Letter 3: Symmachus, bishop, to the most holy brother Avitus.

In the year 501. From Symmachus the pope to Avitus, bishop of Vienne. [Argument:] That he was unwilling to judge his case unheard, and that the laws are sometimes to be relaxed. To his most beloved brother Avitus, Symmachus. It ought not to have offended your charity, that we recently wrote back in the name of our brother and fellow-bishop Aeonius. For no prejudice was done to your right, most beloved brother, when we replied that, with one party unheard and without competent instruction, we are not able to judge. Hence it remains open to your fraternity to allege whatever you have thought ought to be alleged, and to propose what you have seen ought to be proposed. For although we have said that the confusion of the province was brought about by our predecessor Bishop Anastasius of holy memory, contrary to the custom of the Church and the ancient statutes of our predecessors, and that it is not to be tolerated, nevertheless, if your fraternity shall have shown that the things which he did, he did reasonably, we shall rejoice that nothing was attempted by him against the canons; because that which is done apart from the rule, provided it be from a just cause, does not infringe the rule, which only obstinacy and contempt of antiquity injures. For although the statutes laid down by the fathers are to be kept with diligent observance and observant diligence, nonetheless, for the sake of some good, something is relaxed from the rigor of the law, which the law itself would have provided for had it foreseen it. And often it would be cruel to insist upon the law, when the observance of it appears to be prejudicial to the Church; since laws have been enacted with this intention, that they may benefit, not that they may harm. Wherefore let your affection proceed to direct to us the reasons which impelled our predecessor to handle the aforesaid confusion, so that we may both know what ought to be decreed, and may rejoice in the Lord that Anastasius of blessed memory did nothing that needs to be retracted. May God keep you safe, most beloved brother! Given on the third day before the Ides of October [October 13], in the consulship of Avienus and Pompeius. [Editorial notes:] Rather, in the name of the Younger, another Paulinus is designated consul of the year 530 in the records. The words appended below, in which is contained the formula for signifying the paschal day to the metropolitans, Baronius and Labatus omitted. But they are restored from L^ L* c^ a', except that L* has "the ninth day before the Kalends of April," while a', I know not whence, has "the ninth day before the Kalends of May." Whence we learn that in this year Easter was celebrated in the Western church according to the old Roman reckoning, whereas according to the Alexandrian reckoning (and the canon of Victorius) it was celebrated in that year on the tenth day before the Kalends of May. The same is confirmed by that Neapolitan table providing a paschal index from the year 464 down to the year 614 (ed. Roncalli, Vet. lat. chron. I, 722-735), in which it is noted for the year 501: "Easter on the tenth day before the Kalends of May, moon the eighteenth; of the Romans, on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, moon the twenty-first." At the same time, by these things it becomes plain that at this period the canon of Victorius, which in this part agreed with the Alexandrians, was neglected at Rome (though Rossius, Inscr. christ. I p. XCV and 253, thinks it scarcely to be believed). Finally, I think it is to be referred to that difference, that Symmachus is reported to have been accused even before King Theodoric, because he had not celebrated Easter together with the universal Church, and is hinted to have been summoned to the royal court to render an account of such a discrepancy; (compare the anonymous Blanchinian author in Muratori, script. rer. Ital. vol. III p. 2 col. 45). Nor perhaps would we rashly judge that, this very difference then again truly opening up, a just occasion was given for the fresh concerns of the Roman pontiffs and of Dionysius Exiguus. But concerning the causes of such a difference, let comparison be made above with note on Hilarius, epistle 3, no. 4. That Avitus bore Symmachus's judgment with no resentful mind, and with how great reverence he was affected toward him, his own epistle 31 to Faustus and Symmachus the senators is witness. Epistles 3-5. 657

a. 501 d. Sf mmaclii papac ad Ayituni episcopum Yiennensein. Citr inaudUam causam ipsius judicare noiuerily quodque leges sint aliguando soiifendae. p. Dilectissimo fratri Avito Symmachus. Non debuit caritatem tuam oflfendere'), quod ad fratrem et Immo Junioris nomine alter Paulinus anni 530 consul in monumentis denotatur. ') Verba subnexa, in quibus diei paschalis metropolitanis aignificandi habe- tur formula, Baronius et Labatus omiserunt. Sed ex L^ L* c^ a' revocantur, nisi quod L* vmi Cal. AprUis^ a' nescio unde VIUI Kalendas Majas. Unde boc anno Pascha iu Occidentali ecclesia secundum veterem supputationem Roma- nam celebratum esse cognoscimus, quum secundum Alexandrinam (et canonem Victorianum) illo anno X Kal. Majas celebraretur. Quod idem confirmator ta- bula iUa Ncapolitana indiculum paschalem ab a. 464 usque ad a. 614 praebeute (ed. Roncalli Vet. lat. chron. I, 722—735), qua ad a. 501 notatur: Pascha X KaL Maji iuna XVIII liomani VIII Kai, Aprii, iuna XXI. Simul hoc tempore cano- ucm Victorianum, qui hac in parte cum Alexandrinis consensit, Aomae n^le- ctum esse (etsi vix credendum putat Rossius Inscr. christ. I p. XCV et 253), hisce palam fit. Denique ad illam differentiam referendum pnto, quod Symma- chus vel apud Theodoricum regem accusatus narratur, quod non cum um^ersUate Pascka ceiebrassetj atque ad rationem de ejusmodi dissonantia reddendam ad curirun regiam evocatus innuitur; (couf. anonymus Blanchinianns ap. Maratoii script. rer. Ital. t. III p. 2 col. 45). Nec forte temere judicaverimns, 1»%^ ipta differentia tunc denuo vcre hiante novis curis pontificum Bomanoram et Dio- nysii Exigui justam ansam datam csse. De causis autem eijuBmodi differentiM conferatur supra n. Hilari epist. 3 n. 4. ') Quam non iniquo animo Avitus tulerit Sjmmachi jndiranw^ ^ et qmnta orga eum reverentia afFectus fuerit, testis est ipsius ad Faustom et Synuaachimi sciiatores epistola 31. EPISTOLAE 3 — 5. 657 coepiscopuin nostmm Aeoniiim nuper rescripsimus. Non enim juria. 601.^ tuo, dilectissime frater, praejudicatum fuit, quum nos inaudita parte et absque competenti instructione non posse judicare respondimus. Unde fratemitati tuae salvum est^) allegare, quod putaverit allegan- dum, et proponere quod viderit proponendum. Nam licet confusionem provinciae a praedecessore nostro sanctae memoriae Anastasio epi- scopo praeter Ecclesiae consuetudinem et antiqua praedecessonun nostrorum statuta factam esse dixerimus et non esse tolerandam, attamen si ea, quae fecit, rationabiliter fecisse fraternitas tua docuerit, gaudebimus nihil esse ab eo contra canones attentatum', quia quod fit praeter regulam, modo sit ex justa causa, non infringit regulam, quam sola pervicacia et antiquitatis contemptus laedit. Nam quam- vis a patribus statuta diligenti observatione et observanti diligentia sint custodienda, nihilominus propter aliquod bonum de rigore legis aliquid relaxatur, quod et ipsa lex cavisset si praevidisset. Et saepe crudele esset insistere legi, quum observantia ejus esse praejudiciabilis Eeclesiae videtur; quoniam leges ea intentione latae sunt, ut pro- ficiant, non ut noceant. Quamobrem pergat dilectio tua, rationes quae praedecessorem nostrum ad tractandam praedictam confusionem impulerunt, ad nos dirigere, ut et sciamus quid fuerit statuendum, et in Domino laetemur beatae memoriae Anastasium nihil fecisse retractandum. Deus te incolumem servet, frater dilectissime ! Data III Idus Octobres, Avieno et Pompejo consulibus.