Religious Diversity 513
that of Gelasius and Theoderic, is later used by Athalaric (or by Cassiodorus
in Athalaric’s name) to describe Nicene Christianity in a speech given after
August 526 to the Roman Senate in which the new king praised the senators
for accepting Felix IV (526–30) who had been appointed bishop of Rome by
Theoderic.52 Clearly Gelasius, Theoderic, and Athalaric distinguished the
Roman Church from that of the Ostrogoths. But the careful language used
to describe one another suggests that at least for these three men, Nicene
Christianity and the faith of the Goths were not irreconcilably antithetical, but
rather represented two possible positions on a range of acceptable beliefs. At a
minimum it seems clear that during the first decades of Ostrogothic rule in Italy
both the Roman Church and the Ostrogothic leadership were keen to down-
play their religious differences.53 Indeed despite Gelasius’ above-mentioned
suggestion that Teia was something other than Nicene, in a second letter to
the same Gothic count the bishop of Rome appealed to Teia’s responsibility
as a Christian to protect those who serve God (in this case Nicene clerics).54
Elsewhere, Gelasius appears to evoke Theoderic’s sense of membership in the
wider Christian community by appealing to the piety of his Christian mind.55
Of course Gelasius was dealing with Theoderic’s regime from a position of
weakness and it would not have been advisable for the bishop of Rome or any-
one else in Italy after 493 to openly condemn the Ostrogoths for their supposed
heretical beliefs. Moreover, Rome’s attention was focused on the ongoing and
bitter dispute with Constantinople over the question of the Henotikon that
would last until 519. Nonetheless, it is significant that the ecumenical language
Noble, “Theoderic and the Papacy”, p. 407 suggests that Theoderic did his best to avoid
interference in Roman episcopal politics. For an overview of the schism see, for exam-
ple, Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 114–45; Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste in Rom, pp. 9–40; Sardella,
Società, Chiesa e Stato, pp. 7–39, and most recently, Cohen, “Schism and the Polemic of
Heresy”, pp. 198–205. For a chronology of the sources for the early years of the schism see
Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste in Rom, pp. 21–6.
52 Va r. 8.15.
53 On the attitude of the Roman Church towards the Ostrogoths before the end of the
Acacian schism, see Amory People and Identity, pp. 206–16.
54 Gelasius, ep. 24, ed. Thiel, pp. 390–1. “Christianis gratum semper debet esse, quod ab
eorum poscitur dignitate praestandum, quia Deo servientibus beneficium negare non
convenit.”
55 Gelasius, ETV ep. 1, ed. Mommsen. “Christianae mentis vestrae pietate confisus virum
spectabilem Constantium credidi vobis meis litteris intimandum, utpote qui pro quolibet
homine supplicare sacerdotalis officii ratione convenior”. See letters to the comes Teia:
ETV, ep. 2, 4: “ad domnum filium meum regem.. .” To Theoderic’s mother: ETV epp. 4, 5:
“domno filio meo, magnifico regi illudentes;” “... domno filio excellentissimo regi.. .”