere delegerint^ vi et armis in praevaricatae communionis consoriia de- iestanda (Symm. epist. 10 n. 11). Quod quidem roox post ^nitia pontiGcatus sui factum esse ipse Symmachns innuit. m. cuino 500 aesi. temp. Aeonii Arelaiensis ad Symmachum de differentia qua- dam inter ecclesias Arelaiensem et Viennensem oborta relatio. Mox post sedatum primum schisma per Crescentium presbyterum litterae ab Aeonio Arelateusi episcopo Romam delatae sunt, quibus luctamen inier Arelaten- sem et Viennensem ecclesiam aliquod de ordinandis episcopis in vicinis oriri nuntiabatur: illa re videlicet faciente ^ quod sanctae recordationis Anastasius papa tracians confusionem provinciae aliqua contra veterem consuetudinem jusserit observari. Rescripsit Symmachus antiqui juris strenuus assertor III Cal. Octobris anni 500 (epist. 3). Quare quum proprius internuntius litteras illas Aeonii traustulisset , ipsas vix prius aestivo tcmpore ejusdem anni scriptas esse constabit. IV. anni 501 initio. Symmachi ad Theodoricum regem de congreganda synodo litterae asseniientes. Quum initio anni 501 advcrsarii Symmachl denuo conspirare coepissent et apud Theodoricum regem omncm lapidem rooverent hicque de colligenda syuodo cogitaret quae rem cognosceret, ipse quoque papa in colligOfida synodo volun- tatem suam litteris demonstrare propcravit. Quae quum praefatus rex in cou- gregata mox post festivitatem paschalem anni 501 synodo episcopis jam propo- neret (Symm. epist. 5 n. 2), littcras illas circa initia anui 501 scriptas esse apparet. V. anno 501 circ. init. Aviti Viennensis episcopi ad Symmachum papam contra sedis suae deminutionem exceptio. Anno 501 a. d. III Idus Octobres Symmachus papa ad Avitum Viennensem hoc modo scripsit : Non debuit caritatem tuam offendere , quod ad fratrem et coepiscopum nostrum Aeonium nuper rescripsimus. Non enim juri tuo prae- Judicatum fuit etc» (Symm. epist. 5). Unde Avitus generatim certior factus de papae epistola ad Aeonium directa (Symm. cpist. 3), quae Anasttisii decessoris concessum privilegium in quaestionem vocare videretur, apud illum contra mu- nuisse videtur, ne sedis suae jura minuerentur. VI. anno 502. Libellus schismaticorum adversus synodum Palmarem, sub titulo: adversus synodum ahsolutionis incongruae. 1. Quum synodus Palmaris Symmachum ab illatis criminationibus prorsus imoiunem et unum legitinmm pontificem declarasset, adversarii libellum adversus synodum ahsolutionis incongruae vulgarunt. Quem Ennodius tunc diaconus Tici- nensis» vir vitae integritate non minus quam eloquentiae laude conspicuus et Syni- macho in pnmis carus, lihello apologetico minutatim gradatimque insistendo re- fulavit, unde ejusdem incriminationes satis plane colligere licet. Primum igitur obtrudebant: non omnes sacerdotes regis ad concilium ad- scivit auctoritaSj nec omnes in judicalione senserunt (ed. Sirmond. Opera varia I, 974). Adversarios enim papaeRomani dici non dehuisse volebant, quiprae- dictum prolatis petitionibus accusahant^ quum tamen eos isto nomine prae- eepia regia non vocassent ad synodum. Tesiis est Romana civitas, emphatice addebant, si omnes episcopi senes et dehiles convenerunt. Deinde iteratas con- sullalioues episcoporum luordenlcs subdiderunl, ex praeceptis regiis evocations causam fuisse jam cognilam^ et Italiae stimma moderantem non ftdsuipM de novo nrgotio consulendum: plus chartac el scriptioni religionis dMm^ quam praesentiae principali. Exhinc digrcssi, ne regis et virorum honestonuii omnium gratinm laederc vidercntur, honarum rerum in illo laudarunt affectm, ct plura texuerunt verba, quibus se summe colere innocentiam testartttor (I. c. 975). 2. Mo\ nddiderunt, in ipso illo judicio contra apostolumimpugnatoretmm pontificis non auditos^ qui coelestis mandati mcmorcs partem suam a consortio adulterii (hoc cnim inter nlin crimineetiamSymmnchum arguissevidentur)^M«x^ runt: immo crimcn i$tudquodammodoapprobatum,quiammmim6ti5o6;>c/ts,^ non excluditur, approbatur, Simul cpiscoporum libertaleni. qui suggessenot |»- pam dcbuisse synodum convocarc, tamqunm rcgi contumeliosam taxantes aliegaroDt, oblocutos sacerdotes praeceptionibus^ ac quoddam sacrilegium esse, nudi ali- quid de ierreni domini jussione scntin, opponcndo: quis regi debmt dicere, papam oportuisse sgnodum convocare? Certe quod in hac parte consiat exemplum? Illum praecipuCy qui criminosis muitorum propositionibus ja jacebaty quem hoc fuerat damnare quod argui, cui praerogativam codilMi p . adscriptam hostium^ suorum oblocutio jam tidisset? Peccatori dicii Deu$: vj 10 1-^^^^^*^ ^^ enarras justitias meas?*^ Prohibetis igitur, per apostropheo eosdem episcopos compellabant, quia papa beuti Petri apostoli vicarius aesiimattir^ archiatrum ejus corpon a/ferre medicinam ; quomodo vos animae ejits cm- lionem exhibrre renuetis? Tali modo, irridebant, beatum Petrum a DmM cum sedis privilegiis rel successores cjus peccandi judicatis licentiam sittct' pisse. rontra cjusmodi pracsumptionem sibi ipsis coelestem gloriabantur poidi' tiam su/fragio essc, quod ad praesidium heati apostoli adjutricem dexters» commodarent, Cur denique, addebant, ad principem conrenistiSy si audirinw licebat impetitum? (1. c. 976 et 977). 3. Deinde ut Symmachum dignitatem ipsam pontificiam tuni jam perdidisse demonstrarent , eum Esau comparnbant, qui senioris naturae bene/icium ttmus rihi commutatione perdidisset et primogeniti canam dignitatem amisisset fn- rihus ohsequendo. Quod idem ut ipsos episcopos quoddammodo agnovisse osIcb- derent, vera est, inquiebant, episcoporum assertio, sedis apostoiicae praesidf* minorum nunquam subjacuisse sententiae: cur igiluv ad Judicium distrieti conventione prodtictus est? (1. c. 978). Deinde concilii de rejiciendis accusat*' ribus inhabilibus sententiam latius perstrinxisse videntur. Cui addebaot: ct/rptr' sonae Jussae sini praesentari, quas saepe imperialis flagiiasset auctoriiaS^ ad defratidationem genii pertinere ejus, qui nunc in sede aposiolica qtiasi «> qtiadam arce consistit. Utque nmplius admittendos etiam ser\ilis coiiditiotf testes evincerent, adducebant, ipsum Dominum et Redemptorem nosirumsertt rum subiisse Jttdicia^ et coeli operatorem partictdae cuidamsponie subjacuistt .Tos.5,3. '^rr<?nae, dum testatur et loquitur: ^yhomo Juda et qui habiias Jerustit^ judicate inter me et vineam meam^\: hoc etiam beatum Petrtimy hoc Pad^ apostolum non horruisse ; Samuelem etiam prophetam mirificttm de conscie^ tiae suae serenitate vulgi implorasse testimnnium; atque cjusmodi aliaquoq* (ex. gr. snncti Athanasii) cxempla adjecisse videntur (I. c. 980). I>einde ut poit»' Hciorum ad antiquas traditiones tippellalionem refuuderent, ergo, ajebant. Mafl a vobis Jejunia et Elisaei miracula, quae egit dum mortuum stiscitariiy ^ annosa tantum sectamini^ condemnantur. 4. Ad novam criminationem transeuutes recluserunl: quare papa P»i exempm instituto praecedrntis stjnodum convocavit^ ut de criminum ejas ^ Jectione cognosceret? (I. c. 981); arguebantque syuodi patres falsitaHSj W* NOTITIA EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N. VI — Vll. 737 Upe quae in praefato negotio scripta sunt, dicerent postulata (I. c. 982). le slylo splcndidissiiiio Symmachus nrguebaliir, quare conventionem praeve- r cum populorum coctibus cxamcn intravisset^ et postea judicia, quum evo- ? quater fuisset^ sprevisset: imprimis, quod mulierum turbac cum praefato tdicia convenisscnt , urkmis colorihus persequebanlur (I. c. 983). Indicta ^ Uy derelictis dcfcnsoribus papa dcccssit^ addchanl, fori cl plalearum deindc pla proponcntes. Quis aulem cumy pcrorahanl, tyidit cum accusatoribus uperta ut ajunt pugna confligere? Quomodo^ ex alia parte patribus synodi >brabant, de causa vel qualitatc ejus primitus tractabatis^ quum nccdum fet syjiodus firmitatem * Jmmo, replicid)ant, ipsos venerabilcs Laurentium Irum episcopos a communione papae se suspendisse (I. c. 9^5). Ut amplius arent syiiodum demum consensu papae firmitatem adcptam, ergo, inquiehant, iiia sacerdotum ecclesiasticis icgibus quotanuis decreta pcr provincias^ praesentiam papae non habent , valctudinem perdiderunt ? Suraraoperc erea laesum principem, quare patres synodi attributum visitatorem contra siasticas regulas prima voluissent fronte disccdere^ ct nihil amplius lice- unc vitiis^ ne duresceret lolium^ ne profana messis nulla disciplinae antc ritatem succisafalcc decumbcret^ et putaretur licere quod judices non ve- 1/ (I. c. 986). Nam ipse visitatorcs ei aliis episcopis dedit^ et justum est, cti sui lege teneatur (I. c. 988). Deindc excessus Symmachi taxantcs (I. c. . saltem ut Ule ad cxemplum Eulalii et Bonifacii una cum Laurenlio cxpelle- postulasse videntur. Denique fidem ipsam patrum synodi verc ridiculc arro- tentahant. Quod dixerunt illi causam Symmachi Dei ipsius judicio commit- ira, ^yqui potest corpus occidere et animam mittere in gehennam^^, a fide a, objurgabant isli. tenuerunt^ resurrectionem corporis non credentes. nnis etiam apostoli scripta violata essc, jaclabant, quia cx verbis ejus dictum nodo: ^^sidicamus, quia peccatum non habemus^ mendaces sumus et as in nobis non esi^*^ (scil. loco verborura „wo5 ipsos decipimus''^ ibi j)ositura idaces sumus^^; 1. c. 991). 5. Quae potissiraura criraina Syinraacho ipsi irapingchant, Ennodius vix Icvi- ignificat. Accusabant ejus malitiam: fornicationcra etiara illos ci ohjecisse. er ea quac n. 2 attuliraus, haec quoquc probant, quod docuissc raeraorantur, icantibus neminem esse miscendum : saccrdotes, qui cjus consortiura suhiere, i obsoleta comparaios communione el reos culpabant (I. c. 992). Plura ttionuni istaruni capita Ennodius silentio damuanda scpeliri aperte dixit. iV-o- r/menira, ait, dat facinoribus, qui ventilationem ipsorum multiplici ad s posteras relatione transmittit. Multa enini ibi fuerunt codem Ennodio , quae ita faeculentis ulnis peccandi amor amplectebatur, ut fiercnt in- 2 memoratu. Plura levitas dchonestat, addit idem auctor, dum subductis 'erantur verha vestra ponderibus, ei de religionis causis elocutio ventosa ^onitur auris congruam sorlita gravitatem: quac in palearum abundantia esi horreis illatura de trilico^ dum infoccundam frugibus culmorum par- ubertatem^ et spem de herbae luxuria mcntitur agricolis, de quibus nihil ' ventilabra reperiunt igni debiia iticendioquc peritura (I. c. 991). Quarc i alii dcsint foutes, amplius dici non potcst. VII. • 506. Symmachi ad Theodoricum regem de restituendis ecclesiarum titulis petitio. Ouum Laurenlius ad Urbcm veniens per annos circiter quatuor Romanam ssct ecclesiam^ ad idtimum Symmachus petitionem r/'^/ (Thcodorico) per wum Alexandrinum diaconum dcstinavit, adsercns tnagnum sibi prac- STOLAK ROMAN. PONTIF. I. 47 judicium fieri et tnaxime de tiiulis ecclesiarum , quos intra Urbem latirfntius obtinehat (anonyrn. Blanchin. npud Nuratori scriptor. rer. Ital. III, 2 col^lV Quae lcgatio ipsius onni 506 initiis facta esse suo jure ponetur. vni. mox posi ann. 506. Anastasii imperatoris adversus Symmaehum tnrfcttva. Mox quuin Symmachus exstincto schismate iu plenam concordiam cum seDali Romano rediisset, Anastasius imperator lihellum contumeliarum et maledictorw plenum vuigavit» ita ut pontifex silere nefas duceret (Symra. epist. 10 n. 2 el 5). Ubi eum Manichaeum esse conviciabatur nec ordine consecratum (1. c. n. 6 el 7), et in pcculiare opprobrium vcrtit, quod conspirans cum illo senatus ipsum ex- communicaverit et male tractaverit (I. c. n. 10). Cui ponlifex epislola 10 re- spondit, ferc in niodum libelli^ ut ipsc ait, promenda coiligens, nec lamen ad- versaHi vestigia amplius prosequens. IX. Alvini et Glafirae illustrium ad Symmachum de dedicanda m fwnd» Paciniano basilica beati Petri peiitio, Narrat Anastasius in vita Symmaclii: Rogatus abAlvino etGlafira illustnhns basilicam beati Petri in fundo Paciniano dedicavit, Quam petiUonem sewit scriptis factam haud immerito sumpserimus, ita plus de ea dicere non valeinos. X. Cunstituit Symmachus, uf omni die dominico et natalitiis martynm hymnus angelicus diceretur, id est ^Gloria in exceisis Deo^^. {kwh stasius vit. Symm.) XI. Decreta Synimaeho falso adscripta. 1. Synodus, quae fcrtur post consulatum Avieni (a. 503) ante conft nem beati Petri apostolorum principis habita esse et Symmachi synodus qmnU appcliari solet, (ap. Hard. coll. conc. II, 983, Mansi coU. conc. VIIl, 295)« dt, merus Pseudo-Isidori foelus; conf. Ballerin. de antiqu. collect. III c. 6 $ 2, Kifll: de fontihus ct consilio Ps. Isid. p. 76, et supra monita praivia pag. 90 ss. 2. Synodus , quae apud beatum Petrum a Symmacho papa congregaU d sexta vocatur (apud Hard. coll. conc. II, 989. Mansi I. c. VIII, 295}, ex ^Bsdoi . Ps. Isidori merce profecta. Gonferantur monita praevia supra pag. 90 i 3. Symmachi ad Lanrentiiim Hediolaneniem arehtopisoopinB» a Fi ] Isidoro ct oonciliorum cditoribus (apud Mansi I. c. VIII, 210), apud MigDe palr. i lat. LXII, 52 ad Maximum Patavinum inscripta, cujus initium ^^Prodit rdigi$' sae*\ nihil aliud est quam Ennodii oratio (Ennodii op. ed. Slrmond. p.473). Conferaulur monita praevia, supra pag. 102. 4. Symmaohi ad Theodomm Lanreacensis eccleiiae ardhiq^iiMOin ^Diebus vitae tuae*'^ (Mansi 1. c. VIII, 228, Migne 1. c. LXU, 72), 4{iu episoofS illi usus pallii indulgetur ad ostendendum eum magistrum et nrrfliYjjiJioys, ejusque s. Laureacensem ecclesiam provinciae Pannoniorum sedem fore me^ tropolitanam. I)e falsitate ejus confcrantur, quae supra in momtis pag. 103 dicla sunt. 739