[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 212

Hasenclever, Der altchristliche Grdberschmuck, Brunswick, 1886; H. Bergner, Der Gute Hirt in der altchristlichen Kunst, Berlin, 1890: A. Breymann, Adam, and Eva in der Kunst des christlichen Alterthums, Wolfenbiittel, 1893; A. Heussner, Die altchristlichen Orpheus Darstellungen, Cassel, 1893; H. Detzel, Christliche Ikonographie, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1894-96; E. Henneeke, Altchristliche Malerei and altkirchliche Literatur, Leipsie, 1896; G. Stuhlfauth, Die Engel in der altchristlichen Kunst, Tiibingen, 1897; L. Cloquet, Elements d'iconogravhie chretienne, Lille, 1900; K. M. Kaufmann, Die sepulkralen Jenseitsdenkmdler der Antike and des Urchristentums, Mainz, 1900; idem, Handbuch der christlichen Archaologie, Paderbom, 1905; T. Beaudoire, Genese de la cryptographic apostolique, Paris, 1902; K. Michel, Gebel and Bild in frahchristlicher Zeit, Leipsic, 1902; H. Bergner, Kirchliche Kunataltertidmer in Deutschland, Leipsie, 1903-05; J. Reil, Die frvAchristlichen Darstellungen der Kreuzigung Christi, Leipsie, 1904; J. Wilpert, Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1904.

For the Middle Ages and modern times consult: J. M. von Redowitz, Ikonographie der Heiligen, Berlin, 1834; idem, The Saints in Art, Rome, 1898; A. N. Didron, Iconographic chrWenne, Paris, 1843· English transl., Christian Iconography;, or, the Hist. of Christian Art in the Middle Ages, London, 1851; C. Cahier and A. Martin, Melanges (and Nouveaux Melanges) d'archeologie, d'histoire, et de litterature sur Is moyen-dge, 10 vols., Paris, 1847-77; G. Heider, Ueber Tiersymbolik and das Symbol de's Ldwen in der christlichen Kunst, Vienna, 1849; J. E. Wessely, Die Gestalten des Todes and des Teufels in der daratellenden Kunst, Leipsie, 1876; H. J. Grimouard de Saint-Laurent, Les Images du sacre-coeur au point de vue de l'hist. et de l'art, Paris, 1880; A. Springer, Ueber die Quellen der Kunstdarstellungen im Mittelalter, Leipsie, 1880; H. Otte, Kunstarchaologie des deutschen Mittelalters, 2 vols., Leipsie, 1880-35; B. Eekl, Die Madonna als Gegenstand christlioher KunstmalereS, Brixen, 1883 P. Jessen, Die Darstellung des Weltgerichts He auf Michelangelo, Berlin, 1883; G. Voss, Das iiingste Gericht in der bildenden Kunst des friihen Mittelalters, Leipsic, 1884; N. Kondakoff, Met. de l'art byzantin, 2 vols., Paris, 1886-91; E. Miintz, 9tudes iconographiques et archgologiques sur le moyen-kge, Paris, 1888; F. Lauchert, Geschichte des Physiologus, Strasburg, 1889; C. Rohault de Fleury, Les Saints de la messe et leurs monuments, Paris, 1893; M. Engels, Die Darstellung der Gestalten Gottes des Vaters in der MalereQ, Luxemburg, 1894; idem, Die Kreuzigung Christi in der bildenden Kunst, ib. 1899; P. Weber, Geistliches Schauspiel and kirchliche Kunst in ihrem Verhaltnis . . an einer Ikonographie der Kirche and Synagoge, Stuttgart, 1894; J. Strzygowski, Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus, Leipsic, 1899; N. Bell, The Saints in Christian Art, 3 vols., London, 1901-04; M. Kernarel, Le " Livre " de Paula. Causeries familieres sur L'art et is symbolisme chretiens, Paris, 1902 J. Sauer, Symbolik des Kirchengebdudes . . des Mittelalters, Freiburg, 1902; P. Male, L'Art religieux du xiii. sQcle en France, Paris, 1902 (crowned by the Academy); A. Venturi, The Madonna, London, 1902; J. E. Weis-Liebersdorf, Christus- and Apostelbilder, Freiburg, 1902; E. A. Greene, Saints and their Symbols: a Companion in the Churches and Picture Galleries of Europe, London, 1904; 0. ZSekler, Die Tugendlehre des Christentums mit besonderer Rucksicht auf deren zahlensymbolische Binkleidung, GOteraloh, 1904; A. Munoz, Iconografa della Madonna, Florence, 1905; H. 0. Taylor, The Medieval Mind, 2 vols., New York, 1911.

SYMBOLUM APOSTOLICUM. See APOSTLES' CREED.

SYMMACHIANS: The name applied to one or more heretical sects, at least one of them centering at Rome. Philaster (Hcer., lxii.) speaks of them as derived from a certain Patricius, a teacher at Rome, whose chief doctrine was that the body was the handiwork of the devil, and that in consequence illtreatment of it was a duty. This was pushed by followers to its extremes of suicide and of indulgence in all lusts. Ambrosiaster (prologue to Galatians, and on I Tim. iv. 1) brings a sect of the name

into connection with MarcionitYs (see MARCION) and Manicheans (q.v.). Augustine (Contra Faustum, xix. 4, 17, NPNF, 1 ser., iv. 240, 246; Contra Cresconium, i. 31) relates Symmachians with the Ebionites (q.v.), and also (by implication) with Manicheans.

SYMMACHUS, sim'a-kus": Pope 498-514. On the death of Anastasius II. the deacon Symmachus of Sardinia and the archpriest Laurentius divided the votes; the former was consecrated in the Lateran and the latter in S. Maria Maggiore on Nov. 22, 498. Both parties agreed to submit the affair for decision to Theodoric the Great, although he was an Arian, who was then the suzerain of Rome. He decided that whoever was consecrated first, and by a majority, had a right to the papal chair; this being Symmachus, Laurentius withdrew, and apparent unity reigned. Symmachus called a synod on Mar. 1, 497, and introduced directions regarding the papal election which would render impossible such events as had occurred. This decision did not, however, prevent later schisms; moreover, the rivalry between Symmachus and Laurentius was renewed, and although the latter was made bishop of Nocera and removed from Rome, his followers continued their opposition to Symmachus, blaming him for appointing a time for the Easter festival of 501 A.D., and accusing him of adultery, of alienating church property, and various other crimes. Appeal was again made to Theodoric, who called Peter, bishop of Altinum, to Rome to investigate matters, and to take control of the church property. Symmachus, who was in Ariminum, refused to appear at the synod called by Peter in Rome, some time after Easter, 501, unless Peter withdrew and the church property were restored to his control, when he would be willing to defend himself before the synod. The bishops dared not deny the pope's request, but Theodoric demanded a new session of the synod, at which Symmachus decided to appear; but as a tumult arose during the session he refused to appear again and appealed to the king, to whom the synod also referred the matter. Theodoric, however, ordered the bishops to decide, and on Oct. 23, 501, at a fourth session they rendered the famous decision by which all accusations against Symmachus were set aside without examination, on the ground that, by reason of the exalted authority of the Apostle Peter, they did not dare to judge the pope, but left it to God, who sees the secrets of the heart. The synod followed out the conclusions of its decision, and declared those who had not favored Symmachus to be schismatics, and condemned Peter of Altinum and Laurentius. Symmachus convoked a sixth session of the synod Nov. 6, in order to prevent the interference with his election from becoming a precedent. The decision of the synod did not, however, restore harmony, and after deeds of violence, the followers of Laurentius finally resorted to literary arguments. Symmachus finally carried the day, but the opposition to Symmachus was broken only when Theodoric declared himself against the Laurentians and commanded that their church be given over to Symmachus (505 and 506 A.D.); whereupon Laurentius retired to a country place