The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity ed. by Geoffrey D. Dunn (review)

The eleven essays that compose this volume on the role of the bishop of Rome, edited by Geoffrey Dunn, are a valuable contribution to the continuing discussion on the breadth and depth of the Roman bishop’s authority. In the introduction, Dunn acknowledges that the book does not seek to present a coherent opinion but rather to offer a wide range of perspectives and methods while examining the influence of the Roman bishop both inside the city and in the provinces. This volume provides a continuum of historiographical approaches.

The text is divided into three parts, partitioned by century rather than theme or methodology. The first section on the fourth century contains articles by George Thompson, Christian Hornung, and Alberto Ferreiro who all argue that the bishop of Rome was gaining extensive authority both within and outside Rome. This group of scholars presents a view of the bishop running counter to recent scholarly work that seeks to incorporate cultural theory in undermining the teleological approach to understanding the bishop. Within this first section of the book, in contrast, Marianne Sághy offers a look at the local politics of Damasus’s bishopric and largely reprises her earlier work on the subject.

The second group of essays features articles by Dunn, Michele Salzman, Philippe Blaudeau, George Demacopoulos, and Bronwen Neil. Dunn calls for a regional consideration of the bishop’s power as he analyzes Pope Innocent I’s letter to the Synod of Toledo. Dunn opposes the suggestions by Hornung, Ferreiro, and Thompson, arguing that there is little evidence for a claim to Petrine primacy, at least when one looks carefully at the sources in Spain. Salzmann offers a refreshing look at the relationship between Pope Leo I and Prosper of Aquitaine, suggesting that Leo’s administration was far more disorganized than is often assumed and that there is little reason to believe that Leo did not compose his own works. Rather, she suggests that Prosper’s role was instrumental in boosting Leo’s local legitimacy through his aristocratic caché, especially when Leo was confronted with independent attempts by local elites to claim property. Blaudeau argues that editors of the Liber Pontificalis sought to challenge Eastern influences particularly in relation to the Acacian schism. Demacopoulos argues compellingly that St. Gelasius’s assertion of papal primacy in the Ad Anastasium was a rhetorical strategy employed out of frustration with his waning efficacy with local clergy. Demacopoulos and Salz-mann together represent the continuation of the discussion started by Cooper and Hillner’s edited volume on patronage in the city of Rome, and they offer a contrast to the perspectives presented earlier in the book by Thompson, Hornung, and Ferreiro. Finally, Neil carefully analyzes the epistles of Gelasius, presenting possible African origins for his leadership style.

Dominic Moreau and Christopher Hanlon offer the only articles on the sixth century in this volume. Moreau locates the conflicts around the double election of Boniface II and Dioscorus of 530 in the theological controversies of the East and the competition between the Ostrogoths and Byzantines during the Laurentian Schism. Hanlon analyzes the letters of Pope Gregory the Great to the Sicilians and paints him as an intervening bishop seeking to oversee local Sicilian administration. The volume is recommended for specialists and more general scholars of the history of Christianity, as it makes a concerted effort to present a spectrum of perspectives on the role of the bishop in Rome in late antiquity.