on a Sunday, so the newly elected Eulalius stayed put until he was made a bishop in the approved manner by the Bishop of Ostia.
However closely Eulalius stuck to the letter of the law, it is evident from the haste in which he procured his election as Bishop of Rome that he did not feel confident in achieving the o ffi ce by following the normal processes with more circumspection. If he was a Greek that would not be surprising, following the Roman clergy’s problems with Zosimus. The majority of the priests of the city were indeed opposed to Eulalius, and on 28 December, one day after Eulalius’s election, they chose Boniface as their bishop. He was elected in the now unknown basilica of Theodora and con- secrated the following day in the church of St. Marcellus, from whence he was taken, not to the cathedral of Rome, because the Lateran was occupied by Eulalius, but to St. Peter’s.
Boniface was an obvious candidate. He was a priest and the son of a priest. He had held important posts in the church of Rome, serving as Pope Innocent’s representative to the imperial court at Constantinople – though without much to show for his diplomatic endeavors. By the time of his election he was old and in poor health, but nevertheless had the support of the majority of the priests of the city. They admired him, it was recorded, for his learning – and perhaps because he was Roman born. He had, how- ever, been elected the day after Eulalius, which gave his rival the edge.
He also had the support of the prefect of the city, the pagan Symmachus. Symmachus duly reported all these doings to the Emperor Honorius in Ravenna, where the capital had been moved out of danger, as Honorius hoped, from invading barbarians. He came down firmly in favor of Eulalius and ordered Boniface to be expelled from Rome. Boniface obediently withdrew into the suburbs, while Eulalius celebrated the Feast of the Epiphany in St. Peter’s, the basilica Boniface had been forced to abandon. Boniface’s supporters were outraged. They complained to the
The End of Empire 21
emperor that Symmachus was biased (which he was) and Honorius agreed that the two contenders should meet at Ravenna to settle the matter. But the matter remained unsettled at Ravenna and another gathering was arranged for Whitsuntide in Spoleto. Mean- while, Honorius ordered both claimants to keep out of Rome, where riots had broken out.
Boniface obeyed, but Eulalius did not, which was a mistake. No doubt thinking to impress himself on the Roman populace, he returned to the city intending to carry out the Easter ceremonies in the Lateran. He seized it on Holy Saturday, 26 March, but after something of a struggle was thrown out by the civil authorities and detained by them outside Rome. Honorius by this time had tired of the controversy. He ordered Boniface to be recognized as pope and allowed back into Rome. Eulalius seems to have been granted a diocese elsewhere in Italy, and there is even a hint that when Boniface died on 4 September 422 there were some in the city who wanted Eulalius back – but there is no evidence that he tried once more to claim the papacy. Archdeacon Celestine was elected a week later in the customary fashion.
So Eulalius is listed among the antipopes. This is a little hard on him. Clearly there was more than a hint of skulduggery in his rushed election. But he was certainly elected before Boniface, and then consecrated on the same day as Boniface in the proper church by the proper bishop. What was most significant about the whole a ff air, however, was that the claim of Boniface to be the rightful bishop of Rome was not simply endorsed, but positively decided, by the emperor. Boniface himself, when seriously ill in 420, wrote to the emperor asking him to ensure that when a new election was needed he would maintain the peace in Rome. In his response Honorius went further and decreed that if two people were elected, both should be ruled out and the civil authorities