The Roman Church And Its Bishops 435
(Symmachus and Laurentius in 498; Felix IV and an unnamed rival in 526; and
Boniface II and Dioscorus in 530); at least one case where the favoured candi-
date (Vigilius) of the living bishop (Boniface II) was flatly rejected by so many
clerics that the pope withdrew his support; and numerous incidents of inter-
ference via bribery and canvassing. Perhaps unlike other churches, Rome’s
later 5th- and 6th-century bishops were not ‘elected’ via a process whereby
the city’s clergy and laity publicly acclaimed a particular candidate, who upon
receiving something like a majority (if not universal) support acceded to
the episcopate.53 Rather, Rome’s tradition for selecting a new pope appears
to have been far more autocratic: the living bishop chose his successor while
still alive and upon his death the appointed man became bishop. Simplicius,
Symmachus, Hormisdas, Felix IV, and John II seem to have nominated their
successors (though sometimes with resistance) and on at least three occasions
the ruling secular authority made the appointment: Theoderic chose Felix IV,
Athalaric named John II, and Justinian selected Vigilius. Clerics and laypeople
could influence the nomination process through bribery, etc., but these sorts of
interventions were typically met with suspicion and disapproval, at least from
the authorities.
Needless to say, Rome’s electoral system was not the most stable, and the
Ostrogothic period witnessed both violent conflicts over elections and numer-
ous attempts from various leaders, including the popes, to set limits on the
process. In 483, Simplicius issued a scriptura or testamentary statement
demanding that a small council of clergy and at least one senator, Basilius,
select his successor upon his death.54 Assuming that this council met, they
chose Felix III, Rome’s first aristocratic bishop. However, Simplicius’ recom-
mended process was not received policy, for when Anastasius II died in 498
without nominating a successor, two men were independently selected and
consecrated, the archdeacon Symmachus and titular presbyter Laurentius.
Thus commenced the Laurentian schism (498–506/7), Ostrogothic Rome’s
most infamous ecclesiastical conflict.55 Symmachus was initially selected by
Theoderic as the legitimate bishop in 498, and in 499 he passed sweeping
53 Such a process may well have existed in Rome during earlier periods and in other sees. See
Norton, Episcopal Elections.
54 This is Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius (PLRE 2: 217, Basilius 12), praetorian prefect of
Italy and member of Odovacer’s court. Contra Pietri, “Aristocratie et société cléricale”,
pp. 454–5, I see no basis in the evidence for interpreting Basilius’ participation in this
council as an indication of the Senate’s collective (or Odovacer’s personal) intervention
in the election.
55 Recent studies include Moorhead, Theoderic; Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste in Rom; and
Sardella, Società, chiesa, e stato.