The Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris 9781474461702

Citation preview

THE EDINBURGH COMPANION SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd i

TO

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd ii

13/02/20 4:00 PM

THE EDINBURGH COMPANION TO SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS

EDITED BY GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd iii

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: edinburghuniversitypress.com © editorial matter and organisation Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden, 2020 © the chapters their several authors, 2020 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road, 12(2f ) Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ Typeset in 10 / 12 Bembo by IDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd, and printed and bound in Great Britain. A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 4744 6169 6 (hardback) ISBN 978 1 4744 6170 2 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 1 4744 6171 9 (epub) The right of Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden to be identified as the Editor of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). This book was made possible by an International Network grant from the Leverhulme Trust and a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd iv

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements Author Biographies Note Abbreviations for Books, Series, and Reference Works Map of Sidonius’ Gaul c. 380–c. 480 Introduction Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden

viii x xiii xv xviii 1

Part I Sidonius’ Life, the Characters in his Work, and its Dating 1. Sidonius’ Biography in Photo Negative Joop van Waarden

13

2. Sidonius’ People A Prosopography of Sidonius Sidonius’ Places: A Geographical Appendix Ralph W. Mathisen

29 76 155

3. Dating the Works of Sidonius Gavin Kelly

166

Part II Sidonius in his Political, Social, and Religious Context 4. Sidonius’ Political World Michael Kulikowski

197

5. Sidonius’ Social World Sigrid Mratschek

214

6. Creating Culture and Presenting the Self in Sidonius Sigrid Mratschek

237

7. Sidonius and Religion Lisa Kaaren Bailey

261

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd v

13/02/20 4:00 PM

vi

CONTENTS

Part III Sidonius’ Work in its Literary Context 8. Sidonius’ Intertextuality Isabella Gualandri

279

9. Sidonius’ Panegyrics Annick Stoehr-Monjou

317

10. Sidonius’ Shorter Poems Franca Ela Consolino

341

11. Sidonius’ Correspondence Roy Gibson

373

Part IV Sidonius’ Language and Style 12. Sidonius’ Vocabulary, Syntax, and Style Étienne Wolff

395

13. ‘You’ and ‘I’ in Sidonius’ Correspondence Joop van Waarden

418

14. Metrics in Sidonius Silvia Condorelli

440

15. Prose Rhythm in Sidonius Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly

462

Part V The Manuscript Tradition and the History of Scholarship 16. The Manuscript Tradition of Sidonius A Census of the Manuscripts of Sidonius Franz Dolveck

479 508

17. Sidonius Scholarship: Fifteenth to Nineteenth Centuries Luciana Furbetta

543

18. Sidonius Scholarship: Twentieth to Twenty-First Centuries Silvia Condorelli

564

19. Translating Sidonius Roger Green

618

Part VI Readers of Sidonius from Antiquity to the Present 20. Sidonius’ Earliest Reception and Distribution Ralph W. Mathisen

631

21. Glossing Sidonius in the Middle Ages Tina Chronopoulos

643

22. Sidonius in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Jesús Hernández Lobato

665

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd vi

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CONTENTS

vii

23. Sidonius Reception: Sixteenth to Nineteenth Centuries Joop van Waarden

686

24. Sidonius Reception: Late Nineteenth to Twenty-First Centuries Filomena Giannotti

705

Epilogue: Future Approaches to Sidonius Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden

730

Bibliography Index Locorum Geographical Index Index of Personal Names (Antiquity) Index of Personal Names (After Antiquity) Index of Topics

737 797 819 823 835 837

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd vii

13/02/20 4:00 PM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book has its roots back in the first decade of the century. During the writing of his doctorate, a commentary on the block of eleven letters to bishops that stand at the start of Book 7 of Sidonius’ letters, Joop van Waarden had built up links with a wide range of scholars, and founded a website that increasingly came to serve as an informal message board. It was his conviction that a comprehensive approach, one which treated both prose and poetry, crossed the disciplinary divide between literature and history, and added further disciplines, would bring benefits. He was able to organise an international workshop at Wassenaar in 2011 to consider such an approach thanks to the support of Hagit Amirav, Bas ter Haar Romeny, and Paul van Geest (and the Dutch Centre for Patristic Research generally), who successfully applied for a grant from the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS). The interdisciplinary approach appealed to Gavin Kelly, and van Waarden and he joined forces. Thus, the Wassenaar workshop, which led to van Waarden and Kelly, New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (2013), was also the point at which the idea for the present Companion crystallised, as one of two strands of systematic work in the project ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’ – the other being a series of commentaries. A work like this is inherently complex, long in gestation, and dependent on many people and institutions. Having reached the moment of publication, we are extremely grateful to everybody who made this possible in the first place, and for the trust, the competence, the zest, and the patience with which they made the result surpass all our expectations. We would first of all like to thank the Leverhulme Trust for funding the International Network ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’ during the years 2014–17, covering a Network Facilitator, conference costs, translation and editing costs of the Companion and three commentary volumes, and travel costs for research, especially on the manuscript tradition of Sidonius. We are also grateful to the British Academy for a Small Research Grant, and to the Classical Association for a conference grant, for the project’s inaugural conference, ‘Sidonius, his Words and his World’, in Edinburgh from 20 to 23 November 2014. We are also obliged to Edinburgh University’s School of History, Classics, and Archaeology for a contribution towards organising this conference, and to many other universities for enabling various speakers and participants to assist. A special word of thanks is due to the student helpers Alison John, Giulia Sagliardi, and Belinda Washington.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd viii

13/02/20 4:00 PM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ix

We are grateful to Jill Harries and to the Project Advisory Board, Hagit Amirav, Jan Willem Drijvers, Roy Gibson, and Roger Rees, for their expert advice. Our meticulous Network Facilitator, Paul Barnaby, translated a number of chapters and also contributed numerous improvements. We also warmly thank the other translators: Maria Giulia Franzoni, Alexandre Johnston, and Giulia Sagliardi. Many thanks go to Pieter van Waarden for designing the map of Gaul. We are deeply indebted to the authors for accepting our invitation to contribute to this volume, for the creativity, time, and enthusiasm spent on writing entirely new chapters, for reading and commenting on each other’s work, and for their patience and cooperation in the editing process as we fitted the jigsaw puzzle together. Gavin Kelly would like to thank Joop van Waarden for his patience and support, especially when administrative duties pressed hardest; his Edinburgh colleagues Lucy Grig, Aaron Pelttari, and Justin Stover tolerated many questions and answered them with acuity; Alison John was an acute and thorough research assistant. For Joop, this volume meaningfully rounds off a decade of work on Sidonius in which cooperating with Gavin has been an essential and utterly rewarding factor. He would also like to thank his wife Heleen for her unfailing involvement in the project. Finally, we would like to express our thanks to the anonymous readers who thoughtfully reviewed the manuscript, to the Press Committee of Edinburgh University Press who enthusiastically accepted our proposal, and to the editorial staff of the Press, in particular Carol Macdonald, who guided us through the complicated process of bringing out a book. Fiona Sewell, the acute copy-editor, has contributed greatly to the volume’s accuracy and consistency. Edinburgh/Krommenie 18 December 2019

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd ix

13/02/20 4:00 PM

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Lisa Kaaren Bailey is Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Auckland. Her research interests include Christianity in Late Antiquity, especially the religious culture of the laity and preaching and sermon collections in Gaul. She has published Christianity’s Quiet Success: The Eusebius Gallicanus Sermon Collection and the Power of the Church in Late Antique Gaul (2010) and The Religious Worlds of the Laity in Late Antique Gaul (2016). Tina Chronopoulos is Associate Professor of Classics and Medieval Studies at Binghamton University, State University of New York. Her research focuses on medieval Latin literature written during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and her interest in Sidonius goes back to an essay published in the Journal of Medieval Latin in 2010, ‘Brief Lives of Sidonius, Symmachus, and Fulgentius Written in 12th-Cent. England’. Silvia Condorelli is Associate Professor of Latin at the University of Naples Federico II. She is a specialist in the Latin literature of Late Antiquity, and author of two books on Sidonius: L’esametro dei Panegyrici di Sidonio Apollinare (2001) and Il poeta doctus nel V sec. d.C.: Aspetti della poetica di Sidonio Apollinare (2008), besides a number of articles. In 2003, she published an overview of twenty years of Sidonius scholarship: ‘Prospettive sidoniane: Venti anni di studi su Sidonio Apollinare (1982–2002)’. She contributed to New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (2013) and is currently working on a commentary on Sidonius’ ninth book of letters. Franca Ela Consolino is Professor of Latin Language and Literature at the University of L’Aquila. She has played a groundbreaking role in the study of Sidonius with her 1974 article ‘Codice retorico e manierismo stilistico nella poetica di Sidonio Apollinare’, and continues to be an authoritative voice in many areas of Late Antiquity, with studies ranging from bishops in Gaul (Ascesi e mondanità nella Gallia tardoantica: Studi sulla figura del vescovo nei sec. IV–VI (1979)) to poetics and literary genres (for instance, ‘Le mot et les choses: epigramma chez Sidoine Apollinaire’ (2015)). Franz Dolveck is a Research Fellow in Medieval Latin at the University of Geneva. He is a specialist in textual criticism and textual tradition, and recently edited the poetry of Paulinus of Nola for the ‘Corpus Christianorum’ series (2015). He is currently working on a critical edition of Ausonius.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd x

13/02/20 4:00 PM

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

xi

Luciana Furbetta is a graduate of the Sapienza University in Rome and has lectured in Latin both there and at the University of Trieste. She has an extensive list of publications, mainly on Sidonius and contemporaries. She is currently working on a commentary on the Panegyric of Avitus, to be published in the ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’ series. Filomena Giannotti is a Research Fellow and Teaching Fellow in Latin at the University of Siena. She is the author of a commentary with translation of Sidonius’ third book of letters (Sperare meliora: Il terzo libro delle Epistulae di Sidonio Apollinare (2016)) and of the notes to Alessandro Fo’s text and translation of the Aeneid (2012). A specialist in the reception of the Classical world and especially Late Antiquity, she is the author of Nei pensieri degli uomini: Momenti della fortuna di Ambrogio, Girolamo, Agostino (2009). Roy Gibson is Professor of Latin at the University of Durham. He has published widely on Latin poetry and prose of the early empire. An expert in Pliny the Younger, he has contributed a number of studies on Sidonius in which he innovatively develops the comparison of the two correspondences. Articles include ‘ Confirmed? Pliny, Epistles 1.1 and Sidonius Apollinaris’ (2011), ‘Pliny and the Letters of Sidonius: From Constantius and Clarus to Firminus and Fuscus’ (2013), and ‘Reading the Letters of Sidonius by the Book’ in New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (2013). Roger Green is Professor Emeritus of Latin at the University of Glasgow. He has published books on the Latin epics of the New Testament, on St Augustine’s teaching, on the poetry of Paulinus of Nola, and on George Buchanan’s verse paraphrase of the Psalms. He edited Ausonius with a complete commentary, subsequently publishing his edition in the ‘Oxford Classical Texts’. He is currently producing a new English translation of Sidonius’ poetry. Isabella Gualandri was Professor of Latin at the State University of Milan from 1976 to 2010, and is a Senior Member of Robinson College, Cambridge. She has been one of the decisive influences on modern Sidonius studies with her 1979 book Furtiva lectio: Studi su Sidonio Apollinare, followed by numerous articles. Her research centres principally on fourth- and fifth-century authors and texts, including Claudian, Prudentius, Avienus, Juvencus, Ambrose, Dracontius, and the Theodosian Code. Jesús Hernández Lobato is Lecturer in Latin at the University of Salamanca. He has published in novel ways on the poetics of later Latin literature, with Sidonius among his central case studies, above all in Vel Apolline muto: Estética y poética de la Antigüedad Tardía (2012). He is also a specialist in the reception of Antiquity in the medieval period and the Renaissance (El Humanismo que no fue: Sidonio Apolinar en el Renacimiento (2014)). He has translated Sidonius’ poetry into Spanish (2015). Gavin Kelly is Professor of Latin Literature and Roman History at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests lie in the literature and political history of the Roman Empire, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries. He has published on many Latin authors of the period, including Ammianus Marcellinus, Claudian, and Symmachus, and has been Principal Investigator of British Academy and Leverhulme grants on Sidonius Apollinaris in collaboration with Joop van Waarden.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xi

13/02/20 4:00 PM

xii

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Michael Kulikowski is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Classics at Pennsylvania State University. He is a specialist in the history of the western Mediterranean world of Late Antiquity. His publications include a history of the Roman Empire in two volumes: Imperial Triumph: The Roman World from Hadrian to Constantine (2016) and Imperial Tragedy: From Constantine’s Empire to the Destruction of Roman Italy (2019). Ralph W. Mathisen is Professor of History, Classics, and Medieval Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has worked extensively on the society and culture of Late Antiquity, and is a specialist in the prosopography of late antique Gaul. He is the founder editor of the Journal of Late Antiquity, the editor of Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity, and the recent recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. To New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (2013), he contributed a chapter on ‘Dating the Letters of Sidonius’. Sigrid Mratschek is Professor of Ancient History at the University of Rostock. Her research focuses on the culture and society of Late Antiquity, bearing on Paulinus of Nola among others. Her research project ‘Sidonius Apollinaris: Creating Identity from the Past’ included a Visiting Fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford, and the publication of ‘Identitätsstiftung aus der Vergangenheit: Zum Diskurs über die trajanische Bildungskultur im Kreis des Sidonius Apollinaris’ (2008). She contributed a chapter entitled ‘Creating Identity from the Past: The Construction of History in the Letters of Sidonius’ to New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (2013) and another on ‘The Letter Collection of Sidonius Apollinaris’ to the edited volume Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide (2017). Annick Stoehr-Monjou is Maître de conférences in Latin at the Université Clermont Auvergne at Clermont-Ferrand. She is a specialist in late antique literature, writing, among other things, on Sidonius’ ‘Poétique de l’éclat’ (2009), his concept of history in ‘Ep. 5.8: Constantin le Grand, nouveau Néron’ (2012), and his audience in ‘Le rôle du poète dans la Gaule du Ve siècle: Sidoine Apollinaire et son public’ (2018). She contributed a chapter on ‘Sidonius and Horace: The Art of Memory’ to New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (2013). Together with Rémy Poignault, she has published the edited volume Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire (2014). Joop van Waarden is Research Fellow in Latin at the Radboud University Nijmegen. He specialises in late antique Gaul, and Sidonius Apollinaris in particular. He has published a two-volume commentary on the seventh book of Sidonius’ correspondence, Writing to Survive (2010, 2016). He has been co-investigator with Gavin Kelly in the Leverhulme-funded ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’ project (2014–17) and is co-editor of the multiauthor volume New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (2013). He also maintains the dedicated website . Étienne Wolff is Professor of Latin at the Université Paris Nanterre. His extensive and varied research concerns the literature of Late Antiquity, from Gaul in particular, the literature of the Flavian and Antonine period, and neo-Latin literature. He has published a number of articles on aspects of Sidonius Apollinaris’ work.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xii

13/02/20 4:00 PM

NOTE

Unless otherwise indicated, English translations in this volume are loosely based on Anderson’s Loeb translation. Spelling of proper names has been regularised to avoid confusion, in the face of contradictory manuscript evidence and varying conventions. Thus the Gallic senator who asked Sidonius to write a poem for his face-towel is everywhere Philomathius, and his daughter for whom Sidonius wrote an epitaph is Philomathia, in line with reference works even if the manuscript evidence for slightly different names, Filimatius and Filimatia, is strong. We made an exception for the neo-Platonist priest of Vienne who dedicated to Sidonius his book on the soul: some contributors call him Claudianus Mamertus, along with the manuscripts of his work and scholarly tradition, others Mamertus Claudianus, more in line with late antique onomastic norms. A similar compromise can be found on the title page: ‘Sidonius Apollinaris’ and ‘Apollinaris Sidonius’ both represent modern scholarly constructs more than late antique onomastic practice. The poems in the letters are numbered continuously in accordance with Christiansen and Holland’s 1993 Concordantia in Sidonii Apollinaris carmina: Christiansen and Holland 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xiii

Found in letter 1.11.14 2.8.3 2.10.4 3.12.5 4.8.5 4.11.6 4.18.5 5.17.10 7.17.2 8.9.5

Subject An improvised quip Epitaph for Philomathia Epigram for Bishop Patiens’ new church in Lyon Epitaph for his grandfather Inscription for Queen Ragnahilda’s cup Epitaph for Mamertus Claudianus Epigram for bishop Perpetuus’ new church of St Martin Impromptu lines on a towel Epitaph for the Abbot Abraham For Lampridius

13/02/20 4:00 PM

xiv 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

NOTE

8.11.3 9.13.2 9.13.5 9.14.6 9.14.6 9.15.1 9.16.3

Announcing a visit to Lampridius For Tonantius At dinner with Majorian A palindrome Its inverse For Gelasius For Firminus. Envoi.

See also, in this volume, Chapter 3, section 3.4.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xiv

13/02/20 4:00 PM

ABBREVIATIONS FOR BOOKS, SERIES, AND REFERENCE WORKS

For abbreviations of the titles of ancient literary works, see the Index Locorum. AE = L’Année épigraphique: Revue des publications épigraphiques relatives à l’antiquité romaine, Paris, 1888–. BHL = Bibliotheca hagiographica latina antiquae et mediae aetatis, 2 vols, Subsidia Hagiographica 6, Brussels, 1898–1900; Supplementi editio altera auctior, Subsidia Hagiographica 12 (1911); Novum Supplementum ed. H. Fros, Subsidia Hagiographica 70 (1986). BNE = Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid. BNP = Cancik, H., et al. (eds), Brill’s New Pauly. English translation edited by C.F. Salazar and F.G. Gentry, . BSB-Ink = Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Inkunabelkatalog, . CAG = Carte archéologique de la Gaule, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, . Catalogue général = Bibliothèque Nationale: Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, Paris, 1939–. CC CM = Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio mediaevalis. CC SL = Corpus Christianorum. Series latina. CIL = Mommsen, T., et al. (eds), Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, Berlin, 1863–. CLE = Bücheler, F. (ed.), Carmina latina epigraphica, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1895–7. Supplement edited by E. Lommatzsch, Leipzig, 1926 (repr. Amsterdam, 1972). CLRE = Bagnall, R.S., Alan Cameron, S.A. Schwartz, and K.A. Worp, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, Atlanta, 1987. CPL = Dekkers, E. (1995) Clavis patrum latinorum, Turnhout. CSEL = Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum. DACL = Cabrol, F., et al., Dictionnaire d’archéologue chrétienne et de liturgie, Paris, 1907–53. DMLBS = Latham, R.E., et al. (eds) (1975–2013) Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, 17 vols, London, . Du Cange = Du Cange, C., et al., Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, Niort, 1883–7 (1st edn Paris, 1678).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xv

13/02/20 4:00 PM

xvi

ABBREVIATIONS

FB = Pettegree, A., and M. Walsby, French Books III & IV (FB): Books Published in France Before 1601 in Latin and Languages Other Than French, Leiden, 2012. GLK = Keil, H. (ed.), Grammatici latini, 8 vols, Leipzig, 1855–80 (repr. Hildesheim, 1961). Godefroy = Godefroy, F., Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française, et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XV siècle, Paris, 1881–1902. GW = Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, 10 vols to date, Leipzig 1925–, . Hirschfeld = Hirschfeld, O. (ed.), Inscriptiones Galliae Narbonensis latinae, Berlin, 1888. IDelos = Roussel, P., and M. Launey, Inscriptions de Délos: Décrets postérieurs à 166 av. J.-C. (nos. 1497–1524). Dédicaces postérieures à 166 av. J.-C. (nos. 1525–2219), Paris, 1937. IGI = Guarnaschelli, T.M., and E. Valenziani, Indice generale degli incunaboli delle biblioteche d’Italia, 6 vols, Rome, 1943–81. ILCV = Diehl, E. (ed.), Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, 3 vols, Berlin, 1924–31 (repr. Berlin 1961; vol. 4 suppl. by J. Moreau and H.-I. Marrou, Berlin, 1967). ILS = Dessau, H., Inscriptiones latinae selectae, 3 vols, Berlin, 1892–1916. IRHT = Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, Paris. ISTC = Incunabula Short Title Catalogue, . Itin. Ant. / Itin. Burd. = Cuntz, O., and G. Wirth (ed.), Itineraria Romana, vol. 1. Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense, Leipzig, 1929 (repr. Stuttgart, 1990). L&S = Lewis, C.T., and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary, rev. and enlarged, Oxford, 1979. Le Blant = Le Blant, E.-F. (ed.), Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures au VIIIe siècle, 2 vols, Paris, 1856–65. LSA = Last Statues of Antiquity, . See also Smith and WardPerkins (2016). MGH = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, . MMBL = Ker, N.R., and A.J. Piper, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, 5 vols, Oxford, 1969–2002. OGIS = Dittenberger, W., Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae: Supplementum Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1903–5 (repr. Hildesheim, 1970). OLD = Glare, A. P., et al., Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford, 1968–82 (2nd edn 2012). PCBE 4 = Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, vol. 4. See Pietri and Heijmans (2013). PECS = Stillwell, R. (ed.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, Princeton, 1976. Peut./Miller (1964) = Tabula Peutingeriana: Miller, K., Itineraria Romana: Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana, Rome, 1964. PL = Migne, J.-P. (1844–90) Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina, 221 vols, Paris. PLRE 1, 2 = Jones, A.H.M., J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris (eds), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 1 A.D. 260-395 (Cambridge, 1971); Martindale, J.R., (ed.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2 A.D. 395–527 (Cambridge, 1980). RAC = Klauser, T., et al. (eds), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Leipzig and Stuttgart, 1941–. RGA = Beck, H., et al. (eds), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 37 vols, Berlin, 1972–2008. R.H. = Chevalier, U., Repertorium hymnologicum: Catalogue des chants, hymnes, proses, séquences, tropes, en usage dans l’Église latine, 5 vols, Louvain and Paris, 1894–1919. RICG = Marrou, H.-I., et al. (eds), Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures à la Renaissance carolingienne, Paris, 1975–.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xvi

13/02/20 4:00 PM

ABBREVIATIONS

xvii

TLL = Vollmer, F., et al. (eds), Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig and Munich, 1900–, . Tobler–Lommatzsch = Tobler, A., rev. E. Lommatzsch, Altfranzösiches Wörterbuch, Berlin, 1925–. USTC = Universal Short Title Catalogue, . Villes (1992) = Villes et agglomérations urbaines antiques du Sud-Ouest de la Gaule: Histoire et archéologie, Bordeaux, 1992.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xvii

13/02/20 4:00 PM

MAP OF SIDONIUS’ GAUL C. 380–C. 480

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd xviii

13/02/20 4:00 PM

INTRODUCTION Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden

L

ET US START by picturing Sidonius the teenager in Arles, watching his father, the highest civilian official in their native Gaul, preside at a new year ceremony for the inauguration of a Roman consul. As he beheld the splendid distinctions that seemed to be his birthright, he was too junior to be seated – just as he would later imagine the lesser river gods around Jupiter’s throne.1 We glimpse him next at court a couple of years later, plying a relative with elaborate detail of the ruler’s appearance and daily routine – the natural place for a young Roman aristocrat, one might think, but for the fact that it was the court of the moustachioed Gothic chieftain (or should we say king?) who dominated the south of Roman Gaul.2 Then Sidonius in his mid-twenties in Rome, applauded by the senate and honoured with a bronze statue in the Forum of Trajan for his verse panegyric of the emperor Avitus. If his familial relationship with the honorand, his wife’s father, accelerated his own honour, there was no need to emphasise the fact at the time, and later every reason not to mention it.3 For at our next snapshot, Sidonius, still not yet thirty, is positioning himself as the suppliant representative of his native city of Lyon to a wholly new emperor.4 Sidonius in his thirties, the cultured and leisured family man, gives room-by-room tours of his own and his friends’ elaborate country houses in elaborate prose and verse. But the seemingly endless summer will not last forever.5 Sidonius back in Rome and back to winning plaudits and honours. This time he is made prefect of the city – thanks to his pen, he claims.6 And suddenly a quite different Sidonius: the great noble is transformed without explanation into the bishop of a small town, and the poet disclaims his art. Neither he nor anybody else portrays his own appointment at Clermont, but we can perhaps see it through the prism of his sermon nominating the new bishop of Bourges and metropolitan of his own province: the senatorial family man proposes the appointment of a candidate in his own image.7 Sidonius the leader of his community as the Goths become firmly hostile; then furious at the betrayal of Roman power in Gaul by his fellow bishops.8 Sidonius the exile, kept awake at night by squalling and drunk Gothic women, as he muses how to persuade the king who now represents the only government to restore him to his

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

Ep. 8.6.5, Carm. 7.40–4. Ep. 1.2. Carm. 8.7–8, Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 21–8. See van Waarden in this volume, ch. 1, sect. 4.1.3. Carm. 3, 4, 5 (esp. 574–600); see Carm. 13 and Ep. 1.11 for his ongoing connection to Majorian. Ep. 2.2, Carm. 22. Ep. 1.5, 1.9 (esp. 8), Carm. 1–2. Ep. 3.1 for the first mention of the episcopate; Ep. 7.5, 8, 9 for the election at Bourges. For Sidonius’ abandonment of poetry as bishop, see Ep. 9.12.2. Ep. 7.1, 6, 7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 1

13/02/20 4:00 PM

2

GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

property and his see.9 Sidonius putting the final touches to the letter collection that will be his monument, going through mouldering old copies and working through the winter, though the ink froze in his secretary’s pen.10

Life and Persona Sidonius Apollinaris (or to give the full name, Gaius Sollius Modestus Apollinaris Sidonius11) was born in Lyon c. 430 and died in Clermont c. 485:12 a lifespan that straddled the end of Roman power in Gaul, of which he is a vital eyewitness. As his impressive nomenclature suggests, he was of the highest nobility, the son, grandson, and great-grandson of prefects, who himself reached the prefecture before his surprising shift to the church. His career thus reflects and exemplifies a fundamental shift in the Roman elite as they sought to preserve their status amid constant change: from the cursus of offices that he was born to, to ecclesiastical leadership in a world without Roman officials, from villa to bishop’s palace. But most authors who lived through what is traditionally called the fall of Rome – the process whereby the western empire was replaced by kingdoms led by the chieftains of their former auxiliary forces – did not create such unforgettable vignettes or capture the experience as if in a snapshot. Sidonius does just that, and does so beguilingly and memorably. He is the author of surviving works in three separate Latin genres, which can all claim in their different ways to be characteristic of Late Antiquity: epic verse panegyric in the tradition of Claudian (fl. 395–404), occasional poetry for the Gallic aristocracy in the tradition above all of Statius (d. 95), and a literary letter collection in nine books for which his principal model is Pliny the Younger (c. 61/2–after 111). The persona projected by Sidonius, despite many differences from Pliny, resembles the latter in its display on the one hand of exquisite social poise and easy command, and on the other in the mastery of literary tradition that modern scholarship gives the Greek name paideia, which was an inseparable part of that poise. It is tempting to see Sidonius as emblematic of the end of Roman hegemony, a representative of his class and times. But wonderfully evocative figure though he is, and often our only source, there are grave problems with using his vivid picture of his own times as a straightforward way into understanding the end of Roman rule.

Complexity and Scholarship Nothing about Sidonius is straightforward. In the matter of style, his readers have been aware of that fact from the very start (Ruricius of Limoges sighed at the difficulty of understanding his old friend’s meaning in a letter to Sidonius’ son Apollinaris13). Sidonius takes the artifice and taste for superficial glitter that is characteristic of late Latin verse and art prose to a level that seems extreme, replacing familiar vocabulary with unfamiliar, and privileging the metaphorical over the literal and the detail over the panorama.14 His meaning is often coded in 9 10 11 12

13 14

Ep. 8.3, also 8.9, 9.3, 4.10. Ep. 9.16.2. See further van Waarden’s ch. 1, p. 13, n. 1, in this volume. Such are the conventional dates, but see Kelly’s ch. 3, sect. 5.1, in this volume for the possibility that Sidonius may have died considerably earlier. Ruric. Ep. 2.26.2. See in this volume, Wolff ’s ch. 12. The seminal study of the jewelled style is Roberts (1989).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 2

13/02/20 4:00 PM

INTRODUCTION

3

allusion to earlier literature. All this means that, for modern readers, he must be a candidate for hardest major prose author in Classical Latin. The genres in which he writes are also notably unstraightforward. Nobody ever expected verse panegyric to be an unbiased and unmediated account of events, of course, but it is perhaps only recently that scholars have appreciated the complexity of the letter as genre.15 The problems here are several, but perhaps the two most significant are, first, the complex dance of politesse that obscures exactly what has been happening and, second, whether the letters themselves or the carefully crafted letter collection should be seen as the primary unit. Can the historian safely treat the letters as a historian of a more recent age might treat, say, a dossier of letters preserved in an archive? Or might we be dealing with artefacts significantly changed or even composed at the time that the work was assembled?16 The biggest problem of all – and this is hardly a surprise – is that Sidonius’ works, and especially the letter collection, are blatantly aimed at creating a composite portrait of the artist and some of his contemporaries. But what is portrayed is highly selective, and omissions are not always obvious in a way that they might be in a linear narrative.17 It has sometimes been suggested that Sidonius in his nostalgia tried to conceal the extent to which the traditional luxury of the Roman aristocrat was drifting away, for example describing villa life in a way that sits awkwardly with what can be inferred about contemporary realities from archaeology, or calling somebody who may have been only a personal secretary a ‘bookseller’ (bybliopola, Ep. 2.8.3, 5.15.1–2), conjuring up a scale of economic activity that belonged to the past.18 Sidonius has been remembered above all because, living during the last gasps of the western Roman Empire and forced to cope with all the material and personal troubles that came with it, he countered with a defence of Roman elite culture, and because he did so in a prose style of unrivalled ornateness, imitated but never equalled by the next generations as the sort of classical education Sidonius had received became rarer in Gaul, and eventually disappeared. It was above all for that style that later readers in entirely different circumstances, from the medieval period onwards, either admired or loathed him. There were outbursts of popularity in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and in the early sixteenth century among the humanists of the Bolognese school. There has also been sustained local interest in the Auvergne and France more generally, resulting in superb exhibitions of scholarship like the commented editions by Savaron (1566–1622) and Sirmond (1559–1651).19 Landmarks in more recent scholarship include the first properly critical edition by Lütjohann (1887), and the texts with translation into English by Anderson (1936, 1965) and into French by Loyen (1960, 1970). Over the last half century, at the same time as interest in Late Antiquity in general has grown, Sidonius scholarship has also had a renaissance. It is in this period that the real complexity of his text has become clear. In the 1970s one might pick out the two foundational texts of modern literary studies of Sidonius: Franca Ela Consolino’s article ‘Codice retorico e manierismo stilistico nella poetica di Sidonio Apollinare’ (1974) and Isabella Gualandri’s book Furtiva lectio: Studi su Sidonio Apollinare 15

16 17 18 19 20

On letters as genre, see, e.g., Gibson (2012, 2013c) and Sogno et al. (2017a). See further in this volume Gibson’s ch. 11. See in this volume Kelly’s ch. 3 and Gibson’s ch. 11. For an impression, see in this volume van Waarden’s ch. 1. Harries (1994), 131–2, Santelia (2000). On receptions, see in this volume part VI, chs 20–4. Important literary studies since include Condorelli (2008), Hernández Lobato (2012a), and Onorato (2016a), though the real scholarly explosion has been in articles.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 3

13/02/20 4:00 PM

4

GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

(1979).20 Dating to the same decade are the first prosopographical articles on Sidonius’ Gaul by Ralph Mathisen, a vein which has remained rich to this day. Historical studies on late antique Gaul have also bloomed, with new interpretations of the development of the barbarian kingdoms.21 The most vital work on Sidonius by a historian, meanwhile, is the study by Jill Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome (1994). The crucial insight reached in this period, present both in ‘literary’ scholarship and in historical works such as that of Harries, concerns the allusive nature of Sidonius’ writings, which takes the dialogue of late antique literature with its classical past to an intensity not reached before. Sidonius’ works can only properly be understood if read in constant interaction with the whole of Roman literature. This insight is a vital prerequisite to using his work as a guide to the history and culture of his times, and, equally importantly, for enjoying his poetry and prose as the layered and rich texts they are.

The Present Work The impetus for the present work came from our conviction as editors that, after half a century of scholarly advances, and with more scholars than ever devoting their attention to Sidonius and his times, it was time to take a holistic view. Much excellent scholarship has covered discrete problems, and light has repeatedly been cast on individual passages, letters, or poems. Broader advances have been made in particular areas, especially literary and intertextual studies. As editors we felt it was time for a less fragmented view, for an approach that brought together several relevant disciplines rather than looking exclusively from a literary or historical angle. And of course, such an approach would also have the advantage of highlighting areas where scholarly attention had been lacking. The birth of the Sidonius project has been described above in the Acknowledgements, where we thankfully mentioned all those involved. The name of the ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’ project was first bestowed, and its comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach first explored, in the Wassenaar workshop in 2011 (resulting in the volume New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris). The project took shape in the larger conference at Edinburgh in 2014, where the two strands of the project were laid out: creating a Companion volume to assess the upshot of Sidonius studies so far and to point out new directions, and stimulating the publication of commentaries on the oeuvre as a whole (including four volumes belonging to the project itself). In 2011, commentaries were restricted to two and a half books of letters: (Köhler (1995) on Book 1, Amherdt (2001) on Book 4, and van Waarden (2010) on Book 7 letters 1–11) and some of the shorter poems (Ravenna (1990) on Carm. 14–15, Delhey (1993) on Carm. 22, and Santelia (2002a) on Carm. 24). While not all of the ambitious possibilities raised have been realised eight years on, another book and a half of the letters have been covered (Book 3 by Giannotti (2016) and the second half of Book 7 by van Waarden (2016a), the latter as part of the project), as well as more of the shorter poems: Santelia (2012) on Carm. 16 and Filosini (2014b) on Carm. 10–11. Moreover, at the time of writing a further three commentaries on Sidonius are nearing publication in association with the project, while others, happily, are being undertaken independently, including several doctoral theses.22 The

21

22

Drinkwater and Elton (1992), Goffart (1980, 2006), Kulikowski (2000), Pohl (2002), Halsall (2007), Delaplace (2015). For details, see the Sidonius website, .

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 4

13/02/20 4:00 PM

INTRODUCTION

5

proportion of Sidonius’ text that is covered by fundamental commentary is thus rapidly growing, and this will clearly be a considerable benefit. And although it is intended to stand by itself, we hope that this book – the first strand of ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’ – will be a useful supplement and resource for these forthcoming commentaries, saving them from duplication of material and offering solutions to many problems.23 In the present book, we aim to cover Sidonius from a broad range of disciplinary approaches. The book opens with part I on ‘Sidonius’ Life, the Characters in his Work, and its Dating’. Sorting out Sidonius’ life and the chronology of his letters and poems, and identifying his characters and tracing their story, have been of interest to readers since at least the seventeenth century. Since at least the late nineteenth century, indeed, chronological reconstruction and systematic prosopographical investigation have been the underpinning approaches to late Roman studies.24 The three chapters of part I look at three ways of pinning down the fundamentals: reconstructing Sidonius’ own life and career, placing his letters and poems chronologically within Sidonius’ life, and identifying and drawing connections between the individuals named within the works. These three approaches are of course mutually reinforcing, since Sidonius’ works are the main source for the life and the careers of his characters, which may sometimes be the key to dating his poems or letters. In the case of Sidonius, this approach faces the methodological challenge that he himself is the main source: by contrast, for example, attempts to date the letters of the fourth-century aristocrat Symmachus benefit from a great deal more external information about his addressees than exists for Sidonius. So while these approaches are essential, there will be limitations to the certainty that can be derived from them. The first chapter (‘Sidonius’ Biography in Photo Negative’) by Joop van Waarden considers the problems of trying to write a biography of a figure like Sidonius, who is both the principal source for his own life and notably selective about what he tells us of himself. Simply reading between the lines is dangerous without constantly assessing whether an omission is fortuitous or deliberate, and if the latter, what role is played by genre (politeness), literature (allusions), or any pragmatic reasons Sidonius may have had. This chapter concludes with a summary of the main periods and events of Sidonius’ life. In the next chapter (‘Sidonius’ People’), Ralph Mathisen offers a catalogue of all individuals from Sidonius’ own times and the preceding century and a half who are mentioned in the letters. It is hoped that this prosopography will be a useful tool for future researchers. In a wide-ranging introduction Mathisen reflects on what a prosopography can and cannot tell us, and takes some first steps in considering the possibilities of social network analysis. An appendix provides a list of geographical names in Sidonius’ works. In the third chapter (‘Dating the Works of Sidonius’), Gavin Kelly looks at a problem that has interested Sidonian scholars for centuries: establishing an overall and relative chronology for the poems and letters. In neither collection is date of composition the primary structuring factor (indeed the three panegyrics appear in reverse chronological order). Kelly is keen to push the possibilities of chronological reconstruction as far as they can go

23

24

Other important and influential recent conferences include those at Clermont-Ferrand in 2009 and 2010, which resulted in the wide-ranging proceedings Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire edited by Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014), Bari in 2017 (‘Prospettive sidoniane’), Basel in 2018 (‘Muse und Muße bei Sidonius Apollinaris’), and Messina in 2018 (‘Lo specchio del modello’). The fundamental works are Otto Seeck’s Regesten (1919), an analysis of the movements of emperors and the dating of laws, and the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire or PLRE (3 vols, 1971–90), which is a distant descendant of a plan originally conceived by Mommsen. J.R. Martindale’s second volume of PLRE (1980), covering the years 395 to 527 and thus relevant to Sidonius, is widely considered to be a great improvement on the first volume of 1971.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 5

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6

GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

(he suggests, for example, that the last two books of letters may in in fact have been completed by 21 August 479, the date given for Sidonius’ death in a newly discovered version of the epitaph). But Kelly is also at pains to emphasise the fundamental problem that date of composition and dramatic date need not be the same, especially in the letters, and that there may be no exact date that can be assigned. Part II of our work turns to Sidonius in the context of the history of his age (‘Sidonius in his Political, Social, and Religious Context’). Though he remains a vital source for the fifth century – and, as illustrated above, an attractively quotable one – it would be fair to say that Sidonius has a less prominent place in historical discussion than would have been the case, say, fifty or a hundred years ago: this is above all because the paradigm of the violent decline and fall of Roman power has been challenged by an argument for a more gradual and complex transformation. At the same time, scholarship has relied less on taking elite Roman sources at face value, especially in stereotypical accounts of the so-called barbarians; and instead relied on a nuanced and complex interpretation of a wider range of evidence including archaeology. If one takes as an example a recent general history, Guy Halsall’s Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, what is so surprising is how little Sidonius one sees. Whether one accepts the views of scholars like Halsall or values modified reassertions of the traditional view by the likes of Heather, such scepticism is healthy.25 Part II begins with Michael Kulikowski’s chapter 4 (‘Sidonius’ Political World’). which explores the proposition that Sidonius was born into a world that had ceased to exist by the time of his death. Presenting a broad survey of the political history of the fifth century in Gaul and the West, Kulikowski strives to understand Sidonius’ perspective and why it might not be representative. The next two chapters are a diptych by Sigrid Mratschek. In chapter 5 (‘Sidonius’ Social World’), she surveys the actors and processes of Gallic society that Sidonius experienced, covering topics such as aristocratic leisure culture, epistolographic networks, ritual and religion, the patron and his messengers, and the barbarians in contemporary perception. Then in chapter 6 (‘Creating Culture and Presenting the Self in Sidonius’), exploring Sidonius’ literary persona and its inextricable links with his social performance, Mratschek offers a fresh reading of the social functions and the coded aesthetic of Sidonius’ letterwriting. Mratschek sees Sidonius’ relationship with his principal model, Pliny the Younger, as central to his project of creating identity from the past and promoting cultural revival, while deploying a wealth of literary, persuasive, and aesthetic means to reach his goal. In chapter 7 (‘Sidonius and Religion’), Lisa Bailey corrects the tendency to take Sidonius’ role as a bishop less than seriously. The view of himself which Sidonius left to the world coalesced when he was a bishop, so he cannot be properly understood without understanding his episcopal role and his self-awareness of his clerical status. The sections of this chapter cover Sidonius as a bishop, his knowledge and use of Scripture, asceticism, and the language of sin. Part III turns to ‘Sidonius’ Work in its Literary Context’, and in its four chapters first provides a general survey of Sidonius’ engagement with earlier literature and then covers the three genres of his works. In chapter 8, ‘Sidonius’ Intertextuality’, Isabella Gualandri seeks to analyse systematically the multitude of information about Sidonius’ intertextual relationships now at our disposal, by distinguishing the various mechanisms of allusion and illustrating how they work, across prose and poetic oeuvres that are equally sophisticated in their allusion. In chapter 9 (‘Sidonius’ Panegyrics’), Annick Stoehr-Monjou places Sidonius’ panegyrics in the

25

Heather (2005), Halsall (2007); for selected further reading see n. 21 above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 6

13/02/20 4:00 PM

INTRODUCTION

7

wider context of their genre; she highlights their aim of building consensus, their exploitation of Claudian’s innovative combination of panegyric with epic to get across their political message, and the role of historical examples within them. In chapter 10 (‘Sidonius’ Shorter Poems’), Franca Ela Consolino examines Sidonius’ approach to literary genres within the Carmina minora (9–24) and the poems within the letters; she explores whether and to what extent his poetry proves to be innovative, both by creating new literary forms and by offering original solutions within the canonical genres. In the final chapter of this part (chapter 11, ‘Sidonius’ Correspondence’), Roy Gibson places Sidonius’ letters within the practice and theory of ancient letter-writing. In a second section, the author weighs the pros and cons of his innovative take on Sidonius’ correspondence, which he considers as an artistically crafted whole, influenced in its structure by the letter collections of Pliny and Symmachus.26 Part IV (‘Sidonius’ Language and Style’) looks at a variety of linguistic approaches to Sidonius’ writings. Linguistics specialists have so far paid relatively little attention to Sidonius’ work, as is generally the case with classicising literary works of the period: when late antique texts are approached by linguists, the choice tends to fall on sub-literary texts which show deviations from classical syntax and vocabulary.27 This is a lost opportunity, as Sidonius was seen even by the standards of late Latin art prose as carrying an exhibitionist and sometimes obscure style to extremes. Rodie Risselada’s chapter in New Approaches (2013) was the first of its sort, exploring the use of particles and the means of textual coherence. In chapter 12 (‘Sidonius’ Vocabulary, Syntax, and Style’), Étienne Wolff shows how stylistic exuberance and inventiveness combine with essentially classical syntax to create the highly mannered style for which Sidonius was notorious. Then in chapter 13 (‘“You” and “I” in Sidonius’ Correspondence’), Joop van Waarden looks at a striking linguistic feature of Sidonius’ work, the use of both singular and plural forms of the first and second persons of the verb. This is not (or not yet) the formal/informal distinction of the second person in Romance languages – for the same addressee can be addressed in multiple ways, and the writer is himself characterised alternately by singular and plural – but is explained rather in terms of a subjective, authorial choice to negotiate the relationship with the addressee, in terms of closeness and distance. In chapter 14, ‘Metrics in Sidonius’, Silvia Condorelli reviews Sidonius’ practice of metre, an area in which he was happy to display his technical skill and expertise across many metres. In chapter 15, ‘Prose Rhythm in Sidonius’, Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly treat the much less studied topic of Sidonius’ use of prose rhythm at clause endings. Sidonius, like most later Latin prose authors, uses a system between the classical metrical patterns and the accentual cursus of the Middle Ages, but with his own idiosyncrasies. This chapter explores where this idiosyncrasy might be found in an attempt to overcome the limitations of the more general system of Hall and Oberhelman. In part V of the work (‘The Manuscript Tradition and the History of Scholarship’) we turn to some areas that have not received systematic study. The critical edition by Lütjohann in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (1887) is a monument of critical scholarship based on wide study and collation of manuscripts, but was prepared for publication after its original author’s death by Friedrich Leo and is in important senses not complete. Nonetheless, it is the basis for the various twentieth-century texts of Sidonius, including the most commonly cited edition, Loyen’s Budé. Franz Dolveck’s assessment of the manuscripts (chapter 16, ‘The Manuscript Tradition of Sidonius’) is thus the first comprehensive attempt to study the manuscript 26 27

See Gibson (2011, 2013a, 2013b). A classic and a recent example respectively would be Löfstedt (1936) and Adams (2016).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 7

13/02/20 4:00 PM

8

GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

tradition since Lütjohann. Dolveck’s detailed reassessment of the relationship of the manuscripts will radically simplify the work of the next editor, by enabling many choices to be made on a stemmatic basis, and his catalogue of all complete manuscripts and a selection of partial ones, 116 items in all, will also prove an invaluable tool.28 The two following chapters, by Luciana Furbetta and Silvia Condorelli, provide the most detailed single account hitherto of the history of scholarship on Sidonius from the first printed edition to the present. Furbetta (chapter 17, ‘Sidonius Scholarship: Fifteenth to Nineteenth Centuries’) treats above all the history of editing and commentary, from their beginnings down to the end of the nineteenth century, giving valuable details on a number of important but unstudied contributions;29 meanwhile Condorelli (chapter 18, ‘Sidonius Scholarship: Twentieth to Twenty-First Centuries’) provides a comprehensive descriptive bibliography of scholarship since 1900, organised thematically.30 Part V is closed by chapter 19 on ‘Translating Sidonius’, by Roger Green, who is himself working on a translation of Sidonius for the Liverpool University Press’s Translated Texts for Historians series. Green presents the translators and translations in chronological order, while developing some suggestions on the ideal translation.31 The final part VI (‘Readers of Sidonius from Antiquity to the Present’) contains contributions to the history of the different receptions of Sidonius, from his contemporaries to the twenty-first century. Sidonius is one of the defining figures of Late Antiquity, but he was certainly not such a figure in his own times. Not that he didn’t have his admirers, his followers, his hagiographers even: one thinks of Ruricius of Limoges, Avitus of Vienne, Ennodius of Pavia, Gregory of Tours. Yet they are the exceptions to whom he is dear because of family ties, stylistic fascination, class interests, or local religious veneration. But for their mentions of him and, above all, his own sustained attempt at self-promotion, there is a deafening silence. Largely out of touch with the changing times, he was as pitiful a failure in politics as he paradoxically stands out as a grandiose monument of cultural conservatism, eclipsing all others in the hindsight of later ages. As distance grows, and mundane interests fade, in the completely different worlds of the Middle Ages and Modernity, his image comes to be cherished or neglected, according to whether subsequent eras were inclined to appropriate the period for their own purposes; these reactions have ranged from admiration of his style to identification with his resistance to the collapse of the Roman Empire. In chapter 20, ‘Sidonius’ Earliest Reception and Distribution’, Ralph Mathisen presents some case studies of the earliest circulation in Gaul after Sidonius’ death, with a central role for the intriguing codex Sangallensis 190. With her chapter 21, ‘Glossing Sidonius in the Middle Ages’, Tina Chronopoulos breaks new ground investigating the medieval glosses on Sidonius’ work, aiming to define the appeal he had to medieval readers (of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in particular) for providing useful letter templates, for being a superb stylist and verbal treasure trove, and for his evocative descriptions and historical knowledge. Marginal glosses in a range of manuscripts are an important instrument for gauging his influence. The glosses in London BL MS Royal 4 B. IV. are then discussed as a case study. Jesús

28

29

30

31

We aim to keep updated links to online digitised manuscripts at the Sidonius website, . We aim to keep updated links to online digitised versions of early editions at the Sidonius website, . Condorelli previously authored a narrower survey of Sidonian scholarship (2003a). An exhaustive bibliography, which we intend to keep updated, can be found on the Sidonius website, . An overview of translations is provided by the Sidonius website, .

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 8

13/02/20 4:00 PM

INTRODUCTION

9

Hernández Lobato, in chapter 22, ‘Sidonius in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance’, follows suit with a study that takes us from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, outlining the cultural and historical transformations which ultimately steered Sidonius outside the mainstream. The chapter ranges from Sidonius’ ‘Golden Age’ in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, via the emergence of humanism in the fourteenth, to the revival of late antique literature in the fifteenth. The battle among humanists for a literary standard was fought between the ‘classical’ Ciceronians on one side and the ‘late antique’ Bolognese school of Beroaldo and Pio on the other: the latter were defeated.32 In chapter 23, ‘Sidonius Reception: Sixteenth to Nineteenth Centuries’, Joop van Waarden enters little-trodden terrain, providing examples of Sidonius reception in early modern and modern France, Germany, and Great Britain as a contribution towards a better understanding of the altered place of Sidonius, and Late Antiquity in general, in the intellectual universe of Modernity. Filomena Giannotti continues in this vein in chapter 24, ‘Sidonius Reception: Late Nineteenth to Twenty-First Centuries’, in which she charts how a significant number of authors were drawn to rewrite and repurpose Sidonius’ life story and multifaceted personality from a literary perspective. Starting from late-nineteenthcentury decadentism, this chapter throws light on the interwar period, on Auvergnat regionalism, and on contemporary French and British novels, ending with popular fiction mourning ‘the final sparks of the Roman Empire’. In an Epilogue, we look back at the volume and discuss areas for development and for future study. Subjects for particular discussion are the editing of Sidonius; the potential of a comprehensive commentary for linguistic and philological study across the oeuvre; the impact of approaches to the text from other disciplines including art history and archaeology; and the benefits of widening the methodological horizon of Sidonius studies. Sidonius has left us an extraordinarily multifaceted self-portrait and a unique outlook on his times, as pleasurable as it is biased. The aim of the scholars who have collaborated on this book is to share both the enjoyment of his work and the need to interrogate it properly, and we hope that others will be helped and inspired in the tricky task of exploring Sidonius and his age.33

32 33

See previously Hernández Lobato (2014c). There is much that is debatable and likely to remain so about Sidonius and his age, and our contributors at times disagree with each other on both major and minor issues. As editors we have encouraged our authors to consider alternative viewpoints, and when disagreements remain, we have aimed to ensure that divergent interpretations are cross-referenced.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 9

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 10

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Part I Sidonius’ Life, the Characters in his Work, and its Dating

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 11

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 12

13/02/20 4:00 PM

1 SIDONIUS’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE Joop van Waarden

1 Introduction

A

NYONE WHO VENTUREs to write a biography of Sidonius Apollinaris must face the formidable hurdles of the lack of external contemporary sources and the bias in Sidonius’ own work. In addition to carefully weighing historical (im)probabilities, on the methodical level, a clear concept of memory – remembering and, above all, forgetting – may help explain the intricacies involved. ‘The main contemporary source for the life and times of C. Sollius Modestus Apollinaris Sidonius is the man himself’, says Jill Harries in the introduction to her perennially authoritative monograph Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome, warning readers that they ‘must be constantly aware of the interweaving of his literary work with his career’.1 Reading Sidonius is reading between and behind the lines, or not reading him. His self-fashioning, above all in the hyper-stylised letter collection, also has the inevitable result – in the words of that other great Sidonius biographer, C.E. Stevens, in his Sidonius Apollinaris and his Age – that ‘in this revision [of the letters] he smoothed out the contours of his life’.2 One should even go one further. As Patrizia Mascoli says in her study of the Apollinaris family, ‘Sidonius . . . lives and writes close to the perplexing border that separates – and unites – reality and invention.’3 Scarcely any external sources to go by and a literary output selected and fashioned by the author himself: as if that is not frustrating enough for any reconstruction of a life, tradition intervenes in a decisive way. For all Sidonius’ attempts at immortality and the late antique circulation of his work,4 that he survived, why, and how, was decided by his appreciative medieval and Renaissance readers.5 This survival came at the price of a one-sided interest in his style rather than in his personality or biography, including its Christian elements. The isolated and ambivalent category of style has haunted him ever since, as it was not embedded in any firm historical framework relevant to posterity.

I would like to thank Jeroen Wijnendaele for a critical reading of this chapter and a number of valuable suggestions. 1

2 3

4

5

Harries (1994) 1 and 19. As to Sidonius’ names, Modestus is only attested in subscriptions of his work but is likely to be authentic. Apollinaris is a family name, also held by his grandfather and his son, and Sidonius, the ‘diacritical’ form by which he was distinguished from other family members, must be a signum, one of those additional, often Greek-inspired names held by late Roman aristocrats. Sollius is also used like a signum, but its placement for that is unusual. The praenomen Gaius, like all praenomina, was very rare by this stage. See also van Waarden (2010) 4–5. Stevens (1933) ix. Mascoli (2010) 6: ‘Sidonio . . . vive e scrive nei pressi di quella difficile frontiera che separa – e unisce – realtà e invenzione.’ For this mixture of literary autobiography and history, see also Küppers (2005). Immortality: see the ‘statue set up for all time’ (statuam perennem) in his ‘autobiography’, Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 25; early circulation: see in this volume Mathisen, ch. 20. See in this volume Dolveck, ch. 16, Chronopoulos, ch. 21, Hernández Lobato, ch. 22, Furbetta, ch. 17.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 13

13/02/20 4:00 PM

14

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

As a result of half a century of modern research, however, there is now a better awareness of the social embedding of Sidonius’ output and, consequently, of performative aspects such as humour, irony, ambiguity, riddles, and silence – evoked, not least, by a dense web of allusions to the literary heritage. Complexity and secrecy are not only instruments of diplomatic prudence or biographical self-fashioning, but also, basically and paradoxically, the very way in which the leading members of society understand each other. Provided with a wealth of theoretical insights and interpretations of works of art, we are in fact back to where Franca Ela Consolino began in 1974, in her essay ‘Codice retorico e manierismo stilistico nella poetica di Sidonio Apollinare’: for the likes of Sidonius, in social intercourse among peers, form has become content.6 In these circumstances, writing biography in the traditional sense is a nearly impossible task. The latest attempt at this, Françoise Prévot’s long lemma ‘Sidonius’ in the Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, is a case in point.7 It is comprehensive, it is learned but it is largely a précis of Sidonius’ work without signalling this methodical impasse. Not having calculated the effects of the performative and manipulative character of Sidonius’ output, the biographer is at the mercy of the very object of her study. When nothing in Sidonius can be taken for granted and nothing is comfortably what it seems, it may be useful, for the sake of biography, to get back to basics and try to find some firm ground, be it ever so little, for anchoring the overwhelmingly subjective experience in a tenable historical reconstruction. Hence, instead of a conventional biographical chapter, I would like to provide: • • •

Sidonius’ biography in photo negative: what remains when we ignore his own work? Some notes towards reconstructing his biography with any confidence. A final consideration of remembering and forgetting, inspired by Alida Assmann’s work.

After this, there is a summary of the main facts (‘facts’ within the limits indicated) of Sidonius’ life, for reference’s sake.

2 What Is Known Through Sources Other Than Sidonius’ Own Work Very little remains of Sidonius when we strip him of all he tells us himself. The testimonies are:8 1

The text of the epitaph transmitted in the eleventh-century codex Matritensis (Madrid, BNE, 9448)9 and, with two substantial differences, in the recently published twelfth-century manuscript Paris, IRHT, Collection privée 347.10 (The precarious

6

Consolino (1974); see also van Waarden (2010) 61–6 on ‘art and reality’ and the unifying function of ‘formalised prose’. Prévot (2013b). Cf. Savaron (1599) xi–xvi (~ Sirmond (1652) ii–iii), Mommsen in Lütjohann (1887) xliv–xlvi. For its text, see CLE 1516, Le Blant 562, ILCV 1067, RICG 8,21 (= Prévot (1997b)) and Mommsen in Lütjohann (1887) xliv. These manuscripts are akin, but the Sidonius text in CP 347 sits higher up in the stemma than that of the Madrid codex (see, in Dolveck’s ch. 16 in this volume, Stemma in fig. 16.6, census #25 and #53, and sect. 6). This, however, may be irrelevant for the epitaph as either version of it, or both, may have been copied from elsewhere. The first description of CP 347 is by Furbetta (2014a).

7 8 9

10

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 14

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE

2 3

11

12

13

14

15 16

17 18

15

state of our knowledge is immediately evident as this text only survives because transmitted with Sidonius’ work!) Two fragments of the tombstone were identified in Clermont-Ferrand in 1991, which would seem to confirm the authenticity of Sidonius’ epitaph.11 In particular, the divergent death years with which the epitaphs end are puzzling. In the Madrid manuscript, it is Zenone imperatore, ‘under the reign of Zeno’, that is, anywhere between 474 and 491; in the Paris manuscript, it is Zenone consule, ‘in the consulate of Zeno’, that is, 479. As Sidonius was still alive c. 482, according to his own indications, the latter date seems impossible.12 This has again thrown doubt on the authenticity of the date, as well as on whether it is Sidonius’ epitaph and not somebody else’s.13 Claudianus Mamertus, a friend of Sidonius from Vienne, priest and philosopher, dedicates his treatise De statu animae (c. 469/70) to Sidonius.14 Ruricius of Limoges (bishop 485–c. 510), a younger relative of Sidonius,15 wrote three surviving letters to Sidonius, while quoting him in another and mentioning the copying and the loan of one of his books in yet another, to Sidonius’ son Apollinaris.16 This letter contains the notorious one-liner: ‘Reading this kindles my old affection for him, but the wording is so difficult that I’m not feeling particularly inspired.’17 The codex Sangallensis 190, dating to the early ninth century, the only manuscript to hand down Ruricius’ letters, also contains a list of twenty-three of Sidonius’ letters, equally distributed across Books 3–9, and a fragment of Ep. 2.1. This plausibly points to the preservation of a set of Sidonius’ correspondence in the Ruricius family archive.18 See Prévot (1993b, 1997a), Montzamir (2003), Condorelli (2013a) 277–9 (the last tends to think that it was written by Sidonius’ son Apollinaris); see also Furbetta (2015b). The epitaph’s authenticity had been doubted since the eighteenth century (as being a Carolingian forgery), including by modern scholars such as Stevens (1933) 166 n. 2, Anderson (1936) 1.xxxix n. 1, and Martindale (PLRE 2, 118): see Prévot (1993b) 223. The date was thought to derive from Gennadius’ date (see below). On the role that Sidonius may have played after the peace negotiations between Romans and Visigoths in 475 (on account of v. 7 leges barbarico dedit furori), see Prévot (1993b) 228. See Ep. 9.12.1–2 where he points out that he has not been writing poetry for twelve years since becoming bishop, i.e. since 469/71 (see below n. 74). See also, in this volume, Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 10.7; Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 5.1. See Montzamir (forthcoming), who toys with the supposition that it is not Sidonius’ epitaph, but that of his son Apollinaris. The address line of its dedicatory letter, Claud. Mam. Anim. praef. (Engelbrecht, CSEL 11, p. 18), Praefectorio patricio doctissimo et optimo viro Sollio Sidonio Claudianus, indicates a date between 468 (when Sidonius was appointed praefectus urbi, and, about this time (possibly in conjunction), promoted to the rank of patricius: PLRE 2, 117–18) and the start of Sidonius’ episcopate (469/71). A close friend of Sidonius, Claudianus Mamertus figures several times in Sidonius’ correspondence: Ep. 4.2 (by him to Sidonius, about De statu animae, recalling its dedication), 4.3 (Sidonius’ answer), 4.11 (on Claudianus’ death, containing his epitaph), 5.2 (Sidonius asking someone to return his copy of De statu animae). See Mathisen (1999a) 22. Surviving: Ruric. Ep. 1.8, 1.9 and 1.16; references in Ep. 1.4 and 2.26. (In Ep. 1.8.1 we even get a glimpse of Sidonius preaching: Predicantibus vobis saepius audisse me recolo nullatenus ab iniquitatibus nos posse purgari, nisi fuerimus crimina nostra conscientia conpungente confessi, ‘In your preaching, I remember that I often heard that we cannot be cleansed of our iniquities if we have not confessed our sins with a contrite conscience.’) See Mathisen, ch. 20, sect. 1 in this volume. In Sidonius’ correspondence, letters 4.16 (answering Ruric. Ep. 1.8), 5.15 (perhaps answering Ruric. Ep. 5.15), and 8.10 are addressed to Ruricius. Sidonius also composed the epithalamium for Ruricius and Iberia, Carm. 10–11. Ruric. Ep. 2.26 cuius lectio sicut mihi antiquum restaurat affectum, ita prae obscuritate dictorum non accendit ingenium. See in this volume Mathisen, ch. 20, sect. 3, and Dolveck, ch. 16, n. 20, with slightly diverging outcomes.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 15

13/02/20 4:00 PM

16 4

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Alcimus Avitus of Vienne (bishop c. 494–c. 518), again a younger relative of Sidonius,19 mentions him in letter 51 to Sidonius’ son Apollinaris, with whom he corresponded regularly:20 Therefore, if you have learnt from your father that ‘the man acting in this world is at less risk at war than among detractors’, I take an example from my [father-figure] Sidonius, whom I do not dare to call father, of how much a cleric can suffer.21

5

6

19 20 21

22 23

24

25

26 27

28

Notice the otherwise unknown quotation of Sidonius. Towards the end of this letter, Avitus stresses that ‘the outstanding work of our common Sidonius has redounded no less to my credit than to yours’.22 Elsewhere, he speaks about Apollinaris, ‘the son of my lord Sidonius’, who ‘among the joys of his father’s eloquence’ and ‘after the torrents of his father’s inspiration’, cannot but be disgusted at the mediocrity of contemporary literature.23 Gennadius, in his De viris illustribus (Marseille, late fifth-century), chapter 92, or rather the seventh-century interpolator of this chapter, devotes an entry to Sidonius Arvernorum episcopus. He is remembered for his prosimetric epistles,24 and as a champion of Catholicism amid barbarian pressures. He lived ‘at the time when Leo [r. 457–74] and Zeno [r. 474–91] were Roman emperors’.25 It is striking that he is not remembered for his panegyrics and occasional poetry, or for his religious output. Gregory of Tours (c. 538–94, bishop from 573), born in Clermont, likewise knew Sidonius’ letters, citing no fewer than six of them in his work.26 In his Decem libri historiarum,27 he focuses on Sidonius as bishop, on how he coped with famine and Euric’s ‘persecution of the Christians’, on his mastery of the liturgy, on the opposition which he met in his staff (suggesting financial and personal tensions in the diocese), and on his death. Gregory states that he published a volume of Sidonius’ missae, that is, liturgical prayers.28 As to Sidonius’ See Shanzer and Wood (2002) 5; Mathisen (1981a) 97–104 argues that he could have been a nephew. Ep. 24, 36, 51, 52. Tr. Shanzer and Wood (2002) 344–5: quoniam, si vos a patre vestro hoc didicistis ‘virum saeculo militantem minus inter arma quam inter obloquia periclitari’, exemplum a Sidonio meo, quem patrem vocare non audeo, quantum clericus perpeti possit, adsumo (Peiper, MGH 6/2, p. 80 l. 12). As to the otherwise lost Sidonius quotation (highlighted by Peiper), an editio auctior of his letters or the drafts of unpublished letters could have circulated in Sidonius’ inner circle after his death (Piacente (2001), Mascoli (2004b) 180; with more reservations, however, Shanzer and Wood (2002) 344 n. 10). Another possibility for the quotation, as Gavin Kelly pointed out to me, is that it comes from the lacuna in Book 1, letter 4, which seems to be the result not of a copying error but of the physical loss of one or more folia. For a further discussion of the variant patre vestro Archadio, instead of patre vestro hoc, see Shanzer and Wood (2002) 346–8. Non minus ad meam quam vestram gloriam pervenit communis Sollii opus illustre (Peiper, MGH 6/2, p. 80 l. 35). Alc. Avit. Ep. 43 (Peiper, MGH 6/2, p. 73 l. 5) domni Sidonii filio inter facundiae paternae delicias . . . post flumina fontium paternorum. Gennad. Vir. ill. 92 Herding (= 93 Richardson, TU 14/1, Leipzig, 1896, 94) scripsit ad diversos diverso metro vel prosa compositum epistularum insigne volumen, in quo quid in litteris posset ostendit, ‘he wrote an impressive collection of letters addressed to various people in various metres or prose, where he demonstrated his literary genius’. Ibid., ea tempestate, qua Leo et Zeno Romanis imperabant. Jeroen Wijnendaele has pointed out to me the intriguing fact that Sidonius is posthumously given added legitimacy by being dated under the eastern emperors Leo and Zeno, whereas all western successors of Valentinian III, except Anthemius, were not recognised as Augusti by Constantinople. See Mathisen, ch. 20, sect. 2, in this volume; see also Mascoli (2004b) 180–2. Hist. 2.21–5. At Hist. 6.7, Sidonius’ letter collection surfaces again, as Ferreolus of Uzès is said to have written libros aliquos epistolarum, quasi Sidonium secutus, ‘several books of letters, following Sidonius as it were’. See van Waarden (2010) 196–8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 16

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE

7

8

17

death date, his succession is said to have taken place ‘as the fear of the Franks already reverberated in these regions’, which could be taken as an allusion to the upcoming battle of Soissons in 486/7.29 The hagiographical tradition has left its traces in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum and, hence, in the Romanum, at 23 August, whereas the epitaph indicates 21 August (XII Kal. Sept.).30 A version of Florus’ martyrology adapted to the needs of the church of Clermont (after 840) lists Sidonius under 21 August.31 The ninth/tenth-century Libellus de ecclesiis Claromontanis documents Sidonius’ tomb in the church of St Saturninus. The church of Saint-Sidoine at Aydat (presumably ancient Avitacum where his estate was) preserves an inscription to the relics of two of the Innocents and Sidonius: hic sunt duo innocentes et s. Sidonius, which testifies rather to local piety than to historical reality.32 There is no vita. Finally there is the doubtful case of an intriguing couplet in the Anthologia Latina (nos 391 Bücheler, 386 SB), which is very similar to Carm. 5.153–4 and 13.17–8, all three concerning Majorian: it plausibly belongs to Sidonius’ circle if it is not by Sidonius himself as suggested by Pithou (1590) 466 (echoed by Sirmond (1652) 118).33

3 What We Know Existed But Has Been Lost In addition to what we have seen in the first section, we know – or can reasonably infer – that we lack: 1

both the statue which the 456 Panegyric on Avitus earned him, as he tells us himself, in the poets’ corner of Trajan’s Forum in Rome, and its inscription;34

29

Hist. 2.23 cum iam terror Francorum resonaret in his partibus. See Stevens (1933) 211-12. The entry at Martyrol. Hier. X Kal. Sept. (H. Quentin and H. Delehaye (eds), AA.SS. Nov. 2.2, Brussels, 1931, 461–2) reads: Arvernus sancti Sidonii episcopi (cf. H. Delehaye et al. (eds), Martyr. Rom. in AA.SS. Dec. Propyl., Brussels, 1940, 356, no. 13, who further list a martyrology in ms. Parisinus 9055). A misreading, at some point, of X instead of XII presumably explains the shift of the date. Codex Parisinus, BNF, Lat. 9085 (saec. X/XI) 40v: Et ipso die [i.e. XII Kal. Sept.] natale sancti Sidonii Arvernensis episcopi et confessoris, ; description . In another Paris manuscript, BNF, NAL 2356, a fifteenth-century missal from Clermont, the date is 23 August. Proof of actual veneration of Sidonius is given by the mass In festo S. Sidonii Apollinaris in a missal from the church of Notre-Dame at Orcival (seen by me in situ, 2009). Ch. 22 In ecclesia sancti Saturnini altare sancti Saturnini; ubi sanctus Amandinus et sanctus Sidonius requiescunt (W. Levison (ed.), MGH SRM 7, Berlin, 1925, 462). The inscription in Aydat is somehow related to the Provençal legends about Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and other disciples, including Sidonius the blind-born, who were believed to have come to Provence. The tradition is particularly strong in Saint-Maximin-en-Provence, where it was believed that, in the eighth century, a translation of relics to the Auvergne took place: see Levêque (1898) contra Morin (1897), who argues that it was the other way round; cf. Duchesne (1907) 321–59, debunking the Provençal legends. The couplet reads: Cervus, aper, coluber non cursu, dente, veneno / vitarunt ictus, Maioriane, tuos, ‘Stag, boar, snake did not by running, tooth, venom, manage to escape your blows, Majorian.’ For a discussion of its provenance, see Santelia (2005c) 71–2; see also Lütjohann (1887) xxii, Lausberg (1982) 473 n. 14, and, in this volume, Dolveck, ch. 16, n. 12. Could it be associated with the satire that circulated in Arles, for which Sidonius was decried, in Ep. 1.11? See Carm. 8.7–10; Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 25–8; listed in LSA as no. 2675 (= Smith and Ward-Perkins (2016) 367; see also ). Two other inscriptions of panegyrists from the Forum of Trajan have been preserved: Claudian’s (400 CE) is LSA 1355 (CIL 6.1710 = ILS 2949), and Merobaudes’ LSA 319 (435 CE, CIL 6.1724 + p. 4743–4).

30

31

32

33

34

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 17

13/02/20 4:00 PM

18 2

3 4 5

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

his religious output, which seems to have been amalgamated with the developing Gallican liturgy: – missae: probably a collection of so-called contestationes, prayers in Gallican liturgy in veneration of the saints (see above, section 2, point (6)) – possibly hymns in the manner of Prudentius as he seems to announce in Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 57–84; – possibly a Vita Anniani, bishop of Orléans, as suggested in Ep. 8.15; the letters which did not make it into the collection, but circulated after his death (see above, section 2, point (4)); more occasional poetry (see Ep. 2.8.2 ceteris epigrammatum meorum voluminibus, ‘the other books containing minor poetry by me’);35 a much debated translatio (Ep. 8.3.1) of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana: was it a ‘copy’ in Greek, a ‘transcription’ of an earlier Latin translation, or a ‘translation’ of his own? I think the only real fit with Sidonius’ known practice (the exchange of copies from one’s library among friends, his (limited) knowledge of Greek, and his (likewise limited) philosophical skills) is that this was a Latin copy; I would rule out the existence of an independent translation.36

There is no evidence of Sidonius in late antique chronicles and other historical works or in ecclesiastical documentation such as subscription lists to councils.37

4 What He Leaves Out Himself I would now present a range of cases (certainly not exhaustive) in which Sidonius leaves out information, either out of political prudence or in accordance with social and religious codes.

4.1 Political Prudence Political prudence is a major motive for reticence in Sidonius’ work,38 although it is sometimes difficult to determine how far a degree of reserve in the correspondence is also due to the 35

36

37 38

On the question whether Sidonius means another collection of poetry or an extension of the existing one, see Stevens (1933) 108 n. 1, Anderson (1936) 1.lxvi n. 2 (with enallage: ‘the books containing my other epigrams’), Schetter (1992) 351 n. 29, and, for the ensuing discussion, Consolino (2015) 81–83 and Consolino in this volume, ch. 10, p. 360 with n. 95; cf. Furbetta (2017c) 257 with n. 22. My feeling is that the poems were published in a rather loose, incremental way (a task incumbent on Sidonius’ ‘publishing secretary’, the mercennarius bybliopola of Ep. 2.8.2) so that the difference between putting out a new collection and adding to the existing one is blurred (thus also Hernández Lobato (2012a) 64, who then goes on to postulate an authorial final edition of the carmina as we have them). Compare, for instance, the way in which Alcimus Avitus enlarges his existing series of Poemata with a sixth book (duly signposting the fact in an introductory letter, Peiper, MGH 6/2, pp. 274–5). Sidonius’ own practice in Books 8 and 9 of the correspondence is a similar case in point. For Sidonius’ lost legacy in general, see Piacente (2001), Mascoli (2004a), Condorelli (2008) 193–4, van Waarden (2010) 8–10, van Waarden (2011a), and Santelia (2012) 50. See also below, sect. 4.2.2. Already so in Cicero: see Att. 2.19.5 posthac ad te aut, si perfidelem habebo cui dem, scribam plane omnia, aut, si obscure scribam, tu tamen intelleges. in iis epistulis me Laelium, te Furium faciam; cetera erunt ἐν αἰνιγμοῖς, ‘in future letters I shall either put everything down in plain terms, if I get hold of a thoroughly trustworthy messenger, or else, if I write obscurely, you will none the less understand. In such letters I shall call myself Laelius and you Furius. The rest shall be par énigmes.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 18

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE

19

polite vagueness inherent to the genre, not to speak of the need to gloss over inconvenient truths in the panegyrics.

4.1.1 Grandfather and Father Sidonius does not hesitate to eulogise his controversial grandfather Apollinaris.39 Partisan of Gallic interests, he had supported Constantine III, a usurper in Britain, Gaul, and Spain (r. 407–11), acting as his praefectus praetorio Galliarum in 408–9. The insurrection was crushed by Honorius’ forces, only to be followed by another coup by Constantine’s favourite among Gallic nobles, Jovinus (r. 411-13), which was backed by the Burgundians and the Auvergnat nobility. Hence, Apollinaris may well have served under Jovinus too.40 After Jovinus’ surrender, the then praetorian prefect of the Gauls, Dardanus, did not waste time by sending him on to Honorius, but dealt with him summarily himself.41 Sidonius vents his loathing for Dardanus, the quintessential criminal of the times, as he says (Ep. 5.9.1 omnia . . . crimina), but goes on to describe how the next generation of his family happily aligned with Honorius. He restores his grandfather’s tomb, which had fallen into disrepair, and provides it with an epitaph42 in which he praises Apollinaris for embracing Christianity (relatively late, and by Apollinaris’ time an obvious political asset) and being liber sub dominantibus tyrannis, ‘a free man under the tyranny of despots’. Even so, political prudence evidently forbids Sidonius to accuse the powers that be of murder, as Apollinaris was conceivably yet another victim of the purges after the overthrow of Jovinus.43 Sidonius is also proud of his father, who, he says, was tribunus et notarius under Honorius and praefectus praetorio Galliarum under Valentinian III (during the years 448–9).44 It may be due to accident that he never mentions his father by name.45 However, one could surmise that his father’s not being mentioned in any sources except Sidonius might somehow be accounted for by his role in the turbulent years around 450.46 For all Sidonius’ family pride, the Apollinares remained the least successful of the related branches of the Aviti and Apollinares.47 It might, again, be an act of political prudence for Sidonius not to neglect this vulnerability by not profiling his father in an all too personal way.

39

40

41

42 43

44

45

46

47

See Ep. 3.12 and 5.9; PLRE 2, 113 (Apollinaris 1). On the consequences of having ancestors siding with usurpers, see Roux (2014). This hypothesis is lent extra credibility by the plural tyrannis in Apollinaris’ epitaph (see immediately below). (I am grateful to Jeroen Wijnendaele for improving the argument in this paragraph.) Cons. Ital. s.a. 413 (Chronica minora, MGH AA 9, ed. Mommsen, p. 300), Chron. Gall. a. 452, 69 (ibid. p. 654), Hydatius 46 [55] (ed. Burgess 1993), Olympiodorus fr. 16 (ed. Blockley 1983). See Delaplace (2015) 152. Carm. 30 in Ep. 3.12.5. See Stein (2015) 199–204. See Harries (1994) 27–30, Mascoli (2002). Contra, Mathisen in his prosopography (ch. 2 of this volume) s.v. Apollinaris. Ep. 5.9.2. Sidonius also refers to his father at Carm. 9.277, Ep. 1.3.1 and 8.6.5. Cf. PLRE 2, 1220 (Anonymus 6), Mascoli (2003a). Mathisen (1981a) 100 has made a plausible case for his being named Alcimus; see also Mathisen in this volume, ch. 2, sect. 10.2. For one thing, notice Sidonius’ negative opinion of Aëtius (see Delaplace (2015) 208). Mascoli (2003a) 307 n. 31, however, ascribes the silence to the ominous shadow thrown by Sidonius’ grandfather. Harries (1994) 23–35, esp. 31 ‘[Sidonius] was more truly a member of his mother’s and wife’s family [i.e. the Aviti]’ and 32 ‘the question of whether the Apollinares were perhaps effectively a client house of the Aviti’. For the relevant genealogy, see Settipani (2007).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 19

13/02/20 4:00 PM

20

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

4.1.2 Silence About the World He Was Born In Although seeing the light of day in a privileged milieu, Sidonius, as C.E. Stevens appropriately reminds us: was a boy born at a time when the picture of Gaul presented in the melancholy poem of Orientius was fresh in all men’s minds. Only a few years before, ‘. . . All Gaul smoked in one funeral pyre.’ . . . When he was six . . . [bands of Bagaudae] roamed about the countryside. . . . He was twenty-two when the Huns swept in their all-destroying march across north Gaul.48 However, this period has left few traces in either Sidonius’ poetry or his correspondence – a fact as surprising as it is telling. With regard to the Huns, he substantially limits himself, in the Panegyric of Avitus, to exploiting their threat in order to highlight the prowess of his fatherin-law, and, in the correspondence, to brief praise of Ferreolus, the prefect of the Gauls, for having kept the Huns at bay.49 He himself prefers to appear untouched.

4.1.3 Silence on Avitus’ Reign The short-lived reign of Sidonius’ father-in-law Avitus followed the death of Petronius Maximus and the Vandal sack of Rome in 455, and was backed by the Visigoths and Gallo-Roman factions.50 Coming as an embarrassing check on Majorian’s aspirations to the throne, and resolutely stopped in October 456 by Majorian himself and the magister militum Ricimer, Avitus’ reign was not something to be publicly proud of afterwards and, indeed, a thorny issue in the process of coming to terms with the new emperor.51 Like other friends and family members, Sidonius must have held his first public office under Avitus, possibly as a tribunus et notarius, but he only alludes to it in the vaguest of terms.52 Not even once does he mention Avitus by name in the letters.53 His reticence plausibly veils his bitterness at what happened, yet the essence is elsewhere: after all, he kept the Panegyric on Avitus as part of his works. The simultaneous publication, in 469, of Book 1 of the correspondence and of the book of poetry, bringing together, on the one hand, the praise of Theoderic II (Ep. 1.2, also lionised at Carm. 23.70–1 as decus Getarum, / Romanae columen salusque gentis, ‘glorious ornament of the Goths, pillar and saviour of the Roman people’), the letters on the early career under Avitus (Ep. 1.3, 4, 6), and the panegyric itself, and, on the other, the presentation of the Arvandus affair (Ep. 1.7),

48 49

50 51

52

53

Stevens (1933) 2. Ep. 7.12.3 Attilam Rheni hostem, ‘Attila, the enemy on the Rhine’ (with Tonantius Ferreolus opposing him); Carm. 7.230–40 (Avitus in Aëtius’ retinue, ’surpassing the Huns in javelin-throwing’); 248–59 (a squad of Huns in Litorius’ army and the siege of Narbonne, 437–39 CE); 327–35 (the Huns blocked by Aëtius, 451–2 CE). The ethnographical description of the Huns in the Panegyric on Anthemius (Carm. 2.243–87) is wholly stereotypical. On the Vandal sack, see Roberto (2017). See Mathisen (1979b) (= Mathisen (1991a) 199–205) and Delaplace (2015) 215–20 (‘Avitus est d’abord un usurpateur gaulois’, ‘Avitus is first and foremost a Gallic usurper’). See Ep. 1.3, 4, 6, and 3.6; cf. Carm. 23.430–1 about Consentius overseeing the cura palatii at Avitus’ court. Cf. Loyen (1970) 2.221 n. 1, Mathisen (1979b) 170, PLRE 2, 117, Barnes (1983) 265 (pursuing ‘the deliberate omission of the emperor Avitus from Sidonius Apollinaris’ letters’), and Mathisen (2013a) 235–8 (arguing convincingly for linking letters 1.3, 4, and 6 to Sidonius’ first stay in Rome, 455–6). Among other things, there is nothing about his murder and burial in Brioude at the tomb of St Julien, whereas St Julien is Sidonius’ preferred saint and the burial probably sparked the lasting veneration of St Julien and the heyday of Brioude: see Berger (2016) vol. 1, ch. 2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 20

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE

21

constitute an eloquent – if silent – defence of the Visigothic solution to Gaul’s problems envisaged by both Avitus and Arvandus – and until then by Sidonius himself.54 Moreover, Ep. 2.13 on the demise of Petronius Maximus and the fickleness of supreme power personified by Damocles can be read as a meditation on Avitus’ tragic failure as well.

4.1.4 The Gallic Opposition to Majorian The ensuing years 456–8, until Majorian’s arrival in Gaul, are again shrouded in silence and vagueness. In the letters, Sidonius avoids mentioning the revolt of Lyon.55 In Carm. 13, he wisely limits himself to begging for a tax alleviation for the ruined city, while the Panegyric on Majorian turns the city’s defeat into a blessing in disguise and frames the entire poem as an ode to its victor.56 Sidonius is also imprecise about the coniuratio Marcell(ini)ana, seemingly the attempted usurpation of a Gallic aristocrat after Avitus’ fall: his own role in all this would seem to have been not negligible.57

4.1.5 Rifts in the Gallic Position Towards the Visigoths The Auvergnat faction to which Sidonius became close was sympathetic towards the Visigothic court. His father-in-law-to-be Avitus became intimate with Theoderic I (r. 418–51),58 and he himself could purportedly observe Theoderic II (r. 453–66/7), whom he describes as being as good a Roman as a barbarian can be.59 Encouraged by Theoderic, Avitus took on imperial power, thus sparking Sidonius’ career both as a court poet and as a holder of public office. This basic alignment caused Sidonius a lot of tensions over loyalty, which he usually masks when they concern the aristocratic factions,60 but, conversely, makes into one of the grand themes of his correspondence when it comes to Euric’s activism – anti-Burgundian and pro-Anthemius – which Sidonius portrays as anti-Roman and anti-Catholic expansionism.61 54

55

56

57

58 59

60

61

Thus Delaplace (2015) 245–6 (admittedly this is a reconstruction, plausible and attractive as it is; Harries (1994) 10 hints at a joint publication of Books 1 and 2 at some point). As to Sidonius’ ‘true feelings’ about Avitus, see also Mathisen (1979b) 168–70. For details on the publication of the Carmina minora, see Schetter (1992), Kelly in ch. 3 sect. 3, and n. 35 above. There are two anecdotes about dinner parties, however, both with the time stamp temporibus Augusti Maioriani: in Ep. 1.11, Sidonius is vindicated from writing satire by the emperor himself and permitted to write anything he fancies (sect. 15 me [= Majorian] de cetero numquam prohibiturum quin quae velis scribas); in 9.13, he improvises a poem to celebrate a new book by Majorian’s magister epistularum Petrus. I would suggest that the former be read as a tactful bow to Majorian’s respect for the law, the latter as an accolade for the relatively moderate way in which Petrus administered the pacification. Carm. 13.23–4 ut reddas patriam simulque vitam / Lugdunum exonerans suis ruinis, ‘to give me back my native town and my life too by raising Lyon from its ruins’; Carm. 5.583–5 populatibus, igni / etsi concidimus, veniens tamen omnia tecum / restituis, ‘although we have fallen to devastation, to fire, yet by your coming you restore all things along with yourself’; Majorian is addressed as victor in lines 9 and 576. Ep. 1.11.6. See Stevens (1933) 181–5, Mathisen (1979a) (= Mathisen (1991a) 167–97), Delaplace (2015) 221–2; also Max (1979), Czúth (1983). In this volume, see also Mathisen in ch. 2, sect. 9.8, nn. 157 and 175, and Kulikowski in ch. 4, sect. 3, n. 70. See Carm. 7.220–6. In prominent position in the correspondence, Ep. 1.2; see Sivan (1989a). If anything, it is a rhetorical and programmatic set piece as Sidonius does not need to tell the addressee of the letter, his brother-in-law and Avitus’ son Agricola, what Theoderic looked like. Notably in the Arvandus affair (see below), where he is opposed by family members and friends from the Provençal faction: see Delaplace (2015) 245. See Delaplace (2015) 213–56 (who sees Euric’s activism as the forced defence of his legitimist position, to keep the foedus, not as yet as the volte-face towards a post-Roman regnum) and Kulikowski in this volume, ch. 4, p. 210.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 21

13/02/20 4:00 PM

22

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

4.1.6 Aegidius One of the most notable absentees in Sidonius’ work is Majorian’s adviser Aegidius, whom Sidonius must have known at court and who, as magister utriusque militiae per Gallias from 456/7 to ?465, and victor of the battle of Orléans against the Visigoths c. 463, was an essential player. However, his pacification of Lyon for Majorian (April–May 458), which directly affected Sidonius,62 as well as his anti-Visigothic stance, precluded any (political) sympathy for him in Sidonius at that time.63

4.1.7 Arvandus and Seronatus A few years later, a pro-Visigothic stance could have the same effect. Euric’s new deal deeply divided the Gallic nobility into those willing to align with the evolving territorial realities, and a ‘conservative’ faction that clung to the status quo. What to the one was foresight was treason to the other. Though basically aligned with the Visigoths, Sidonius needs to compromise in his own interest, taking into account sympathies and antipathies within the aristocracy, and manipulates his reports accordingly. Arvandus, twice praefectus praetorio Galliarum 464–8, and Seronatus, vicarius of Aquitania or of the Seven Provinces from c. 469, both seeking rapprochement with Euric’s Visigoths, are treated differently.64 Whereas Seronatus is dismissed in a scorching verdict,65 Arvandus’ case is carefully kept vague. Impeached in Rome before the senatorial board of investigation by a Gallic delegation that consisted of three of Sidonius’ friends and relatives, while Sidonius himself, as praefectus urbi, was responsible for the judicial process, Arvandus represented a deeply embarrassing test of loyalty to his amicus. Sidonius shirked responsibility, disappeared from Rome (either fleeing or because his term had ended, he does not tell us), and remembered the case in an ambivalent letter.66

4.1.8 Blackout About Rome What Sidonius tells about himself in Rome is not entirely unsubstantial, but what we do not get to hear is more fundamental, or at least puzzling. In Ep. 1.5 and 1.9, he gives an account of his voyage to Rome in the autumn of 467 at the head of an Arvernian delegation to meet the new emperor Anthemius. Arriving in bad health amid the revelry for Ricimer’s marriage to Anthemius’ daughter (which he decries), he is cured of sickness thanks to the City’s patron saints Peter and Paul and seeks repose in hired lodgings. After this, he starts a quest to find the right patronus to introduce him to the emperor. This results in his pronouncing the 62

63

64

65

66

See Carm. 13. See Delaplace (2015) 223; however, although Aegidius is a highly probable candidate for this pacification, it could also have been Nepotianus (the praise in Carm. 5.553–4 of the magister militiae in question is anonymous: see PLRE 2, 778 (Nepotianus 2)). For Aegidius fighting the Visigoths, see PLRE 2, 12; cf. Hydatius 192 [197]. (I am grateful to Jeroen Wijnendaele for this caveat and for the addition.) See Harries (1994) 246–8, who points out ‘the depths of divisions within the nobilitas about whom to support’, Delaplace (2015) 225 and 233–8; PLRE 2, 11-13 (Aegidius). See Ep. 1.7 (Arvandus), and Ep. 2.1 and 5.13 (Seronatus). Cf. PLRE 2, 157–8 and 995–6 respectively. On the trial of Arvandus, recently Pietrini (2015) and de Luca (2017). Although it is worth keeping in mind that part of the effect is the literary topos of the bad guy (like Gnatho in Ep. 3.13), which potentially qualifies this seemingly wholesale dismissal. See Teitler (1992), Harries (1994) 159–66, Delaplace (2015) 241–8 (unlike Delaplace, I can’t see any reason to judge Arvandus and Seronatus differently, morally speaking, and to side with Sidonius’ opportunistic bias).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 22

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE

23

1 January panegyric on Anthemius’ consulate and his subsequent nomination as praefectus urbi. This well-known and often-studied story is a paramount example of the fact that Sidonius’ correspondence is literature in the first place, and partisan at that. The letters’ pervasive intertextuality makes them into a journey through a poetic rather than a geographical landscape, while the hard-core political and religious elements (Gallic factionalism dealing as best it could with Visigothic and Italian power-brokers; Rome as the religiously legitimated centre of the world versus sickening Ravenna) must be tentatively teased out.67 It is worth being sensitive as well to a certain (faux?) naivety with which Sidonius advertises his being an outsider in Rome, not provided a priori with a base of patronage. A similar naivety, one could say, is manifest in the candid confession of his fear that the food shortage be put down to his mismanagement (infortunium) as praefectus (Ep. 1.10). No fundamental analysis, however, of the causes of the problem and the abortive measures taken: the Vandals shutting down the corn supply and the catastrophe of Anthemius’ fleet.68 Thinking of the Vandals, one also wonders why there is nothing in the correspondence about the 455 sack of Rome, as Sidonius was there in 455–6 in Avitus’ retinue when the damage was fresh, or, for that matter, about the modest naval successes which Avitus’ government had against them in 456.69 Other questions then come to mind, about the bishops of Rome: was Leo not present at the Panegyric on Avitus? One would think so, so why don’t we get to see him? And where are bishop Hilary, who died in February 468, and bishop Simplicius, with whom Sidonius must have collaborated as praefectus urbi to counter the worst effects of Vandal obstruction? We don’t know. All we can say is that the gaps may be due either to specific political and ecclesiastical motives or to the author feeling that this was not important for his profiling in the edited correspondence. In either case, this obscuritas may have teased the contemporary reader as much as it does us.70

4.1.9 Episcopate Sidonius’ silence about his accession to the episcopate is notorious.71 In all probability, there is a direct connection with his discomfiture in the Arvandus affair, to the point that his Gallic opponents from Provence forced him to renounce his political career72 and isolated him in the 67

68

69

70 71

72

See Fo (1991), Eigler (1997), Piacente (2005), Soler (2005), Wolff (2012c, 2016), Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). Later on (Ep. 2.1.4), there is an allusion for the wise, from the Arvernian perspective, to the disastrous outcome of the expedition in 468 against Geiseric: si nullae a republica vires, nulla praesidia, si nullae . . . Anthemii principis opes, ‘if we can expect no forces from the state, no protection, if the emperor Anthemius has no resources’. In the Panegyric of Avitus there is, however, detail about the sack (Carm. 7.441–57). For Ricimer’s naval successes on behalf of Avitus, see Harries (1994) 79. For the contemporary Christian landscape in Rome, see Harries (1994) 156–8. It was unprecedented in Gaul for a prefect and patrician suddenly to abandon his high office and become a bishop in a relatively unimportant provincial town. Reading between the lines, the closest we come is the parallel with the freshman bishop Simplicius of Bourges, which Sidonius suggests in Ep. 7.5, 8, and 9 (Harries (1994) 16–17 and van Waarden (2010) 42). He never became consul. The ambition was clearly there as, at Ep. 5.16.4, he hopes his children may reach the rank of consul: ita ipsi [familiam] quam suscipiunt patriciam faciant consularem, ‘so they in their turn, starting with a patrician family, may make it a consular one’. Sidonius is well aware of the dangers of ambition, though: see Ep. 2.13 on the brilliant career and pitiable end of Petronius Maximus. Incidentally, as Gavin Kelly pointed out to me, Sidonius keeps rather quiet about his patriciate: we know this only from Ep. 5.16 and from Claudianus Mamertus’ dedication of De statu animae: Praefectorio patricio doctissimo et optimo viro Sollio Sidonio Claudianus (p. 18 Engelbrecht).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 23

13/02/20 4:00 PM

24

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Auvergne, which led to a radical reshuffling of his loyalties: dependent on Burgundian protection and ferociously anti-Visigothic.73 He has not left us any record either of his, reportedly disappointing, last years, vitiated by (Arian?) opposition within the clergy of Clermont.74 He never mentions his predecessor(s) as bishop (or, for that matter, his brand-new cathedral, built by Namatius, bishop 446–62).75 His silence about church meetings, rather than being a tactical move, suggests that he was not deeply involved in church-political networks, as can be inferred from his absence from the subscription list of so vital a council as that of Arles in the early 470s.76 We get the impression that he found himself outside the centre of power and had trouble influencing church affairs in his interest.77

4.2 Social and Religious Coding 4.2.1 Elitist Conventions In the introduction, I have already stressed the centrality of the performative, socially coded elements in Sidonius’ work. Much of modern literary research has centred on this problem, be it in the form of allusivity, humour, ambiguity, or other sorts of complexity. Similar elitist conventions pervade the work of other, comparable authors. Chris Whitton has likened Sidonius to Pliny the Younger in their ‘combination of artistry, wit and evasiveness’.78 Raphael Schwitter has shown that this is a fortiori the case in Late Antiquity, for authors such as Ausonius, Avitus, and Ennodius.79 It goes without saying that this hampers the task of the biographer as much as it helps in understanding contemporary mentality. As an example, I would like to point out two of my own ideas concerning the letters: fake addressees and the interplay of ‘you’ and ‘I’. In letter 7.14, the addressee, one ‘Philagrius’, is depersonalised to the point where any identification with historical persons (and attempts at this so far have been problematic) would seem to founder. No wonder, as the letter is essentially a treatise on man’s misery and his grandeur, culminating in a Christian intellectual elite. Hence, ‘Philagrius’ could be no more than a fictive figurehead with a significant name: ‘the man who loves staying in the country’, that is, the embodiment of aristocratic otium and secessus. I expect that more could be found in this way. So 73

74

75 76 77

78 79

This connection is suggested by Harries (1994) 16 and 172–9 (cf. van Waarden (2010) 7 n. 11) and taken one further by Delaplace (2015) 244 and 249, who is not only convinced that Gallic factionalism explains Sidonius’ career move, but would debunk the entire story of the subsequent Visigothic ‘conquest’ of the Auvergne. According to her (pp. 251–6), Euric remained a legitimist foederatus well up to the new treaty of amicitia in 475, simply taking position in the civil war in Italy between Anthemius and Ricimer and keeping at bay the Burgundians, whose military power was enhanced in this war and was obviously a menace to himself. In Sidonius’ account, political argumentation disappears behind a Christian rhetoric of sin and repentance (Delaplace (2015) 246–7). Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.23; cf. van Waarden (2010) 296–7. The last we have from Sidonius himself, in what is probably the last letter in the collection (Ep. 9.12), can be dated to 482, ‘tres olympiadas’, as he writes, after he renounced poetry (see above n. 12). His own lack of building activity (as far as we know) has been ascribed to his relative poverty (Harries (1994) 205). See van Waarden (2010) 27–30. Except for the nomination of new bishops (or the lack of it) – a phenomenon which he mentions repeatedly: his own choice of Simplicius in Bourges and Patiens installing a new bishop in Chalon-sur-Saône (Ep. 4.25), while extensively stressing Euric’s suppression of new bishops in the Auvergne (Ep. 7.6.7). See Whitton (2013) 36, cited by Sigrid Mratschek in this volume, ch. 6, p. 258. Schwitter (2015) passim, who takes all this together as ‘obscuritas’, which is played out ‘among learned playfulness, esoteric embellishment, and political necessity’ (‘zwischen gelehrtem Spiel, esoterischer Verklärung und politischer Notwendigkeit’; p. 126).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 24

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE

25

here is a factor to complicate but also refine the creation of a line-up of Sidonius’ correspondents and the dating of his letters.80 Another refinement of our understanding of Sidonius’ network and biography is a better insight into the function of ego/nos and tu/vos as indicators of the relationship between sender and addressee. Understanding the subtle ‘choreography’, so to say, which the manipulation of singular and plural creates on the stage of the letters helps stabilise our view of the complexity of social intercourse. Having first applied this analysis in my commentary on the letters of Book 7, I present an expanded and refined version in the present volume.81

4.2.2 Christianity We should not expect personal religious effusions or professional theology in Sidonius’ works that have come down to us. Both the letters and the occasional poetry are largely geared towards the mundane side of the life of an elite readership and adhere to its social codes. Any religion remains embedded. That said, Christianity nevertheless plays a distinctive role, in Sidonius’ defence of Christianitas as a corollary of Romanitas against the Arian Visigoths, in his professions of modesty where Christian humility functions within the framework of literary amicitia, and in the pervasive strain of asceticism that is particularly explicit in Book 7.82 In the Carmina, poem 16 praises his mentor, bishop Faustus, in frankly Christian wording, thereby creating a monument for this fourth abbot of Lérins and for the decisive contribution of asceticism and monasticism to the changing mentality in contemporary Gaul.83 Above, in section 3, point (2), I have argued that we should also bear in mind that Sidonius’ ‘professional’ religious output is lost to us so that our vision is by definition distorted.84

5 Final Consideration Saying that any author’s literary output is biased is a truism. Evaluating these biases for the purpose of writing a biography is a different matter. Sidonius’ biases are obvious enough and have often been signalled: elitist and aristocratic, anti-barbarian (in particular anti-Visigothic once a bishop), anti-Arian, culturally conservative (framing the present through the lens of Romanitas), he projects an ‘optimism against all odds’ in an oeuvre that functions as ‘writing to survive’.85 A consideration at a meta-level may be helpful here. In a recent monograph, Formen des Vergessens (2016), Aleida Assmann has studied the phenomenon of forgetting, reinforcing the claim for it to take pride of place in the ongoing debate on cultural memory. ‘Not remembering, but forgetting is the basic mode of human and social life’, she argues.86 She goes on to distinguish between passive (inevitable) and active forgetting. Assmann’s argument should help us tone down the tension of the quest for conscious, self-interested lacunae 80

81 82 83 84 85 86

See van Waarden (2016a) 105–21, esp. 118–19. On the consequences of this idea for dating the letters, see Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, sect. 4.2. See ch. 13. Christianitas: e.g. Ep. 7.6; humility: e.g. Ep. 6.1; asceticism: van Waarden (2016a) passim. See van Waarden (2016a) 6–8. See especially van Waarden (2011a). See van Waarden (2010) 8 and the book’s title. Assmann (2016) 30: ‘Nicht Erinnern, sondern Vergessen ist der Grundmodus menschlichen und gesellschaftlichen Lebens.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 25

13/02/20 4:00 PM

26

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

in Sidonius’ work: forgetting is a natural process in the first place. Not every bit of missing information was necessarily intended to be left out.87 Not every silence need be significant. The self-conscious complexity of Sidonius’ work, on the other hand, can be more readily understood if ordered along the lines of the various forms of active forgetting: neutral (in order to influence people or to comply with a taboo), negative (repression and complicity), and positive (to come to terms with the past). First, there is the picking and highlighting of pieces of information over others without which there is no argument, no way of profiling oneself and convincing others,88 developing into strategic silences when glossing over unwelcome information. Much of what Sidonius omits out of political prudence belongs to this category. Some of this might be malevolent (Assmann’s second group) to an extent that we cannot determine in the absence of the defence. Then there is the type of forgetting that is concerned with what is ‘done’ or ‘not done’: relegating unfashionable information to the archive of society’s subconscious by not naming it, preferring canonical thinking and wording instead. Obviously, everything that is to do with conformism, politeness, and not hurting someone’s feelings belongs here. However, what will probably need the most work by scholars, as it is readily forgotten, is Assmann’s positive third group: where and how do the constructive and the therapeutic come in? Coming to terms with the past and deciding to make a new start in their political and personal lives was a necessity for Sidonius and his contemporaries. Valuing Sidonius’ work for its emotional component as well is usually avoided but might be very rewarding in the end.89

6 Summary of Known Facts The main facts of Sidonius’ life are as follows:90 5 November 429/3291

87

88

89 90 91

Born in Lyon. The day is given in Carm. 20.1–2 Natalis noster Nonas instare Novembres / admonet, ‘my Genius reminds me that the 5th of November is at hand.’ The year can be approximated from Ep. 8.6.5 adulescens atque adhuc nuper ex puero, ‘a young man, having scarcely left boyhood behind me’, that is, in 449 he was between 17 and 20. His father, Alcimus(?), was to become praefectus praetorio Galliarum in 448/9, as his grandfather Apollinaris (who had been the first of his line to embrace Christianity) had been in 408/9. His mother was from the family of the Aviti. Educated by the grammaticus in Lyon, by the rhetor probably in Arles where his father resided. He attended lectures together with Claudianus Mamertus, and forged connections with important families in Narbonne, among others through his friendship with Felix.

Also the letters do not mainly date from some of the times which modern historians would like to have described for them, as Gavin Kelly soberly suggested to me. Assmann (2016) 43 n. 26 cites Francis Bacon in his 1605 Advancement of Learning: ‘When you carry the light in one corner, you darken the rest’ (Bacon (1974) 33). For a modest step in this direction, see my paper on ageing in Sidonius’ correspondence (van Waarden (2018a)). This is an update of the overview provided in van Waarden (2010) 5–7. See Stevens (1933) 1 n. 3. On account of the word nuper, Stevens decides on ‘432 (?)’, Loyen (1960) 1.vii: ‘vers 432’, Harries (1994) 36: ‘431 or 432’, PLRE 2: 115: ‘c. a. 430’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 26

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ BIOGRAPHY IN PHOTO NEGATIVE

452–5

1 January 456

Late 458

After 461

Autumn 467

1 January 468

Late 468/ early 469

469

92

93 94

27

Returned to Lyon. Married Papianilla, daughter of Eparchius Avitus from the Auvergne (praefectus praetorio Galliatum 439); she was probably a distant relative on his mother’s side. The dowry included the estate of Avitacum on lake Aydat. Four children are known: a son Apollinaris, and the daughters Severiana and Alcima (twins?), and Roscia.92 In Rome. Recited the panegyric (Carm. 7) which he had been commissioned to compose to celebrate the consulate of his father-in-law, who, launched by the Gallo-Roman nobility and with Visigothic support, had become emperor the year before. Rewarded with a statue in the ‘poets’ corner’ of the Forum of Trajan. Possibly tribunus et notarius or some other entry-level office. Avitus was forced to flee soon after, was defeated on 17 October by Ricimer near Piacenza, and was either killed immediately or for a short while became bishop of this town, died, and was buried in the family shrine of St Julian in Brioude (near Clermont). Panegyric (Carm. 5) at the reception of Majorian and his troops in Lyon. Since 28 December 457 Majorian had been joint emperor with Leo. Gaul had opposed his candidature and favoured another candidate (the so-called coniuratio Marcell(ini)ana; Sidonius carefully avoids the impression that he was involved, too), but Majorian had reasserted his power. Finally in 461 Sidonius became comes. In that year Majorian was murdered. Prolonged retirement at Avitacum. Devoted himself to literary activity together with collegia of friends in Bordeaux and Narbonne. Deepening of his Christian conviction under the direction of his friends Faustus, bishop of Riez, and Claudianus Mamertus. Baptised by Faustus.93 To Rome at the head of an Arvernian delegation to welcome Anthemius (the new emperor since that spring) and to draw attention to the difficulties the region was in because of the activist policy of the Visigothic king Euric. Panegyric (Carm. 2) in Rome on the occasion of Anthemius’ consulate. Subsequent promotion to the rank of patricius and nominated praefectus urbi. For political reasons not present at the trial in Rome of the former praefectus praetorio Galliarum, his friend Arvandus, at which he should have presided. Arvandus had been accused of high treason by Provençal circles close to Sidonius. Plausibly publishes the three panegyrics, occasional poetry, and Book 1 of the correspondence.94

See Stevens (1933) 84 n. 8. Anderson (1936) 1.254 n. 1 ad Carm. 17.3 argues against the belief that Sidonius’ children included twins. See Harries (1994) 105–15. For the remains of the baptistery in Riez, see . For a fresh in-depth discussion of this problem, see Kelly in this volume, ch. 3.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 27

13/02/20 4:00 PM

28

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

469/71 470/1 471–5

Mid-475

475–6 476/7

477/8 C. 480 C. 482 486 (?)

Appointed bishop in Clermont. The consecration possibly brought on a severe illness (Ep. 5.3.3–4).95 Successfully organised the appointment of a metropolitan bishop in Bourges (Ep. 7.5, 7.8, 7.9). Changing sides from Visigoths to Burgundians, he fuelled the resistance in Clermont. In 473, introduction of the ceremony of the Rogationes (Ep. 7.1). Surrender of Clermont to Euric on the basis of a treaty which had been initiated by the new emperor Iulius Nepos (since June 474). The Auvergne was exchanged for Provence. However, Provence was also overrun in the next year. Exiled to Livia, near Carcassonne. Pardoned, probably thanks to his friend Leo of Narbonne, who at the time was one of the king’s ministers, and after having paid his poetical respects to Euric (Ep. 8.3).96 Reinstated as bishop in a precarious balance of power with the Visigothic comes civitatis. Faced internal difficulties among his clergy. Publication of correspondence Books 2–7 (or 1–7), including the speech in Bourges (in Ep. 7.9). Publication of correspondence Book 8. Publication of correspondence Book 9.97 Death: Greg. Tur. Hist. 23 cum iam terror Francorum resonaret in his partibus (battle of Soissons 486/7). The last letter (Ep. 9.12) can perhaps be dated to 482. His successor Aprunculus died in 490.98 Fragments of his tombstone were identified in 1991.99

7 Further Reading Two studies of Sidonius’ life and times are fundamental: C.E. Stevens (1933) and Jill Harries (1994). Françoise Prévot (2013b) provides a detailed overview of what is known of and can be inferred about his life, in the tradition of J.R. Martindale’s PLRE.100 Prosopography is particularly well served by numerous articles by Ralph Mathisen, who also gives the broader perspective in, for example, Mathisen (1993, 2003a). Patrizia Mascoli’s contributions, ranging from 2000 to 2017, are useful as short takes on Sidonius’ family members and friends. The discussion of Sidonius’ epitaph, begun by Prévot (1993b), has been rekindled thanks to the publication of new manuscript material in Furbetta (2015b). 95

96 97

98 99 100

As to the year, Stevens (1933) xiii says: ‘Autumn 469 (?)’, Loyen (1960) 1.xxii (with n. 2): ‘471’ (arguably after having been cleric for some months: cf. esp. Ep. 9.3.4 where he describes himself as a deacon, levita), Harries (1994) 169: ‘probably not more than a year after his return [from Rome, AD 469]’. As to the illness, see Harries (ibid.); Mathisen (1996b), however, doubts the connection with the episcopate. On the ambivalence of this poem, see Fo (2002). For the dates of dissemination of Sidonius’ letter collection, see recently Mathisen (2013a) 231–2. See also Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, sects 4–5. But see in this volume Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 5.1, weighing the possibility of a much earlier death date, 21 August 479. See the discussion above, sect. 2 (1). See lemma PLRE 2, 115–18 (Apollinaris 6). For other overviews, see Alfred Klotz, ‘Sidonius’ in RE II A2 (1923), cols 2230–38; Heinzelmann (1982) 556 ‘Apollinaris 3’; Kaufmann (1995) 41–78.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 28

13/02/20 4:00 PM

2 SIDONIUS’ PEOPLE Ralph W. Mathisen

1 Introduction

I

fifth century, in his ‘Sermon on the saintly martyr Vincent’, bishop Faustus of Riez (c. 460-90 CE) gave his opinion on the value of being named in a saint’s life: ‘What present-day realm, what transmarine province, however far the Roman Empire or the Christian religion extends, does not rejoice to celebrate the birth of Vincentius? Who today, however, has ever heard even the name of [the praeses] Datianus, unless he has read the passion of Vincent?’1 As far as Faustus was concerned, Datianus’ appearance in a saint’s life would be his only chance for remembrance.2 The same can be said for nearly all of the people who appear in the works of Sidonius Apollinaris. Late antique Gaul was a busy place.3 A lot was happening: the rise of the Christian church as the most significant social and cultural institution; the creation of barbarian kingdoms coupled with the final precipitous decline and end of Roman authority; and a social world that was very much in flux, as previously unprivileged social groups gained greater opportunities and means of self-expression.4 The 24 poems, and in particular the 147 letters, of Sidonius offer an unparalleled window on the world of late antique Gaul, and provide readers with a wealth of material about the people who populated it.5 Sidonius was well positioned to gather this kind of information. He belonged to the most blue-blooded family of late Roman Gaul and moved in the most exalted circles of the senatorial aristocracy.6 A native of Lyon, his father and grandfather had held the office of praetorian prefect of Gaul, the highest imperial office in Gaul. He himself was married to Papianilla, the daughter of Eparchius Avitus, a native of Clermont who, with the support of the Visigoths of Aquitania, became emperor in 455 only to fall victim to a conspiracy of two Italian generals, Majorian and Ricimer, the next year.7 Sidonius’ most noteworthy early recollections are the installation of the consul Astyrius in Arles in 449 and his trip to Rome in 455 with N THE LATE

1

2

3 4 5

6 7

Sermo de sancto Vincentio martyre (CSEL 21.273-6): Quae hodie regio, quae provincia transmarina, quousque vel Romanorum imperium vel Christianum nomen extenditur, natalem non gaudet celebrare Vincentii; quis autem hodie Datiani vel nomen audisset, nisi Vincentii passione legisset? And it would have been a small matter to Faustus that in modern prosopographies the name of the praeses Datianus might be ‘spattered by asterisks and gasp marks’ to indicate doubt about his existence: Birley (1972) 185. See PLRE 1, 244 (‘*!P. Datianus!*’). See, inter alios, Mathisen (1989, 1993). See Mathisen (2003a). On Sidonius’ social world, see also, in this volume, Mratschek, ch. 5. The number of 147 letters is conventional; on the question of whether there may in fact be 148 letters preserved, see ch. 3, p. 167, n. 11. For Sidonius, see PLRE 2, 115–18. See Mathisen (1985, 1991c).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 29

13/02/20 4:00 PM

30

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Avitus. After holding the offices of tribunus et notarius under Avitus and being raised to the rank of comes under, it seems, Majorian, Sidonius’ political career peaked in 468 when, in the course of an embassy to Rome, he was made prefect of Rome by the emperor Anthemius and granted the pre-eminent rank of patrician. In 469, soon after his return to Gaul, Sidonius abruptly made an increasingly common change in profession: he became bishop of Clermont, the home town of his wife’s family. In doing so, he behaved like many Gallic aristocrats of this period, who, as the Roman Empire collapsed, sought to advance their careers and expand their local influence in the church.8 After leading the Arvernian resistance against Visigothic expansion in the early 470s Sidonius was disappointed when the emperor Julius Nepos ceded the city to the Goths in 475. After a brief period of exile at Liviana, the second stop on the road from Narbonne to Toulouse,9 Sidonius returned and continued, in rather reduced circumstances, to serve as bishop until his death, perhaps in the mid-480s.10 In the course of his career Sidonius came into contact with people from all levels of society, ranging from emperors, consuls, and prefects, to cooks, slaves, and ne’er-do-wells. He enjoyed recounting these encounters in his poems and letters and thus provides us with a survey of the kinds of people who lived in late antique Gaul.11

2 Understanding Sidonius’ People: Prosopography The people who populated Sidonius’ world can be analysed and understood using several different methodologies. First, they can be discussed, and usually have been discussed, by citing representative passages in a qualitative and impressionistic manner in order to construct a picture of aristocratic society.12 They also can be analysed in a quantitative manner by utilising prosopography, a methodological approach that studies how people interact in groups by constructing datasets of persons who have shared characteristics – such as all the people who appear in the works of Sidonius. In the same way, prosopographical databases can be analysed using statistical methods.13 And finally, the relationships among the people in Sidonius’ world can be depicted visually by using social network analysis. These methodologies permit one to approach Sidonius’ social world from several different directions. One might begin with a discussion of the most commonly used quantitative method, prosopography, which relates to the study of groups of people and how they interact with and relate to each other.14 As defined by Lawrence Stone, Prosopography is the investigation of the common background characteristics of a group of actors in history by means of a collective study of their lives. The method employed is to establish a universe to be studied, and then to ask a set of uniform questions – about birth and death, marriage and family, social origins and inherited economic position, place of residence, education, amount and source of personal wealth, occupation, religion, experience of office and so on. The various types of information about the individuals in the

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

See Mathisen (1993). Sidon. Ep. 8.3.1 moenium Livianorum; see Mathisen (2000) map 25. See below, sect. 10.7. For Sidonius’ biography ‘in photo negative’, see also in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1. E.g. Stevens (1933), Harries (1994). E.g. Jarausch and Hardy (1991), Barnes (1995). E.g. Carney (1973), Graham (1974), Maurin (1982), Barnish (1994), Eck (2002, 2010), Smythe (2008).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 30

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

31

universe are then juxtaposed and combined, and are examined for significant variables. They are tested both for internal correlations and for correlations with other forms of behaviour or action.15 Prosopography subsumes elements of onomastics, genealogy, demography, and, in particular, biography.16 It has similarities to ‘biography’, insofar as both are concerned with the personal histories and careers of individual people; but whereas biography focuses on single individuals, prosopography is more concerned with looking at career patterns among groups of people and at how people relate to each other collectively. In this sense, prosopography builds on biography, for to do prosopography effectively, one must make use of the building blocks provided by biography: a person’s family background, career trajectory, and, in particular, interactions with other individuals. Whereas a ‘biography’ as a discrete literary work will be about a single person, a ‘prosopography’ as a discrete literary work, such as the three volumes of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire – affectionately known as PLRE – will include thumbnail biographical sketches of thousands of individuals.17 It is up to the user to arrange this information to construct the career patterns of particular persons and the connections among smaller or larger numbers of persons, ranging from small groups, or factions, or coteries, to the nature of society as a whole. Prosopographical information is exceptionally well suited to computer analysis.18 All the people who have lived during any period of history have associated with them, potentially at least, recurrent categories of information, such as name, sex, religion, marital status, social and economic class, date of birth and death, offices held, and so on.19 If such information is converted to computer format, it permits the creation of groups of individuals who meet any number of criteria. In the early days of computer technology, one was limited to 80-column cards and had to be very imaginative when it came to reducing data to computer format.20 Not until the 1980s and the introduction of PCs and programmable database software did it become possible to create serious multi-purpose computerised prosopographical databases.21 Databases with any number of data fields (categories) of any length dealing with any conceivable type of information could be created. This information was stored in the computer in tabular form and the database software could be programmed to analyse the data in any number of ways, such as to investigate changes over time in the respective numbers of Romans and barbarians in the population.22

3 Database Description So how can this help in the study of Sidonius’ people? One result of this study has been the construction of a simple tabular database of 518 entries drawn from Sidonius’ poems and 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22

Stone (1971); also Werner (1997). ‘Prosopography has been defined as an independent science of social history embracing genealogy, onomastics, and demography’: Katharine Keats-Rohan, ‘Prosopography: Definition’, (last updated 2 September 2004). Mathisen (2003c). Mathisen (2007). As Lipkin and Lipkin-Sacks (1978). E.g. Mathisen (1975). Mathisen (1988b, 1988c). Mathisen (1996a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 31

13/02/20 4:00 PM

32

RALPH W . MATHISEN

letters (368 drawn only from the Epistulae, 92 only from the Carmina, and 58 appearing in both) that quantifies the information provided by Sidonius on the people who inhabited his world.23 These entries comprise 445 individual persons, 308 named and 137 anonymous, and 73 groups of unnamed individuals. Each entry includes information, where available, on name, gender, geographical region of origin or activity (for example, ‘Gaul’, ‘Italy’), local place of activity in Sidonius (for example, ‘Lyon’, ‘Auvergne’), date of activity in Sidonius, ethnicity (for example, ‘Roman’, ‘Visigoth’), religious affiliation (for example, ‘Nicene Christian’, ‘Homoian Christian’), social status (for example, ‘imperial’, ‘senatorial’, ‘plebeius’), Roman rank (for example, ‘patricius’; ‘v.i.’, ‘vir honestissimus’), office (for example, ‘consul’, ‘magister militum’), type of activity (for example, ‘rhetor’, ‘litterateur’, ‘letter carrier’), and reference in the works of Sidonius. Where relevant, bibliographical citations are included, and each entry also has a brief ‘Comments’ field summarising the role of this individual in the works of Sidonius. Some of the quantified information, such as that involving offices, is quite specific, but other data are rather fuzzy in nature, and are based on reasoned inferences. Thus, ethnicity is usually determined based on nomenclature and social context: persons with Roman-looking names and active in Roman environments are assigned Roman ethnicity, and, also taking geography and context into account, those with barbarian-appearing names are identified as ‘Visigoths’, ‘Franks’, ‘Huns’, and so on. Likewise, persons considered to be ‘Romans’, without contradicting evidence, as of the mid-fourth century are considered to be ‘Nicene’, Visigoths are ‘Homoian’, Franks and Huns are ‘pagan’, and so on. Whereas these assumptions begin to fall apart in the sixth century, they are fairly reliable for the fifth, that is to say, there are not a lot of exceptions. The result is that the statistics for these two categories – ‘ethnicity’ and ‘religion’ – are very similar. The database can be sorted on any of the fields, allowing calculations to be made regarding how many entries or individuals meet any number of criteria. Thus one could sort on religion and name to return the 11 named Homoians (Chilperic to Vallia), followed by the 2 named Jews (Gozolas and Promotus), followed by the great mass of Nicene Romans, in turn followed by the 8 barbarian pagans (including Attila, Chloio, Hormidac, and Tuldila). Or if the database is sorted according to references in Sidonius’ works, a user could page through individuals in the order that they appear in the Carmina or Epistulae. One also could sort by modern references to follow individuals page by page through PLRE or PCBE.

4 Dating Parameters The persons in the database represent the social, familial, literary, and historical world of Sidonius writ large. The earliest precisely datable entries come from 326, when the emperor Constantine brought about the deaths of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta, provoking a satyrical epigram from the consul Ablabius.24 Other fourth-century persons include the writers Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea, not to mention such as Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, and Ambrose of Milan. A few fourth-century Gauls with direct connections to Sidonius’ family and social group are included, such as Fl. Jovinus, consul in 367, Fl. Afranius Syagrius, consul 23

24

Given that the poems generally served the same function as the letters, that is, were almost always addressed to an individual or individuals and meant to be circulated, they are treated in the database in the same manner as the letters with respect to data entry. Sidon. Ep. 5.8.2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 32

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

33

in 382, and unnamed ancestors of Eparchius Avitus and Sidonius himself. Not to mention the martyrs Ferreolus and Julianus, bishop Justus of Lyon, and writers who formed an important part of Sidonius’ literary pantheon, such as Hilary of Poitiers, Censorius Atticus Agricius, Attius Tiro Delphidius, and Latinius Pacatus Drepanius. These few fourth-century personages were certainly a part of Sidonius’ larger social and literary world. Indeed, the early fourth century seems to have marked a demarcation in Sidonius’ historical memory, the beginning of his world of historical reality. Hardly anyone from the third century is even mentioned, only Philostratus (d. c. 250)25 and Serenus Sammonicus, executed in 212.26 From around the same time comes Julius Titianus, who wrote in the names of illustrious women.27 Even from the late second century, one encounters only Apuleius and Fronto, a purported ancestor of Sidonius’ friend Leo.28 Most of Sidonius’ literary exemplars – such as his epistolographic model Pliny, and Tacitus, the forebear of his friend Polemius – date from an earlier period, the early second century and before.29 Indeed, in a lengthy catalogue of authors, Sidonius skips from the early second century to the poets of the late fourth century and his own time.30 Thus, pre-fourth-century individuals are not included in the database, nor are the many legendary and mythological persons who inhabit Sidonius’ pages.

5 Aristocratic Rank and Status: Saeculares and Religiosi It should be no surprise, of course, that Sidonius’ primary topics of discussion in both his poems and letters involved the activities and concerns of persons in his own social circle, that is, the aristocratic and educated elite of late Roman Gaul. But nuancing where everyone fits is not easy. Navigating the distinctions among aristocratic status, rank, and office is tricky, as the different categories often appear to overlap. But if they were clear to Sidonius, we ought to be able to clarify them for ourselves, as much as possible by using Sidonius’ own terminology. For Sidonius, the degree of intimacy in personal relationships was determined by three factors: longevity (tempus), social class (ordo), and social status (status).31 More specifically, Sidonius saw social class and status in terms of ordines (‘orders’, ‘classes’), that is, the ordo senatorius, ordo curialis, and so on, each of which, in Sidonius’ model,32 tended to keep to itself.33 Thus, 25 26

27

28 29 30 31

32

33

Sidon. Ep. 8.1.1. Sidon. Carm. 14 praef. 3 Sereno non Septimio sed Sammonico, ‘Serenus, not Septimius but Sammonius’; HA Caracalla 4.5 inter quos etiam Sammonicus Serenus, cuius libri plurimi ad doctrinam extant, ‘among them also Sammonicus Serenus of whom several works on theory exist’. Aulus Septimius Serenus, author of Opuscula ruralia, was cited by the thirdcentury grammarian Terentianus Maurus, De litteris syllabis pedibus et metris 1893: dulcia Septimius qui scripsit opuscula nuper, ‘Septimius who recently wrote cute little works’. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.2 nec . . . sub nominibus illustrium feminarum digna similitudine expressit, ‘nor did [Cicero] express himself with a worthy similitude in the names of illustrious women’. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.2, 2.10.5, 4.3.1, 8.3.3, 8.10.3. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.1, 2.10.5, 4.3.1, 4.14.1, 4.22.2. Sidon. Carm. 9.259–317. Note Sidon. Ep. 7.12.1, to the ex-praetorian prefect Tonantius Ferreolus: Si amicitiae nostrae potius affinitatisque quam personae tuae tempus ordinem statum cogitaremus, ‘If I were to consider the longevity, class, and status of our friendship and kinship rather than of your high rank’. E.g., Sidon. Ep. 4.9.5 pace ordinis mei, ‘with all respect to my order’ (the senatorial order); also Ep. 7.1.5 nostri ordinis viris, ‘men of our order’, or Ep. 3.9.1 loci mei aut ordinis hominem, ‘a man of my position and social order’, not, as Anderson (1965) 2.35, ‘a man of my rank and cloth’, for Sidonius was not yet a bishop. Sidon. Ep. 5.17.4 cum passim varia ordinum corpora dispergerentur, placuit . . . civium primis una coire, ‘when groups of various classes were dispersing in different directions, the leading citizens resolved to go in a body’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 33

13/02/20 4:00 PM

34

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Constantius of Lyon’s arrival in Clermont was met ‘by every order, sex, and age’, and Ecdicius’ was greeted by ‘every age, order, and sex’.34 Likewise, the different social orders of Rome marvelled at Petrus’ eloquence: ‘the diademed power, the official, the soldier, the equestrian order, and the people of Romulus’.35 The full membership of the senate of Rome was the amplissimus ordo, whereas a meeting of the curia of Lyon was a frequens ordo.36 Things get complicated when it comes to assigning social rank to the persons in Sidonius’ world. In the past, it has generally been supposed that most of the persons Sidonius corresponded with or interacted with socially belonged to an extended senatorial aristocracy whose members possessed senatorial status that was acquired by several different methods. For example, the senatorial ranks associated with secular office-holding were well extablished. Thus, consuls and praetorian prefects had the rank of vir inlustris, proconsuls, dukes (duces), and counts (comites) were spectabiles, and holders of lesser offices, such as provincial governors and retired civil servants, were clarissimi.37 Sidonius regularly cited these ranks when introducing senatorial confrères.38 Senators prided themselves on their office-holding ancestors, based on whom they could lay claim to offices of their own. Sidonius spoke of his own dignitas haereditaria, and recalled the distinguished ancestors of his friend Syagrius: ‘You may recall a name drawn from consular togas, and ivory curule chairs, and golden litters, and the dark purple fasti.’39 And regarding Eparchius Avitus, Sidonius exclaimed: ‘An encircling ancestry emblazons his family tree, the palmate robe coursed through his ancesters, and the pinnacle of the patriciate dazzles.’40 Although most senators never held official office and thus never rose above the lowest senatorial rank of vir clarissimus, they still benefited from the inherited glory of their family. Thus, Syagrius was described as patriciae stirpis,41 and Ommatius was patriciae . . . nepos gentis.42 Sidonius also described senators, especially those who did not hold office themselves, as being ‘a noble in lineage’.43 Thus, members of the immediate families of known senators also would have had senatorial status. 34 35

36

37 38

39

40

41 42 43

Sidon. Ep. 3.2.2 ab omni ordine sexu aetate; 3.3.3 omnis aetas ordo sexus. Sidon. Carm. 37 (Ep. 9.13.5) 105–6 diadematis potestas, toga, miles, ordo equester populusque Romularis; cf. Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 23–4. Sidon. Ep. 1.9.2, 7.14.1. Anderson (1936) 1.385 translates amplissimo ordine as ‘most elevated rank’, but it actually refers to the full membership of the senate in Rome; see Syme (1982): ‘A senator’s son duly enters the “amplissimus ordo”’. See Mathisen (2001b). E.g. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.2 Flavius Nicetius, vir ortu clarissimus, privilegio spectabilis, merito inlustris, ‘Flavius Nicetius, a man distinguished by birth, eminent by rank, illustrious by desert’, 3.5.1 si vir spectabilis . . . Donidius, 4.13.1 nuper rogatu Germanici spectabilis viri, 6.9.3 agite gratias Innocentio, spectabili viro, 7.8.2 Simplicium, spectabilem virum, 1.11.3 Catullinus inlustris, 1.11.11 ad virum inlustrem Camillum, 5.17.7 vir inlustris Philomathius, 7.9.18 Eucherium et Pannychium inlustres. On another occasion, Sidonius made a tongue-in-cheek reference to a young literary friend as vir magnificus Hesperius (Ep. 4.21.1), an honorific usually reserved for high officials such as the quaestor sacri palatii (CTh 1.1.6.2), the praetorian prefect (NVal 1.3.4), or the prefect of Rome (CTh 1.6.3). Sidon. Ep. 1.3.1; 8.8.3 tu deductum nomen a trabeis atque eboratas curules et gestatorias bracteatas, et fastos recolas purpurissatos. Sidon. Carm. 7.154–7 rutilat cui maxima dudum / stemmata complexum germen, palmata cucurrit per proavos . . . patricius resplendet apex. Sidon. Ep. 8.8.1, ‘of patrician stock’. Sidon. Carm. 11.51–54, ‘scion of a patrician race’. Sidon. Ep. 2.4.1 Vir clarissimus Proiectus, domi nobilis et patre patruoque spectabilibus . . . conspicuus, ‘the vir clarissimus Proiectus, a noble in lineage and distinguished by a spectabilis father and uncle’; 3.10.1 vir clarissimus Theodorus, domi quidem nobilis, ‘the vir clarissimus Theodorus, indeed a noble in lineage’; 4.4.1 Faustinus, pater familias domi nobilis, ‘Faustinus, head of a household, a noble in lineage’; 4.21.6 nobilium contubernio, ‘the company of nobles’. In the late Republic, domi nobiles were municipal aristocrats (decurions), and the term was often disparaging (Wiseman (1983), Karataş (2019)). Later the term was rarely used; for Sidonius, it designates fully-fledged members of the senatorial aristocracy.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 34

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

35

Another word used to describe senatorial status was generositas. For example, jealous young senators complained of ‘generositas trampled upon’ when Sidonius’ friend Gaudentius was promoted to the rank of vicarius.44 Sidonius also spoke of the ‘generositas of such great diligence’ of his young friend Hesperius.45 And the mother of Eparchius Avitus was described as a ‘generosa child-bearer’.46 An additional code word was familiaris, a term indicating intimate friendships with other high-ranking aristocrats.47 Sidonius also identified members of the senatorial aristocracy by use of the appellation domine, which could be used for the highest levels of the aristocracy, from the emperor down: in the same letter, Majorian is addressed by Sidonius and another courtier as domine Auguste, domine princeps, and domine imperator.48 The designation domine maior was used for seven of Sidonius’ correspondents (Constantius of Lyon, Montius, Felix of Narbonne, Eutropius, Mamertus Claudianus, Arbogastes, and Consentius).49 Three individuals were called domine frater (Serranus, Evodius, and Volusianus),50 Felix was called domine meus,51 and Firminus was called domine fili in two different letters.52 Sidonius even quotes somebody addressing him as domine Solli.53 Yet another commonly used descriptive term for senators, and the term used in the database, was simply senatorius.54 But many of the persons who appear in Sidonius’ poems and correspondence were not endowed with any of these honorifics. Indeed, of 241 named individuals generally identified as being ‘senatorial’ on the basis of being part of Sidonius’ extended social circle, only 125, or roughly half, are firmly attested as ‘senatorial’ based on the criteria of office-holding, family relationship, or Sidonian terminology. This means that there can be a lot of uncertainty about just how ‘senatorial’ many of those in Sidonius’ extended social circle actually were, and just what it meant to be senatorius. The traditional stratified social order of the Roman world had been disturbed, moreover, by the addition of a new order, the ordo clericalis. How did clerical office fit into the established world of social rank, status, and privilege? The evidence of Sidonius suggests that, in one sense, the clerical order became a second order parallel to the secular order.55 Thus, after becoming bishop, Sidonius became part of a different ordo.56 For him, an effective bishop had to respond 44 45 46 47

48 49

50 51 52 53 54

55

56

Sidon. Ep. 1.3.2 calcata generositas; Anderson translates generositas variously as ‘good birth’, ‘noble spirit’, and ‘nobility’. Sidon. Ep. 2.10.1 tantae diligentiae generositatem. Sidon. Carm. 7.164 generosa puerpera. E.g., between his and Aquilinus’ fathers (Ep. 5.9.1, 3), and with Magnus Felix (Ep. 3.7.1, 4.10.1), with his old friends, the vir inlustris Catullinus (Ep. 1.11.3) and Attalus, count of Autun (Ep. 5.18.1). Sidon. Ep. 1.7.11-13. Cf. Köhler (1995) 325. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.1, 1.11.17, 2.3.1, 3.6.3, 4.3.1, 4.17.1, 8.4.1. The order Mamertus Claudianus, as opposed to Claudianus Mamertus, is not only the order used by Sidonius (Ep. 5.2.1 Mamertus Claudianus peritissimus Christianorum philosophus) but also what one would expect from Roman nomenclature, with the cognomen ‘Claudianus’ used to distinguish him from his brother, also named Mamertus. Sidon. Ep. 2.13.8, 4.8.4, 7.17.1. Cf. van Waarden (2016a) 211-12. Sidon. Ep. 4.10.1. Sidon. Ep. 9.1.1, 9.16.1. Sidon. Ep. 5.17.9. E.g., Sidon. Ep. 1.6.2 senatorii seminis homo, ‘a man of senatorial descent’, 2.9.6 senatorium ad morem, ‘in the senatorial style’, 2.13.4 negotium principis et otium senatoris, ‘the business of an emperor and the quiet life of a senator’, 9.14.3 senatoriae iuventutis contubernio, ‘the company of young men of senatorial rank’. Sidon. Ep. 7.5.1, for canvassing for the episcopate by members of each order (utriusque professionis ordinibus ambiendi sacerdotii quoddam classicum); and 7.9.3, for priests at the episcopal election at Bourges fearing candidates from different ordines (non minus suum quam reliquos ordines pertimescebant). Sidon. Ep. 4.14.3 humilitas nostrae professionis . . . in nostri ordinis viris, ‘the humility of our profession . . . in men of our order’, 4.22.5 ordine a nostro, ‘from our order’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 35

13/02/20 4:00 PM

36

RALPH W . MATHISEN

to the needs of both the secular and ecclesiastical orders. Thus, he said regarding a newly selected bishop of Bourges: ‘Simplicius, hitherto a member of your order and now, henceforth, to be considered a member of ours, responds to each side in both action and profession, so that the Republic can find in him something to admire and the church something to love.’57 In addition, the religious life itself had three ‘orders’: ‘monk or cleric or penitent’.58 And there also were different orders of the clergy; a priest, for example, was in ‘the second order’.59 All of these new kinds of ordines would have complicated the realm of social status, especially because the senatorial and aristocratic ranks associated with ecclesiastical offices were not clearly defined: where did ecclesiastics fit into the social hierarchy? By Sidonius’ time, with the decline of the opportunity to hold imperial office, many aristocrats, ranging from senators to decurions, pursued careers in the church, and episcopal office came to be particularly desired. It was possible, of course, for less privileged persons to be chosen as bishops, with Martin of Tours, a mere ex-soldier, being a famous example. But Sidonius does not mention, for the fifth century, a single certain example of a bishop who was not already an aristocrat. Naturally, Sidonius was associating with people of his own class, and we can suppose that there were non-aristocratic bishops whom Sidonius did not mention. But for the purposes of this study, it is taken as a default that the bishops Sidonius mentions or corresponded with held the rank at least of clarissimus.60 In addition, much has been made of high-ranking secular officials making a leap to the episcopate, including examples such as Augustine of Hippo, Simplicius of Bourges, Ambrose of Milan, Paulinus of Nola, Germanus of Auxerre, and Sidonius himself. But only one of these, Sidonius, was a vir inlustris, an ex-prefect of Rome, and a patrician to boot. The others were smaller fish: Augustine had been the imperial rhetor of Milan,61 Simplicius some kind of legatus, Ambrose and Paulinus were consulares, of clarissimus rank, and Germanus, a dux, had the rank of spectabilis. It would thus appear that in the fifth century very few Gallic bishops, or even clerics of any rank, had been imperial office-holders.62 Some clerics acquired de facto secular ranks based on their offices. Bishops seem to have qualified as inlustres, the rank that is used here.63 Sidonius also referred to an abbot as spectabilis, and because Sidonius was very exacting in his use of technical terminology, that rank likewise will be used here for abbots.64 But Sidonius does not seem to have accorded courtesy senatorial rank to other clerics, such as priests. In some individual instances, clerics are known to have 57

58 59

60

61

62

63 64

Sidon. Ep. 7.9.16 Simplicius hactenus vestri iamque abhinc nostri . . . habendus ordinis comes, ita utrique parti vel actu vel professione respondet ut et respublica in eo quod admiretur et ecclesia possit invenire quod diligat. Sidon. Ep. 4.24.4 de tribus . . . ordinibus, monachum . . . an clericum paenitentemve. Sidon. Ep. 4.11.6 antistes fuit ordine in secundo, on Mamertus Claudianus; cf. Ep. 4.25.4 hunc iam secundi ordinis sacerdotem, on Iohannes, a priest of Chalon-sur-Saône; also 6.10.1 levitici ordinis honestat officium, ‘the office of deacon honours [him]’, and 7.6.7 minorum ordinum ministeria, ‘clerics of the lower orders’. For the seven orders of the clergy, note the De septem ordinibus ecclesiae: see Kalff (1938), Morin (1938), Griffe (1956). Some may have been decurions, but, as already seen, ambitious decurions were regularly laying claim to, or being accorded, the courtesy rank of clarissimus. See Prinz (1975), Gassmann (1977), Mathisen (1981b), Gilliard (1984). Imperial rhetors, that is, those supported by the state (CTh 13.3.11), were included along with comites consistoriani, and palatini and militares serving in the palace, as being among those who thanks to meritorum privilegia vel dignitatum, ‘privileges of merit or office’, were exempt from providing munera sordida (CTh 11.16.15, 11.16.18). They were thus of very high status. Examples in the database of secular officials who became clerics include, along with Sidonius, Ambrose, Paulinus, Augustine, Germanus, and Simplicius, the legatus Auxanius, who became an abbot, and the palatinus Maximus, who became a priest. See Lotter (1970, 1971, 1973). Sidon. Ep. 8.14.2 in illo quondam coenobio Lirinensi spectabile caput, ‘formerly an eminent head of that Lérins community’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 36

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

37

been already of senatorial secular status, and they thus have that status in the database. But that leaves other senior clerics, priests and deacons, whose social rank is not known. Sidonius explicitly distinguished between the worlds of secular and ecclesiastical status, as when he described himself, a newly appointed bishop, to Leontius, bishop of Arles, as ‘until now, a saecularis’, and when he portrayed Victorius, the comes civitatis Arvernensis, as ‘my patron by secular right, my son by ecclesiastical right’.65 He used two terms for ecclesiastics: clericalis and religiosus. Vindicius, for example, is described as a virum religiosum et leviticae dignitati . . . accommodatissimum,66 with religiosus being his status and levites (deacon) his office. Sidonius also spoke of his own change in status ‘from the beginning of the religious profession’,67 and commented regarding Philagrius: ‘You yourself manifest the reality of a religiosus, I merely the shadow of one.’68 Sidonius also contrasted the militia clericalis with the militia saecularis, as in his nomination speech for Simplicius as bishop of Bourges in c. 469/70: ‘If perhaps I name a secular official, at once a protest arises with the words: “Sidonius was translated to the clergy because he came from a secular career”.’69 And as for the relative status of secular and ecclesiastical rank, Sidonius responded to that issue in his famous observation: ‘There is a great ignorance about the ordines . . . just as when at a banquet for a public festival the lowest ranking person at the first table ranks ahead of him who ranks first at the second table, in the opinion of good men the lowest ranking religiosus is considered to be higher ranking than the greatest honoratus.’70 In the database, priests and deacons of non-senatorial status are thus assigned a temporising rank of clericalis, and are considered to be honestiores. The rank of senatorial women, moreover, was determined by the rank of their families. Thus, women too, if they came from a senatorial family, had the entry-level rank of c.f., that is, clarissima femina. Not being permitted to hold office, women could gain higher rank only by sharing in that of their husbands; thus, if a man became vir inlustris, his wife became femina inlustris. The lack of honorifics for women can make it rather difficult to classify women of honestior rank. A conventional term used to designate respectable women was matrona.71 In the jurist Paul’s section on Iniuria, for example, wounding the dignity of a matrona was a serious crime: ‘Injury, moreover, happens . . . when dignitas is wounded, as when the companions of a matrona or girl are abducted.’72 And a contemporary interpretation in the Breviarium of 506 CE observed: ‘Let no judge think that a matrona residing in her own home can be publicly dragged away by any official, but let honourable convention toward her, out of respect for her sex, be 65 66 67 68 69

70

71

72

Sidon. Ep. 6.3.1 hactenus saecularis, 7.17.1 iure saeculari patronum, iure ecclesiastico filium. Sidon. Ep. 5.1.2, ‘a religious man and eminently fitted for the dignity of deacon’. Sidon. Ep. 9.12.1 ab exordio religiosae professionis. Sidon. Ep. 7.14.10 comples ipse personam religiosi, ego vel imaginem. Sidon. Ep. 7.9.14 si militarem dixero forte personam, protinus in haec verba consurgitur: ‘Sidonius ad clericatum quia de saeculari professione translatus est’; cf. Ep. 4.4.1 provectu aetatis et militia clericali, ‘with advancing age and clerical service’, 4.22.5 homines clericalis officii, ‘men with a clerical office’; 6.3.1 nostrae professionis, ‘our profession’. Sidon. Ep. 7.12.4 grandis ordinum ignorantia . . . sicuti cum epulum festivitas publica facit, prior est in prima mensa conviva postremus ei, qui primus fuerit in secunda, sic . . . praestantior secundum bonorum sententiam computatur honorato maximo minimus religiosus. Cf. CIL 2.7.439, Clodia Euporia of Córdoba, third century, described as castae et abstinentis bonae / indolis matronae, ‘a virtuous and temperate matron of good character’; Gregory of Tours, Hist. 1.36, 3.22, 8.28, likewise refers to respectable Roman women (Melania, Deuteria, Leuba) as matronae. For the earlier period, see Hemelrijk (1999) and Gibson (1998). Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum 2.5.4: Paulus Iniuriae. Fit autem iniuria . . . cum dignitas laeditur, ut cum matronae vel praetextatae comites abducuntur; cf. Paul. Sent. 5.4.14 qui puero praetextato stuprum aliudve flagitium abducto ab eo vel corrupto comite persuaserit, mulierem puellamve interpellaverit, ‘whoever persuades a boy wearing the toga praetexta to commit debauchery or any other offence, after abducting or bribing his attendant, or solicits a woman or girl’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 37

13/02/20 4:00 PM

38

RALPH W . MATHISEN

preserved.’73 Sidonius regularly used this term to describe aristocratic women. Thus, along with being described as a morigera coniunx and domina clemens, Philomathia is twice called a matrona, as is the venerabilis Eutropia.74 The women of the families of Sidonius’ cousin Apollinaris, and of Lucontius and Volusianus, were also matronae.75 The seats in the women’s section of the library of Tonantius Ferreolus were matronarum cathedrae, and the women’s dining room at Avitacum was the triclinium matronale.76 And Sidonius revealed his attitude towards matronae in his discussion of the unnamed wife of Simplicius, the newly installed bishop of Bourges, when he commented: ‘The standing [persona] of a matrona requires that discussion of her be respectful and succinct.’77 This term is therefore used in the database for respectable women whose status is not directly attested as senatorial.

6 The Rest of the Social World Ranking just below senatores, and in the lowest ranks of the honestiores, were the curiales, or decurions, the members of town councils, small-time elites who historically oversaw local administration and, so to speak, had been the big fish in the small ponds. But as the decades had gone by and senators increasingly pursued local interests, the decurions, who already had reputations for oppression of city populations,78 faced being squeezed out of the elite social world by those who claimed some kind of senatorial status. Few of these local gentry left any record of their activities or even of their existence.79 The world of the humiliores was populated by the free, plebeii; the semi-free, coloni;80 the half-free, liberti;81 and the unfree, servi.82 Roman legislation made very clear the distinction between plebeians and those ‘of any superior rank’.83 Thus, Sidonius put special emphasis on the degradation of Arvandus, who was, he claimed, ‘not so much added as returned to a plebeian family’.84 That said, however, plebeian status, which made one eligible to be a cliens, was just one rung below the status of honestior and ranked above the dependent status of colonus, inquilinus, or tributarius; thus, in are rare stance of status change, Sidonius asked, regarding a dependant of his friend Pudens: ‘Having been made a client from a tributary, let him begin to have plebeian rather than colonary standing [persona].’85 For the least privileged, Sidonius

73

74 75 76 77 78 79

80 81 82 83

84 85

CTh 1.22.1 (Interpretatio, 506 CE) Nullus iudicum matronam in domo sua residentem per quemcumque apparitorem ad publicum existimet protrahendam, sed circa eam, pro sexus reverentia, conventio honesta servetur. Here, the word matrona replaces the materfamilias of the original law, a term that does not appear in Sidonius. Sidon. Ep. 2.8.1–3, 6.2.1–4. Sidon. Ep. 4.6.2, 4.18.2. Sidon. Ep. 2.9.4, 2.2.9. Sidon. Ep. 7.9.24 persona matronae verecundam succinctamque sui exigit mentionem. E.g. Lepelley (1983a). One who did is Nymfius, from the upper Garonne in Novempopulana, whose wife Serena composed an elaborate epitaph at some point between 350 and 450 (CIL 13.128); see Sivan (1989b). E.g. Lepelley (1983b), Sirks (1993). E.g. Curchin (1987). Whittaker (1987). CTh 7.18.1 (365) Si plebeiae et humilioris condicionis est, metalli se sciat supplicio puniendum, qui autem superioris cuiuscumque loci dignitatisve sit, media se bonorum parte cognoscat esse multandum, ‘If he is of plebeian and lower rank, let him know that he is to be condemned to the quarries, but if he belongs to any higher order and dignity, let him understand that he is to be fined half the amount of his possessions.’ Sidon. Ep. 1.11.11 Arvandus plebeiae familiae non ut additus sed ut redditus. Sidon. Ep. 5.19.1–2 cliens factus e tributario, plebeiam potius incipiat habere personam quam colonariam; see Demicheli (2012).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 38

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

39

rarely used the word servus, and when he did, it usually had negative connotations, as in the case of the mother of Geiseric (Carm. 2.358–9), or the slaves who murdered Lampridius (Ep. 8.11.11). More usually, he preferred terms such as puer, ancilla, mancipium, or famulus (‘dependant’, the term used here).

7 Demography With this background, one now might look at some aggregate demographic results of the database as a whole to get a general sense of the social universe of late antique Gaul. As would be expected, the closer Sidonius gets to his own time, the more persons he mentions, thus, 35 entries (7%) come from the fourth century, 48 (9%) from the early fifth century (400–31), 55 (11%) from the time of his youth (432–54), and 375 (73%), the vast majority, from the time of his adulthood (455–85). Regarding the geographic origin of individual persons, 353 (80%) are from Gaul, certainly no surprise. There are also 35 (8%) from Italy, 14 (2.7%) from Spain, 12 (2.3%) from Dacia and the Danube, 11 (2.5%) from Thrace, including Constantinople, and 5 or fewer from Britain, Illyricum, Africa, the East, and Mesopotamia. One notes, moreover, a great disparity between the numbers from the letters versus the poems. Only 43 of 353 individual Gauls, or 12%, are known just from the poems as opposed to the letters, whereas 37 of 91 non-Gauls, or 46%, are known only from the poems. Why, one might ask, is there such a high concentration of non-Gauls in the poems? The answer is probably fairly straightforward. Carmina 1–5, which include two of the three lengthy panegyrics, were addressed to persons from outside Gaul, and in these poems, 25 non-Gauls were mentioned but only one Gaul. Thus, one must always be sensitive to any inherent biases that might skew the data from a subset of the source material. With respect to religious affiliation, 397 (89%) of the 445 individuals are identified as Nicene Christians,86 23 (5.2%) as Homoian, 18 (4.1%) as pagan, and 3 (0.7%) as Jewish. Regarding ethnicity, 410 (92%) of the individuals are identified as Roman, 10 (2.2%) as Visigothic, 5 each (1.1%) as Frankish or Hunnic, 4 each (0.9%) as Burgundian or Suevic, 3 (0.7%) as Vandal, and 2 each (0.4%) as Breton or Ostrogothic. Given the database methods for determining ethnicity and religious affiliation, it is no surprise that these two categories largely overlap. There are several ways of approaching social status. Regarding legal status, 376 (85%) of the 445 individuals qualify as honestiores, 42 (9%) as humiliores, and 27 (6%) as non-Roman. With respect to social standing, among individuals there are 196 securely attested men and women of secular aristocratic status (members of the imperial family, those specifically attested with the rank of clarissimus, spectabilis, inlustris, or patricius, plus their immediate families), or 44% of all 445 individuals, including 13 patricians and 59 of illustrious rank. If one considers only named persons, there are 147 male and female aristocrats, or 48% of the total number of 308 named individuals. But if one includes secular individuals who are merely presumed to have held aristocratic status, the number goes up to 337, 76% of the 445 individuals. On the other hand, only 26 decurions (5.8% of the total individuals) have been posited, and most of these only tentatively, although, as noted above, some of the individuals identified as ‘senators’ were probably decurions. As for clergy, Sidonius mentions 90 individual ecclesiastics (bishops, abbots, priests, deacons, monks, lectors, and ‘clerics’), 20% of the total number of individuals, including 59 bishops, 13% of the number of individuals. The percentages rise a bit with regard to 86

Plus three Christians from prior to the Nicene period.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 39

13/02/20 4:00 PM

40

RALPH W . MATHISEN

named persons: 77 of these clerics are named, 86% of the clerics, and 17% of the total number of named persons. Moreover, Sidonius wrote to 33 ecclesiastics, 41% of the 80 laypersons with whom he corresponded, and the number of letters that he wrote to clerics, 48, is 48% of the number that he wrote to laypersons, 99. This indicates that, whereas with regard to secular persons Sidonius’ collection includes a broad catchment, with respect to clerics, Sidonius’ correspondents were limited to a proportionally smaller number of people, with several of them receiving more than one letter. Thus, 7 clerics received more than one letter, compared to 12 secular persons. These numbers indicate that, in spite of Sidonius’ brave assertion that ‘the humblest cleric is accounted to be higher ranking than the greatest secular official’,87 he always maintained close ties to the secular world. Nor was Sidonius the only secular official in his social world who became a cleric. Eight other aristocrats in the database also bled into the clergy, all but two as bishops (see Table 2.1). Does a prosopographer count these persons as senators or clerics? In this database, individuals who had documented senatorial status, such as vir clarissimus or vir spectabiis, at the time they became clerics retain that status in the statistics. That leaves gender distribution. One would expect that there would be more men than women. What might be a bit surprising, however, is the extent of the disparity. Of the total 518 entries, 454, or 88%, are for men, and only 64, or 12%, for women; of 445 individuals, 386 (87%) are male and 59 (13%) are female.88 In the aggregate, therefore, Sidonius presents a late Roman world where individual persons were Roman (92%), Nicene (89%), male (87%), privileged (83%), and Gallic (80%). And yet, as will be seen, some of the most significant observations will come not from the predominating group within each category, which to a large extent tell us things that we already

Table 2.1 Secular office-holders who became clerics Name

Secular position

Ecclesiastical office Location Date

Ambrosius

Consularis

Bishop

Milan

L IV

Martinus

Soldier

Monk/Bishop

Tours

L IV

Meropius Pontius Paulinus

Consularis

Bishop

Nola

L IV/E V

Aurelius Augustinus

Imperial rhetor

Bishop

Hippo

L IV/E V

Germanus

Dux

Bishop

Auxerre

418–46

Maximus

Palatinus

Priest

Auvergne 460s

C. Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius

Praefectus urbi Romae

Bishop

Clermont 432–85

Simplicius

Legatus

Bishop

Bourges

Auxanius

Legatus

Abbot

Auvergne 465–78

87

88

469/75

Sidon. Ep. 7.12.4 to Tonantius Ferreolus: absque conflictatione praestantior secundum bonorum sententiam computatur honorato maxime minimus religiosus. Compared to PLRE 2, which contains 9% women as opposed to 91% men.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 40

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

41

knew, but from the individuals who functioned on the fringes of this privileged, Roman, Gallic, Nicene, male-oriented world.

8 Sidonius’ Personal World Along with the picture of the late Roman world writ large, Sidonius also reveals much about his personal world, and the people he interacted with, either up close or at a distance, during his lifetime. Whereas his poems were addressed to or written on behalf of 15 different persons, his letter collection includes missives to 113 different correspondents.89 In his letters and poems, Sidonius also names 109 additional individuals from his own lifetime, virtually the same number, who did not receive a letter or poem from him. Thus, if a person was named in the poem or letter collection, there was a 50–50 chance that that person was a recipient of a letter or poem. Two correspondents (Graecus of Marseille and Sidonius’ cousin Simplicius) received five letters, four (Constantius of Lyon, Magnus Felix, Lupus of Troyes, and Sidonius’ cousin Apollinaris) received four letters, two (Petronius and Ruricius of Limoges) received three letters, ten persons (Agricola, Aper, Ecdicius, Eutropius, Faustus, Firminus, Fonteius, Heronius, Leo, and Syagrius) received two letters, and the rest received a single letter. On the other hand, three letters were addressed to two individuals (Apollinaris and Simplicius, and Sacerdos and Justinus). The individuals with the greatest numbers of total references are Lupus of Troyes, mentioned in eight letters or poems; Constantius, Graecus, Magnus Felix, Leo, and Sidonius’ cousin Simplicius, who appear in six texts; and Ecdicius, Petronius, Petrus, Ruricius, and Tonantius Ferreolus, each of whom is cited in five different documents. Statistical analysis suggests that several categories of persons were of particular interest to Sidonius. Many individuals – 246, or 55% of the total – held some kind of secular or ecclesiastical office, such as consul, priest, or rhetor. Even more strikingly, 202 of these, or 78%, were named. For Sidonius, then, office-holding was a very important criterion for making a person worthy of mention. A second characteristic that Sidonius clearly valued was family relationships: 242 of 445 individuals cited – 54% – had one or more relatives mentioned. Even more significantly, 95 of 137 anonymous individuals, or 69%, were cited along with named relatives; had it not been for the latter, they would not have been mentioned at all. On this basis, one can propose that Sidonius’ social world was very much a family affair. Elements of patronage and dependency also appear as a third leitmotif in Sidonius’ letters, with 100 persons being involved in the bestowing of favours, ranging from loans of books among the elite, to direct assistance, intercession, and the granting of letters of introduction, commendation, and reference to the less privileged. Providing assistance in legal cases is a particularly repetitious theme. A fourth theme that permeates Sidonius’ works is the role of literary culture in maintaining the class consciousness of the late Roman elite. Thus, 128 entries (29% of the individuals) in the database deal with literary matters, including 18 rhetors and 2 grammarians. Equally significantly, 113, or 88%, of these individuals are named. The pursuit of literary interests,

89

For lists of Sidonius’ correspondents, see Dalton (1915) 161–84 and Desbrosses (2018) 370–422. Three letters are addressed to more than one person (Ep. 4.4, 4.12, 5.21): see below.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 41

13/02/20 4:00 PM

42

RALPH W . MATHISEN

of course, always had been one mark of good Roman aristocrats, and helped to occupy their senatorial otium (leisure).90 In an earlier age, literary activities also had been the means by which a new man like Ausonius could become a member of the aristocracy; in fifth-century Gaul, however, such endeavours became a means by which someone born an aristocrat could remain one.91 Literary pursuits served to shore up the sagging morale of Gallo-Roman aristocrats who were faced on all sides by the decline of Roman imperial authority. Even if many had fallen on hard times economically, and had lost the opportunities for imperial office-holding, they still could find common ground and participate on equal terms in the literary arena, even if, as Sidonius acknowledged, their literary skills might be somewhat lacking.92 Thus, Sidonius could write to his otherwise undistinguished friend Philagrius: ‘By universal judgement, the dignity, virtue, and pre-eminence of knowledge are acclaimed, and through its ranks one ascends to the highest peak of accomplishment.’93 Likewise, in a letter to his friend the grammarian Johannes, Sidonius made his famous prediction: ‘Because the imperial ranks and offices have now been swept away, through which it was possible to distinguish all the highest men from the lowest, from now on to know literature will be the only indication of nobility.’94 This sentiment also was conveyed implicitly in a letter of Sidonius to his friend Syagrius, where he referred to one of the latter’s ancestors as a man ‘to whom his literary ability would have granted recognition, if his imperial offices had not done so’.95 Syagrius had the opportunity for secular advancement; most of Sidonius’ friends did not, and thus sought solace in their literary activities as a substitute.96 The very act of letter-writing, moreover, was an essential element of the maintenance of literary culture. Not only were the letters per se manifestations of the exercise of literary inclinations, but their circulation played a significant role in the maintenance of personal ties among Gallic elites residing at some distance from each other. For Sidonius, then, it was these three institutions – family relationships, the patron–client relationship, and the pursuit of literary culture – that provided the glue that bound late Roman aristocratic society together.

9 Underrepresented Groups The database highlights the existence of several sorts of persons who are underrepresented in standard studies of prosopography and society.

90 91 92

93

94

95 96

See Baldwin (1982). For Ausonius, see Sivan (1993). E.g. Sidon. Ep. 9.14.8 qui . . . ignorantiam suam factae severitatis velamine tegant. imperitis venia debetur, ‘(judges) who will perhaps conceal their ignorance under a veil of artificial severity. Allowance must be made for the unacademic.’; for the topos, see Mathisen (1988a). Sidon. Ep. 7.14.7 conclamata sunt namque iudicio universali scientiae dignitas virtus praerogativa, cuius ad maximum culmen meritorum gradibus ascenditur. See van Waarden (2016a) 118–19 and Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, sect. 4.2, on the possibility of a literary fiction. Sidon. Ep. 8.2.2 nam iam remotis gradibus dignitatum, per quae solebat ultimo a quoque summus quisque discerni, solum erit posthac nobilitatem indicium litteras nosse. Sidon. Ep. 5.5.1 cui procul dubio statuas dederant litterae, si trabeae non dedissent. For the parallel importance of office and literary skills, see also Sidon. Ep. 8.6.2; and Auspicius of Toul, Ep. ad Arbogastem: MGH Epp. 3.135-7 no. 23 = MGH Poet.lat. 4.2.614. Official rank, of course, was preferred, if it was available: see Sidon. Ep. 1.6.5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 42

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

43

9.1 What’s in a Name? First, anonymous individuals. Sidonius’ late Roman world was populated by a large number of unnamed persons. 97 Indeed, the Sidonius database of 518 entries includes 308 (60%) named individuals and 210 (40%) anonymous individuals and groups. If we leave out the groups (which are by their nature all anonymous), there are 445 individuals comprising 308 (69%) named individuals and 137 (31%) anonymous individuals.98 Included among the anonymi are 20 individuals whom Sidonius does not name, but whose identity can be inferred: for example, five emperors and an empress – Gratian, Valentinian II, Magnus Maximus, Theodosius II, Licinia Eudoxia, and Marcian – were alluded to, all in the Carmina, but left unnamed. And on two occasions Sidonius declined to name bishops of important cities (Narbonne and Trier): did he not know who they were?99 In the calculations these deduced persons are treated as ‘anonymous’. It has often been claimed that, with the possible exception of epigraphy, one cannot do quantitative analysis of less privileged persons in Antiquity, but in Sidonius these persons are in fact hiding in plain sight as the great mass of nameless persons who provided the social background to the world of the senatorial elite. A significant difference between the privileged and unprivileged is that the latter are usually left unnamed, for whether Sidonius thought a person merited having their name given is a key indicator of the degree to which he thought an individual fitted into the late Roman social world. Thus, to create a model of Sidonius’ social world that is as accurate as possible, it is crucial that anonymous persons (both individuals and groups) be included: just because Sidonius, for whatever reason, chose not to cite a person’s name does not mean that person did not exist. These anonymous individuals were just as real as the persons whom Sidonius did name, and any comprehensive study of Sidonius’ social world must take cognisance of them, Standard prosopographical catalogues and discussions perpetuate the omission of anonymous persons. Heinzelmann , for example, includes no anonymous persons, nor does Stroheker or PCBE. And even though PLRE claims that it will include anonymi, PLRE 2, for example, lists only 30 anonymous women and 126 anonymous men for the entire Roman world between 395 and 527.100 For many prosopographers, therefore, people without names are simply written out of history. One does not, however, need to have a name to exist as a person, and unnamed persons can play just as important a role in studies of group dynamics as persons with names, especially with respect to less privileged social groups. The large number of anonymous individuals mentioned by Sidonius indicates that even if he did not name them, he still thought that they had a part to play. To get further insight into how Sidonius envisioned his social world, one might look for patterns in who got named and who did not. For some data categories, there is a relatively high percentage of naming. For example, with respect to careers, 71% of 24 military officers are named, as are 74% of the 23 members of the imperial house, 75% of 16 royal barbarians, 77% of 94 members of the imperial civil administration, 76% of 38 members of the provincial administration, and 86% of 90 ecclesiastics. The high percentage of named imperial officials and ecclesiastics demonstrates how scrupulous Sidonius was when it came to giving due recognition to his office-holding confrères. 97 98

99 100

For ‘what’s in a name’, see e.g. Cherf (1994), Salway (1994). As a comparandum, in the Biographical Database for Late Antiquity Project, some 60% of the entries from Gregory of Tours are anonymi. Sidon. Carm. 23.443, Ep. 4.17.3. Heinzelmann (1982), Stroheker (1948). Strikingly, in PLRE many otherwise qualified anonymous individuals who are cited in individual entries for named persons have been omitted from PLRE’s own lists of ‘Anonymi’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 43

13/02/20 4:00 PM

44

RALPH W . MATHISEN

In addition, the distribution of named versus unnamed among different social categories also suggests that, for Sidonius, giving a person a name could be a means of allocating them greater significance. Thus, whereas 290 of 410 (71%) individual Romans received names, only 16 of 35 (46%) non-Romans (nearly all barbarians) were named. In a like vein, 280 of 398 (70%) of Nicenes were named, but only 11 of 23 (48%) of Homoians, compared to 12 of 18 (67%) of pagans. Thus, Roman Nicenes, not surprisingly, were deemed more worthy of being fully identified than barbarian Homoians. But pagans, who included luminaries ranging from Quintus Aurelius Symmachus to Attila the Hun, were most likely of all to be named. With respect to area of origin, moreover, there is a marginal preference for giving names to persons who did not come from Gaul: whereas 241 of 354 (68%) of Gauls were named, 67 of 91 (74%) of non-Gauls were, and a striking 29 of 35 (83%) of persons from Italy were given names. The reason for this disparity is that Sidonius mentions a far greater number of persons of lower social rank, usually in a domestic capacity, for Gaul than for other regions. The nature of the significance of being being named becomes more clear when it comes to rank and status. Whereas 279 (75%) of the 374 individual Roman honestiores were named, only 15 (35%) of the 44 Roman humiliores were – and not a single colonus, libertus, or servus. On the other hand, an exceptionally high percentage of individuals from the highest ranks of the Roman nobility were named: 12 of 13 (92%) from patrician families, and 51 of 59 (86%) of secular viri inlustres. Strikingly, 51 of 57 bishops (89%) also are named, attesting to the overlap between the secular and ecclesiastical aristocracies at the highest levels when it came to being accorded names. These observations in particular lead to an inescapable, and also unsurprising, conclusion that being named was directly associated with social status: the higher individuals’ social status was, the more likely they were to be named.

9.2 Where are the Women? The disparity between named and unnamed is particularly egregious with respect to gender. The contrast between 88% male individuals in the database versus 12% female becomes much greater with regard to naming. Whereas 292 of the 386 men (76% of the individual men and 66% of all individuals) are named, only a pathetic 16 of the 59 women (27% of the individual women, 5.5% of the named men, and 3.6% of all individuals) are given names. Likewise, 241 of 290 (83%) of aristocratic men are named, whereas only 16 of 43 (37%) of aristocratic women are. These include two empresses (Aelia Marcia Euphemia and Fausta), one queen (Ragnahilda), and 13 known for their family role: 7 wives, 2 daughters, 2 mothers, an aunt, and a widow (Araneola, Auspicia, Eulalia, Hiberia, Papianilla the wife of Sidonius, Papianilla the wife of Tonantius Ferreolus, Rusticiana, Roscia, Severiana, Livia, Philomathia, Frontina, Eutropia). And that is to say nothing of the Burgundian queen Caretena, whom Sidonius declined to name but still compared to Tanaquil and Agrippina.101 Only one named woman, Eutropia, is presented as actually doing anything, in this case pursuing a lawsuit.102 Another woman was described as ‘so filled with the fear of God that she filled all men with awe’.103 Indeed, the squalling anonymous Gothic 101 102 103

Sidon. Ep. 5.7.7. Sidon. Ep. 6.2.1–4. Sidon. Ep. 4.21.4 sed et matertera tua hinc, et hinc fuit sanctior sanctis Frontina virginibus, quam verebatur mater, pater venerabatur, summae abstinentiae puella, summi rigoris ac fidei ingentis, sic deum timens, ut ab hominibus timeretur, ‘and from the same land came your aunt, came Frontina, holier than the holy virgins, revered by her mother, venerated by her father, a lady remarkable for the self-denial and austerity of her life, who in the immensity of her faith was so filled with the fear of God that she filled all men with awe’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 44

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

45

women who disturbed Sidonius’ sleep get better coverage than most of the named women.104 All this makes women the most underrepresented of all the categories in the database with respect to naming. These statistics graphically confirm the extent to which Sidonius inhabited a homosocial world where women were rarely mentioned, and even more rarely named.105 At least insofar as his poetry and letters went, women were barely on Sidonius’ radar.106

9.3 Where are the Children? Another category of individuals noteworthy for their absence in the works of Sidonius is children, that is, minors. Of the ten entries for children, barely 1.9% of the total, the only ones he names are three of his own: Apollinaris, Roscia (cared for by her grandmother and her paternal aunts when she was ill), and Severiana (called sollicitudo communis, ‘our common concern’); the fourth, Alcima, is left unmentioned and unnamed.107 A poem sent to Ommatius also conveyed an invitation to the sixteenth birthday celebration of a young family member, probably one of Sidonius’ children, on 29 July.108 Even in the domestic scenes that Sidonius discusses, children hardly ever appear. Only six other entries concern children, all of them anonymous: the children of Amantius (whom their grandmother adored), the children of Audax and Ecdicius (who Sidonius hoped would outdo their fathers), the deceased son of Eutropia, the five children of the deceased Philomathia, and the daughter raised by Vettius after the death of his wife.109 The lack of attention to women and younger children only enhances the degree to which the social setting depicted in Sidonius’ writings was very much of a man’s world. Consistent with Sidonius’ focus on the importance of literary studies, one class of young men approaching adulthood that does crop up is students. Sidonius tells a charming tale about himself and his son Apollinaris, still a student at the time (studenti) and probably in his teens, reading Terence and Menander together.110 Sidonius also notes that his young friend Burgundio, like Sidonius’ son Apollinaris, was studying literature: he had already delivered one declamation, and was in the midst of preparing another, this one about Julius Caesar; Sidonius opined that he would be studying with the ‘senatorial youth’ of Rome if travel conditions permitted.111 Other students appear in Sidonius’ story of how, while waiting for mass to begin in Lyon, he and a group of his friends played ball with a caterva scholasticorum, ‘a crowd of students’; the elderly vir inlustris Philomathius could not keep up with the young men (iuvenes) and was soon completely winded.112 And Sidonius also commented that the declamations of iuvenes were easier to shorten if they were too long than to lengthen if they were too short – an observation that continues to be applicable to students in the present day.113 104 105 106 107 108

109 110 111

112

113

Sidon. Ep. 8.3.2. For the nature of homosocial society, see e.g. Rose (1985). For women in Sidonius, see e.g. Mascoli (2000) 98–100 and (2003b). Sidon. Ep. 5.16.4–5, 2.12.2, Greg. Tur. Hist. 3.2, 3.12, Glor. mart. 64. Sidon. Carm. 17.1 Quattuor ante dies . . . Sextilis . . . natalis nostris decimus sextusque coletur, ‘Four days before (the first of) August, there will be celebrated by my family a sixteenth birthday.’ Speculations abound as to the identity of this child; see Kelly’s discussion in this volume, ch. 3, sect. 3.1, n. 41. Sidon. Ep. 7.2.8, 8.7.4, 5.16.4, 6.2.2, 2.8.1, 4.9.4. Sidon. Ep. 4.12.1; Sidonius notes that he was already bishop (professionis oblitus, ‘forgetting my profession’). Sidon. Ep. 9.14.3 illic senatoriae iuventutis contubernio mixtus erudirere, ‘there you will be taught in the company of the senatorial youth’. Sidon. Ep. 5.17.6–7 cum caterva scholasticorum lusimus . . . Filimatius . . . ‘ausus et ipse manu iuvenum temptare laborem’, sphaeristarum se turmalibus constanter immiscuit, ‘we played with a group of students. Philomatius, “daring to lay hand to the toil of youths”, resolutely plunged into the ranks of the ball-players’. Sidon. Ep. 1.4.3 eloquia iuvenum laboriosius brevia produci quam porrecta succidi.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 45

13/02/20 4:00 PM

46

RALPH W . MATHISEN

9.4 Where are the Decurions? One might now consider an apparent oddity: the nearly total lack of explicit references to decurions, or members of city councils, who supposedly made up the backbone of local administration in the late antique world. One well might ask: ‘Where are the decurions?’ When Sidonius discussed meetings of the local curia, or get-togethers of the leading citizens, surely there were many decurions there. One possible explanation for this oversight is that Sidonius simply chose not to mention persons of lower social status. But the evidence of the database shows that this is not the case; it includes many individuals – 44 to be precise – of merely humilior (plebeian and servile) status. So surely decurions are in there somewhere. But where? On the only occasion when Sidonius identified someone as a decurion, it was done in a derogatory manner: Sidonius’ rival Paeonius was disparaged as being ‘no more distinguished than of municipal birth’, and his daughter, ‘although honestissima’, married into a family of superior rank when Paeonius, ‘contrary to the rigidity of civic custom’, provided a splendid dowry.114 The references to Paeonius’ ‘municipal’ and ‘civic’ background would seem to point to curial origin, and the designation vir honestissimus was often used for decurions. For example, in an inscription from Minturnum in Latium et Campania the honestissimus populus honoured the v(ir) l(audabilis) Honorius Flavius Theodorus for his infinita beneficia.115 A municipal inscription from Calama in Numidia dating to the reigns of Honorius and Theodosius II (408–23 CE) lists several viri clarissimi followed by Valentinus vir honestissimus curator rei publicae, demonstrating Valentinus’ lower rank, and an inscription from Africa Proconsularis honouring the emperor Theodosius I or II cited the flamen perpetuus Rufinianus, a vir clarissimus, followed by a lower-ranking v(ir) h(onestissimus), apparently a decurion, who also held the municipal office of curator reipublicae.116 Meanwhile, in Gaul, Flavius Postuminus, an honestissimus civis and twice duovir, a municipal office, was honoured by the Civitas Redonum (Rennes).117 The use of this honorific for decurions would have provided an explicit reminder that decurions might have been on the lowest rung of the honestiores, but they nevertheless were honestiores, so even if they did not qualify as clarissimi, they did enjoy the honorific honestissimus/a.118 With this in mind, it may be that Sidonius’ use of this word provides a clue to persons being of curial origin, such as a young man who, according to a letter to bishop Ambrosius, squandered much of his inheritance during an infatuation with a ‘shameless slave-girl’ (ancilla propudiosissima). This vir laudandus then made a respectable marriage and enjoyed ‘honourable love of husband for wife’ (honestissimus uxorius amor). Sidonius’ description of a person with some reputation (fama) and only a modest inheritance (bonuscula avita paternaque), not to

114

115 116

117 118

Sidon. Ep. 1.11.5 non eminentius quam municipaliter natus . . . ut familiae superiori per filiam saltim quamquam honestissimam iungeretur, contra rigorem civici moris splendidam . . . dotem . . . dixerat. For disparaging use of the term, note also Sidon. Carm. 9.309 municipalibus poetis, ‘small-town poets’. AE (1989) 137. CIL 8.24069; see e.g. Burton (1979), Langhammer (1973) 169–75. For the abbreviation v.h., see Egbert (1896) 184, 457. AE (1969/70) 405a. Note also Ven. Fort. Vita Germani Parisiensis 1, referring to the parents of Germanus of Paris: patre Eleutherio, matre quoque Eusebia, honestis honoratisque parentibus procreatus, ‘his father was Eleutherius, his mother Eusebia, honourable and distinguished parents’; also Aërius, vir honestissimus (Symm. Ep. 5.81; PLRE 1, 24), and Aventius, a vir honoratus from Tarraco born in 422 (AE (1938) 27).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 46

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

47

mention the use of the code-words honestissimus and laudabilis, would have been appropriate for someone of curial status.119 Sidonius also reported on a certain Gallus who had established, or more likely re-established, himself as a vir honestus by obeying an order of Lupus of Troyes to return to his wife.120 This designation would have been doubly appropriate if Gallus was also of curial origin. The family of the likeable rogue Amantius may also have been of curial status. Sidonius reports: ‘The origins of his parents were not distinguished but unimpeachable; just as they boasted nothing illustrious, they likewise feared nothing servile’, a middling rank that would suit curial status.121 In addition, Sidonius’ observation that ‘their service had been pursued in clerical rather than palatine service’ may be reflective of the attempt of some decurions to escape the performance of municipal duties by entering the clergy.122 Sidonius’ failure to point directly to anyone’s curial status except as an insult probably reflects a desire to create class solidarity among Gallic elites. There was no need to focus too much on inferior status distinctions. After all, everyone already knew what they were, so no need to rub it in. Thus, in his circulated works Sidonius could focus on what bound elites together, not what differentiated them. And in any event, by this period the concept of senator had become so diluted that, just as the old equestrian class had been absorbed into the senatorial class, now the old curial class was being absorbed into a new, broader, more inclusive ‘senatorial’ class, perhaps as a result of a ‘no aristocrat left behind’ philosophy. Just as clergy and litterati were included in the new aristocracy, so were the decurions. Many of the persons mentioned by Sidonius whom we customarily identify as senatorial were probably municipal elites who were accorded ‘guest membership’ in the senatorial aristocracy as a consequence of Sidonius’ ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Thus, one might expect that many curiales also lurk among the 137 individual men and women allocated ‘senatorial’ status here, as well as in modern prosopographical catalogues, but not specifically attested as being of senatorial rank. But any acceptance in senatorial circles was qualified; Sidonius expected decurions to know their place, and he looked somewhat askance at individuals, such as Amantius and Paeonius, who attempted to improve their rank and social status.

9.5 Where are the Soldiers? In what is often considered to have become a militarised society, Sidonius’ world is remarkably lacking in the military.123 Sidonius’ works mention 51 fifth-century individuals and 119

120

121 122 123

Sidon. Ep. 9.6.1–2 puellam . . . intactam vir laudandus in matrimonium adsumpsit, ‘he has now become a respectable husband by marrying an untouched girl’. For the term vir laudabilis, see also CIL 10.1354 (Nola): Hic requiescit in / pace Paulus v(ir) l(audabilis) decu/rio; CIL 5.5214 (Leucerae): Vigilius v(ir) l(audabilis) p(res)b(yte)r; MGH Form. p. 28, l. 22 ego te vir laudabilis illum defensore necnon et vos honerati, 29, 16 Arvernis aput vir laudabile illo defensore, 97, 18 peto, obtime defensor, vosque, laudabiles curialis atque municepis. Additionally, in the fourth century, two Gallic women, Maccusa Muceris and Victoria sive Valeriosa, ‘out of desire for their uncle Fl. Gemellus, vir perfectissimus and count, came through diverse places in the provinces to the province of Macedonia from farthest Gaul’ (ob desiderium avunculi eorum Fl. Gemelli v.p. comitis ab ultima Gallia per diversa loca provinciarum ad provinciam Macedoniam venerunt). They died there, and ‘the aformentioned vir laudabilis ordered this memorial to be made for them’ (quibus memoratus vir laudabilis . . . iussit eis memoriam fieri) (CIL 3.14406, ILS 8454). In this case, vir laudabilis, like vir perfectissimus, referred to a person of equestrian, that is non-senatorial, status. Sidon. Ep. 6.9.1 Vir iam honestus Gallus, quia iussus ad coniugem redire non distulit, ‘The vir honestus Gallus, as, having been so ordered, he did not delay to return to his wife’. Sidon. Ep. 7.2.3 parentes natalibus non superbis sed absolutis, et sicut nihil illustre iactantes, ita nihil servile metuentes. Sidon. Ep. 7.2.3 militia illis in clericali potius quam in palatino decursa comitatu; see Declareuil (1935). See e.g. O’Flynn (1983), MacGeorge (2002).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 47

13/02/20 4:00 PM

48

RALPH W . MATHISEN

groups involved in military activities, 9.9% of the total number of entries. This sounds like a significant number, but most of these references are either obiter dicta or concern individuals being discussed in other contexts. Thirty-six of these references are to military commanders, including 23 entries for Roman officers (Master of Soldiers, comes, dux, and tribune), and 13 entries for barbarian kings and warlords who engaged in military activities, 11 of whom, such as Attila and Euric, are named. Of the 36 individuals in military command positions, 26, or 79%, are named, and they also include 26 of the 27 named military men. The picture for regular soldiers is rather different. The 15 entries include 10 groups, 5 individuals, and only a single named person. The soldiers are nearly always either barbarians or independent auxiliary forces. The panegyrics do include some de rigueur accounts of an emperor’s military exploits, only a few of which involved Gaul, but the letters have almost no references to military affairs, and soldiers are noteworthy by their absence. Two of the most striking accounts of military encounters involved Sidonius’ own family: his father-in-law Eparchius Avitus’ defeat of a raiding party of Huns in Roman service c. 439, and his brother-in-law Ecdicius’ victory in a skirmish with Visigothic besiegers around 471.124 The fifteen references to soldiers in all of Sidonius’ works involve primarily barbarians, including Vandals raiding Italy,125 a Hunnic auxiliary serving with Majorian,126 the Visigothic guard of Theoderic II and a Visigothic soldier who wanted a plough,127 barbarian auxiliaries, presumably Burgundians, billeted on one of Sidonius’ estates at Lyon,128 a Burgundian turbo barbaricus aut militaris . . . improbitas that Sidonius feared would accuse his cousin Apollinaris of treason,129 and another Hunnic auxiliary, who killed a servant of Eparchius Avitus.130 The few soldiers with any Roman connections were often in barbarian service, such as some Moors who were compelled to accompany the Vandals on their raids in Italy.131 And two of the three named ‘soldiers’ were Romans in Visigothic service: Calminus, whom Sidonius says was compelled by the Visigoths to accompany them on their raids against the Auvergne,132 and Namatius, whom Sidonius describes as a commander of the Visigothic navy.133 But there are hardly any Roman soldiers in Roman military service. One notes only the Breton soldiers of king Riothamus in Armorica,134 and the publicus exercitus recruited by Ecdicius,135 who was 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

133

134 135

Sidon. Ep. 3.3.2–7. Sidon. Carm. 5.389, 601. Sidon. Carm. 5.518–39. Sidon. Ep. 1.2.4, Carm. 7.411-16. Sidon. Carm. 12.6–7. Sidon. Ep. 5.6.1, ‘riotous barbarian or unscrupulous soldier’. Sidon. Carm. 7.251. Sidon. Carm. 5.385–424. Sidon. Ep. 5.12.1 ad arbitrium terroris alieni vos loricae, nos propugnacula tegunt, ‘at the dictate of a foreign menace, you are protected by your armour, we by our fortifications’. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.13 asseveravit nuper vos classicum in classe cecinisse atque inter officia nunc nautae, modo militis litoribus Oceani curvis inerrare contra Saxonum pandos myoparones . . . 17 de peregrinantibus amicis, quippe quos bellicum militarisque tessera terit . . . adversa formidem, ‘he affirmed that you had recently sounded the trumpet of war in the fleet, and, in discharging the duties now of a sailor, now of a soldier, were roaming the winding shores of Ocean to oppose the curving vessels of the Saxons . . . I fear the worst about friends abroad, particularly those kept busy by the war-trumpet and orders of the day.‘ To these might be added Sidonius’ friend Vincentius (Ep. 1.7), if he is the Vincentius who was a Visigothic dux and magister militum (Chron. Gall. 511, s.a. 473). Sidon. Ep. 1.7.5, 3.9.2. Sidon. Ep. 3.3.2–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 48

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

49

appointed Patrician and Master of Soldiers by the emperor Nepos (474–5) and is the only soldier or officer of the Roman army in Gaul mentioned by Sidonius for the period after 455. If Sidonius was living in the midst of a militarised society, he either chose not to emphasise it, or, more likely, found it so commonplace that it was barely worth mention.

9.6 The Boni: Sidonius’ Extended Aristocracy Sidonius regularly referred to this inclusive class of late antique elites as the boni (‘the good people’). They were contrasted with others, the mali (‘the bad people’), who had the wrong values and the wrong associates, and created dissension, discord, and disunity. Sidonius complimented Sagittarius, for example, on having as his admirers ‘men of a good sort’,136 and he observed regarding Menstruanus: ‘However often he gains the friendship of any one of the boni, he obtains favours no less often than he grants them . . . every one of the boni thinks all good things about him’.137 Sidonius was particularly careful to include curiales among the extended class of boni. Thus, regarding one meeting of the curia of Lyon, he wrote to Philagrius: ‘All of the good people communally thought all good things about you . . . you were pleasing to all the good people’,138 and about another meeting, he wrote to Pastor: ‘Nor should you be mistaken about what every good person was thinking.’139 In addition, the election of the archdeacon John as bishop of Chalon was marked, among the townspeople, by ‘the astonishment of the schemers, the mortification of the mali, and the acclamations of the boni’.140 As Sidonius wrote to his young friend Burgundio, who was worried about how his composition would be received: ‘But whoever is so malus that he understands that something is well written but does not praise it, this person the boni see through and do not praise.’141 Ecclesiastics too were included under the umbrella of the boni. To Faustus of Riez, Sidonius wrote: ‘All of the boni rightly celebrate you as most blessed’.142 In the same vein, the contrast made by Gallic secular aristocrats between the boni and the mali was paralleled by the ecclesiastical opposition of ‘the upright’ (boni) to ‘the wicked’ (mali).143 Eucherius of Lyon presumed, for example, that the mali would suffer in the afterlife, ‘where there is the greatest and incontrovertible distinction between the boni and the mali’.144 It was but a small step to equate ‘good men’ in a theological sense with ‘good men’ in a social sense. Just as secular aristocrats expected the boni to provide examples of upright behaviour, so did ecclesiastics, as also expressed pithily by Eucherius: ‘If we are captivated by good men, we shall be shunned by wicked men.’145 This division of society into good and wicked people would have contributed to the sense of belonging and inclusivity that came from being considered to be one of the boni. 136 137

138 139 140 141

142 143 144 145

Sidon. Ep. 2.4.3 bonarum partium viros. Sidon. Ep. 2.6.1–2 quotiens in boni cuiusque adscitur amicitias, non amplius consequatur beneficii ipse quam tribuat . . . de quo boni quique bona quaeque iudicaverunt. Sidon. Ep. 7.14.1, 9 omnes de te boni in commune senserunt omnia bona . . . bonis omnibus placeas. Sidon. Ep. 5.20.3 non te fefellit, quid boni quique meditarentur. Sidon. Ep. 4.25.4 stupentibus factiosis, erubescentibus malis, acclamantibus bonis. Sidon. Ep. 9.14.8 ceterum quisquis ita malus est, ut intelligat bene scripta nec tamen laudet, hunc boni intellegunt nec tamen laudant. Sidon. Ep. 9.9.16 quocirca merito te beatissimum boni omnes idque supra omnes tua tempestate concelebrabunt. Note Cassian. Coll. 11.10, for the bonos et malos, iustos et iniustos. Eucher. Ep. ad Valer. p. 717 ubi bonorum ac malorum summa et inconfusa discretio est. Eucher. Ep. ad Valer. p. 716 si bonis illicimur, malis extrudamur.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 49

13/02/20 4:00 PM

50

RALPH W . MATHISEN

9.7 Missing Persons Ever since the publication of the first volume of PLRE in 1971, the identification of ‘missing persons’ has been an armchair sport of prosopographers and historians.146 The Sidonius database reveals a number of persons who met the criteria for inclusion in some of the standard prosopographical catalogues, but were omitted. Not only are named and known persons often simply missed, but the lack of attention to anonymous individuals and to women also can result in serious underrepresentations. For example, the three volumes of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire propose to include only elite members of society, that is, ‘all senators, equestrians, comites and holders of honores or dignitates . . . lawyers, doctors, rhetors, grammarians and poets’ and ‘literary persons (teachers, philosophers, etc.)’.147 PLRE excludes clergy except insofar as clergy meet the other criteria for inclusion. But PLRE is notorious for the spottiness of its adherence even to its own standards, a famous omission in volume 1 being Augustine, who served as imperial rhetor of Milan before entering the church. The database includes 284 persons cited in volumes 1–2 of PLRE. But there are also an additional 62 individuals characterised as ‘senatorial’ who are omitted from PLRE. Only 10 of these are named (Eutropia, Fidulus, Florentinus, Gelasius, Industrius, Iohannes, Petreius, Salonius, Calminius, Ferreolus), and all of these were cited in one or another list of addenda long ago. That leaves 52 anonymous persons of likely senatorial background omitted from PLRE. These include an anonymous king (the father of the Visigothic queen Ragnahilda), an anonymous patrician (an ancestor of Tonantius Ferreolus), and 2 anonymous prefects; not to mention women of the highest social rank, such as the daughter of the ex-prefect of Gaul Priscus Valerianus, who married the vir inlustris Pragmatius,148 and the wife of the emperor Eparchius Avitus, whose inheritance Sidonius tried to recover after his exile.149 These omissions likewise suggest that in order to obtain a more balanced and accurate picture of society, any prosopographical analysis – or any analysis at all, for that matter – needs to take cognisance of the multitude of anonymous persons who spatter the pages of Sidonius’ works.

9.8 More Missing Persons A question that naturally arises when using Sidonius as a prosopographical source that is representative of his age is just how comprehensive he is. After all, he is not the only source to discuss the inhabitants of the world of late Roman Gaul. How does Sidonius compare to the other sources? A number of known persons are notably missing from his pages.150 For example, there is no mention of the Master of Soldiers Agrippinus, who turned Narbonne over to the Visigoths in 462.151 Or of Agrippinus’ rival, the Master of Soldiers Aegidius, who fought the Visigoths on the Loire in the early 460s, or of his son Syagrius, who subsequently ruled the so-called Kingdom of Soissons until his defeat by Clovis in 486.152 Or of the mysterious 146 147 148 149

150 151 152

E.g. Mathisen (1987). PLRE 1, dustjacket, vi. Sidon. Ep. 5.10.2. Sidon. Ep. 8.9.2 necdum enim quicquam de hereditate socruali vel in usum tertiae sub pretio medietatis obtinui, ‘I have not yet obtained any part of my mother-in-law’s estate, not even as much as the usufruct of a third of it at the price of a half.’ See also, in this volume, van Waarden, ch. 1. Vassili (1936). Aegidius: Mathisen (1979a), Frye (1992); Syagrius: Schmidt (1928), James (1988).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 50

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

51

‘Count Paul’, or of Childeric, the father of Clovis, who ruled from Cambrai in the north. On the other hand, Fridericus, the brother of Euric, was mentioned, but not named.153 Nor was there any mention of the adventurer Odovacar, who likewise campaigned on the Loire, at Angers, in the late 460s.154 Nor of the mysterious Bilimer, rector Galliarum, who failed to come to the rescue of the emperor Anthemius in 472.155 Nor is there any reference to Aurelianus, perhaps the last praetorian prefect of Gaul in 473, when he received an extant edict from the court of the emperor Glycerius (473–4).156 The omission of the military men, at least, could be consistent with Sidonius’ general avoidance of discussing military matters. In the ecclesiastical world, there is no mention of bishop Marcellus of Die, a protégé of Sidonius’ good friend bishop Mamertus of Vienne, and a major player in episcopal politics from 463 until after 470. One wonders if he might have been involved in the ‘Marcellan conspiracy to seize the diadem’ in 456/7.157 Nor is there any reference to Vivianus, bishop of Saintes in the 460s.158 And one of Sidonius’ most striking omissions is that not a single bishop of Rome appears in his works, not even in his discussions of his visits to Rome, suggesting how relatively inconsequential the bishop of Rome’s influence and reputation were in Gaul at this time. In several instances, connections among persons known to Sidonius are found in sources other than Sidonius, and can be used to evaluate just how well connected Sidonius really was in the ecclesiastical world. For example, one might look at the list of bishops present at the Council of Arles c. 470, which Sidonius did not attend, although, given that no bishop was known to have been present from Aquitania or Novempopulana, that might be no surprise. Of the thirty named bishops, all of whom surely knew each other, eighteen come from known sees.159 Twelve of these, or 40%, including all five metropolitans, corresponded with Sidonius. Two more were mentioned by Sidonius, raising the percentage cited to nearly 50%. Of the sixteen left unmentioned by Sidonius, eleven are from unknown sees, suggesting they were a rather insigificant bunch. On the other hand, the only bishops of note not mentioned by Sidonius are Veranus of Vence, the son of Eucherius of Lyon, and, once again, Marcellus of Die. On this basis, then, Sidonius would appear to have been, or become, well integrated into the Gallic episcopal establishment. In addition, of the bishops attending the Council of Vannes, datable only to c. 461/491, Sidonius corresponded with the two senior bishops, Perpetuus of Tours and Nonnechius of Nantes, but not with the other four, none of whose sees are known.160 Other sources, too, demonstrate that persons Sidonius knew also knew each other, and that the late fifth-century Gallo-Roman aristocratic world was exceptionally well interconnected. For example, Constantius of Lyon dedicated his Vita Germani Autissiodorensis to bishop Censurius of Auxerre.161 Mamertus Claudianus of Vienne authored an extant letter to the

153 154 155 156

157

158 159 160 161

Sidon. Carm. 7.435, 519; killed fighting Aegidius c. 464. McCormick (1977), MacBain (1983), Moorhead (1984). Paul. Diac. Hist. Rom. 15.4; PLRE 2, 230. Glycerius, Edict ‘Supernae maiestatis’ (29 April 473): Hänel (1857) 260 and PL 56.896–7; also Greg. Tur. Glor. mart. 77 Aureliani autem patricii. Hilarus, Ep. ‘Qualiter contra sedis’: MGH Ep. 3.28–9; see Dolbeau (1983). Sidon. Ep. 1.11.6 de capessendo diademate coniuratio Marcellana; see Mathisen (1979a); also below n. 175, and van Waarden in this volume, ch. 1, sect. 4.1.4 with n. 57. Vita Viviani: MGH SRM 3.92–100; see Lot (1929). Munier (1963) 159. Sidon. Ep. 7.9, 4.18.4, 8.13. Vita s. Germani episcopi Autessiodorensis, ed. Borius (1965).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 51

13/02/20 4:00 PM

52

RALPH W . MATHISEN

rhetorician Sapaudus.162 And Paulinus, the son of Pontius Leontius of Bordeaux, was the author of an extant letter to Faustus of Riez, and the recipient of one from Faustus.163 Faustus also dedicated his De gratia to bishop Leontius of Arles.164 In the north, Lupus of Troyes and Euphronius of Autun jointly authored a letter on bigamous clerics.165 In addition, bishop Auspicius of Toul sent a metrical letter to the Frankish Count Arbogast of Trier,166 and Agroecius, later bishop of Sens, dedicated his De orthographia to bishop Eucherius of Lyon, both examples well illustrating the degree to which bishops remained part of the classical literary tradition.167 Another kind of interconnection among these individuals turns up on a striking piece of material culture. In 1853, two silver dishes, now in the National Museum in Warsaw, were found in Toulouse, the capital of the Visigothic kingdom of Aquitania, during construction excavations.168 Embedded in the centre of one dish is a two-solidus gold medallion of the emperor Theodosius II (402–50) (Fig. 2.1). The bearded visage suggests a date in the mid

Figure 2.1 The ‘Thaumastus Disk’ from Toulouse, with a double solidus of Theodosius II in the centre and the inscription THAVMASTVS AGRECIO

162 163

164 165 166 167

168

Epistula ad Sapaudum, in Engelbrecht’s 1885 edition of Claudianus Mamertus, CSEL 11, 203–6. Sidon. Ep. 8.12.5; Paul. Burd. Ep. ‘Scribere vobis’ (CSEL 21, 181–3; MGH AA 8, 275–6); Faust. Reien. Ep. ‘Admiranda mihi’ (CSEL 21, 183–95; MGH AA 8, 276–82). Sidon. Ep. 6.3, 7.6.10; Faust. Reien. Ep. ‘Quod pro sollicitudine’ = De gratia, prol. (CSEL 21, 3–4). Ep. ‘Commonitorium quod’: Munier (1963) 140-1. MGH Ep. 3, 135–7. Agroecius: Ep. 7.5, 7.9.6; Eucherius: Carm. 16.115, Ep. 4.3.7. See Agroecius, De orthographia (‘On Orthography’), praef.: H. Keil, Grammatici Latini 7, 113–14: Domino Eucherio episcopo Agroecius. Libellum Capri de orthographia misisti mihi . . . huic ergo Capri libello . . . quaedam adicienda subieci . . . ad te . . . hoc opusculum mittitur, ‘Agroecius to Lord Bishop Eucherius. You sent me the book On Orthography by Caper . . . I attach some additions to this book by Caper . . . this little work is sent to you’. Baratte (2012); cf. Baratte (1993) 212; also Zelazowski and Zukowski (2005).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 52

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

53

430s. This is just the kind of present that circulated among the late Roman aristocracy: emperors bestowed them on favoured subordinates, and clients presented them to patrons, as attested by the engraved silver basin that Sidonius’ friend Evodius offered to the Visigothic queen Ragnahilda in the 460s.169 Engraved around the coin, moreover, are the words Thaumastus Agrecio, that is, ‘Thaumastus to Agroecius’. Both of these are names that turn up elsewhere in late Roman Gaul. The only other occurrences of the name Thaumastus are in Sidonius’ own family, his uncle and cousin. The cousin would have been too young c. the 430s, but the uncle was up to his neck in politics. In 468 he was one of three Gallic legates, along with Tonantius Ferreolus and Petronius, sent to Rome to accuse the Gallic prefect Arvandus of treason.170 Now, in Sidonius’ Propempticon ad libellum (Carm. 24), where he describes the journey of his book of poetry from Clermont to Narbonne, Thaumastus’ villa Tres Villae is the last stop before Narbonne.171 This would put Thaumastus just down the road from Toulouse, where the plate was found. So Sidonius’ uncle would be a good candidate for the Thaumastus who bestowed the plate. But what about Agroecius? Late Roman Gaul was flush with distinguished Agroecii, such as the primicerius notariorum of the usurper Jovinus. But he was executed in 413.172 Another possibility would be the rhetor just mentioned, later bishop of Sens, Agroecius. But Sens is quite a way from Narbonne, the home of Thaumastus, and Toulouse. Rather closer is yet another Agroecius. On 29 November 445, bishop Rusticus of Narbonne dedicated a reconstructed cathedral that was commemorated in a lengthy inscription placed on the lintel of the entrance.173 The work had been supported by the praetorian prefect of Gaul Marcellus, who had contributed 600 solidi for the workmen and a like amount for materials and additional expenses.174 There then follows a list of other contributors, the amounts for the last four of whom, Oresius, Agroecius, Deconia, and Salutius, are fragmentary or have broken off. Oresius donated at least 200 solidi, and if, as seems likely, the I that follows Agroecius stands for idem, he too would have provided at least this much. Thus, we have in Narbonne a very influential and wealthy Agroecius at the approximate time that a Thaumastus made his gift of the plate. If these identifications are correct, we have a connection between Sidonius’ politically active uncle Thaumastus and an aristocratic circle of Narbonne. And one wonders whether 169

170 171 172

173

174

Sidon. Ep. 4.8.5 istoque cultu expolitam reginae Ragnahildae disponis offerre, ‘and you plan to offer [the basin] embellished with this decoration to Queen Ragnahilda’. Sidon. Ep. 1.7.4. Sidon. Carm. 24 v. 84. Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.9 hisdem diebus praefectus tyrannorum Decimus Rusticus, Agroetius ex primicerio notariorum Iovini multique nobiles apud Arvernos capti a ducibus Honorianis et crudeliter interempti sunt, ‘in these same days the prefect of the tyrants, Decimus Rusticus, Agroecius, who had been senior notary of Jovinus, and many nobles in Clermont were arrested by Honorius’ commanders and cruelly put to death’. Hirschfeld, Inscriptiones Galliae Narbonensis p. 619 = CIL 12.5336, = ILCV 1806 (445) = Le Blant 617: +D(e)o et Chr(is)to miserante lim(en) hoc c(ol)l(o)k(a)t(um) e(st) / anno IV c(on)s(ule) Valentiniano Aug(usto) VI, III k(a)l(endas) D(ecembres), XVIIII anno ep(iscopa)tus Rusti[ci . . .] / Rusticus ep(iscopu)s Bonosi filius / ep(iscop)i Aratoris de sorore nepus / ep(iscop)i Veneri soci(us) in monasterio / conpr(es)b(yter) eccle(siae) Massiliens(is) / anno xv ep(iscopa)tus su(i) d(ie) ann(i) v iii id(us) Oct(o)b(res) / c(urantibus) Vrso pr(es)b(ytero) Hermete diaco(no) et eor(um) seq(uen)tib(us) / coep(it) depon(ere) pariet(es) eccl(esiae) dud(um) exustae / xxxvii d(ie) quad(rata) in fundam(ento) poni coepi(t) / anno ii vii Id(us) Oct(o)b(res) absid(em) p(er)f(ecit) Montanus subd(iaconus) / Marcellus Gall(iarum) pr(a)ef(ectus) d(e)i cultor prece / exegit ep(iscopu)m hoc on(u)s suscip(ere) impendia / necessar(ia) repromittens quae per / bienn(ium) administ(rationis) / suae pr(a)ebu(it) artifi(ci)b(us) / merced(em) sol(idos) DC / ad oper(a) et ceter(a) sol(idos) id(em) / hinc obla(tiones) s(an)c(t)i / ep(iscop)i Veneri sol(idos) C[. . .] / ep(iscop)i Dynami L[. . .] / Oresi CC[. . .] / Agroeci i[dem . . .] / et Deconia[ni . . .] / Saluti [. . .]. Marrou (1970) (cf. PLRE 2, 712) perpetuated an error that goes back to the original 1888 publication in CIL: the letters ID are not some weird notation for 1500 (mille quingentos?), but merely an abbreviation for idem, that is, ‘the same amount’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 53

13/02/20 4:00 PM

54

RALPH W . MATHISEN

the prefect Marcellus – not to mention Sidonius’ uncle – was in any way connected with what Sidonius called ‘the Marcellan conspiracy to seize the diadem’ that popped up in Gaul during the interregnum after the fall of Avitus in 456/7.175 Aside from bishop Marcellus of Die, there are no other Marcelluses of any note attested in Gaul at this time.

9.9 Shared Correspondents Another kind of interconnection that can be used to check Sidonius’ coverage is to look at how it compares with that of two other more-or-less contemporary Gallic epistolographers: Ruricius, bishop of Limoges c. 485–510, whose surviving collection includes 83 letters, and Avitus, bishop of Vienne c. 490–518, whose collection includes 96 letters.176 Ruricius had close personal ties to Sidonius: no surprise given that Ruricius, distantly related to the Anician family of Rome, was married to Hiberia, a native of Clermont and daughter of Ommatius, himself a scion of a patrician family. Sidonius and Ruricius shared no fewer than 6 letters, 3 from each of them, in addition to 2 poems from Sidonius. Furthermore, 11 other persons received extant letters from both of them, 18 from Sidonius, and 22 from Ruricius (Table 2.2).177 Thus, of Sidonius’ 147 letters, 21 (14%) were addressed to Ruricius and their shared correspondents, whereas 25 (30%) of Ruricius’ 83 letters were to Sidonius or shared correspondents. Strikingly, two of these shared correspondents, Faustus and Graecus, authored surviving correspondence of their own to Ruricius. And equally noteworthy, of the 18 letters in Ruricius’ carefully constructed first book, 9, or 50%, were addressed to members of Sidonius’ literary circle. Given that Sidonius was much better connected than Ruricius, his lesser percentage of overlap, albeit still significant, is unsurprising, whereas the much larger degree of overlap for Ruricius’ letters, especially in Book 1, suggests that the younger man was modelling himself on his much more distinguished friend. On the other hand, Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, who would have been a coeval of Sidonius’ son Apollinaris, is something of a mystery. Even though other young people, including Gelasius, Burgundio, and Apollinaris himself, received extant letters from Sidonius, Avitus did not. In fact, neither he, nor his father Hesychius, a comes of Sidonius’ father-in-law Eparchius Avitus and later bishop of Vienne, nor any members of his immediate family were even mentioned.178 Indeed, Sidonius and Avitus shared only a single correspondent, Apollinaris.179 One wonders whether

175

176

177 178 179

Sidon. Ep. 1.11.6, to Montius: cumque de capessendo diademate coniuratio Marcelliana coqueretur. Lütjohann (1887) reads Marcelliana with MS C, as opposed to Marcellana in MSS LMTFP, and is followed by Mohr (1895). Sirmond (1652), Notae 22, suggested a connection with Marcelliani patricii, Aetii quondam familiaris, a suggestion reprised in Mommsen’s index to Lütjohann’s MGH edition, p. 430: ‘Marcellinus, coniuratio Marcellini vel Marcelliniana (alterum utrum enim requiritur pro tradito vocabulo Marcellana)’, followed by Anderson (1936) 1.400: ‘Marcelliniana vel Marcellini requiri admonet Mommsen, recte ut videtur, nisi Marcellina scribas: Marcell(i)ana codd’. Stevens (1933) 41 n. 4 dismisses the reading Marcellana as a ‘non-existent form’ when it is in fact Sidonius’ standard way of making adjectives from this kind of name, cf. Lucullanus (Carm. 2.511) and Sullano (Ep. 3.13.7), and in the same letter, Camillano (Ep. 1.11.15). See Mathisen (1979a) 598–603, (1985), and (1991c). See also above, n. 157. Ruric. Ep.: Engelbrecht (1891), Krusch (1887), Demeulenaere (1985); see also Mathisen (1999a). Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus of Vienne, Carmina, Epistulae, and Sermones: R. Peiper ed., MGH AA 6.2 (Berlin, 1883); see also Shanzer and Wood (2002). A third epistolographer with Gallic connections, Ennodius, bishop of Pavia c. 514–21, is rather too late to have had any overlap with Sidonius. Including Graecus of Marseille, who received five letters from Sidonius and authored an extant letter to Ruricius. PLRE 2, 554–56 (Hesychius 11). Sidon. Ep. 3.13, Alc. Avit. Ep. 43, 51.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 54

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

55

Table 2.2 Overlap of correspondents in the letter collections of Sidonius and Ruricius of Limoges Name

Identity

Letters/Poems of Sidonius

Letters of Ruricius

Sidonius/ Ruricius Agricola

Bishop of Clermont/ Bishop of Limoges Son of emperor Eparchius Avitus, brother of Ecdicius and Papianilla Son of Sidonius, later bishop of Clermont

Carm. 10–11, Ep. 4.16, 5.15, 8.10 Ep. 1.2, 2.12

Ep. 1.8, 1.9, 1.16

Ep. 3.13, mention in 4.12.1, 5.10.4, 5.11.3, 8.6.12, 9.1.5 Ep. 9.10

Ep. 2.26, 2.27, 2.41

Apollinaris

Aprunculus

Censurius

Elaphius

Faustus

Bishop of Langres, later Sidonius’ successor at Clermont Bishop of Auxerre, Ep. 6.10 dedicatee of Constantius’ Vita Germani Ep. 4.15 Vir magnificus with a castellum at Rodez; later a high official in the Visigoth kingdom Bishop of Riez Ep. 9.3, 9.9, mentions in Carm. 16.68; Ep. 7.6.10

Graecus

Bishop of Marseille

Ep. 6.8, 7.2, 7.7, 7.10, 9.4, mention in 7.6.10

Hesperius

Littérateur, later rhetor

Leontius

Bishop of Arles

Lupus Namatius

Rhetor of Périgueux From Oléron, admiral of Euric, married to Ceraunia Illustrious neighbour of Pontius Leontius of Bordeaux Property at Bayeux, later bishop of Tours

Ep. 2.10, mention in 4.22.1 Ep. 6.3, mention in 7.6.10 Ep. 8.11 Ep. 8.6

Rusticus

Volusianus

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 55

Ep. 2.11, mention in Carm. 35 (Ep. 8.11.3) 35–6 Ep. 7.17

Ep. 2.32, mention in 2.23.6

Ep. 2.49

Ep. 2.51

Ep. 2.7

Ep. 1.1, 1.2 [to Faustus]; Faustus, Ep. ‘Licet per’, ‘Propitia divinitate’, ‘Gratias domino’, ‘Tanta mihi’, ‘Gratias ad vos’ [to Ruricius] Graecus, Ep. ‘Gratias domino’ [to Ruricius], Faustus, Ep. ‘Honoratus officio’ [to Graecus] Ep. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 Mention in Ep. 1.15 Ep. 1.10 Ep. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.62 Ep. 2.20, 2.54

Ep. 2.65

13/02/20 4:00 PM

56

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Avitus’ family was on the ‘other side’ of any of the aristocratic squabbles in which Sidonius became involved, such as the conspiracy to turn Vaison over to the imperial government.

10 Sidonius’ Family So much, then, for some general observations regarding Sidonius’ people. One might now consider some prosopographical matters involving Sidonius’ own family. A great deal of study has already focused on Sidonius’ family relationships, so for someone as well known and much studied, it is rather remarkable that there remain so many uncertainties about his family connections,180 especially given that a bit of prosopographical detective work, especially as it involves anonymous persons, can shed further light on some of the ambiguities.

10.1 Sidonius’ Relationship with Avitus of Vienne In spite of Sidonius’ failure to mention Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, bishop of Vienne c. 490–518, there was clearly a family connection between them, as is immediately suggested by the name of Avitus’ brother, Apollinaris, bishop of Valence.181 But many modern commentators remain uncertain about the nature of this relationship. PLRE, for example, merely notes: ‘He was a relative of Apollinaris [the son of Sidonius] and therefore of Sidonius Apollinaris.’ Although Shanzer and Wood say nothing about the nature of the relationship save to mention an ‘unproven’ suggestion by Mathisen ‘that Avitus’ mother, Audentia, was Sidonius’ sister’, they then accept this relation as a given in their stemma. 182 On the other hand, Harries has nothing at all to say about Sidonius’ younger relatives, not even his daughters. Most recently, Malaspina and Reydellet state merely that Sidonius was ‘probablement oncle maternel d’Alcimus Ecdicius’.183 The passage that PLRE had in mind is Avitus’ Ep. 52 to Apollinaris the son, in which he speaks of ‘the divine pity, which has placed in your hands the hope of continuing our family line and conceded indeed that we both be the fathers of our future posterity with you alone as the begetter’.184 Now, given their similar ages, if Avitus and Apollinaris were so closely connected that only Apollinaris could provide offspring to continue the family line, one could suggest that they were cousins, with the same grandparents. This conclusion is also suggested by a poem to his sister Fuscina, in which Avitus describes their family background: And I will not now review for you our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, whom a glorious life rendered worthy to be priests. Look upon your father, admitted to the sacred ministry as a bishop. And when your father and maternal uncle (avunculus), of wide-ranging importance, after holding high secular office, gain your admiration by taking charge of the people.185 180 181 182

183

184

185

E.g. PLRE 2, 1317–20; also Günther (1997), Mathisen (1981a, 2003b), Mascoli (2003a, 2010). PLRE 2, 115 (Apollinaris 5); Vita Apoll. Valent. (MGH SRM 3, 196–209). PLRE 2, 195–6, (Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus 4); see Shanzer and Wood (2002) 5, 439, citing Mathisen (1981a), and Harries (1994). Note Alc. Avit. Carm. 6.19 edidit ut quartam genetrix Audentia prolem, ‘when your mother Audentia had given birth to her fourth child’, and PLRE 2, 185 (Audentia 1) (with no mention of the family of Sidonius). Malaspina and Reydellet (2016) viii, citing Mathisen (1981a); cf. Heinzelmann (1982) 568, but Stroheker (1948) 154 merely notes that ‘Avitus war mit den Apollinares verwandt.’ Alc. Avit. Ep. 52, to Apollinaris: tribuat divina miseratio, quae spem reparandae prosapiae in personae vestrae honore constituit, et secuturae posteritatis nostrae te uno genitore etiam nos patres esse concessit. Alc. Avit. Carm. 6.655–9, to Fuscina: non et avos tibimet iam nunc proavosque retexam, / vita sacerdotes quos reddidit inclita dignos: / pontificem sacris adsumptum respice patrem. / cumque tibi genitor vel avunculus undique magni / post fasces placeant populorum sumere fascem.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 56

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

57

Now, as already seen, the genitor and pater who became a sacerdos and pontifex after holding a secular office was Hesychius, an ex-comes who preceded Avitus as bishop of Vienne. But who was the avunculus who likewise held a high secular office, became a bishop, and, according to Avitus’ letter to Apollinaris, would have been a relative of both Avitus and Apollinaris? By far the best, if not the only, candidate is Sidonius himself. The argument would seem to be clinched by another letter of Avitus to Apollinaris where Avitus observes: ‘The illustrious work of our common Sollius [i.e. Sidonius] pertains no less to my glory than to yours.’186 And if Sidonius was Avitus’ uncle, it would mean that Avitus’ mother, Audentia, must have been Sidonius’ sister.187

10.2 The Name of Sidonius’ Father With this addition to Sidonius’ stemma, one now can speculate on the name of Sidonius’ anonymous father. The pattern of naming children after grandparents in Late Antiquity is well known. Given that one of the grandchildren of Sidonius’ father, Sidonius’ daughter, was named Alcima, and that another, Avitus of Vienne, was named Alcimus, one could at least suggest that Sidonius’ father’s name was also Alcimus.188

10.3 Sidonius’ Forebears We might now turn to Sidonius’ more distant forebears. In a letter to Philomathius, Sidonius describes himself as one ‘for whom his father, father-in-law, grandfather, and greatgrandfather gleamed in urban and praetorian prefectures, and in military and palatine masterships’.189 Now, Anderson, in his Loeb of Sidonius, asserts: ‘There is no other evidence that the great-grandfather of Sidonius held any such public office’, but, like anything else in Sidonius, his statement here is evidence enough.190 Sidonius proavus is omitted from the stemma of Sidonius’ family in PLRE 2, which commences with Sidonius’ grandfather Apollinaris,191 although PLRE 1 nonetheless includes him as Anonymus #35, commenting that he ‘held high office, but it is not clear which’.192 But perhaps we can do a little better than that by a process of elimination. Sidonius’ father, grandfather, and father-in-law had been praefecti praetorio. His father-in-law had also been magister militum. So that leaves for the proavus the office of praefectus urbi and a palatine magistracy, which could have been either head of one of the court secretarial bureaux, such as magister epistularum, or, more likely for someone of this rank, the post of magister officiorum.193 Sidonius proavus must have held at least one of these, and indeed may have held them both. 186 187 188

189

190 191

192 193

Alc. Avit. Ep. 51 non minus ad meam quam vestram gloriam pervenit communis Sollii opus illustre. As Mathisen (1981a), followed by Mascoli (2010) 18, 21–2. Cf. Sidon. Ep. 5.10.3 to Sapaudus: fortitudo Alcimi, ‘Alcimus’ strength’; also Ep. 8.11.2 to Lupus: hi Paulinum, illi Alcimum non requirunt, ‘these do not feel the loss of Paulinus or those of Alcimus’; the reference presumably is to Latinus Alcimus Alethius, rhetor of Bordeaux; see Mathisen (1981a) 100–1, 109; Anderson (1965) 2.422, suggests that Sidonius’ father was named Apollinaris. Sidon. Ep. 1.3.1 cui pater socer avus proavus praefecturiis urbanis praetorianisque magisteriis palatinis militaribusque micuerunt. Anderson (1936) 1.346 n.1. See Mascoli (2002), who, however, omits discussion of Apollinaris’ forebears. On Sidonius’ father and grandfather, see also van Waarden in this volume, ch. 1, sect. 4.1.1. PLRE 1, 1011; cf. PLRE 2, 115 (Apollinaris 6): ‘His ancestors had occupied the highest offices.’ As suggested by Mathisen (1986).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 57

13/02/20 4:00 PM

58

RALPH W . MATHISEN

And there is more. In a letter to his nephew Secundus regarding restoring the grave of his grandfather, Sidonius wrote:194 ‘Belatedly, following up on my father and paternal uncles, I, a not unworthy grandson, dedicate this epitaph to my grandfather . . . Here lies the prefect Apollinaris . . . this is your primary glory, to precede in hope those whom you equal in rank, to surpass in merits there [in the next world] these ancestors (parentes) who here [in this world] are your equals in offices.’ So here not only Sidonius’ proavus but other forebears as well are said to have held high-ranking offices, perhaps around the 380s and before. Moreover, Sidonius seems to be implying that the paternal uncles, like his father, were deceased, and thus no longer able to perform their familial duty, as also indicated by his observation that as heirs of the third and fourth degrees, this responsibility had now devolved upon himself and Secundus.195

10.4 Uncles or Cousins? The epitaph for Sidonius’ grandfather raises the question of just who these paternal uncles were. Three individuals, Apollinaris, Simplicius, and Thaumastus, have traditionally been identified as Sidonius’ paternal uncles.196 Now, these three certainly do appear to have been brothers.197 But, although he did refer to a ‘bond of relationship’ with Apollinaris, in the course of his many letters and references to these three Sidonius never, in fact, referred to any of them as uncles; as fratres, sodales, or amici, yes, but never as out-and-out uncles.198 The closest that he came was in a reference in Carmen 24 to the elder Thaumastus (who had a son of the same name) as Sidonius’ prope patruum, that is, ‘nearly’ a patruus, but definitely not a fully fledged patruus.199 What does that mean? How can one be ‘nearly’ a paternal uncle? Now, Sidonius just had referred to the younger Thaumastus, who was of his own generation, as ‘my companion and colleague and brother (frater) by degree of relationship’.200 Because the younger Thaumastus was not Sidonius’ germanus, or natural brother, he would have been either a frater patruelis or a frater consobrinus, a paternal or maternal cousin. Indeed, Sidonius elsewhere used this kind of language for designating cousins, as when he wrote to Probus regarding the latter’s wife Eulalia: ‘My sister (soror) is your wife’, and specifically 194

195

196

197

198 199

200

Sidon. Ep. 3.12 to Secundus, containing the epitaph (Carm. 28): Serum post patruos patremque carmen / haud indignus avo nepos dicavi . . . praefectus iacet hic Apollinaris, / post praetoria recta Galliarum . . . hoc primum est decus . . . spe praecedere quos honore iungas, / quique hic sunt titulis pares parentes, / hos illic meritis supervenire. Sidon. Ep. 3.12.6 heres tertius quartusque dependimus. Anderson (1965) 2.43 even adds non-existent words to this effect to his translation: ‘Now that my father and uncles are no more’. Stroheker (1948) 145, 219, 223–4; Heinzelmann (1982) 556, 696, 702; PLRE 2, 113–14, 1015, 1062; and Mathisen (2013a) 243–5. Note also Chaix de Lavarène (1866) 162: Thaumastus merely as ‘son parent’; van Waarden (2010) 238: as brothers of Sidonius’ father; and Mascoli (2010) 47–8, where for ‘Sulpicio e Apollinare’ read ‘Simplicio e Apollinare’. Stevens (1933) 151, however, suggests that Apollinaris was a cousin. E.g. Sidon. Ep. 5.6.1 to Apollinaris: Thaumastum, germanum tuum . . . quem pro iure . . . sanguinis . . . complector, ‘your brother Thaumastus, whom I cherish by virtue of our kinship’; Ep. 5.7.1 to Thaumastus: germani tui, ‘your brother’, referring to Apollinaris. Moreover, because Simplicius lived with Apollinaris, PLRE calls them brothers, arguing that the only other joint letter in Sidonius (Ep. 5.21) was to two brothers. In addition, Sidonus linked the two of them in a letter to Fonteius of Vaison: dominis animae meae, Simplicio et Apollinari, ‘the two veritable possessors of my heart, Simplicius and Apollinaris’ (Ep. 7.4.4), and in 474 he wrote to Thaumastus in hopes that the quieti fratrum communium, ‘the peace of our common brothers’, that is Apollinaris and Simplicius, would not be disturbed (Ep. 5.7.7). Sidon. Ep. 2.9.3 vinculum propinquitatis. Sidon. Carm. 24.88–9 si fors senior tibi invenitur, / hunc pronus prope patruum saluta, that is, ‘if, perhaps, the elder [Thaumastus] is found, bent low salute him as nearly my uncle’. PLRE 2, 1015, cites this as evidence that he was ‘paternal uncle of Sidonius’. But the prope must go with patruum, not with pronus: it customarily precedes the word it modifies, and ‘nearly bent low’ would not only be awkward but also suggest just the opposite of what Sidonius meant. Sidon. Carm. 24.86–7 mihi sodalis / et collega simul graduque frater.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 58

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

59

distinguished their ‘cousinly (patruelis) rather than brotherly fraternitas’.201 In this case, then, soror was shorthand for soror patruelis, ‘paternal cousin’, and Eulalia would have been the daughter of either a brother or sister of Sidonius’ father, perhaps more likely a brother, given Sidonius’ mention of paternal uncles. Thaumastus, moreover, could only be a cousin of Sidonius if his father, who was not quite Sidonius’ patruus, was the husband of Sidonius’ aunt. And she must have been a paternal aunt, an amita, rather than a maternal aunt, or matertera, for had she been a maternal aunt, Thaumastus would have been prope avunculus, that is, ‘nearly a maternal uncle’. But what does that then say about Simplicius and Apollinaris? Surely the name Apollinaris suggests a closer relationship to Sidonius’ family than a mere marital connection. The solution is probably to be found in past confusion between the elder and younger Thaumastus. If the Thaumastus who appears in Sidonius’ letters is the younger Thaumastus, not the elder one, as is usually assumed, then he would have been the brother of Apollinaris and Simplicius, and all of them would have been Sidonius’ paternal cousins, not his uncles, with Apollinaris, typically, named after his and Sidonius’ grandfather.202 And the evidence seems to bear this out. For example, Sidonius addressed Apollinaris as frater, and given that he was not Sidonius’ germanus, this would appear to be Sidonius’ customary shorthand for frater patruelis.203 And Sidonius’ references to children still under Simplicius’ ‘paternal authority’, and to a daughter who just had married, would be more appropriate for a cousin of the same age as he than for an elderly uncle. Likewise, in 474 Sidonius spoke of embracing the younger Thaumastus ‘by reverent familiarity of age’, indicating, again, that he and Thaumastus were of the same generation.204 Thus, only the elder Thaumastus, who lived at Tres Villae north of Narbonne, was of Sidonius’ father’s generation. By the later 460s, his sons, Thaumastus, Apollinaris, and Simplicius, lived in the Rhône valley, Thaumastus at Vienne, close to Sidonius’ sister Audentia, and Simplicius and Apollinaris at Vaison, and, like Eulalia, were the paternal cousins and coevals of Sidonius.205 And this would mean that Sidonius’ patruelis Eulalia would likewise have been either a sister or a cousin of these three. Meanwhile, Sidonius also describes himself as the paternal uncle of a certain Secundus, an inhabitant of Lyon and the great-grandson of Sidonius’ grandfather Apollinaris.206 This means that Secundus was the son of a male sibling of Sidonius, the only known candidate being Sidonius’ barely mentioned brother.207

10.5 Sidonius’ Mother and Sisters One can now return to Sidonius’ immediate family, and in particular to his mother and sisters. Sidonius only mentions his mother twice. In a letter to Avitus of Cottion, who, while Sidonius was bishop, had bestowed the estate of Cuticiacum on the church of Clermont, Sidonius recalled: 201 202 203 204

205 206

207

Sidon. Ep. 4.1.1 Soror mihi quae uxor tibi . . . patruelis non germana fraternitas; Carm. 24.95 Eulaliae meae, ‘my Eulalia’. As in the prosopographical citations above. Sidon. Ep. 5.3.1 ergone . . . frater. Sidon. Ep. 5.4.2 ad superbiam filiorum . . . pro patria auctoritate, ‘against the uppishness of your children . . . in view of your paternal authority’; Ep. 3.11.1–2 patremfamilias . . . vel sic electus gener vel educta sic filia, ‘head of the family . . . the choice of a son-in-law and the upbringing of your daughter’. Sidon. Ep. 5.6.1 quem pro . . . aetatis reverenda familiaritate complector. As, indeed, proposed by Mathisen (1979c) 716, stemma. Sidon. Ep. 3.12.1–3 Avi mei, proavi tui . . . patruo tuo, ‘My grandfather and your great-grandfather . . . your paternal uncle’. Mentioned only once by Sidonius, Carm. 16.71–7; he was in the company of Faustus of Riez: germani . . . servatus tecum . . . pudor, ‘the virtue of my brother preserved with your help’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 59

13/02/20 4:00 PM

60

RALPH W . MATHISEN

‘Our mothers were connected by the closest blood relationship.’208 Thus, at the time of his marriage to Papianilla in the early 450s, Sidonius was already related to the Aviti of Clermont, as also seen in his recollection of spending much of his youth with Avitus in the Auvergne: ‘We had the same teachers, were taught the same skills, enjoyed the same gameplaying.’209 If Sidonius did in fact essentially grow up in Clermont, it may be that his father died not long after his prefecture and that Sidonius then resided with his mother. Moreover, given his relationship with the Aviti, Sidonius would perforce have been related to his wife Papianilla. Such a marriage would have been eminently sensible: it would have been difficult for Sidonius to find a marriage partner with a family background as exalted as hers, and such a marriage would also have allowed family property to be consolidated. Then, in a letter to Papianilla herself, Sidonius sent greetings from one of their daughters: ‘Roscia, our shared concern, salutes you; she is in the most indulgent care of her grandmother and aunts, which occurs rarely when raising grandchildren [or nieces].’210 PLRE 2 does have an entry for the grandmother, suggesting: ‘She was the mother either of Sidonius Apollinaris or of his wife Papianilla.’211 The aunts, however, have no entry of their own in PLRE 2,212 although in the fasti, Sidonius has sisters listed with a question mark and Sidonius’ own entry in PLRE, citing this same letter, notes that he had ‘possibly also sisters’, but suggesting ‘these could be Papianilla’s sisters’. But Sidonius surely knew Latin well enough to know that amitae were paternal sisters not maternal ones, who would be materterae.213 And if the aunts were maternal aunts, then the grandmother was surely Sidonius’ mother, not Papianilla’s. In addition, Sidonius was present with Roscia, the avia, and the amitae when he wrote the letter, and away from Papianilla, who would have been at home in Clermont. Sidonius would thus, again, have been visiting his own family in Lyon, rather than visiting Papianilla’s mother, who had her own estate in Clermont.214 It would seem ipso facto more likely that he wrote the letter when he was away in Lyon rather than just a few miles down the road in Clermont. So the question mark can be removed from the sisters, and the avia must be Sidonius’ own mother and the wife of Sidonius’ father.215 And, as just seen, one of these amitae could have been Audentia, the wife of Hesychius and mother of Avitus of Vienne.

10.6 The Children of Ecdicius Finally, the children of Ecdicius: PLRE 2 cites no children for Ecdicius, the son of the emperor Eparchius Avitus, brother of Papianilla, and brother-in-law of Sidonius. But in the same letter to Papianilla, Sidonius mentions, again, his hope for family honours, saying: ‘It is my ardent wish that our children and his may live in equal harmony; and I pray in our common name that just as we 208

209 210

211 212 213 214

215

Sidon. Ep. 3.1.1 matribus nostris summa sanguinis iuncti necessitudo; note Harries (1994) 31 (without citing any evidence): ‘His mother was closely related to the Aviti of Clermont, being sister to the mother of the younger Avitus.’ Sidon. Ep. 3.1.1 isdem . . . magistris usi, artibus instituti lusibus otiati. Sidon. Ep. 5.16.5 Roscia te salutat, cura communis: quae in aviae amitarumque indulgentissimo sinu, quod raro nepotibus contingit alendis, using the conjecture of Wilamowitz for the manuscript reading alienis; Günther (1997) suggests adding a nisi to retain the alienis, that is, ‘which happens rarely for the grandchildren of others’. PLRE 2, 1239 (Anonyma 17). Whereas PLRE 2, 1239, does list Anonymae 13, the sisters of Avitus 1 of Cottion. Cf. Sidon. Ep. 4.21.4 sed et matertera tua hinc, ‘your aunt is also from here’. Papianilla’s mother apparently lived until the mid-470s, when Sidonius attempted to gain possession of some of her property (Sidon. Ep. 8.9.2). PLRE 2, 1220 (Anonymus 6).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 60

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

61

of this generation were born into praefectorian families, and have been enabled by divine favour to elevate them to patrician rank, so they in their turn may exalt the patrician to the consular dignity.’216 Not only, therefore, did Ecdicius have children, but at least one of them was male. And they too can be added both to the stemma of Sidonius’ family and to the list of Anonymi in PLRE.

10.7 The Date of Sidonius’ Death The exact date of Sidonius’ death remains in doubt even though his epitaph has survived (Fig. 2.2), as first attested in a marginal note on the last page of the Madrid manuscript of Sidonius’ works.217 Its authenticity was sometimes doubted, but in 1991 a fragment of the epitaph was discovered at Clermont, testifying to its legitimacy.218 It was written in the same metre, phalaecian hendecasyllables, as that used by Sidonius for the epitaphs of his grandfather, Philomathia, and Mamertus Claudianus, thus placing it firmly in the context of Sidonius’ literary circle.219

Figure 2.2 The Sidonius epitaph from Madrid 9448 (©Biblioteca Nacional de España) 216

217

218 219

Sidon. Ep. 5.16.4 quam parem nostris suisque liberis in posterum exopto, votis in cummune deposcens, ut sicut nos utramque familiam nostram praefectoriam nancti. Codex Matritensis, BNE, 9448 (formerly Ee. 102), of the tenth or eleventh century, designated C in the standard siglum: see Lütjohann (1887).vi; also Le Blant 2, 331–3, no. 562; Allmer and Dissard (1888) 1, 251, no. 471; CLE 2.714–15, no. 1516; ILCV 1.207, no. 1067. See further in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2, point (1). See also the Sidonius website, See Prévot (1993a) 257–9 and (1993b), Le Guillou (2002) 280–3, Montzamir (2003). Sidon. Carm. 28 (in Ep. 3.12.5) for his grandfather; Cugusi (1985) 111-13. Sidonius’ other extant epitaphs include those for the matrona Philomathia (Carm. 26 in Ep. 2.8.3) and the priest Mamertus Claudianus (Carm. 30 in Ep. 4.11.6), both likewise in hendecasyllabics, and for the abbot Abraham (Carm. 33 in Ep. 7.17.2), in elegiac couplets.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 61

13/02/20 4:00 PM

62

RALPH W . MATHISEN

The Madrid epitaph also had a subscription: XII kl. Septembris Zenone imperatore, that is, ‘21 August, during the reign of the emperor Zeno’, which would date Sidonius’ death to somewhere between 474 and 491. This subscription has troubled commentators for centuries.220 For one thing, it is not in metre, like the rest of the epitaph, suggesting that it was not part of the original epitaph.221 In addition, the dating formula, to ‘the emperorship of Zeno’, is inconsistent with standard formulae, which customarily give a consulate or regnal year. Not, however, that it would have been unusual to preserve the day of a bishop’s death but not the year: traditionally, the day was commemorated in a church’s annual liturgical calendar, but the year was not similarly recorded, so the lack of a specific year is not necessarily surprising. Indeed, it has been suggested that this date was derived from the De viris illustribus (‘On Illustrious Men’) of Gennadius of Marseille, which was written in the 490s and concluded its entry on Sidonius: floruit ea tempestate qua Leo et Zeno Romanis imperabant (‘he flourished at the time when Leo and Zeno ruled the Romans’), meaning that he died during the reign of Zeno.222 Even more recently, another manuscript reading of the formula has surfaced, from a twelfth-century codex of Sidonius’ works (Paris, IRHT, Collection privée 347) (Fig. 2.3). In this version, the word imperatore is replaced by the word consule, the word that one would expect to find in a dating formula.

Figure 2.3 The Sidonius epitaph from Paris CP 347 (Private collection, ©IRHT) 220 221

222

See Stevens (1933) 211-12, Loyen (1960) 1.xxix, and the discussion in Furbetta (2015b). Also indicated by the consideration that the epitaph had eighteen lines, arranged in two nine-line columns. There was no space for a nineteenth line with a date formula. Gennad. De viris illustribus 92: Richardson (1896); PL 58.1059-1120.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 62

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

63

If this date were correct, it would place Sidonius’ death in 469, 475, or 479, the years of Zeno’s consulates. But these dates conflict with the internal evidence of Sidonius’ own letters, which have him still alive into the 480s. For example, in his letter to Oresius, Sidonius stated that he had given up writing poetry three Olympiads, that is twelve years, earlier, at the inception of his episcopate.223 That would date this letter to c. 480.224 And surely some time must also have intervened between the writing of this letter and the circulation of Book 9 of letters, where this letter appears, so a date of 481, or, more prudently, 482, might be suggested for Book 9.225 This means that the manuscript reading Zenone consule cannot possibly be correct. So where did it come from, and how does it relate to the imperatore reading? Leaving aside the principle of lectio difficilior, which would argue in favour of the imperatore reading, one also can suggest other reasons to doubt the consule reading. As observed by Furbetta, there are problems with the text of the Paris version of the epitaph.226 For one thing, in lines 10–11 rather than reading: haec inter tamen et philosophando / scripsit perpetuis habenda seclis (‘nevertheless, in the midst of these things, by philosophising he also wrote things to be received in perpetual ages’), as in the Madrid manuscript, it reads: hec inter tamen et facundus ore / libris excoluit vitam parentis (‘nevertheless, in the midst of these things, eloquent in speech, he also honoured the life of an ancestor in his books’). To explain the variation, Furbetta suggests that because line 10 was the first line of the second of the two columns, there might have been damage that impaired an accurate reading of the stone. One could make the same suggestion regarding line 9, which would have been the last line of the first column. This scenario implies that the actual stone was read two different times, and that the divergences in the reading came not from variant manuscript readings or emendations but from different readings of the original epitaph. Be that as it may, the Madrid reading seems preferable, given that whereas Sidonius repeatedly used different forms of the word philosophari, ‘to be a philosopher’, he did not honour an ancestor in his extant works except for his grandfather’s epitaph.227 In addition, a reading of a mutilated inscription as consule rather than imperatore, or a manuscript emendation of imperatore to consule, would have been quite natural for anyone familiar with dating formulae; indeed, in 1887, long before the discovery of the French manuscript, Mommsen had suggested just such a reading.228 Which in fact raises another problem with the consule reading: because Zeno held three consulates, the reading consule alone would only apply to 469, far too early. To be applicable to 479, the only date that could be relevant to Sidonius, the formula would have needed an iteration number. The lack of a qualifier indicates that this date is just as much of an approximation as the reading imperatore. Both versions deviate from standard dating formulae, and neither can provide an exact date. 223 224

225

226

227

228

Sidon. Ep. 9.12.2 postquam in silentio decurri tres olympiadas. Twelve years from 469, counting inclusively in the customary Roman manner, would have been 480. Loyen (1970) 2.xxiii, however, suggests 481/2; and Köhler (1995) 8, offers 482. However, see in this volume Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 5.1, arguing that the death date of 21 August 479 could be authentic. See also in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, n. 74. See Mathisen (2013a); also Harries (1994) 8: ‘in or after 481’; Loyen (1960) 1.xxii–xxiv, 10: ‘vers 482’, followed by Kaufmann (1995) 41–78; Baret (1878) 132: 483. Furbetta (2015b). Interestingly, there are metrical problems either way: philo¯sophando (long o), fa˘cundus (short a), vı˘tam (short i) – an issue to which a copyist of a fragmentary epitaph might have been quite insensitive. Sidon. Ep. 1.2.7 philosophatur, 1.4.2 philosophantes, 4.1.4 philosophaturus, 4.3.5 philosophari, 4.11.1 philosopharetur, 4.14.2 philosophantem, 9.9.13 philosophari – pace Furbetta on the ‘raro philosophando che poco ha che fare con l’attività letteraria di Sidonio’. Quamquam extremum vocabulum non recte se habet scribendumque fuit Zenone Augusto (iterum) consule similiterve, ‘although the last word is not correct and Zenone Augusto (iterum) consule or something similar should have been written’ (MGH AA 8.xlix). Only a few extant documents are clearly dated by Zeno’s consulates; note in particular, from Vercelli in northern Italy, CIL 5.6730 recessit sub d(ie) II Id(us) Oc/tob(res) consul(e) Zeno/ne.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 63

13/02/20 4:00 PM

64

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Given that the date formula clearly – because it is not in metre – was not part of the original epitaph, it well might have been added to the inscription at a later date, with the day taken from the liturgical calendar and the year from Gennadius. And given the problematic nature of the consule reading, Ockham’s razor would suggest not using it to overturn all of the internal chronological indicators from Sidonius’ letter collection.

11 The Non-Aristocratic World Even though Sidonius’ poems and letters highlight the activities of elites, they nonetheless provide significant commentary of the lives of the less privileged.

11.1 Less Privileged Persons If decurions were granted a special exemption that accepted them into the world of aristocratic society, the great mass of lower-ranking, unprivileged persons who made up the preponderance of the population of Sidonius’ world was excluded. This cast of many thousands operating on the fringes of Sidonius’ hothouse environment of aristocratic interaction, audience halls, libraries, and drawing rooms made only brief, cameo appearances in his pages. Most of these persons did not merit being named and thus are often effectively ignored in studies of Sidonius’ social world. They came from a wide range of backgrounds and occupations. One encounters, for example, bargemen,229 gravediggers,230 murderers,231 fugitives,232 pirates,233 bandits,234 wet nurses,235 physicians,236 scribes,237 purchasing agents,238 an archimagirus (chief cook) who announced: ‘Dinner is served’,239 a barbarian bride and bridegroom,240 and a slave-dealer.241 Not to mention a multitude of unnamed clientes, famuli, and servi. So perhaps we have the makings of a cross-section of the population of late antique Gaul after all. Sidonius provides occasional glimpses into the everyday lives and domestic dramas of the dependants who comprised the retinue of every late antique aristocrat. Members of Sidonius’ own household often surfaced when he and his family were on the road,242 as often occurred in the summer, when aristocrats would abandon the cities for their country estates. As Sidonius noted to his brother-in-law Agricola just prior to one such excursion: ‘Therefore, we all together, both us and the entire household (domum totam), are departing

229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239

240 241 242

Sidon. Ep. 2.10.4 chorus helciariorum. Sidon. Ep. 3.12.1–2. Sidon. Ep. 8.11.11. Sidon. Ep. 3.9.2, 9.10.1–2. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.13–15. Sidon. Ep. 6.4.1–3. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.10, 5.19.1–2. Sidon. Ep. 2.12.3. Sidon. Ep. 1.7.5, 2.8.3, 5.15.1–2, 5.17.10, 9.7.1, 9.9.8. Sidon. Ep. 6.4.1–3, 6.8.1. Sidon. Ep. 2.9.6 ecce et ab archimagiro adventans qui tempus instare curandi corpora moneret, ‘behold, a messenger approaching from the chief cook to tell us that the time had come to refresh the body’. Sidon. Carm. 5.220. Sidon. Ep. 6.4.1–3. Hutchings (2009) 65–7, Piacente (2005), Cloppet (1989).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 64

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

65

the heat and torpor of the city.’243 On that occasion, a dependant even merited having his name mentioned, the physician Justus, who accompanied the family when Sidonius took his sickly daughter Severiana to a country estate to make her more comfortable: Sidonius joked that he would probably make a better veterinarian than doctor.244 Travel was a major undertaking, almost a polar expedition. In another episode, Sidonius and his retinue left town for a place in the remote countryside. Members of his familia went on twelve miles ahead to pitch a tent and have lunch ready.245 And regarding a trip to Toulouse, Sidonius recalled: ‘In the morning, the slaves (pueri) and dependants (clientes) were engaged in rounding up the pack animals.’246 In the course of his travels, Sidonius also encountered still more non-elite individuals. In a letter to his nephew Secundus, he reported that when he was ‘departing the city [of Lyon] for the Auvergne’, on the outskirts of the city he spotted a group of undertakers (corporum baiuli) disturbing the neglected and unmarked grave of his own grandfather.247 Sidonius galloped over on horseback and gave the ‘bandits’ (latrones) a good whipping, for which he later begged the pardon of the bishop Patiens, under whose jurisdiction the burial ground lay.248 Patiens gave an ex post facto approval to Sidonius’ rough-and-ready justice, stating: ‘With regard to ancient custom, those guilty of such great temerity seemed to have been lawfully punished.’249 Incidents such as this demonstrate well the kind of summary authority that the well-to-do exercised over less privileged persons during these times when the traditional legal system was breaking down. The personal dramas of the unprivileged often involved affairs of the heart. In Late Antiquity, status differences could be an impediment to true love. In one instance, the unnamed son of the unnamed nutrix, or wet nurse, of a neighbouring landowner named Pudens ran off with the unnamed daughter of Sidonius’ own unnamed wet nurse.250 The problem was that the woman had the legal status of liberta, or freedwoman, perhaps having been freed at the death of Sidonius’ father, whereas the man had the standing of inquilinus originalis, by now the same as colonus, and was legally bound to his shareholding. Sidonius observed to Pudens that the only way that the woman could escape being viewed as a strumpet would be to marry the miscreant, and thus he demanded that Pudens raise the fellow to plebeian status, and thus become his patron rather than his master.251

243

244

245

246 247

248 249

250 251

Sidon. Ep. 2.12.3 igitur ardori civitatis atque torpori tam nos quam domum totam . . . pariter eximimus; cf. 4.18.2 vix singulorum clientum puerorumque comitatu, ‘(they set out) with scarcely one client and one servant each for an escort’. Sidon. Ep. 2.12.3 sane contubernio nostro iure amicitiae Iustus adhibebitur, quem, si iocari liberet in tristibus, facile convincerem Chironica magis institutum arte [veterinarian] quam Machaonica [human], ‘Justus indeed will be admitted to our household by right of friendship, though if one had been inclined to jest in sad circumstances, I should easily have proved that he is better trained in the art of Chiron than in that of Machaon.’ Sidon. Ep. 4.8.1–2 nos quoque ex oppido longe remotum rus petebamus . . . familia praecesserat ad duodeviginti milia passuum fixura tentorium, quo quidem loci sarcinulis relaxandis multa succedunt conducibilia . . . nostris antecedentibus. Sidon. Ep. 4.24.4 luce revoluta pueri clientesque capiendis animalibus occuparentur. Sidon. Ep. 3.12.1–2 Avi mei, proavi tui tumulum . . . paene manus profana temeraverat . . . pergens urbem ad Arvernam publicum scelus . . . aspexi. Sidon. Ep. 3.12.2–3 torsi latrones . . . ceterum nostro quod sacerdoti nil reservavi . . .; Patiens, however, was not named. Sidon. Ep. 3.12.3 more maiorum reos tantae temeritatis iure caesos videri. The word videri suggests, however, that Patiens might not have been completely happy with this act. Sidon. Ep. 5.19. Sidon. Ep. 5.19.1–2 Nutricis meae filiam filius tuae rapuit: facinus indignum . . . si stupratorem pro domino iam patronus originali solvas inquilinatu. mulier autem illa iam libera est, quae tum demum videbitur non ludibrio addicta, sed assumpta coniugio, si reus noster . . . mox cliens factus e tributario plebeiam potius incipiat habere personam quam colonariam . . . acquiesco, si laxat libertas maritum, ne constringat poena raptorem.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 65

13/02/20 4:00 PM

66

RALPH W . MATHISEN

In a letter to a bishop Ambrosius, perhaps of Cahors, Sidonius told of a love affair that foundered on status differences.252 He reported that an unnamed young man – ‘I need not mention the name or the individual, you will recognise all the details’ – ‘had broken off the love affair with a most shameless slave-girl, to whom he had been completely addicted, bound up in an obscene intimacy, and now was taking cognisance of his patrimony, descendants, and reputation’.253 Especially, Sidonius continued, because ‘the extravagance had swallowed up nearly all of his modest inheritance’. In this account it is, of course, the slave-girl who was completely responsible for luring the poor naïve young man to ruin. But, Sidonius concluded, the young fellow, now referred to as a vir laudandus, had found a way out of his predicament: ‘He fled the enticements of his mistress and, as is proper, married a chaste young lady, as highranking in character and birth as she is in her princely fortune.. We are not told, however, what happened to the slave-girl.254 Drama of a more serious nature afflicted unprivileged persons who were caught up in the troubles of the times, such as a refugee deacon who, ‘fleeing the whirlwind of Gothic depredation’, had escaped with his family to the territory of Auxerre.255 Sidonius interceded with bishop Censurius to allow him to farm church land rent-free. An even sadder tale turns up in a letter to bishop Lupus of Troyes at a time when internal security in Gaul was collapsing and the poor journeyed at their own risk. Sidonius had been approached by a group of travellers who had been searching for a kinswoman who, during the course of a journey, had been kidnapped by local bandits known as the Vargi.256 Another of the travellers had been killed.257 The woman’s relatives discovered that she had been sold as a slave in Clermont, but in the meantime the unfortunate woman had died ‘in the house and in the ownership of a local businessman (negotiatoris nostri)’.258 The transaction, which had occurred on the open market, had been guaranteed by a slave-dealer named Prudens who was currently living at Troyes, and Sidonius therefore asked Lupus to look into the matter and reach an out-of-court settlement, perhaps to recover the purchase price.259 Incidents such as these can explain why unprivileged persons on the fringes of the socioeconomic world often preferred to put themselves under the protection of a great senatorial 252 253

254 255

256

257 258

259

Sidon. Ep. 9.6; for a later bishop Ambrosius of Cahors, see Bonnassie (1990). Sidon. Ep. 9.6.1–2: quid loquar nomen personam? tu recognosces cuncta . . . abrupto contubernio ancillae propudiosissimae, cui se totum consuetudine obscena vinctus addixerat, patrimonio posteris famae subita sui correctione consuluit. namque per rei familiaris damna vacuatus, ut primum intellegere coepit et retractare, quantum de bonusculis avitis paternisque sumptuositas domesticae Charybdis abligurrisset . . . fugit . . . meretricii blandimenta naufragii . . . puellamque prout decuit intactam vir laudandus in matrimonium assumpsit, tam moribus natalibusque summatem quam facultatis principalis. For another case involving marital property, note the case of Eutropia, Sidon. Ep. 6.2. Sidon. Ep. 6.10.1–2 Gerulum litterarum levitici ordinis honestat officium. hic cum familia sua depraedationis Gothicae turbinem vitans in territorium vestrum delatus est ipso, ut sic dixerim, pondere fugae; ubi in re ecclesiae, cui sanctitas tua praesidet, parvam sementem semiconfecto caespiti advena ieiunus iniecit, cuius ex solido colligendae fieri sibi copiam exorat. Sidon. Ep. 6.4.1 commendo supplicum baiulorum . . . necessitatem, qui in Arvernam regionem . . . unam feminam de affectibus suis, quam forte Vargorum (hoc enim nomine indigenas latrunculos nuncupant) superventus abstraxerat, isto deductam ante aliquot annos isticque distractam. Sidon. Ep. 6.4.2 etiam in illo latrocinio quendam de numero viantum constet extinctum. Sidon. Ep. 6.4.2 atque obiter haec eadem laboriosa, priusquam hi adessent, in negotiatoris nostri domo dominioque palam sane venumdata defungitur. Sidon. Ep. 6.4.2 quodam Prudente (hoc viro nomen), quem nunc Tricassibus degere fama divulgat, ignotorum nobis hominum collaudante contractum; cuius subscriptio intra formulam nundinarum tamquam idonei adstipulatoris ostenditur.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 66

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

67

landed magnate, such as Sidonius, rather than to attempt to maintain a precarious hold on individual freedom.260

11.2 Letter Carriers The most ubiquitous of the less privileged in Sidonius’ letter collection are the letter carriers who maintained the late antique communications network and played an essential role in the pursuit of aristocratic communications.261 In his letters, Sidonius mentions no fewer than 27 letter carriers, 6.1% of the total number of individuals, including 1 senator (Faustinus), 4 decurions, 1 clericalis, 18 plebeians, 1 libertus, and 2 servi. . So, two thirds of them – 18 of the 27 – were plebeians, while 14 (54%) were left unnamed. Eight of them (30%) were clerics (2 priests, 2 deacons, 2 lectors, and 2 unspecified clerics). They also include the only three Jews in Sidonius (Promotus, Gozolas, and an anonymous). Letter carriers thus came from a cross-section of society, ranging from senators to slaves. It was the one venue where, in a sense, everyone was providing an equal service. The regular travels of letter carriers, and the assumptions that letters would be delivered, demonstrate that, with only occasional disruptions in communications, late Roman Gaul was not as beset by constant political unrest as is often assumed,262 and reveals the continuity of a communication system that permitted Gauls to stay in contact with each other. The constant comings and goings of letter carriers thus provided the glue that held aristocratic society together. Most letter carriers received no more than a passing acknowledgement as the oblator apicum or the gerulus litterarum. But, given that Sidonius often had a personal acquaintance with a messenger, he sometimes told anecdotes about letter carriers that provide some revealing windows on the world of the less privileged. The best known letter carrier is Amantius, an Arvernian businessman, perhaps from a curial family that had fallen on hard times, who regularly travelled to Provence.263 This made him ideal as a letter carrier, and he was mentioned several times between 470 and 480 in letters to Graecus, bishop of Marseille.264 Amantius ingratiated himself into the highest levels of the society of Marseille, rubbing shoulders with the bishop, the comes civitatis, and the maiores of the city. He eventually married a rich young woman, collected the property settlement, and high-tailed it back to Clermont. Sidonius portrayed Amantius as an opportunistic social climber and a con artist (a callidus viator and a praestigiator), like a stock character from a romance, nicknaming him ‘Hippolytus’. Amantius’ pretensions and ambitions, although depicted with some conventional disapprobation, were also viewed indulgently by Sidonius, who made him a lector and was, after all, his countryman, bishop, and patron.

260

261 262

263 264

Of course, not just the unprivileged were caught up in unrest. A certain Theodorus, a relative of Eparchius Avitus, became a Visigothic hostage c. 425/6: Sidon. Carm. 7.215–20 nobilis obses / tu Theodore, venis, quem pro pietate propinqui / expetis in media pelliti principis aula, ‘you arrive, Theodorus, a noble hostage, whom you, Avitus, out of duty to your kinsman, seek out in the midst of the skinclad monarch’s court’. For message carriers, note Gillett (2003). In a letter to Eutropius of Orange, for instance, Sidonius spoke of ‘ambushes being prepared for travellers’ (Ep. 6.6.1 quicquam viantibus insidiarum parare), and to Burgundio he wrote of travelling to Rome ‘if conditions of peace and location permitted’ (Ep. 9.14.3 si pacis locique condicio permitteret). Sidon. Ep. 6.8.1 mercandi actione, 7.2.1 mercatoris . . . officium, 7.2.3 nihil illustre . . . nihil servile. Sidon. Ep. 6.8.1–2, 7.2, 7.7.1, 7.10.1, 9.4.1.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 67

13/02/20 4:00 PM

68

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Another vignette, in which the dependants even had speaking roles, appears in a tale about a letter carrier sent to his cousins Simplicius and Apollinaris: Suddenly a grimacing household slave (puer familiaris) appeared. ‘What is it?’, I asked. He replied: ‘I saw the lector Constans outside the door just returned from the lords Simplicius and Apollinaris. He indeed delivered the letters he got from you, but he lost those that he received in return.’ Having heard this, the misfortune of this news aroused so much anger that for many days I steadfastly refused to see that slow-witted blockhead. After a while my anger calmed. I admitted him and asked whether he had also brought any verbal message, and he responded – although he was trembling and cringing, and, on account of his guilt, barely able to speak and see – that everything had been committed to the pages that had been lost.265 A similar sketch appears in another letter to Simplicius and Apollinaris where Sidonius provided a character study of an unnamed individual who had badgered Sidonius to let him carry a letter to his cousins: I can easily imagine how he will be suddenly stupefied when he is graciously admitted . . . I seem to myself to see how, to a man who is not at all of enviable sophistication, everything will seem new, when the stranger is invited into the home, the faint-hearted into conversation, the rustic to your gaiety, the pauper to your table. And when one who here joins the crowd surrounded by uncooked vegetables and edibles with the aromas of onions there experiences this kind of good company, as if he had done his belching in the midst of Apician banquets and Byzantine carvers.266 Sidonius then superciliously concluded his parody with the disparaging comment: ‘But although men of this sort are nearly all despicable persons, in cultivating friendships through letters, affection sustains a great loss if it is restrained from more frequent discourse by the lowliness of the letter carriers.’267 In the case of letter carriers, then, one had to make exceptions to the usual rules of aristocratic politesse, and rub shoulders with these persons who were so necessary to the maintenance of aristocratic contacts.

12 Understanding Sidonius’ People: Social Network Analysis A second methodological approach, one that can allow one to visualise social networks constructed from letter collections, is ‘social network analysis’ (SNA), a method used in modern sociology to determine degrees of social connectedness among groups of individuals based on 265

266

267

Sidon. Ep. 4.12.2–4 cum repente puer familiaris adstitit vultuosus. cui nos: ‘quid ita?’ et ille: ‘lectorem’, inquit, ‘Constantem nomine pro foribus vidi a dominis Simplicio et Apollinare redeuntem; dedit quidem litteras quas acceperat sed perdidit quas recepit’. quibus agnitis . . . tantamque mihi bilem nuntii huiusce contrarietas excitavit, ut per plurimos dies illum ipsum hermam stolidissimum venire ante oculos meos inexoratus arcuerim . . . at postquam nostra sensim temporis intervallo ira defremuit, percontor admissum, num verbo quippiam praeterea detulisset. respondit ipse, quamquam esset trepidus et sternax et prae reatu balbutiret ore, caecutiret intuitu, totum . . . paginis quae intercidissent fuisse mandatum. Sidon. Ep. 4.7.2 facile coniecto, quo repente stupore ferietur, cum . . . dignanter admissus . . . videre mihi videor, ut homini non usque ad invidiam perfaceto nova erunt omnia, cum invitabitur peregrinus ad domicilium, trepidus ad colloquium, rusticus ad laetitiam, pauper ad mensa, et cum apud crudos caeparumque crapulis esculentos hic agat vulgus, illic ea comitate tractabitur, ac si inter Apicios epulones et Byzantinos chironomuntas hucusque ructaverit. Sidon. Ep. 4.7.3 sed quamquam huiuscemodi saepe personae despicabiles ferme sunt, in sodalibus tamen per litteras excolendis dispendii multum caritas sustinet, si ab usu frequentioris alloquii portitorum vilitate revocetur.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 68

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

69

Figure 2.4 The author and his recipients the documented nature of their interactions.268 In recent years, a ‘social network’ approach has also been applied to the study of ancient social groups.269 It expands on traditional methods of prospographical analysis by adding the ability to create diagrams, or ‘sociograms’, that visually portray the nature of social interactions. Sociograms are constructed from collections of ‘nodes’, individuals, connected by lines, known as ‘links’, ‘ties’, or ‘edges’, representing the connections between pairs of individuals. In the case of a letter collection, every person who received a letter from an individual has a connection to the letter writer. This can be represented in visual form by a series of spokes extending from the author of the collection to each recipient of a letter, as seen in Figure 2.4 for the recipients of letters and poems from Sidonius. This type of depiction, however, is trivial. It is a self-defining system in which the author, who had one-to-one relationships with all his correspondents, is automatically at the centre of the network, something that one already knew. A more complete model can be created by including in the diagram secondary references, that is, individuals that Sidonius mentioned in addition to his correspondents themselves. We can certainly suppose that Sidonius knew who these third parties were, so in its simplest form, an SNA diagram incorporating these persons consists of a large collection of spokes radiating out from Sidonius that represent Sidonius’ individual connection to every person he cites. Even in this simple form, the diagram is becoming rather full (Fig. 2.5). An SNA diagram that is more complex can be created by supposing that the individuals mentioned in secondary references were in some way also known to the recipient of the letter or poem – there would have been no point in mentioning a third person if the

268

269

E.g. Freeman et al. (1989), Wasserman and Faust (1994), Butts (2008), Scott and Carrington (2011). ‘Social network analysis’, a formal, theoretically based, quantitative method, is different from more generic and impressionistic ‘network analysis’, where networks are defined more loosely to mean any kind of interactions or connections that an author wants them to. E.g. Clark (1991), Graham and Ruffini (2007), Schor (2007, 2011), Waerzeggers (2014).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 69

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 70

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Figure 2.5 The author, his recipients, and his other relations

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

71

recipient was not somehow familiar with them. In addition, one also can imagine tertiary forms of connection: (1) if two or more persons are mentioned in the same letter, as in the case of the four episcopal ambassadors sent to the Visigothic king Euric in 475, we might hypothesise that in some way they were known to each other,270 or (2) even more speculatively, if the same third person is mentioned in correspondence to two different recipients, as when Constantius of Lyon is mentioned to both Hesperius and Firminus,271 one might conjecture that the two letter recipients also knew each other, in the same way that they both knew Sidonius. The validity of these tertiary connections, of course, can be challenged, but one must remember that the only way that a SNA diagram can be created at all is if there are connections among the individuals depicted in it. So it is necessary to make use of as many reasonable forms of connection as possible. If we use these secondary and tertiary connections to create a diagram depicting how the 445 individuals who appear in Sidonius works were connected to each other, there is an immediate problem: it is a spider’s-web nightmare of some 6,000 connections, far too many to provide useful observations. In order to create a more manageable social network image, one can extract subsets of the total number of individuals in the database. Thus, one could generate a diagram of just the connections among Sidonius’ 106 correspondents, both with himself and with each other (Fig. 2.6). As can be seen, many correspondents have no connection with anyone but Sidonius, so their presence shows us nothing about interactions within the larger group and only clutters the diagram. If one edits out the persons with no additional ties, we obtain a rather more informative diagram (Fig. 2.7). Once an SNA diagram is in a more manageable form, the nodes can be manipulated, as has been done in Figure 2.7, to tease out subgroups of individuals, such as the group of northerners (Arbogastes, Auspicius, Lupus, Prosper, Principius, and Remigius) in the upper left corner. Some individuals, such as Leo, Tetradius, and Sidonius’ cousin Apollinaris, are seen to be quite well connected, whereas others are only associated with a few other persons. One consideration that can hinder the application of SNA to a letter collection is that, by the nature of the method, the author of a letter collection has a ‘connection’ to everybody who appears in the collection. When displayed graphically, this factor makes a network look more connected than it actually is, because the connections are provided not by the network itself, but by the person of the author of the letter collection. And because a letter collection is self-constructed, the resultant ‘network’ really does not tell us much that we did not know already: that the author of the collection circulated letters to some persons and mentioned still additional third persons in those letters. This consideration can also make the author of a letter collection look more important than the author actually may have been. But there is a way that one can attempt to get around this. In order to ascertain whether there are independent networks buried in an author’s personal network, one can remove the author from it. Doing so reveals how very dependent that network is on the presence of the author. An SNA diagram based on a letter collection (as most of them are for Late Antiquity) can thus be nuanced further by treating the author, in this case Sidonius, not as the author of the collection, which gives him connections to

270 271

Sidon. Ep. 7.6.10: Basilius, Leontius, Faustus, and Graecus, who surely did know each other. Sidon. Ep. 2.10.3, 9.16.1; there is no way to know, however, whether Hesperius and Firminus were in fact acquainted with each other.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 71

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Figure 2.6 The author and connections between recipients 6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 72

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 73

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Figure 2.7 The author with only recipients that are interconnected

74

RALPH W . MATHISEN

everyone else in the diagram and thus is not very helpful, but as just like any other correspondent. Now, Sidonius received one letter in the collection, Ep. 4.2, from Mamertus Claudianus, and is mentioned by name in five letters, either as ‘Sollius’ (Ep. 1.9.6, 5.17.9, 9.15.1) or as ‘Sidonius’ (Ep. 1.11.4 and 13, 7.9.14), where he played a personal role in the proceedings being described, and was not merely observing or commenting from a distance. This gives Sidonius himself a total of six mentions, consistent with the maximum number of mentions for other correspondents. In this way, Sidonius’ virtual presence as author or observer is removed from the equation and he becomes a participant. Thus, in a diagram just of ecclesiastics who had at least one shared connection, we obtain a rather revealing portrayal of ecclesiastical interactions (Fig. 2.8). Bishops such as Lupus of Troyes, Maximus and Faustus of Riez, and Eucherius of Lyon are seen to be major foci of interaction related to the aristocratic-monastic circle of Lérins. Sidonius (that is, ‘Apollinaris 6’), however, is not even included in this primary group, but is part of a separate subgroup comprising such bishops as Perpetuus of Tours and Agroecius of Sens. Social network diagrams therefore offer a useful heuristic tool for visualising how interconnections could have manifested themselves in the real world, but they are also imprecise and neither prescriptive nor an end in themselves, especially when it comes to the secondary and tertiary connections which the application of the method necessarily requires, and which can make it appear that there were connections where none actually existed. The diagrams suggest where we might want to look for connection and nodes of interaction that then need to be refined by looking at the actual texts.

Figure 2.8 Independent networks with the author as a participant

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 74

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PEOPLE

75

13 Conclusion Quantitative methods – prosopography, statistical analysis, and social network analysis – provide tools for understanding the people in Sidonus’ letters and poems not just in an impressionistic way, based on selected passages used to illustrate this or that phenomenon and interpreted in the eye of the beholder, but in a comprehensive manner. These tools reduce the possibility that conclusions will be taken out of context, incorporate all of Sidonius’ people into a single analytical model, and explicitly interpret all the groups that a user wishes to study in the context of the entire population.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 75

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A Prosopography of Sidonius Persons Mentioned in the Works of Sidonius (Fourth and Fifth Centuries) This prosopographical catalogue aims to cite all persons from the fourth century and later who are mentioned by Sidonius. It is not the intent to provide a comprehensive biography for each individual; in most cases, the activities cited and the dates given are limited to those attested in Sidonius. Indeed, there is an effort to equalise the amount of space given to each individual irrespective of their social status. Only in the case of some exceptionally significant persons is additional contextualisation provided. The catalogue also includes a multitude of anonymous persons who hover on the fringes of Sidonius’ social world but who are usually implicitly or explicitly excluded from studies of late antique society, at the same time as scholars lament the lack of presence of unprivileged persons in the works of elite authors. All the persons left unnamed by Sidonius are listed together among the anonymi/anonymae; in cases where the name can be restored from other sources, it is cited in parentheses. Except in the rare cases where letters are internally dated, as in the case of the episcopal embassy to Euric in 474/5 and Sidonius’ subsequent exile, the contacts between Sidonius and his correspondents are dated only approximately, based on a knowledge of Sidonius’ personal history and on the supposed dates of circulation of the poems and the books of the letter collection. Dates can be given in several ways, in order of increasing fuzziness: (1) as an exact date, when known; 2) as an exact range of dates, for example 400–50; (3) as an approximate date, using ‘c.’ (= ‘circa’); (4) as a range of dates at some point(s) during the course of which the subject was active, for example 400/50; (5) as a section of a century, using ‘IV’, ‘V’, and so on as the century indicators, often preceded by ‘E’ (early), ‘M’ (middle), or ‘L’ (late). The entries are cross-referenced with several prosopographical reference works covering this period and region: Stroheker’s Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien (1948);1 the first two volumes of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (1971/1980); Mathisen’s ‘PLRE II: Suggested Addenda and Corrigenda’ (1982); Heinzelmann’s ‘Gallische Prosopographie’ (1982); and the Gallic volume of the Prosopographie chrétienne (2013) (PCBE). General format: Name Rank/status Position Geographical origin/area of activity ‘Ethnicity’ Religious affiliation Comments Reference(s) in Sidonius Letter(s)/ poem(s) received Prosopographical citation(s) in PLRE, PCBE, Heinzelmann, Stroheker

Date

The titles of formal Roman ranks and offices (for example, ‘magister militum’) are given in Latin; more generic kinds of offices, such as ‘bishop’ or ‘governor’, are given in English. Abbreviations include c.f. = clarissima femina, f.i. = femina inlustris, v.c. = vir clarissimus, v.i. = vir inlustris, v.s. = vir spectabilis. For discussion see ch. 2, sect. 5, above. 1

See also the list of officeholders in Henning (1999).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 76

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

77

Fl. Ablabius v.i. Consul 326–37 Thrace, Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Consul in 331; wrote a poem about Constantine’s murders of his wife Fausta and son Crispus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.8.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 3–4 Abraham v.s. Abbot M/L V Mesopotamia, Gaul/Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Originally from Mesopotamia, where he was persecuted by the Sasanid Persians; fled to the Roman Empire and established a monastery in the Auvergne. A friend of the dux Victorius. Died c. 477 and was succeeded as abbot by Auxanius. Sidonius wrote his epitaph at the request of Volusianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.17.1–2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 46–7 Adelphius v.c. Rhetor Gaul, Bordeaux? Roman Adelfii teneritudo; in a catalogue of famous rhetors compared to Sapaudus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.3 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 14, Heinzelmann 544

L IV/E V

Fl. Aëtius patricius Magister militum 426–54 Dacia, Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Defeated Huns at battle of Catalaunian Fields, 451 CE, called Aetium Ligeris liberatorem; Majorian was aemulus of him; murdered by Valentinian III (gladio lacrimabile fatum clauserat Aëtius) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.126, 198, 217, 254, 275, 306, 7.230, Ep. 7.12.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 21–29, PCBE 4, 67, Heinzelmann 546, Zecchini (1983) Censorius Atticus Agricius v.c. Rhetor Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Agroecii disciplina; in a catalogue of famous rhetors compared to Sapaudus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.3 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 30, Heinzelmann 547

M IV

Agricola v.i. 450s/460s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Son of Eparchius Avitus, brother of Ecdicius and Papianilla, married a daughter of Ruricius of Limoges; received a letter describing the Visigothic king Theoderic II; sent a boat for a fishing expedition when Sidonius was departing to the countryside; became a penitent late in life: see Ruric. Ep. 2.32 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.2, 2.12; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.2, 2.12 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 37, PCBE 4, 106, Stroheker 143, Heinzelmann 547 Agricola v.i. Consul 418/21 Gaul, Narbonne? Roman Nicene Christian Father of the consul Magnus, grandfather of Araneola, Magnus Felix, and Probus; PPO Galliarum in 418, consul in 421; based on the name, Agricola, of the son of Eparchius Avitus

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 77

13/02/20 4:00 PM

78

RALPH W . MATHISEN

and on Avitus’ relationship to the family of Magnus, perhaps to be identified as Avitus’ father (PLRE 2, 36–7) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.164–7, 15.150–1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 36–7, 1233, Stroheker 143, Heinzelmann 547 Agrippinus clericalis Priest 470s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Priest of a bishop Pragmatius of an unknown see, father of the daughter-in-law of Eutropia, against whom he instituted a lawsuit apparently concerning the inheritance from his son; Sidonius had amicitia with both disputants and had failed to reconcile them; he was recently ordained (iam presbyteri), and Sidonius criticised his saeculares versutiae (‘secular craftiness’) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.2.1–4 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 92–3, Stroheker 143–4, Heinzelmann 548 Agroecius v.i. Bishop 469 Gaul, Sens Roman Nicene Christian Author of an Ars de orthographia; invited by Sidonius to an archiepiscopal ordination at Bourges c. 469/70; addressed as Senoniae caput in his capacity of metropolitan of Lugdunensis Quarta (or Senonia), something of an irregularity because the election was in Aquitania Prima, where only Clermont remained under Roman control. This would mean that Bourges was held by the Visigoths, which would be consistent with Sidonius’ mention of ‘Arians’ at the ordination ceremony; see Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.25 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.5, 7.9.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 39, PCBE 4, 95, Heinzelmann 548 Albiso clericalis Priest Gaul, Autun Roman Nicene Christian A priest; he and the deacon Proculus carried a letter from Euphronius of Autun Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.2.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 103–4

477/82

Latinus Alcimus Alethius v.c. Rhetor M IV Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Native of Agen (Nitiobroges); a rhetor of Bordeaux who wrote panegyrics on Julian and Sallustius, consuls in 363; in a catalogue of famous rhetors compared to Sapaudus (fortitudo Alcimi); given the names of Sidonius’ daughter Alcima and nephew Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, bishop of Vienne, perhaps a distant relative of Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.3, 8.11.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 39, PCBE 4, 106, Heinzelmann 550 Alethius vir honestissimus Decurion 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius asked Explicius to arbitrate Alethius’ quarrel with Paulus; Sidonius’ lack of honorifics suggests that these two were decurions Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.7.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 55, Heinzelmann 550

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 78

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

79

Amantius vir honestissimus Lector 470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian An ambitious purchasing agent (actione mercandi, officium mercatoris) from a mid-rank family, ‘neither illustrious nor servile’ (nihil illustre . . . nihil servile), of Clermont and possessing a modicum of property, so perhaps of curial origin, he regularly travelled to Marseille, where he gained the favour of bishops Eustachius and Graecus, became a client (cliens) of the count, and married the daughter of a rich widow; Sidonius treated him indulgently, making him a lector, called him a callidus viator (‘cunning traveller’) and a praestigiator (‘con artist’), and nicknamed him ‘Hippolytus’ Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.8.1–2, 7.2, 7.7.1, 7.10.1, 9.4.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 123–4 Ambrosius v.i. Bishop 477/82 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of an unknown see; recommended that an unnamed vir laudandus break off his affair with a slave woman (contubernio ancillae propudiosissimae) and return home Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.6 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 129, Bonnassie (1990) Ambrosius v.i. Bishop 374–97 Italy, Milan Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus; consularis Aemiliae et Liguriae and then bishop of Milan Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7, 7.1.7 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 52 Publius Ampelius v.i. Italy, Rome Roman In a list of distinguished writers Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.304 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 56–7

Praefectus urbi Romae Pagan

371–2

Anianus v.i. Bishop MV Gaul, Orléans Roman Nicene Christian Bishop during the invasion of Attila in 451; helped defend the city until Aëtius came to the rescue; see Vita s. Aniani episcopi Aurelianensis: B. Krusch ed., MGH SRM 3 (Hanover, 1896) 108–17 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.15.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 141–3, Heinzelmann 553, Loyen (1969) Anthedius v.c. Author 460s Gaul, Périgueux Roman Nicene Christian In a list of distinguished writers; friend of Pontius Leontius; native of Périgueux (Vesunnici) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.312, 22.ep. 2–3, Ep. 8.11.1–2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 93, Heinzelmann 554

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 79

13/02/20 4:00 PM

80

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Anthemius patricius Consul Thrace, Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Father-in-law of Procopius, grandfather of the emperor Anthemius; consul in 405 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.94–5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1093–95

405

Anthemius Augustus Emperor 467–72 Thrace, Constantinople/Rome Roman Nicene Christian Subject of a panegyric by Sidonius; his daughter Alypia married Ricimer in 467; made Sidonius praefectus urbi and patricius in 468; promised to promote Ecdicius but did not do so; Sidonius complains about his lack of resources Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.1, 479, Ep. 1.5.10, 1.7.5, 8, 2.1.4, 5.16.2; letters/poems received: Carm. 1, 2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 96–8, Heinzelmann 554 Antiolus v.s. Bishop 475/80 Gaul, Lérins Roman Nicene Christian A former abbot of Lérins (in illo quondam coenobio Lirinensi spectabile caput); Sidonius heard about Principius of Soissons through him, so he presumably had a northern see Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.14.2, 9.7; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.14 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 152 Aper v.c. 460s Gaul, Autun/Clermont Roman Nicene Christian His father was an Aeduan and his mother was from the Auvergne; his Arvernian maternal grandparents Fronto and Auspicia raised him after the death of his mother; had an aunt Frontina; Sidonius called his estate calentes Baiae, referring to the hot baths, perhaps a reference to the town of Aquae Calidae (Vichy) northeast of Clermont; Sidonius invited him back from Autun to enjoy the nobilium contubernium Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21, 5.14; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.21, 5.14 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 109, PCBE 4, 158–9, Stroheker 145, Heinzelmann 555 Apollinaris v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 408/9 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Grandfather of Sidonius, great-grandfather of Secundus; the first member of the family to be baptised; served as praefectus praetorio Galliarum in 408/9 with the Caesar Constans in Spain; seems to have survived the purges that followed the fall of Jovinus (411-13) and claimed the lives of Gauls such as Apollinaris’ successor as prefect Decimius Rusticus (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.9). After Sidonius discovered his grave being disturbed, he restored the gravesite and composed an epitaph Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.3.1, 3.12.5, 5.9.1–4, 7.1.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 113, PCBE 4, 161, Stroheker 145, Heinzelmann 556, Mathisen 366 Apollinaris v.c. 469/74 Gaul, Nîmes/Vaison Roman Nicene Christian Cousin of Sidonius, brother of Thaumastus of Vienne and Simplicius, with whom he received two letters jointly; had an estate at Vorocingus near Nîmes; after 469 lived with Simplicius

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 80

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

81

at Vaison; Sidonius sent Faustinus a verbal caution to behave himself in dangerous times; Sidonius asked him to look into damna inflicted on the letter carrier by Apollinaris’ client Genesius; Sidonius wondered how he was doing during a tempus hostilitatis and mentioned being endangered by a bad fever (vi febrium); in 474 he was implicated in a plot to turn over Vaison from the Burgundians to Julius Nepos Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.53, Ep. 2.9.1, 4.4, 4.12, 5.3, 5.6, 7.4.4; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.4, 4.12, 5.3, 5.6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 114, PCBE 4, 161–3, Stroheker 145, Heinzelmann 556, Mascoli (2002), Casado (2011) Apollinaris v.c. 460s–514 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Son of Sidonius and Papianilla; Sidonius praised him for avoiding the company of the impudici, and did a character assassination of a certain ‘Gnatho’; while he was bishop, Sidonius, professionis oblitus, read Terence and Menander with him; see Ruric. Ep. 2.26–7, 41; Alc. Avit. Ep. 43, 51. Around 480, he fled with count Victorius to Rome (Greg. Tur. Glor. mart. 44, Hist. 2.20), where he was first imprisoned and then exiled to Milan, whence he eventually escaped and returned home. He led the Arvernian contingent in support of the Visigoths at the battle of Vouillé in 507 (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.37), and in 514, with the support of his sister Alcima and wife Placidina, he followed in his father’s footsteps by becoming bishop of Clermont, but died after only four months in office (Greg. Tur. Glor. mart. 44) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 17.3, Ep. 3.13, 4.12.1, 5.9.4, 5.11.3, 8.6.12, 9.1.5; letters/ poems received: Ep. 3.13 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 114, PCBE 4, 164–6, Stroheker 145–6, Heinzelmann 556, Mathisen (2003b), Condorelli (2012) C. Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius patricius Bishop 432–c. 485 Gaul, Lyon/Rome/Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Native of Lyon, son and grandson of praetorian prefects of Gaul; married to Papianilla, daughter of emperor Eparchius Avitus, under whom he was tribunus et notarius; father of Apollinaris, Roscia, Severiana, and Alcima; given the rank of comes by, it seems, Majorian; named patrician and prefect of Rome by Anthemius in 468; became bishop of Clermont c. 469; c. 469/70 presided over the election of bishop Simplicius of Bourges; led the Arvernian resistance against the Visigoths c. 471/5; exiled by Euric and had his Clermont property confiscated after Nepos ceded the Auvergne to the Visigoths in 475; but was permitted to return after a stay in Bordeaux where he wrote a panegyric on Euric and petitioned to have some property returned; late in life he was troubled by two rebellious presbyters (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.23); died at some point after 481/2, the time of his last dated letter (but see Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 5.1, in this volume for a different view on dating). Engaged in extensive literary activity: delivered panegyrics for three emperors (Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius), circulated poems, letters, and other works, such as a speech he gave at Bourges and lost satires, epigrams, and masses (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.25); declined Prosper of Orléans’ invitation to write a life of Anianus and Leo’s suggestion that he write history, saying periculose vera dicuntur; described himself as ‘zealous, hopeful, and fearful for something praiseworthy in his children’ (studio voto timore laudabile aliquid in filiis); see Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.24–5, Vit. Pat. 3

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 81

13/02/20 4:00 PM

82

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 1.23–4, 10.22, 23.28, Ep. 1.9.6, 1.11.3–13, 4.2, 4.10.1, 5.17.9, 5.3.3, 9.3.3, 9.15.1 (Carm. 40.16), etc.; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 117, PCBE 4, 1759–1800, Stroheker 217–19, Heinzelmann 556, Mathisen 366, Mascoli (2010) Aprunculus v.i. Bishop 477/82 Gaul, Langres Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius sent him a vinculum cessionis and litteris commendatoriis on behalf of a parishoner, Iniuriosus, who had moved to Langres; Aprunculus later fled to Clermont to escape the Burgundians and succeeded Sidonius as bishop (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.23), see Ruric. Ep. 2.49 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.10 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 172–4, Heinzelmann 557 Aquilinus v.c. Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Grandson of Decimius Rusticus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 125, PCBE 4, 175, Stroheker 146, Heinzelmann 557

M/L V

Araneola f.i. M/L V Gaul, Narbonne? Roman Nicene Christian Great-granddaughter of the consul Agricola, daughter of the consul Magnus, sister of Magnus Felix and Probus, wife of Polemius; Sidonius presented their epithalamium (praefatio epithalamii dicti Polemio et Araneolae) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 14.1, 15; letters/poems received: Carm. 14–15 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 126, PCBE 4, 176, Stroheker 146–7, Heinzelmann 557 Arbogastes v.c. Comes civitatis Trevirorum 477 Gaul, Trier Frank Nicene Christian Comes civitatis Trevirorum; he asked Sidonius for scriptural exegesis (and thus must have been Christian) and got a flattering response; also received an extant metrical letter from Auspicius of Toul, who described him as clarus genere (MGH Epp. 3.135–7) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.17; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.17 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 128, PCBE 4, 178–9, Heinzelmann 558 Arvandus v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 464–8 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Twice praefectus praetorio Galliarum c. 464–8; in 468/9 accused of colluding with the Visigoths and Burgundians, and perhaps also of conspiring to seize the throne, in a trial before the senate; convicted and sentenced to death, but by 469 this had been commuted to exile (Cass. Chron. s.a. 469 Arabundus imperium temptans iussu Anthemii exilio deportatur); Sidonius’ sympathy for him apparently led to some hard feelings (invidia) between him and the Gauls who prosecuted him (Tonantius Ferreolus, Petronius, and Sidonius’ uncle Thaumastus) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 157–8, Stroheker 148–9, Heinzelmann 561, Harries (1992), Pietrini (2015), de Luca (2017)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 82

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

Fl. Eugenius Asellus v.i. Comes sacrarum largitionum Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Given custody of his friend Arvandus during the latter’s treason trial in Rome Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 164

83 468/9

Fl. Astyrius v.i. Consul 449 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Entered office as consul at Arles in 449, with Sidonius present and Sidonius’ father, the praefectus praetorio Galliarum, presiding Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.6.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 174–5 Athenius v.i. 461 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Attended Majorian’s banquet in Arles, a homo litium temporumque varietatibus exercitatus. If the mention of lites refers to accusations or lawsuits, he may have been a legal expert Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 178, Heinzelmann 562 Gregorius Attalus v.c. Comes civitatis 465/505 Gaul, Autun Roman Nicene Christian In reply to a letter, Sidonius recalled their old friendship (familiari vetusto) and congratulated Attalus on his appointment as comes civitatis Augustodunensis; he suggested they exchange beneficia; in office for forty years, then bishop of Langres (Greg. Tur. VPat. 7.1) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.18; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.18 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 179–80, PCBE 4, 910–4, Stroheker 178–9, Heinzelmann 563 Attila regalis Rex 434–54 Dacia Hun Pagan Invaded Belgica; described as the Rheni hostem; defeated through the efforts of Eparchius Avitus and Tonantius Ferreolus; Sidonius turned down Prosper of Orléans’ invitation to write a history of the Attilae bellum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.327, Ep. 7.12.3, 8.15.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 182–3, Heinzelmann 563 Castalius Innocentius Audax v.i. Praefectus urbi Romae Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Praefectus urbi 474; of praefectorian ancestry Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.7; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 184

474/5

Aurelius Augustinus v.i. Bishop L IV/E V Africa, Hippo Roman Nicene Christian Rhetor of Milan, then bishop of Hippo; in a list of famous writers; his works were in the library of Tonantius Ferreolus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9.4, 4.03.7, 9.2.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 186–91

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 83

13/02/20 4:00 PM

84

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Decimius Magnus Ausonius v.i. Consul M/L IV Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian A rhetor and poet who rose high in the imperial administration; consul in 379 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.14.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 140–1, PCBE 4, 287–97, Stroheker 150–2, Heinzelmann 565, Sivan (1993) Auspicia c.f. EV Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Grandmother (avia Auspicia) of Aper and Frontina; married to Fronto; raised Aper after his mother’s death Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 203, PCBE 4, 298, Stroheker 152, Heinzelmann 566 Auspicius v.i. Bishop 477 Gaul, Toul Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of Toul, commended by Sidonius to Arbogastes, count of Trier, to whom he wrote an extant metrical letter; Sidonius spoke of the conflictantium procella regnorum that interfered with their communication; see MGH Epp. 3.135–7 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.17.3, 7.11; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.11 Bibliography: PCBE 300–1, Heinzelmann 566, Mathisen 367–8 Auxanius v.c. Abbot 468–78 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian From a praefectorian family; at Rome with Sidonius in 468/9 as part of the ‘Arvernian delegation’ where he tried to assist Arvandus; later abbot of St Abraham’s monastery in the Auvergne Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.6–7, 7.17.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 203–4, PCBE 4, 310, Stroheker 152, Heinzelmann 566 Gennadius Avienus v.i. Italy, Rome Roman Consul in 450; patron of Sidonius in Rome Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.9.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 193–4

Consul Nicene Christian

467–8

Avitus v.c. Tribunus et notarius 455/71 Gaul, Cottion Roman Nicene Christian Relative, perhaps a cousin, of Sidonius; they both received advancement under Eparchius Avitus and Majorian (isdem . . . principibus evecti stipendiis perfuncti sumus), so was at least a tribunus et notarius; they also engaged in an actionum multitudo together; negotiated with the Visigoths in 471; he and his sister bestowed the estate Cuticiacum, inherited from another sister, on the church of Clermont; received an inheritance from Nicetius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.75, Ep. 3.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 194–5, PCBE 4, 241–2, Stroheker 154, Heinzelmann 567–8 Eparchius Avitus Gaul, Auvergne

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 84

Augustus Roman

Emperor Nicene Christian

455–6

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

85

Subject of a panegyric by Sidonius; native of the Auvergne, descendant of the patrician Philagrius, father of Agricola, Ecdicius, and Papianilla the wife of Sidonius, related to Magnus Felix and Priscus Valerianus. The name of his son might suggest that his father was Agricola, consul in 421, which would help to explain his precocity in office. According to his panegyric, he served as envoy to Constantius c. 420, to gain a reduction in taxes; campaigned in the 430s with Aëtius in Gaul against the Burgundians, after which he was granted the rank of inlustris; it may have been at this time, in the mid-430s when Theoderic II was still a child, that Avitus undertook a mission to induce Theoderic I to lift a siege of Narbonne, which may have influenced his appointment as praefectus praetorio Galliarum in 439, after the Visigothic defeat of Litorius, when he undertook a diplomatic mission to renew the treaty; in 451 sent as a private person by Aëtius as an envoy to the Goths to raise their support against Attila; made magister militum in 455 by Petronius Maximus, who sent him as a legate to Toulouse. At this point of the panegyric, Sidonius has Avitus say: ‘After three terms of imperial service I then administered the proud peak of the prefecture, in a fourth culmination’ (militiae post munia trina superbum / praefecturae apicem quarto iam culmine rexi), but without specifying what those three earlier functions were. One, presumably, was a military office, perhaps comes rei militaris, that preceded his appointment as inlustris. If he followed a standard career trajectory for that period, such as that of Sidonius’ father, he would have had a first appointment as tribunus et notarius under Honorius. But his unusual combination of secular and military career makes it difficult to infer what the fourth office might have been. In 455, after the death of Maximus, Avitus was made emperor with Visigothic support but was deposed by Ricimer and Majorian in 456/7 and died soon thereafter (Hydat. Chron. s.a. 457) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 6, 7.161, 220, 23.430, Ep. 1.3.1, 1.11.7; letters/poems received: Carm. 6, 7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 196–8, Stroheker 152–4, Heinzelmann 567, Mathisen 368, Mathisen (1979b, 1981c, 1985), Gosserez (2009), Furbetta (2011), Green (2016), Hanaghan (2017a) Basilius v.i. Bishop East, Caesarea Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7

M/L IV

Basilius v.i. Bishop 470s Gaul, Aix Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of Aix, member of embassy to Euric in 474–5; Sidonius referred to their amicitiarum vetera iura and observed his debate with the Homoian Modaharius; see Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.25 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.6 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 318–19, Heinzelmann 570, Mathisen 368 Fl. Caecina Decius Basilius patricius Italy, Rome Roman Consul in 463; patron of Sidonius in Rome Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.9.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 216–17 Bigerrus Gaul, Arles

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 85

v.c. Roman

Consul Nicene Christian

467–8

461 Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

86

RALPH W . MATHISEN

A friend of Paeonius; the two of them quoted from Sidonius’ ‘satire’ at Arles Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 230, Heinzelmann 571 Bonifatius patricius Magister militum Africa, Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Followed by an anonymous poet of Cahors; killed during civil war with Aëtius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.277–88 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 237–40, Heinzelmann 572

432

Burco v.s. Comes rei militaris 457 Italy Roman Nicene Christian Sent by Majorian, defeated 900 Alamannic raiders in Italy: Burconem . . . exigua comitante manu Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.375–9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 242–3 Burgundio v.c. 477/482 Gaul, Clermont? Roman Nicene Christian Called fili amantissime; he and Sidonius had both been ill; Sidonius said that he would be studying with the senatoria iuventas of Rome if travel conditions permitted; he had already delivered one declamation and was preparing another about Julius Caesar; Sidonius also sent him palindromes Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.14; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.14 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 243, PCBE 4, 377, Stroheker 157, Heinzelmann 572, Henke (2007) Caelestius clericalis Cleric LV Gaul, Langres Roman Nicene Christian Frater noster; a cleric of Aprunculus of Langres who, on a trip from Béziers to Langres, acquired letters of transfer for a certain Iniuriosus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.10.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 380 Calminius v.c. Soldier 471/4 Gaul, Aquitania Roman Nicene Christian Fought alongside the Visigoths in their attacks on Clermont: ad arbitrium terroris alieni vos loricae, nos propugnacula tegunt (Ep. 5.12.1) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.12; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.12 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 412, Stroheker 159, Heinzelmann 573, Mathisen 368–9 Camillus v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 450s–460s Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Nephew of Magnus, cousin of Magnus Felix, at banquet in Arles with Majorian in 461; he had held duae dignitates, one of which must have been praetorian prefect of Gaul (probably) or Italy, given that he outranked Paeonius; see Ennod. Ep. 4.25 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.8, Ep. 1.11.10–11 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 255, Stroheker 160, Heinzelmann 573–4

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 86

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

87

Campanianus v.s. 468 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Recommended the praefectus annonae, a sodalis vetus, to Sidonius, who asked to be recommended in return; his rank suggests that he had held an imperial office Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 255 Candidianus v.c. 468 Italy, Ravenna Roman Nicene Christian A native of Cesena in northeastern Italy, but now ‘in exile’ in Ravenna; Sidonius called himself necessarius tuus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.8; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.8 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 257 Caprasius clericalis Gaul, Lérins Roman Monk of Lérins Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16.110 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 420–1, Heinzelmann 574

Monk Nicene Christian

EV

Catullinus v.i. Tribunus et notarius 455/62 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Served with Sidonius in Italy (commilitio . . . peregrinatio) under Eparchius Avitus (not Majorian, as PLRE) in 455, probably as tribunus et notarius; Sidonius declined to write him an epithalamium; he praised Sidonius’ ‘satire’ Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 12, Ep. 1.11.3; letters/poems received: Carm. 12 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 272–3, PCBE 4, 445, Stroheker 160, Heinzelmann 576 Censurius v.i. Bishop 471/4 Gaul, Auxerre Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius asked him to assist a refugee deacon who was fleeing Gothic depraedatio with his family; dedicatee of the Vita Germani of Constantius of Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.10 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 450–1, Heinzelmann 577 Chariobaudus v.s. Abbot 475/6 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Sent a letter of consolation to Sidonius during his exile (peregrini curas amici litteris mitigas consolatoriis), so perhaps from southern Gaul; called in Christo patrone Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.16; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.16 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 463 Chilpericus patricius Rex 474 Gaul, Lyon Burgundian Homoian Christian Son of Gundioc, brother of Gundobad, Godegisel, and Godomar, married to Caretena, father of Crona and Chlotilda, the wife of Clovis; patricius et magister militum 473–4, and then king of the Burgundians; called tetrarcham nostrum by Sidonius; murdered by Gundobad

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 87

13/02/20 4:00 PM

88

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.6.2, 5.7.1, 6.12.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 286–7, Heinzelmann 580 Mamertus Claudianus clericalis Priest 460s–470s Gaul, Vienne Roman Nicene Christian Authored the only letter in the corpus not written by Sidonius (4.2); as Sidonius and Claudianus were bound by the leges amicitiae, Claudianus complained because Sidonius had not acknowledged his De statu animae, which was dedicated to Sidonius; Sidonius apologised and praised the work. In the dedicatory letter of De statu animae, Sidonius is addressed praefectorio patricio . . . Sollio Sidonio, dating it to after 468, but in the epilogue, Sidonius is venerandus vir, meaning that over the course of the transcription he has become bishop. Sidonius then lent the De statu animae to Nymphidius. Claudianus is also author of an extant letter to the rhetor Sapaudus (CSEL 11, 205–8) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.2.1, 4.3,5.2.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 481–4, Heinzelmann 585, Mathisen 378, Styka (2014), Mascoli (2015) Cloio (Chlodio, Chlogio) regalis Rex 447 Gaul, Arras Frank Pagan Attacked Arras in Belgica (Cloio . . . Atrebatum terras pervaserat), then defeated by Majorian at battle of Vicus Helena Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.212 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 290–1 (‘Clogio’), Heinzelmann 582

Consentius v.c. Sophista EV Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian A poet, called a sophista; married a descendant of the consul of 367 Fl. Jovinus; father of Consentius; author of two extant works, Ars de duabus partibus orationis, nomine et verbo and Ars de barbarismis et metaplasmis Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.33, 98, 170–7, Ep. 9.15.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 308, Stroheker 161–2, Heinzelmann 586 Consentius v.s. Cura palatii 455/6 Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Son of Consentius, descendant of the consul Jovinus; before 450, as tribunus et notarius under Valentinian III, he was sent to Constantinople as an interpreter; welcomed intra aulam soceri mei (Eparchius Avitus) and made cura palatii; had a villa called the ager Octavianus near Narbonne and Béziers: Sidonius advised him to enter the church (palam religiosus); praised for his Greek epic poetry Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.2, 98, 176, 230, 430, etc., Ep. 8.4, 9.15.1 (Carm. 40.22); letters/poems received: Carm. 23 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 308–10, PCBE 4, 511-12, Stroheker 162, Heinzelmann 586 Constans plebeius Lector 470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian One of Sidonius’ lectors, he lost a letter that Sidonius’ cousins Apollinaris and Simplicius had sent him

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 88

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

89

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.12.2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 513 Constantinus I Augustus Emperor Dacia, Gaul Roman Nicene Christian A poem of Ablabius discussed his murder of his wife Fausta and son Crispus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.8.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 223–4, Heinzelmann 587, Stoehr-Monjou (2012)

306–37

Fl. Claudius Constantinus III Augustus Emperor 407–11 Britain, Gaul/Arles Roman Nicene Christian Abhorred by Sidonius’ and Aquilinus’ grandfathers for his inconstantia, a play on his name Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 316–17, PCBE 4, 517, Heinzelmann 587, Drinkwater (1998) Constantius v.c. Priest 460s–470s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Described as nobilitate sublimis; an orator and poet, he wrote verses for the basilica at Lyon; dedicatee of the first seven books of letters; visited Clermont during the crisis of the early 470s; author of the Vita Germani Autissiodorensis dedicated to Censurius of Auxerre Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.1, 2.10.3, 3.2, 7.18, 8.16, 9.16.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.1, 3.2, 7.18, 8.16 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 320, PCBE 4, 521–2, Stroheker 162, Heinzelmann 587 Fl. Constantius III Augustus Emperor Dacia Roman Nicene Christian Negotiated with Eparchius Avitus about tax relief Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.211 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 321–5, Heinzelmann 587, Lütkenhaus (1998) Crispus Caesar Caesar Dacia, Serdica Roman Nicene Christian A poem of Ablabius discussed Crispus’ murder by Constantine Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.8.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 233, Heinzelmann 588 Crocus v.i. Gaul Roman Bishop of an unknown see exiled by Euric Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.6.9 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 533, Heinzelmann 588

Bishop Nicene Christian

421

317–26

470/5

Claudius Postumus Dardanus patricius Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 412–13 Gaul, Theopolis Roman Nicene Christian Brother of Claudius Lepidus, married to Naevia Galla; praefectus praetorio Galliarum 412–13; murdered the Gallic emperor Jovinus (411-13); then retreated to an estate near Sisteron called ‘Theopolis’; Sidonius’ grandfather Apollinaris detested in Dardano crimina; corresponded with Jerome (Ep. 129: 414 CE) and Augustine (Ep. 187: 417 CE)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 89

13/02/20 4:00 PM

90

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.1. Bibliography: PLRE 2, 346–7, PCBE 4, 548–50, Stroheker 162–3, Heinzelmann 590 Attius Tiro Delphidius v.c. Rhetor Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Pagan Abundantia Delphidii; in a catalogue of famous rhetors compared to Sapaudus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.3 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 246, PCBE 4, 551–2, Heinzelmann 591 Desideratus v.c. Gaul, Auvergne? Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius sent him a copy of his epitaph for Philomathia and asked him to visit Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.8; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.8 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 355, PCBE 4, 556, Heinzelmann 591

M IV

460s

Domitius v.c. Rhetor 461/7 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian A teacher (discipulis . . . exponere . . . ordiris); based on his association with the muses (Carm. 24.10), probably a rhetor rather than a grammaticus. Sidonius sent him a description of Avitacum and invited him to come for a long visit Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.10, Ep. 2.2; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 371, PCBE 4, 584, Heinzelmann 592, Visser (2014) Domnicius v.c. 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius composed for him a description of the arrival of the prince (regium iuvenem) Sigismer Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.20, 5.17.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.20 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 372, PCBE 4, 585, Stroheker 164, Heinzelmann 592 Domnulus v.i. Quaestor sacri palatii 458 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Discussed a composition of Petrus in Lyon (not Arles, as PLRE) in 458 with Sidonius, Lampridius, and Severianus; visited monasteries in the Jura Mountains. See Vita Hil. Arel. 14; perhaps the Fl. Rusticius Helpidius Domnulus who copied manuscripts at Ravenna, and/or the Domnulus noster cited in Ep. 36 of Avitus of Vienne Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 14.ep. 2, Ep. 4.25, 9.13.4, 9.15.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.25 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 374–5, 537, PCBE 4, 591–2, Stroheker 164, Heinzelmann 593 Donidius v.s. 460s–470s Gaul, Nîmes Roman Nicene Christian Called vir spectabilis, suggesting that he had held imperial office; Sidonius apologised for being late for a visit at Nîmes; he also asked Hypatius’ assistance in recovering from a patrician family (domus patriciae) half (medietas) of Donidius’ paternal estate Eborolacum (perhaps in the Auvergne), which was etiam ante barbaros desolatam (perhaps referring to the Visigothic raids c. 471/4) and which may have been improperly alienated in the will of his stepfather (obitum

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 90

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

91

vitrici). This freed Sidonius from awkward litigation with a family that he surely knew, perhaps that of Ommatius. Sidonius also commended the ‘client and slaves’ of Donidius, described as venerabilis dignus inter spectatissimos . . . numerari, to a bishop Theoplastus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9, 3.5.1–2, 6.5.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 376, PCBE 4, 594, Stroheker 164, Heinzelmann 593, Lucht (2011) Latinius Pacatus Drepanius v.i. Comes rei privatae Gaul, Thrace/Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Native of Agen (Nitiobroges); a poet; delivered a panegyric on Theodosius I in 389 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.11.1–2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 272, Heinzelmann 593

389/93

Ecdicius patricius Magister militum LV Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Son of Eparchius Avitus, brother of Papianilla and Agricola; in a poem and a letter Sidonius mentions Ecdicius’ birthday; had a military career as a local warlord: c. 471, Sidonius asked him to return and rescue the Arvernians from Seronatus (te expectat palpitantium civium extrema libertas); shortly thereafter Ecdicius broke through besieging Visigoths with eighteen mounted comrades; Sidonius later again asked him to come to the rescue (nunc maxume Arvernis meis desideraris); in 474 he was made patrician by Nepos, but in 475 he was summoned to Italy after Nepos abandoned the Auvergne; some evidence suggests he may have remained there (Cass. Var. 2.4) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 20, Ep. 2.1, 2.2.15, 3.3, 5.16.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.1, 3.3, Carm. 20 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 383–5, PCBE 4, 607–9, Stroheker 165, Heinzelmann 594, Giannotti (2002) Elaphius v.c. 471/5 Gaul, Rodez Roman Nicene Christian Owned a castellum in the mountains near Rodez, where he had built a baptistery; Sidonius suggested that in better times, Elaphius might become a bishop: Rodez was in Sidonius’ list of cities where Euric had prohibited new episcopal ordinations (Ep. 7.6.7); the letters of Ruricius (Ep. 2.7), however, show that Elaphius became a high-ranking Visigothic official instead Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.15; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.15 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 387, PCBE 4, 619–20, Stroheker 166, Heinzelmann 594–5, Boudartchouk (2006) Eleutherius v.i. Bishop Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of an unknown see, to whom Sidonius commended a Jew Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.11; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.11 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 620–1, Heinzelmann 595 Eminentius Gaul, Trier

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 91

vir honestissimus Roman

Decurion Nicene Christian

470s

477

13/02/20 4:00 PM

92

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Called an amicus of Arbogastes, count of Trier, and thus perhaps at least of curialis rank, especially if he is identified as the Eminentius (a rare name) mentioned in Ep. 15 (MGH 3) of Faustus of Riez to Paulinus of Bordeaux: filium meum Eminentium . . . paterno sospitamus affectu; he delivered a letter to Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.17.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 628, Heinzelmann 595, Mathisen 371 Epiphanius plebeius Scribe 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Called Epiphanius noster, the scribe of Philomathius; copied Sidonius’ epigram at the church of St Justus in Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.17.10 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 638 Eriphius v.c. 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Son-in-law of Philomathius; husband of Philomathia; an invalid: after Philomathia’s death Sidonius described him as debilis, suggesting it would have been better if he had died instead; Sidonius also described for him a gathering at the church of St Justus in Lyon because he had been ill and could not attend; he asked Sidonius to write parabolice seu figurate about an unnamed person who had not responded well to times of good fortune Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.8.1–3, 5.17; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.17 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 400, PCBE 4, 642, Stroheker 167, Heinzelmann 597 Eucherius v.c. Bishop 434–49 Gaul, Lérins/Lyon Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus; monk of Lérins, bishop of Lyon; author of extant De laude heremi ad Hilarium Lirinensem presbyterum epistula, Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae ad Veranum liber unus, Instructionum ad Salonium libri duo, Epistula paraenetica ad Valerianum cognatum de contemptu mundi et saecularis philosophiae, Passio Acaunensium martyrum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16.115, Ep. 4.3.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 405, PCBE 4, 653–8, Stroheker 168, Heinzelmann 598, Barcellona (2008) Eucherius v.i. c. 469/70 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Described as inlustris; Sidonius suggested that the government owed him recognition; an unsuccessful candidate for bishop of Bourges because he was twice married; murdered by Victorius; see Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.20 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.8, 7.9.18; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.8 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 406, PCBE 4, 658–9, Stroheker 168, Heinzelmann 598 Eulalia c.f. M/L V Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Paternal cousin of Sidonius (Eulaliae meae), wife of Probus (soror mihi quae uxor tibi . . . patruelis non germana fraternitas); the daughter of the elder Thaumastus, and sister of the brothers Thaumastus, Apollinaris, and Simplicius

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 92

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

93

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.95, Ep. 3.11.1–2, 4.1.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 418, PCBE 4, 684, Stroheker 169, Heinzelmann 600 Aelia Marcia Euphemia Augusta LV Thrace, Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Marcian (natam . . . Euphemiam), wife of Anthemius, mother of Alypia and four sons Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.195–6, 482 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 423–4 Euphronius v.i. Bishop 470 Gaul, Autun Roman Nicene Christian Assisted Patiens and Sidonius at the ordination of Iohannes as bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône; author, with Lupus of Troyes, of a letter ‘Commonitorium quod’: Munier (1963) 140–1 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.25.5, 7.8, 9.2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 669–72 Euricus regalis Rex 466–85 Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian Son of Theoderic II, married to Ragnahilda, father of Alaric II; murdered his brother Theoderic II and became king of the Visigoths in 466 (for 467, see Gillett (1999)); engaged in the treasonous correspondence of Arvandus in 468; exiled Nicene bishops and prevented new ordinations; launched attacks on Clermont; exiled Sidonius in 475 but then recalled him; called Evarix rex Gothorum and addressed as Eorice Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.5, 4.8.1, 5 (Carm. 29), 4.22.3, 7.6.4, 8.3.3, 8.9.1, 5 (Carm. 35) Bibliography: PLRE 2, 427–8, Heinzelmann 601, Stroheker (1937) Eusebius v.i. Bishop East, Caesarea Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7 Bibliography: De Cicco (2014)

E/M IV

Eusebius v.c. Rhetor 440s-450s Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian An artifex dialecticus, taught philosophy to Sidonius and Probus; a literary friend of Hilary of Arles (VHilarii 12) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.1.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 430, PCBE 4, 699, Heinzelmann 602 (bis), De Cicco (2014) Eustachius v.i. Bishop 460s Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Christian Patron of Amantius (Eustachii cura), he and others at Marseille admitted Amantius to their circle Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.4, 9; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 708–9

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 93

13/02/20 4:00 PM

94

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Eutropia c.f. 470s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Described as venerabilis Eutropia matrona; a widow whose son and grandson had also died; her daughter-in-law preferred to live with her rather than with her father, the presbyter Agrippinus, who had instituted a lis (lawsuit) probably regarding the inheritance from his deceased son; Sidonius had amicitia with both disputants but had failed to reconcile them Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.2.1–4 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 716, Heinzelmann 604, Mathisen 372 Eutropius v.i. Bishop 471/4 Gaul, Orange Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius sent him a letter, at a time when the Visigoths had ceased ambushing travellers, citing the itineris longitudine; see Vita s. Eutropii episcopi Arausicensis: Varin (1849) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.6 BibliographyPCBE 4, 719–23, Heinzelmann 604, Mathisen 372 Eutropius v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 470 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian From a senatorial family (senatorii seminis homo, parentum nobilitate); his consular ancestors (trabeatis proavorum) included the Sabini familia, perhaps including Antonius Caecina Sabinus, consul in 316, and note a Sabinus introduced to Symmachus (Ep. 3.49) by the historian Eutropius, a native of Bordeaux and consul in 387; Sidonius recalled their past goverment service (veteris commilitii) under Eparchius Avitus (455–6), when he offered to help him acquire a palatine office (ad capessenda militiae palatinae munia); in 470 Eutropius became praefectus praetorio Galliarum; he enjoyed studying philosophy (Plotini dogmatibus, Epicuri dogmatibus) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.6, 3.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.6, 3.6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 444–5, PCBE 4, 723–4, Stroheker 171, Heinzelmann 604 Evanthius v.c. Praeses Aquitaniae Primae? 469 Gaul, Clausetia Roman Nicene Christian Repaired roads near Clausetia for Seronatus’ trip to the Auvergne; his duties suggest he was a provincial governor (Clausetiam pergit Evanthius iamque contractas operas cogit) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.13.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 403, Stroheker 171, Heinzelmann 605 Evodius v.c. 466–9 Gaul, Aquitania Roman Nicene Christian Referred to as domine frater; was summoned to Toulouse by the Visigothic king Euric, asked Sidonius for a poem to inscribe on a silver bowl for Queen Ragnahilda, whose cliens he was; presumably a resident of the Visigothic kingdom Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.8; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.8 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 421–2, PCBE 4, 694, Stroheker 171, Heinzelmann 605 Explicius v.c. Advocatus 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian An arbitrator (arbiter) asked by Sidonius to settle a quarrel between Alethius and Paulus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.7; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 447, PCBE 4, 726, Heinzelmann 605–6

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 94

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

Fausta Augusta Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian A poem of Ablabius discusses her murder by Constantine (extinxerat coniugem Faustam) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.8.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 325–6, Moreno Resano (2015)

95 326

Faustinus v.c. Priest 450s-470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian A very old friend of Sidonius (veteris contubernii sodalitate), so probably a native of Lyon; described as domi nobilis and called meus frater natalium parilitate; carried letters to Sidonius’ cousins Apollinaris and Simplicius; delivered a verbal message to Apollinaris to behave himself in troubled times Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.4.1, 4.6.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 450, PCBE 4, 734, Stroheker 172, Heinzelmann 607 Faustus v.i. Bishop M/L V Britain, Gaul/Lérins/Riez Roman Nicene Christian A native of Britain or Brittany. Might have influenced Sidonius to become a cleric; participated at a church dedication in Lyon and went on an embassy with Graecus, Basilius, and Leontius to Euric in 474/5; in c. 470 Sidonius intercepted a copy of his De spiritu sancto that the priest Riochatus was delivering to ‘his Britanni’ (Riochatus antistes ac monachus . . . Britannis tuis pro te reportat); also author of an extant De gratia, letters, and sermons; preserved the pudor of Sidonius’ unnamed brother and instrumental in the conversion of Ruricius of Limoges: see Ruric. Ep. 1.1–2. Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16, Ep. 7.6.10, 9.3, 9.9; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.3, 9.9, Carm. 16 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 734–44, Heinzelmann 607, Mathisen 372–3, Engelbrecht (1890), Weigel (1938), Neri (2011) Magnus Felix patricius Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 469 Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Of patrician descent from Philagrius; son of Magnus, brother of Probus, sister Araneola, cousin Camillus, wife Attica; Sidonius congratulated him on being made a patrician, but also complained about Felix’ silence annis multis Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.1–2, 24.91, Ep. 2.3, 3.4, 4.5, 4.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.3, 3.4, 4.5, 4.10, Carm. 9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 463–4, PCBE 4, 749–51, Stroheker 172, Heinzelmann 607–8 Ferreolus v.c. Tribunus Gaul, Vienne Roman Christian A martyred comrade of St Julianus; Mamertus translated his body c. 470 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.1.7 Bibliography: Heinzelmann 608

E IV

Tonantius Ferreolus v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 451/68 Gaul, Nîmes/Rodez Roman Nicene Christian Of patrician descent, perhaps (like Eparchius Avitus, Magnus Felix, and Polemius) from Philagrius, his ancestors had received triumphalibus adoreis (‘triumphal rewards for valour’) and

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 95

13/02/20 4:00 PM

96

RALPH W . MATHISEN

included, in particular, his maternal grandfather Syagrius, consul in 382; married to Papianilla, father of Tonantius; praefectus praetorio Galliarum c. 451/3, described as vir praefectorius; had estates at Prusianum near Nîmes and Trevidon near Rodez; as a ‘legate of the province’, one of the prosecutors of Arvandus in Rome in 468/9; Sidonius urged him to become a bishop, making his famous assertion: praestantior secundum bonorum sententiam computatur honorato maximo minimus religiosus; had a Jewish client Gozolas Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.34, Ep. 1.7.4, 9, 2.9.1–9, 7.12; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.12 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 465–6, PCBE 4, 762–4, Stroheker 173, Heinzelmann 608 Fidulus v.c. Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Compared to Tetradius; lived south of Avitus of Cottion Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.80 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 769, Heinzelmann 608, Mathisen 373

460s

Firminus v.c. 475–80 Gaul, Arles? Roman Nicene Christian Called domine fili; invited Sidonius to write a ninth book (nonus libellus) of letters; a friend of Gelasius and of Sidonius’ son Apollinaris (Apollinaris tuus). Perhaps to be identified with Firminus of Arles (VCaesarii 1.8) and/or with Firminus, a relative of Ennodius of Pavia (Ennod. Ep. 1.8, 2.7) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.1, 9.16; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.1, 9.16 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 471, PCBE 4, 771/771–2, Stroheker 174, Heinzelmann 609, Condorelli (2015) Virius Nicomachus Flavianus v.i. Consul 394 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Praefectus praetorio Italiae 390/4 and consul in 394; translated Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius the Pythagorean, which work in turn was revised by Tascius Victorianus, whose version was revised by Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.3.1 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 347–9, Prchlík (2007), Cameron (2011) 546–54 Florentinus v.c. Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius visited him; the shortest letter in the corpus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.19; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.19 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 784, Heinzelmann 610, Mathisen 373

470s

Fonteius v.i. Bishop 469/70 Gaul, Vaison Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius recalled that Fonteius always had been a familiae meae validissimum . . . patronum; subsequently, Vindicius praised him to Sidonius; he gave his blessing to Sidonius’ cousins Simplicius and Apollinaris Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.7, 7.4; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.7, 7.4 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 798–801

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 96

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

97

Fortunalis v.i. 478/82 Spain, Iberia Roman Nicene Christian Described as amicitiae columen . . . Hibericarum decus inlustre regionum and as being ‘constant in adversity’ Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.5; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 482 Frontina c.f. MV Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Fronto and Auspicia, aunt of Aper; a pious Christian: sanctior sanctis Frontina virginibus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 486, PCBE 4, 832, Stroheker 176, Heinzelmann 611 Fronto v.c. 460s–470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Grandfather of Aper, married to Auspicia; perhaps the Fronto sent by Avitus to the Suevi in 455; see Hyd. Chron. s.a. 452 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 486, PCBE 4, 832, Stroheker 176, Heinzelmann 612 Fulgentius v.i. Quaestor sacri palatii 455? Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian A good friend of Petronius Maximus; praised by Sidonius for achieving high office on account of his own merits Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.13.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 487, PCBE 4, 845, Stroheker 176, Heinzelmann 612 Gallicinus v.i. Bishop Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian The muse Thalia is asked to visit the limen of bishop Gallicinus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.11.3 (Carm. 35.39) Bibliography: PCBE 4, 845

475/480

Gallus vir honestissimus Decurion 470s Gaul, Troyes Roman Nicene Christian Described as a vir honestus, hence perhaps a decurion; he had left his wife and moved to Clermont; he obeyed bishop Lupus of Troyes’ order to return to his wife and carried Sidonius’ letter Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.9.1–2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 849 Gaudentius v.c. Gaul Roman Son of Fl. Aëtius and Pelagia, called parvus Gaudentius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.203–5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 494–5, Heinzelmann 613

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 97

MV Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

98

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Gaudentius v.s. Vicarius septem provinciarum 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Overcame his undistinguished family origins to become a tribunus et notarius and then a vicarius (probably septem provinciarum); given money by Sidonius to put up a tombstone for the latter’s grandfather Apollinaris Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.3.2, 1.4, 3.12.4; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 494–5, PCBE 4, 856, Stroheker 177, Heinzelmann 613 Gelasius v.c. 477/82 Gaul, Arles? Roman Nicene Christian Called Gelasium . . . benignissimum; a friend of Tonantius and Firminus (Ep. 9.13, 15, 16 seem to have been sent south together); Sidonius sent him hendecasyllables and mentioned some of the same people (Petrus, Domnulus, Severianus) as in the letter sent to Tonantius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.15, 9.16.3; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.15 Bibliography: Heinzelmann 613, Mathisen 374 Genesius plebeius 470/4 Gaul, Vaison Roman Nicene Christian A client of Sidonius’ cousin Apollinaris, whom Sidonius asked to look into damna inflicted on his letter carrier per Genesium vestrum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.6.4 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 864 Germanicus v.s. 410/69 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Son of a bishop and father of priest; Sidonius praised him in a letter to Vettius; he had invited Sidonius to inspect the church at Cantilia (Chantelle-la-Vieille); Sidonius asked Vettius, with whom Germanicus enjoyed the iura amicitiae, to persuade him to adopt the professio religionis; his rank suggests that he had held an imperial office Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.13.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 504, PCBE 4, 877, Stroheker 177, Heinzelmann 615 Germanus v.s. Bishop 418–46 Gaul, Auxerre Roman Nicene Christian Prosper of Orléans was declared to be the equal of Germanus, who had been dux tractus Armoricani before being named bishop of Auxerre. His life was written by Constantius of Lyon; see Vita s. Germani episcopi Autessiodorensis: W. Levison, ed., MGH SRM 7 (Hanover, 1920), 225–83 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.15.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 504–5, PCBE 4, 878–83, Stroheker 177–8, Heinzelmann 615–16, Thompson (1984), Muthisen (1981d, 1990) Gerontius v.i. Magister militum Britain Roman Nicene Christian Abhorred by Sidonius’ and Aquilinus’ grandfathers for his perfidia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 508, Heinzelmann 616

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 98

407/11

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

99

Gnatho v.c. 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian A fictitious stock character full of vices who appears in a letter to Sidonius’ son Apollinaris Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.13.1 Gozolas plebeius Gaul, Narbonne Roman Jewish Client (cliens culminis tui) and letter carrier of Magnus Felix Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.4.1, 4.5.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 905

470s

Graecus v.i. Bishop 470s Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius told him the Amantius story, and about the threats of Visigothic attacks; served on the episcopal embassy on behalf of Julius Nepos in 474/5 that surrendered the Auvergne to the Visigoths; had problems with some of his clerics (quorumpiam fratrum necessitate multos pertuleritis angores); author of an extant letter ‘Gratias domino’ to Ruricius of Limoges and recipient of an extant letter ‘Honoratus officio’ from Faustus of Riez. Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.8, 7.2, 7.6.10, 7.7, 7.10, 9.4; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.8, 7.2, 7.7, 7.10, 9.4 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 906–7, Heinzelmann 618, Mathisen 374–5 Gratianensis v.i. Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Vir inlustris Gratianensis, attended Majorian’s banquet in Arles in 461 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 518, Stroheker 178, Heinzelmann 619

461

Gregorius v.i. Bishop East, Nazianzus Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 404

M/L IV

Heliodorus plebeius 476/80 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian After his return from exile, Sidonius lamented that when filius meus Heliodorus returned from Narbonne he did not have a letter from Magnus Felix Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.10.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 968 Heronius v.c. 467 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Came from Rhodanusia, that is, Lyon; in 467, Sidonius sent him two letters from Rome describing his experiences on his journey Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.5, 1.9; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.5, 1.9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 552, PCBE 4, 979, Heinzelmann 623, Wolff (2012c)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 99

13/02/20 4:00 PM

100

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Hesperius v.c. Rhetor 460s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian A young friend with literary interests, described extravagantly as a vir magnificus; asked Sidonius to send some poems; visited Toulouse, where Leo told him to ask Sidonius to write history (converteremus ad stilum historiae); later a rhetor; see Ruric. Ep. 1.3–5 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.10, 4.22.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 552, Heinzelmann 623, Santelia (2007) Hiberia c.f. M/L V Gaul, Auvergne/Limoges Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Ommatius, wife of Ruricius; received from Sidonius an epithalamium, introduced by a praefatio epithalamii dicti Ruricio et Hiberiae Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 10.0, 11.52; letters/poems received: Carm. 10, 11 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 556, PCBE 4, 986–7, Stroheker 182, Heinzelmann 624, Santelia (2011), Filosini (2014a) Hieronymus clericalis Priest Illyricum, Palestine/Bethlehem Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7 Bibliography: Denecker (2015)

L IV/E V

Hilarius v.i. Bishop M IV Gaul, Poitiers Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus; see Ven. Fort. Vita Hilarii Pictaviensis Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 989–97, Stroheker 182, Heinzelmann 624 Hilarius v.c. Bishop 429–49 Gaul, Lérins/Arles Roman Nicene Christian Monk of Lérins, bishop of Arles; see Honorat. Massil. Vita s. Hilarii episcopi Arelatensis in Cavallin (1952) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16.115 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 998–1007, Stroheker 182–3, Heinzelmann 625, Mathisen 375, Mathisen (1979c) Himerius vir honestissimus Decurion Gaul, Troyes Roman Nicene Christian Father of Sulpicius, grandfather of Himerius and perhaps likewise a curialis Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.13.5 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1016, Heinzelmann 625

MV

Himerius vir honestissimus Priest 470s Gaul, Troyes Roman Nicene Christian Son of Sulpicius; named after his grandfather (avum nomine); a priest (antistes); visited Lyon from Troyes; Sidonius praised him in conventional terms to Sulpicius; described as filius tuus and frater meus; the failure to discuss his origins suggests curial status

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 100

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

101

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.13.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1016, Heinzelmann 625 Hoenius v.c. Grammaticus Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian In a list of distinguished writers; former teacher of Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.312 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 566, Heinzelmann 626

MV

Honoratus v.c. Bishop 426–9 Gaul, Lérins/Arles Roman Nicene Christian Monk of Lérins, bishop of Arles; see Hil. Arel. Sermo de vita sancti Honorati in Cavallin (1952) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16.112 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1017–23, Stroheker 183–4, Heinzelmann 626, Mathisen 376 Fl. Honorius Augustus Emperor Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian The fathers of Sidonius and Aquilinus served under him as tribuni et notarii Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 442 Hormidac nobilis Dux Dacia Hun Pagan Called dux, raided Dacia and was defeated by Anthemius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.241 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 571

393–423

460/7

Hypatius v.c. Advocatus 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius asks Hypatius’ assistance in recovering from a patrician family half of Donidius’ paternal estate Eborolacum, which was etiam ante barbaros desolatam and which may have been improperly alienated in the will of Donidius’ recently deceased stepfather Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.5; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 577, PCBE 4, 1031, Heinzelmann 627 Industrius v.c. Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius wrote to him extolling the character of Vettius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.9; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.9 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1038, Heinzelmann 628, Mathisen 376

470s

Iniuriosus plebeius 477/82 Gaul, Clermont/Langres Roman Nicene Christian A fugitive (fugitivus) parishioner who had fled from Clermont to Langres; Sidonius sent Aprunculus a document of cession (vinculum cessionis) and ‘commendatory letters’ (litteris . . . commendatoriis) placing him under Aprunculus’ authority; he was not considered a famulus of either Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.10.1–2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1046

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 101

13/02/20 4:00 PM

102

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Innocentius v.s. 470s Gaul, Troyes Roman Nicene Christian Native of Troyes; Lupus is asked to thank him (agite gratias Innocentio, spectabili viro) for attending to Sidonius’ business there; his rank suggests that he had held an imperial office Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.9.3. Bibliography: PLRE 2, 591, PCBE 4, 1049, Heinzelmann 629 Iohannes v.i. Bishop 470 Gaul, Chalon-sur-Saône Roman Nicene Christian A lector and archdeacon before succeeding Paulus as bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône, ordained by Patiens of Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.25.3–4 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1056, Heinzelmann 630 Iohannes v.c. 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Described as familiaris meus; involved in a lawsuit; Sidonius recommends him to Petronius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.5.1 Bibliography: Heinzelmann 629 Iohannes v.c. Grammaticus 478/82 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian A schoolteacher (tua schola) described as vir peritissime; he taught in a time of war (tempestate bellorum); to him Sidonius made his famous observation: iam remotis gradibus dignitatum, per quas solebat ultimo a quoque summus quisque discerni, solum erit posthac nobilitatis indicium litteras nosse Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.2; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 601, PCBE 4, 1060–2, Heinzelmann 629 Iohannes Chrysostomus v.i. Bishop Thrace, Antioch/Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7

L IV/E V

Iovinus Augustus Emperor 411-13 Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Abhorred by Sidonius’ and Aquilinus’ grandfathers for his facilitas; murdered by Claudius Postumus Dardanus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 621–2, Stroheker 185–6, Heinzelmann 630 Fl. Iovinus v.i. Consul Gaul, Reims Roman Nicene Christian Ancestor of the wife of Consentius; consul in 367 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.171–2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 462–3, PCBE 4, 1069, Stroheker 185, Heinzelmann 630

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 102

367

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

103

Iulianus v.i. Bishop 475 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of an unknown see; Sidonius suggested that a new peace treaty (post pacis initam pactionem) would make it easier to exchange letters; probably the Iulianus at the Council of Arles, c. 470 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.5; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.5 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1076–7, Heinzelmann 631 Iulianus plebeius E IV Gaul, Vienne Roman Christian Said to have been beheaded at Brioude and his head taken to a praeses Crispinus at Vienne; c. 470 Mamertus of Vienne discovered the head; Sidonius referred to him as noster Iulianus and patronus noster because he came from the Auvergne; the emperor Avitus was said to have attempted to take refuge in his basilica after his deposition (basilica sancti Iuliani Arverni martyris cum multis muneribus expetivit), but he died on the journey, and was buried with the martyr (impleto in itinere vitae cursu, obiit, delatusque ad Brivatensem vicum, ad pedes antedicti martyris est sepultus) (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.11) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.1.7 Bibliography: Santelia (1999b) Iustinus v.c. 460s Gaul, Javols Roman Nicene Christian Nephew of Victorius, brother of Sacerdos, with whom he received a joint letter; a landowner south of Javols Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.26–8, Ep. 5.21; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.21 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 648, PCBE 4, 1087, Heinzelmann 632 Iustus v.i. Bishop L IV Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Attended Council of Aquileia in 381, died in exile in Egypt and then sanctified; the leading citizens of Lyon assembled at his church in the 460s Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.17.3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1089 Iustus plebeius Physician 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Admitted to Sidonius’ contubernium by right of friendship, iure amicitiae; a physician who tended Sidonius’ daughter Severiana when she was ill; compared to Chiron Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.12.3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1093, Heinzelmann 632 L. Caecilius Firmianus signo Lactantius v.c. Author Africa, Asia/Nicomedia Roman Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 338

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 103

E IV

13/02/20 4:00 PM

104

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Lampridius v.c. Rhetor 458–78 Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian In a list of distinguished writers; called Sidonius Phoebus; discussed a work of Petrus in Lyon (not Arles, as PLRE) in 458 with Sidonius, Domnulus, and Severianus; a client of Euric and a civis of the Visigothic kingdom; murdered by his slaves (occisus . . . pressus strangulatusque servorum manibus) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.314, Ep. 8.9, 8.11.3, 9.13.2, 9.13.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 656–7, PCBE 4, 1098–9, Heinzelmann 633, Wolff (2015c) Leo v.c. Consiliarius 460/84 Gaul, Narbonne/Toulouse Roman Nicene Christian In a list of distinguished writers, said to be a descendant of the grammarian Fronto; described as doctiloquus; adviser of Visigothic kings (per potentissimi consilia regis); friend of Hesperius; asked Sidonius to write history, Sidonius declined and sent him a revised version of Tascius Victorianus’ revision of Nicomachus Flavianus’ translation of Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii; praised for Greek epic poetry Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.314, 14.ep. 2, 23.446, Ep. 4.22, 8.3, 9.13.2 (Carm. 36.20), 9.15.1 (Carm. 40.20); letters/poems received: Ep. 4.22, 8.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 662–3, PCBE 4, 1112–13, Stroheker 187, Heinzelmann 635 Leo Augustus Emperor 457–74 Thrace, Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Augustus Leo, eastern emperor (princeps); described as an insignis vir; colleague (collega) of Majorian in 457 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.194, 212, 480, 5.388 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 663–4 Leontius v.i. Bishop 470/5 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius wrote to him not long after his own ordination commending the bearer of his letter; went on an imperial embassy with Faustus, Graecus, and Basilius to Euric in 474/5 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.3, 7.6.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1134–8, Heinzelmann 636, Mathisen 377 Pontius Leontius v.i. M/L V Gaul, Bordeaux/Burgus Roman Nicene Christian Descendant of Pontius Paulinus, father of Paulinus, friend of Trygetius; owner of the fortified estate called Burgus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 22.194–6, Ep. 8.12.5; letters/poems received: Carm. 22 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 674, PCBE 4, 1138–9, Stroheker 188, Heinzelmann 636, Delhey (1991), Robert (2011) Licinianus v.i. Quaestor sacri palatii 474 Italy, Ravenna Roman Nicene Christian Negotiated with the Visigoths; delivered to Gaul the codicils appointing Ecdicius as patricius et magister militum; Sidonius praised his character Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.7.2, 5.16.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 682, PCBE 4, 1175

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 104

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

105

Limpidius v.c. 460s Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Described as a magnificus civis, he had an unnamed brother; as v.c. Lympidius, along with a presbyter Proiectus, a deacon Venantius, the clerics Avitianus and Senator, a subdeacon Innocentius, a v.i. Salutius, and a comitissa Glismoda, he contributed to the construction of a basilica of St Felix at Narbonne in 455/6 (ILCV 1806) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.475 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 695, Stroheker 190, Heinzelmann 642 Litorius v.s. Comes rei militaris 437 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Commander of Hunnic auxiliaries who raided the Auvergne; captured and executed by the Visigoths in 439 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.246 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 684–5, PCBE 4, 1183, Heinzelmann 639 Livia c.f. MV Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian Mother of Pontius Leontius, of senatorial ancestry: Leontioque / prisco Livia quem dat e senatu Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.11.3 (Carm. 35.33–4) Bibliography: PLRE 2, 685, Stroheker 189, Heinzelmann 639 Livius v.i. 460s Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius refers to the tecta illustria . . . Livi; perhaps the poet Livius who praised Hilary of Arles (VHilarii 14). Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.445 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 685, PCBE 4, 1184–5, Stroheker 189, Heinzelmann 639 Lucontius v.c. 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius complains that Lucontius has been at his country estate too long; he was accompanied by their frater communis Volusianus, who took a family group all the way to his estate at Baiocasses (Bayeux) on the far side of Lugdunensis Secunda, some 450 miles (700 km) away; Sidonius sent him a poem he wrote at the request of bishop Perpetuus for the wall of the basilica of Tours. Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.18; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.18 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 692, PCBE 4, 1189, Heinzelmann 640 Lupus v.i. Bishop 426–78 Gaul, Lérins/Troyes Roman Nicene Christian Described as primus omnium toto orbe pontificum; monk of Lérins and bishop of Troyes for over 50 years; commended to Arbogastes, count of Trier; Prosper of Orléans was declared to be his equal; author, with Euphronius of Autun, of the letter ‘Commonitorium quod’: Munier (1963) 140–1. Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16.111, Ep. 4.17.3, 6.1, 6.4, 6.9, 7.13.1, 8.14.1, 8.15.1, 9.11; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.1, 6.4, 6.9, 9.11 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1201–6, Heinzelmann 641, Mathisen 377–8, Mathisen (1979c)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 105

13/02/20 4:00 PM

106

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Lupus v.c. Rhetor 475/80 Gaul, Périgueux Roman Nicene Christian Native of Agen (Nitiobroges) on his father’s side and Périgueux (Vesunnici) on his wife’s; a rhetor who had a multiplex bibliotheca Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.11; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.11 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 694, PCBE 4, 1206–7, Heinzelmann 641 Magnus v.i. Consul 460s Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Consul in 460; praised for his learning, his spacious home, and for forma, nobilitate, mente, censu Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 14.ep. 2, 23.455, 24.90, Ep. 1.11.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 700–1, Stroheker 190, Heinzelmann 643 Fl. Magnus v.c. Rhetor Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian The rigor Magni is cited in a catalogue of famous rhetors compared to Sapaudus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.3 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 535

L IV

Fl. Iulius Valerius Maiorianus Augustus Emperor 457–61 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Subject of a panegyric by Sidonius; described as aemulus of Aëtius, whose wife Pelagia plotted to assassinate him (percussor si respuis esse); defended Tours (defendit Turonos) and fought the Franks at Vicus Helena; shared the exploits of Aëtius (omnia tecum . . . facit); implicated along with Ricimer in the deposition, in 456, and subsequent death of Eparchius Avitus; Sidonius met him in Lyon in 458–9 and in Arles in 461; executed by Ricimer Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 4.1, 5.112, Ep. 1.11.2–17, 9.13.2; letters/poems received: Carm. 4, 5, 13 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 702–3, Heinzelmann 643, Mathisen (1979a), Rousseau (2000), Santelia (2005b) Maiorianus v.i. Magister militum Illyricum Roman Nicene Christian Paternal grandfather of Majorian, served under Theodosius I Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.112 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 537

379

Mamertus v.c. Bishop 460–75 Gaul, Vienne Roman Nicene Christian Elder brother of Mamertus Claudianus; Sidonius told how c. 470 he instituted the Rogations; translated the body of St Ferreolus and head of St Julian of Brioude Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.11.4–5, 5.14.2, 7.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1231–3, Heinzelmann 644, Mathisen 378 Marcellinus v.c. Advocatus 460s Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian A lawyer (togatus), described as learned, truthful, and severe; showed Sidonius a letter of Serranus praising Petronius Maximus

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 106

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

107

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.465–70, Ep. 2.13.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 708, PCBE 4, 1239, Heinzelmann 645 Marcellus v.i. Conspirator 456/7 Gaul, Narbonne? Roman Nicene Christian Involved in a Gallic conspiracy to seize the throne after the fall of Eparchius Avitus (de capessendo diademate coniuratio Marcellana; the text refers to a Marcellus, not a Marcellinus, as is often assumed, nor was Marcellus necessarily the individual proposed as emperor); perhaps Marcellus of Narbonne, praefectus praetorio Galliarum c. 441–3, or the senator Marcellus, bishop of Die as of 463 (VMarcelli, AASS Apr. 1.827) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 709, PCBE 4, 1241/1241–3, Stroheker 191, Heinzelmann 645, Mathisen (1979a), Dolbeau (1983) Marinus v.c. Gaul, Narbonne Roman Sidonius praised his officiositas and sedulitas Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.478–81 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 725, Heinzelmann 646

460s Nicene Christian

Martinus v.i. Bishop L IV Dacia, Gaul/Tours Roman Nicene Christian A Pannonian soldier who became a monk and then bishop of Tours; see Sulpicius Severus, Vita s. Martini episcopi Turonensis; Paulinus of Périgueux, De vita sancti Martini episcopi libri VI; Gregory of Tours, De virtutibus sancti Martini episcopi Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.18.4 (Carm. 31) Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1267–79, Heinzelmann 647 Martius Myro v.c. Author Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian In a list of distinguished writers; Sidonius praised his house and hospitality Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.306, 23.444 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 731, Heinzelmann 647

460s

Maurusius v.c. 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Had a vineyard at the Pagus Vialoscensis in the Auvergne; Sidonius promised to visit him Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.14; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.14 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 738, Stroheker 192, Heinzelmann 648 Maximus v.i. Gaul, Lérins/Riez Roman Monk of Lérins, bishop of Riez Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16.112, Ep. 8.14.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1295–1300, Heinzelmann 651

Bishop Nicene Christian

MV

Maximus Gaul, Auvergne

Priest Nicene Christian

460s

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 107

v.c. Roman

13/02/20 4:00 PM

108

RALPH W . MATHISEN

An ex-palatinus and old friend of Sidonius (ad amicum; vetera iura hospitii), his loan to Turpio was still unpaid; he was now a priest and at Sidonius’ request remitted the interest. In a similar manner, Ruricius of Limoges, Ep. 2.48, asked a certain Iohannes to remit the interest on a loan to a Magnus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.24.1–6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 746, PCBE 4, 1304, Stroheker 192, Heinzelmann 650 Petronius Maximus Augustus Emperor 455 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian His character was analysed by Sidonius; praised in a letter written by Serranus to Marcellinus; Sidonius’ comments about him could have been applied just as easily to his own father-in-law, the emperor Avitus; said to have envied Damocles Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.360, 376, 463, Ep. 2.13.1–7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 749–51 Megethius v.i. Bishop Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Asked Sidonius for a copy of his otherwise unknown contestatiunculae Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.3; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1315–6

470s

Megethius clericalis Cleric 475/80 Gaul, Soissons Roman Nicene Christian Brought a letter to Sidonius from Principius of Soissons (Megethius clericus, vestri gerulus eloquii); had some business to settle in Clermont (rebus ex sententia gestis) and carried a letter back from Sidonius to Principius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.14.8, 9.8.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1316–17 Menstruanus v.c. Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius commended him to their mutual friend Pegasius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.6.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 756, PCBE 4, 1323, Heinzelmann 652

460s

Messianus patricius Magister militum 456 Gaul, Toulouse/Placentia Roman Nicene Christian Sent ahead by Eparchius Avitus to Toulouse as an envoy in 455 (praemissus . . . Messianus), then became Avitus’ patricius et magister militum; killed at the battle of Placentia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.427 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 761–2, Heinzelmann 653 Modaharius nobilis Gaul, Aix? Visigoth Homoian Christian Referred to as a civis Gothus; he debated theology with Basilius of Aix Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.6.2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1334

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 108

470s

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

109

Montius v.c. 461 Gaul, Maxima Sequanorum Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius’ sodalis, called vir disertissimus and domine maior; from the province of Maxima Sequanorum, neighbouring Lyon; wanted a copy of Sidonius’ satire against Paeonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.11 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 766, PCBE 4, 1338, Heinzelmann 654 Namatius v.s. Dux? 468/80 Gaul, Oléron Roman Nicene Christian From Oléron; an admiral (officia nunc nautae modo militis) of Euric stationed at Saintes patrolling against Saxon raiders, probably as a dux akin to the dux tractus Armoricani; Sidonius praised Nicetius to him and noted that his son Apollinaris might visit him and his father; Sidonius sent him a copy of Varro’s Libri logistorici and Eusebius’ Chronicon. Also a friend of Ruricius of Limoges; married to Ceraunia; see Ruric. Ep. 2.1–5, 2.62 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 771, PCBE 4, 1348, Heinzelmann 654–5 (bis), Mathisen 379 Iulius Nepos Augustus Emperor Illyricum, Italy/Rome Roman Nicene Christian Emperor who negotiated surrender of the Auvergne to Euric in 474–5 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.6.2, 5.7.1, 5.16.2, 7.7.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 777–8

474–80

Nicetius v.c. Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Left an inheritance to Avitus of Cottion (Nicetiana . . . hereditas) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.1.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 782, Stroheker 194, Heinzelmann 657

470/1

Fl. Nicetius v.s. Assessor 449/80 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Assessor of the praefectus praetorio Galliarum; Sidonius eulogised him in a letter to Namatius; Sidonius was present at Arles in 449, while his father was praetorian prefect, when Nicetius delivered a panegyric on the consul Astyrius and also introduced a lex de praescriptione tricennii; c. 480 he praised Sidonius’ letters and poems Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.6.2–9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 782–3, PCBE 4, 1368, Stroheker 194–5, Heinzelmann 657 Nonnechius v.i. Bishop Gaul, Nantes Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius commended to him the Jew Promotus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.13; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.13 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1380–1, Heinzelmann 658

475/80

Nymphidius Gaul, Narbonne?

M/L V

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 109

v.c. Roman

Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

110

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Grandfather of either Polemius or Araneola; Sidonius wanted back his copy of Mamertus Claudianus’ De statu animae, which Sidonius effusively praised Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 15.200, Ep. 5.2; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 789, PCBE 4, 1384, Stroheker 264, Heinzelmann 658 Ommatius v.c. MV Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Of patrician descent (patriciaeque nepos gentis); father of Hiberia the wife of Ruricius; was invited to a birthday party Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 11.51–4, 17; letters/poems received: Carm. 17 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 804, PCBE 4, 1386, Stroheker 196, Heinzelmann 659 Optantius v.c. 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Recently deceased; Sagittarius became the guardian (tutor) of his daughter, whom Proiectus wanted to marry Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 809, PCBE 4, 1389, Stroheker 196, Heinzelmann 659 Oresius v.c. 477/82 Spain, Tarraconensis Roman Nicene Christian Oresius asked for some poems, but Sidonius had not written verse for twelve years (in silentio decurri tres olympiadas), dating this letter to c. 481/2 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.12; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.12 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 810 Orosius clericalis Priest Spain, Africa Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.3.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 813

EV

Paeonius v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 456/61 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Lampooned in a ‘satire’ by Sidonius, who harped on his low birth, referring to natalium eius obscuritati and describing him as municipaliter natus and as a novus homo, so probably from a curial family. Sidonius nicknamed him Chremes after a nobleman in Terence’s Andria. At the time of the deposition of Avitus in 456 he was vicarius septem provinciarium, probably appointed by Avitus; he then led a faction of ‘noble youth’ that was involved in some way in the ‘Marcellan conspiracy to seize the diadem’. He also assumed the office of praefectus praetorio Galliarum under irregular circumstances, leading Sidonius to joke that he was a spectabilis praefectus; attended Majorian’s dinner party in Arles in 461, where he was embarrassed by the emperor for his presumptions Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.3–16 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 817, Stroheker 197, Heinzelmann 660, Mathisen 380 Palladius Italy? Sardinia? Athens?

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 110

v.c. Roman

Rhetor

L IV/E V

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

111

Pompam Palladii: in a catalogue of famous rhetors compared to Sapaudus; perhaps to be identified as the vir inlustris Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus, author of a De re rustica (PLRE 1, 23–4), or as the rhetor Palladius, perhaps of Athens, who corresponded with Symmachus (PLRE 1, 660) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.3 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 23–4, 660. Mathisen 380 Pannychius v.i. Comes civitatis? 469–70 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius warned him about the approach of Seronatus; the recommendation that he deal effectively with lawsuits and taxation (contra lites . . . pactionibus consule, contra tributa securitatibus) suggests an official office, perhaps comes civitatis; he was an unsuccessful episcopal candidate at Bourges c. 469/70; married twice Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.13, 7.9.18; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.13 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 829, PCBE 4, 1410–11, Stroheker 198, Heinzelmann 661–2 Papianilla f.i. MV Gaul, Nîmes/Rodez Roman Nicene Christian Wife of Tonantius Ferreolus (coniunx Papianilla), mother of Tonantius and other sons; like the Burgundian queen Caretena (Anonyma 40), she was compared to Tanaquil, the wife of the Roman king Tarquinius Priscus and a model of womanly virtue Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.37 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 830, PCBE 4, 1414, Stroheker 198, Heinzelmann 662 Papianilla f.i. M/L V Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of the emperor Eparchius Avitus, sister of Agricola and Ecdicius, wife of Sidonius Apollinaris, mother of Apollinaris, Roscia, Severiana, and Alcima; recipient of the only letter addressed to a woman: Sidonius Papianillae suae salutem Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.2.3, 2.12.2, 5.16; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.16 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 830, PCBE 4, 1413–4, Stroheker 198–9, Heinzelmann 662 Pastor vir honestissimus Decurion 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Failed to attend a meeting of the municipal council (civitatis in concilio defuisti) and was thus burdened with a legation (onus futurae legationis) to the concilium septem provinciarum in Arles (tibi profecturo Arelatem); Sidonius notes that the journey would allow him to visit the patriae solum and his domus propria; almost certainly a decurion: no honorifics are used, and a bona fide senator would not have been so summarily treated Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.20.4; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.20 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1438, Heinzelmann 664 Paterninus plebeius Gaul, Limoges Roman Delivered a letter from Ruricius to Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.16.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1429

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 111

460s–470s Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

112

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Patiens v.i. Bishop 449/90 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Asked Sidonius to write verses for the apse of the new church at Lyon; Constantius and Secundinus also contributed poems; Sidonius praised him for extending his charity in alienas provincias. This included famine relief, to Arles, Riez, Avignon, Orange, Viviers, Valence, and Trois-Châteaux. Ecdicius provided similar relief (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.24). Sidonius noted his conversion of ‘Photinians’ and barbarians (probably Homoians); he delivered mass after Sidonius and his friends had a get-together outside the church of St Justus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.10.2, 4.25.1, 5.17.11, 6.12; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.12 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1432–5, Stroheker 200, Heinzelmann 664 Paulinus v.c. Rhetor Gaul, Périgueux Roman Nicene Christian Paulinus of Périgueux (Vesunnici); author of a metrical Vita Martini Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.11.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 846, Heinzelmann 666, Mathisen 381

475/80

Paulinus v.c. 475/80 Gaul, Bordeaux/Burgus Roman Nicene Christian Son of Pontius Leontius; author of an extant letter ‘Scribere vobis’ to Faustus of Riez, and recipient of Ep. ‘Admiranda mihi’ from Faustus. Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.12.5. Bibliography: PLRE 2, 847, PCBE 4, 1448/1449–50, Stroheker 203, Heinzelmann 666 Pontius Paulinus v.c. L IV Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Founder of the family of Pontius Leontius; built the fortified estate of Burgus between the Garonne and Dordogne rivers (not at Narbonne, as PLRE) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 22.117–19 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 681, Stroheker 200, Heinzelmann 666 Meropius Pontius Paulinus v.c. Bishop L IV/E V Gaul, Bordeaux/Nola Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus; consularis Campaniae and then bishop of Nola, where his family also had property Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.304, Ep. 4.3.2 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 681–3, Stroheker 201–2, Heinzelmann 665–6 Paulus v.i. Gaul, Chalon-sur-Saône Roman Deceased bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.25.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1456–7, Heinzelmann 667

Bishop Nicene Christian

460/70

Paulus Gaul

Decurion Nicene Christian

460s

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 112

vir honestissimus Roman

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

113

Sidonius asked Explicius to arbitrate a quarrel between Alethius and Paulus; Sidonius’ lack of honorifics suggests that these two were decurions Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.7.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 851, PCBE 4, 1457, Heinzelmann 667 Fl. Synesius Gennadius Paulus v.i. Praefectus urbi Romae 467–8 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Ex-prefect of Rome; hosted Sidonius and recommended Basilius and Avienus to him as patrons Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.9.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 855 Pegasius v.c. Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Friend of Menstruanus, whom Sidonius commended to him Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.6; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 856, PCBE 4, 1459, Heinzelmann 667

460s

Perpetuus v.c. Bishop 470s Gaul, Tours Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius sent him verses for the church of St Martin. Perpetuus also asked him for an account of the rather irregular ordination of Simplicius as bishop of Bourges: Sidonius, who presided, was the only bishop of a city in Aquitania Prima not under Gothic control, so he invited Agroecius of Sens, elderly metropolitan of Lugdunensis Senonia, to assist. According to canon law, however, three bishops were needed for an episcopal ordination. Perpetuus, metropolitan of Lugdunensis Secunda and quite a bit closer to Bourges than Agroecius, might have been wondering why he was not involved. Also described as de genere senatorio (Greg. Tur. Hist. 10.31) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.18.4, 7.9; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 860–1, PCBE 4, 1464–70, Stroheker 203–4, Heinzelmann 667–8 Petreius v.c. Gaul, Vienne? Roman Nicene Christian Nephew of Mamertus Claudianus of Vienne, whose epitaph Sidonius wrote Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.11; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.11 Bibliography: PCBE 1472, Heinzelmann 668, Mathisen 381

470s

Petronius v.i. Legatus provinciae 468/80 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Called Petronio inlustri; a lawyer; he enjoyed reading Sidonius letters (lectandis epistulis meis); Sidonius directed Iohannes and Vindicius to him for legal advice; as a ‘legate of the province’, one of the prosecutors of Arvandus in Rome in 468/9; dedicatee of the eighth book of letters Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.4, 2.5, 5.1, 8.1, 8.16.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.5, 5.1, 8.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 863–4, PCBE 4, 1475–6, Stroheker 204, Heinzelmann 668 Petrus Italy, Gaul

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 113

v.i. Roman

Magister epistularum Nicene Christian

458

13/02/20 4:00 PM

114

RALPH W . MATHISEN

In a list of famous writers; Majorian’s envoy to Gaul in 458 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 3.5, 5.564–71, 9.308, Ep. 9.13.4, 9.15.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 866, Heinzelmann 668 Petrus v.c. Tribunus et notarius 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian A tribunicius vir; Sidonius introduced him to Auspicius of Toul; he had a verbal request Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.11.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 866–7, PCBE 4, 1477, Stroheker 204, Heinzelmann 668 Philagrius patricius Gaul Roman Ancestor of Eparchius Avitus and Magnus Felix Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.156, 24.93 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 693 #4, PLRE 2, 873 #1, Stroheker 204, Heinzelmann 669

L IV

Philagrius v.c. Religiosus 460s Gaul, Lyon? Roman Nicene Christian Perhaps a descendant of the patrician Philagrius; he was discussed at a frequens ordo (meeting of the municipal council) at Lyon (cf. Ep. 5.20.4); lived in the countryside with vicinantibus rusticis; a cleric (religiosus), known to Sidonius primarily through correspondence Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.14; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.14 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 873–4, PCBE 4, 1482, Stroheker 204, Heinzelmann 669, van Waarden (2016a) 118–19 Philomathia c.f. 460s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius sent a copy of her epitaph to Desideratus; she was described as matrona Philomathia and splendor generis; an only child herself, she died in her early 30s, survived by her father Philomathius, husband Eriphius, and five children Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.8.1–3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 877, PCBE 4, 1484, Stroheker 204, Heinzelmann 669 Philomathius v.i. Assessor 469 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Called vir inlustris Philomathius; Sidonius advised him to accept a position as assessor of the praetorian prefect and wrote an epitaph for his daughter Philomathia; played in a ball game at a gathering before mass at the church of St Justus in Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.3, 2.8, 5.17.7; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 877–8, PCBE 4, 1485, Stroheker 205, Heinzelmann 669 Placidus v.c. Gaul, Grenoble Roman Nicene Christian Hospites veteres reported that he praised Sidonius’ prose and poetry Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.14; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.14 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 890, PCBE 4, 1490, Heinzelmann 670

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 114

460s

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

115

Polemius v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 471–2 Gaul, Narbonne? Roman Nicene Christian Called a descendant of the historian Tacitus and the patrician Philagrius, known for his interest in Neoplatonism, married to Araneola; praefectus praetorio Galliarum c. 471–2 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 14.ep. 1, 15.118, 188–9, Ep. 4.14; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.14, Carm. 14–15 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 895, PCBE 4, 1493–4, Stroheker 205, Heinzelmann 671 Potentinus v.c. Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Praised for being a model for Sidonius’ son Apollinaris Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.11; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.11 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 903, PCBE 4, 1510, Stroheker 206, Heinzelmann 672

M/L V

Pragmatius v.i. Bishop 470s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of an unknown see, probably near Clermont; Sidonius asked him to help a venerabilis matrona Eutropia who was being harrassed by a priest Agrippinus, the father of her daughterin-law Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.2; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.2 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1520–1, Heinzelmann 673 Pragmatius v.i. Consiliarius 450s–470s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Called Pragmatius inlustris; consiliarius of the praetorian prefect Priscus Valerianus, whose daughter he married; known for his oratory; he praised Sapaudus to Sidonius for his rhetoric Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 904, PCBE 4, 1521, Stroheker 206, Heinzelmann 672 Principius v.i. Bishop 475/80 Gaul, Soissons Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of Soissons, brother of Remigius; Sidonius had heard about them from Antiolus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.14, 9.8; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.8 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1523–4, Heinzelmann 673, Mathisen 382 Probus v.c. 440s–460s Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Son of Magnus, brother of Araneola and Magnus Felix, bound to Sidonius by the iura amicitiae; married Sidonius’ cousin Eulalia; schoolmate of Sidonius under Eusebius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.94, 9.333, Ep. 4.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 910–11, PCBE 4, 1535, Stroheker 206, Heinzelmann 674 Procopius v.i. Magister militum Thrace, Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Father of emperor Anthemius; commanded troops in the Persian war of 422 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.94–5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 920

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 115

422–4

13/02/20 4:00 PM

116

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Proculus Plebeius Cleric Gaul, Autun Roman Nicene Christian A deacon; he and the priest Albiso carried a letter from Euphronius of Autun Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.2.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1545

477/82

Proculus v.c. Italy, Liguria Roman A poet from Liguria Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.15.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 923, Heinzelmann 675

M/L V

Poet Nicene Christian

Proculus vir honestissimus Decurion 460s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius refers to tuis . . . amicitiis; his son took refuge with Sidonius for an unnamed offence; Sidonius asked that he be allowed to return home Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.23; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.23 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 923, PCBE 4, 1545, Heinzelmann 675 Proiectus v.c. 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Described as domi nobilis; wanted to marry the daughter of the recently deceased Optantius; his father and uncle were of spectabilis rank and his grandfather had been a bishop; Sidonius wrote on his behalf to the girl’s guardian Sagittarius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 925, PCBE 4, 1548, Stroheker 206, Heinzelmann 676 Promotus plebeius 475/80 Gaul, Clermont Roman Jewish A converted Jew (municipatus caelestis civitatis) who regularly carried letters between Sidonius and Nunechius of Nantes; he had a verbal request Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.13.3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1550 Prosper v.i. Bishop 475/80 Gaul, Orléans Roman Nicene Christian Asked Sidonius to write about Anianus of Orléans and the war with Attila (Attilae bellum); Sidonius was put off by the magnitude of the work (taeduit inchoasse) and promised to write a laudation (praeconio suo) instead Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.15; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.15 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1557–8, Heinzelmann 676 Prudens plebeius Merchant 470s Gaul, Troyes Roman Nicene Christian An adstipulator to a sales contract at Clermont ante aliquot annos wherein Sidonius’ agent (negotiator) purchased a woman who had been kidnapped by the Vargi; adstipulatores attested to the validity of a transaction (CTh 7.2.1), suggesting that Prudens testified (falsely) (collaudante)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 116

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

117

that this was a legitimate sale: he was ‘now living at Troyes’ (quem nunc Tricassibus degere), so Sidonius asked bishop Lupus to look into the matter Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.4.1–3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1561 Aurelius Prudentius Clemens v.c. Governor L IV/E V Spain, Tarraconensis Roman Nicene Christian Lawyer and twice provincial governor; Christian poet, his works were in the library of Tonantius Ferreolus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9.4 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 214 Pudens vir honestissimus Decurion M/L V Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Nutricis meae filiam filius tuae rapuit: Pudens’ inquilinus and colonus, the son of his nurse, ran off with a free woman (libera), the daughter of Sidonius’ nurse; Sidonius asks him to raise the colonus to plebeian status to legitimate the relationship; given Sidonius’ peremptory tone, perhaps a decurion Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.19; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.19 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 928, PCBE 4, 1562, Heinzelmann 677, Grey (2008), Demicheli (2012) Quintianus v.c. Italy, Liguria Roman Nicene Christian? Poet and maximus sodalis of the fathers of Sidonius and Felix, followed Aëtius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.290, Ep. 4.8.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 932–3, Heinzelmann 678

MV

Ragnahilda regalis Regina 466–9 Gaul, Toulouse Sueve? Homoian Christian Daughter of a king (perhaps Rechiarius, king of the Suevi), wife of the Visigothic king Euric, mother of Alaric II; received a silver dish from her client Evodius (Evodium . . . clientem) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.8.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 935, Heinzelmann 678, Becht-Jördens (2017) Remigius v.i. Bishop 475/80 Gaul, Reims Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of Reims, brother of Principius; Sidonius learned about them from Antiolus; authored four extant letters, including two to Clovis, and some lost declamationes (Sidon. Ep. 9.7.1); see Vita s. Remigii (MGH SRM 3, 239–349) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.14.2, 9.7; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 938, PCBE 4, 1600–4, Stroheker 207–8, Heinzelmann 679 Fl. Ricimer patricius Magister militum 457–72 Spain, Rome Sueve Homoian Christian The son of a Sueve and a Visigoth (in regnum duo regna vocant, nam patre Suebus, a genetrice Getes); had a ‘royal grandfather’ (Vallia); described as invictus Ricimer; married Alypia, daughter of Anthemius (genero Ricimere), in 467

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 117

13/02/20 4:00 PM

118

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.352, 484, 502, 5.267, Ep. 1.5.10–11, 1.9.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 942–5, Heinzelmann 680–1, Papini (1959), Montone (2015) Riochatus clericalis Priest 477/82 Britain or Gaul Breton Nicene Christian Priest and monk, visited Sidonius while carrying a copy of Faustus’ De spiritu sancto to the Britanni (Bretons or Britons): Riochatus antistes ac monachus . . . Britannis tuis pro te reportat Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.9.8 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1616 Riothamus regalis Rex 469/70 Armorica Breton Nicene Christian Breton warlord with a personal army; Sidonius sought his assistance in recovering runaway slaves; also alluded to in a reference to the Britannos super Ligerim; later defeated by the Visigoths; see Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.18, Jord. Get. 237–8 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.5, 3.9; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 945, PCBE 4, 1616, Heinzelmann 681, Adams (1993) Roscia c.f. 460s–470s Gaul, Lyon/Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Sidonius and Papianilla; cared for by her paternal grandmother and paternal aunts when she was ill at Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 17.3, Ep. 5.16.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 950, PCBE 4, 1630, Stroheker 208, Heinzelmann 682, Günther (1997) Turannius Rufinus clericalis Monk L IV/E V Italy, Palestine Roman Nicene Christian In a list of famous ecclesiastical writers sent to Mamertus Claudianus; translated Origen and Eusebius; his works were in the library of Tonantius Ferreolus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9.4, 4.3.7 Ruricius v.c. Bishop 460–510 Gaul, Limoges Roman Nicene Christian Related to the senatorial Anicii of Rome, brother of Leontius, husband of Hiberia (Sidonius wrote an epithalamium for them), had five sons; friend of Faustus of Riez; discussed literary matters with Sidonius; author of an extant collection of 83 letters. Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 10,11.63, Ep. 4.16, 5.15, 8.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.16, 5.15, 8.10, Carm. 10, 11 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 960, PCBE 4, 1635–49, Stroheker 209–10, Heinzelmann 683, Alciati (2008), Mathisen (1999a, 2001a, 2016) Rusticiana f.i. Italy, Rome Roman Pagan? Wife of Symmachus; said to have ‘held a candle’ while he was composing Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.10.5 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 786–7

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 118

L IV/E V

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

119

Rusticus v.i. 460s Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian Called domine inlustris; a neighbour of Pontius Leontius of Bordeaux; see Ruric. Ep. 2.20, 2.54 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.11, 8.11.3 (Carm. 35.35–6); letters/poems received: Ep. 2.11 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 964, PCBE 4, 1664, Stroheker 211, Heinzelmann 685, Mathisen 383, Amherdt (2004) Rusticus v.c. L V/E VI Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Great-grandson of Decimius Rusticus, son of Aquilinus; later high official in Burgundian kingdom; bishop of Lyon c. 494–501; see CIL 13.2395 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 964, PCBE 4, 1665, Stroheker 211, Heinzelmann 685–6 Decimius Rusticus v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 407/11 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian? Grandfather of Aquilinus; master of offices and praetorian prefect of Gaul under Constantine III, and perhaps under Jovinus; executed after the fall of Jovinus (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.9) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.1, 4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 965, Stroheker 211, Heinzelmann 684–5 Sabinianus v.c. IV/V Gaul Roman Nicene Christian? An unknown person whose family is negatively juxtaposed with the family of Sabinus, from which Eutropius was descended Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.6.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 966, Heinzelmann 686 Sabinus v.c. IV/V Gaul Roman Nicene Christian? An ancestor of Eutropius, his family is positively juxtaposed with the family of Sabinianus; it may have included Antonius Caecina Sabinus, consul in 316, and note also a Sabinus introduced to Symmachus (Ep. 3.49) by the historian Eutropius, a native of Bordeaux and consul in 387 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.6.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 968, Heinzelmann 686–7 Sacerdos v.c. 460s Gaul, Javols Roman Nicene Christian Nephew of Victorius, brother of Iustinus, with whom he received a joint letter; a landowner south of Javols Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.26–8, Ep. 5.21; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.21 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 970, PCBE 4, 1674, Heinzelmann 687 Sagittarius Gaul

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 119

v.c. Roman

460s Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

120

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Guardian (tutor) of the recently deceased Optantius’ daughter, whom Proiectus wanted to marry; described as her parens, so perhaps her uncle Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 971, PCBE 4, 1680, Stroheker 212, Heinzelmann 687 Salonius v.c. Cleric 470s Gaul, Vienne Roman Nicene Christian He and his unnamed brother had a house in Vienne and estates in the countryside, where they spent most of their time; one was only recently acquired (vix recepta possessio); like Sidonius, they were both clerics (professione sociamini) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.15; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.15 Bibliography: PCBE 1688, Heinzelmann 688, Mathisen 383 Sapaudus v.c. Rhetor LV Gaul, Vienne Roman Nicene Christian Rhetor of Vienne, praised by Pragmatius and by Sidonius; also received a letter from Mamertus Claudianus: CSEL 11.203, Parisinus latinus 2165 ff. 34v–35r Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 976, PCBE 4, 1704–5, Heinzelmann 689 Sebastianus v.i. Magister militum 432–50 Africa, Thrace/Spain/Africa Roman Nicene Christian Son of Bonifatius; followed by an anonymous poet of Cahors; executed by Geiseric Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.277–88 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 983–4 Secundinus v.c. M/L V Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Old friend of Sidonius, who praised his poetry and advised him to write satire; wrote poetry for the basilica of Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.10.3, 5.8; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.8 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 985, PCBE 4, 1724, Heinzelmann 690 Secundus v.c. 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Nephew of Sidonius, who asked him to restore the grave of his grandfather Apollinaris Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.12; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.12 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 986, PCBE 4, 1725, Stroheker 215, Heinzelmann 691, Henke (2012), Colafrancesco (2014) Seronatus v.s. Vicarius septem provinciarum 469–71 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Described as the Catilina saeculi nostri; oversaw tax collection, perhaps as vicarius septem provinciarum; colluded with the Visigoths; accused of betraying provinces to barbarians; Sidonius asked Ecdicius to return and rescue the Arvernians from him; the comment that Anthemius

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 120

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

121

lacked soldiers and resources suggests a date of c. 471; in 475 Sidonius reported that Seronatus had earlier been arrested and executed Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.1.1, 5.13.1–2, 7.7.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 995–6, Stroheker 215, Heinzelmann 692, Fascione (2016) Serranus v.c. Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Marcellinus showed Sidonius a letter of Serranus praising Petronius Maximus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.13; letters/poems received: Ep. 2.13 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 996, PCBE 4, 1736, Heinzelmann 692

460s

Severiana c.f. 460s–470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Sidonius and Papianilla; called sollicitudo communis in a letter to her uncle Agricola; later appears as mater Severiana among three female relatives of Avitus of Vienne who took the veil (Avit. Carm. 6.83–94) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 17.3, Ep. 2.12.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 998, PCBE 4, 1739–40, Stroheker 216, Heinzelmann 692, Mathisen 384 Severianus v.c. Rhetor 458 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian In a list of distinguished writers; discussed a work of Petrus in Lyon (not Arles, as PLRE) in 458 with Sidonius, Domnulus, and Lampridius; perhaps the Iulius Severianus who authored a Praecepta artis rhetoricae Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.315, Ep. 9.13.2, 9.15.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 999–1000, Heinzelmann 692 Fl. Severinus v.i. Consul 461 Italy Roman Nicene Christian Consul in 461, when he attended Majorian’s banquet in Arles and was second in rank after the emperor Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1001, Heinzelmann 693 Libius Severus Augustus Emperor 461–5 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Made emperor by Ricimer; Sidonius describes him as deified (auxerat . . . divorum numerum) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.317 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1004–5, Oost (1970) Sigismer regalis Prince 460s Gaul, Lyon Burgundian? Homoian Christian A barbarian prince (regium iuvenem), travelled to Lyon to visit his intended bride and his future father-in-law, perhaps the Burgundian king Gundioc Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.20.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1008, Heinzelmann 694

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 121

13/02/20 4:00 PM

122

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Simplicius v.c. 460s Gaul, Vaison Roman Nicene Christian Cousin of Sidonius, brother of Thaumastus of Vienne and of Apollinaris, with whom he eventually settled in Vaison and received two letters jointly; Sidonius congratulated him on his choice of a son-in-law and on raising his daughter (implying that his wife was deceased); Sidonius commended Faustinus and an unnamed letter carrier to him; Sidonius was upset after Constans lost a letter from him and Apollinaris and complained about a lack of letters from him; Sidonius commended him to Fonteius of Vaison Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.11, 4.4, 4.7, 4.12, 5.4, 7.4.4; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.11, 4.4, 4.7, 4.12, 5.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1015, PCBE 4, 1818, Stroheker 219, Heinzelmann 696 Simplicius v.s. Bishop 470/5 Gaul, Bourges Roman Nicene Christian Called Simplicium spectabilem virum; had prefects among his ancestors; undertook diplomatic missions; imprisoned by the Visigoths; elected bishop of Bourges c. 469/70, with Sidonius presiding; exiled by Euric; his rank suggests that he had held an imperial office Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.6.9, 7.8.2–3, 7.9.16–17 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1015–16, PCBE 4, 1816–7, Stroheker 363, Heinzelmann 696, van Waarden (2011b) Sulpicius vir honestissimus Decurion M/L V Gaul, Troyes? Roman Nicene Christian Son of Himerius, father of Himerius; enjoyed living in solitude (secessus) in an out-of-the-way place (secretum); Sidonius’ failure to mention social status suggests curial origin Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.13; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.13 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1837, Heinzelmann 698, Mathisen 385 Fl. Afranius Syagrius v.i. Consul 382 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Grandfather of Tonantius Ferreolus, great-grandfather of Syagrius, his tomb was in Lyon; his consulate was in 382, not, as Anderson (1965) 2.364, in 381 (a different Syagrius) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.36, Ep. 5.5.1, 5.17.4, 7.12.1 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 862–3, Stroheker 220, Heinzelmann 699, Demandt (1971) Syagrius v.c. Advocatus 460s–470s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Of patrician descent (patriciae stirpis), great-grandson of Fl. Afranius Syagrius, consul in 382, described as Gallicanae flos iuventutis; a lawyer whom Sidonius praised for his knowledge of German, called Burgundionum Solon; advised not to lose his knowledge of Latin; had an estate Taionnacus, perhaps near Autun Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.5, 8.8; letters/poems received: Ep. 5.5, 8.8 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1042, PCBE 4, 1845, Stroheker 221, Heinzelmann 699 Quintus Aurelius Symmachus Italy, Rome

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 122

v.i. Roman

Consul Pagan

391

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

123

In a list of distinguished writers, married to Rusticiana; consul in 391; Sidonius cited an unknown quotation of his Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.304, Ep. 1.1.1, 2.10.5, 8.10.1 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 865–71 Tetradius v.c. Advocatus 461/7? Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Compared to Fidulus; lived south of Avitus of Cottion; Sidonius sent Theodorus to him for legal advice Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.81, Ep. 3.10; letters/poems received: Ep. 3.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1060, PCBE 4, 1860, Heinzelmann 701 Thaumastus v.i. Legatus provinciae 468/9 Gaul, Tres Villae/Vienne Roman Nicene Christian Father of Thaumastus of Vienne, ‘nearly the paternal uncle’ of Sidonius; had an estate called Tres Villae north of Narbonne; one of the prosecutors of Arvandus in Rome in 468/9; deceased by the time that Sidonius erected his grandfather’s epitaph, as he seems to have been the closest surviving relative (Sidon. Ep. 3.12.6 heres tertius) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.85, Ep. 1.7.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1062, Stroheker 223–4, Heinzelmann 702 Thaumastus v.c. Tribunus et notarius 460s Gaul, Tres Villae Roman Nicene Christian Son of Thaumastus, brother of Simplicius and Apollinaris of Vaison, cousin of Sidonius; the description mihi sodalis et collega simul graduque frater suggests that he and Sidonius held office together, perhaps as tribuni et notarii under Avitus in 455–6; in the 470s living at Vaison. Sidonius’ description of him as one quem pro iure vel sanguinis vel aetatis reverenda familiaritate complector attests to their family relationship and similar age Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.84–7, Ep. 5.6.1, 5.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1062–3, PCBE 4, 1867–8, Stroheker 224, Heinzelmann 702 Theodericus I regalis Rex Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian Released the hostage Theodorus to Eparchius Avitus c. 425/6 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.220 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1070–1, Heinzelmann 702–3

418–52

Theodericus II regalis Rex 453–66 Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian Grandson of Alaric I, son of Theoderic I, brother of Thorismodus, Fredericus, and Euric; met Eparchius Avitus in his youth and supported him as emperor; Sidonius describes him and his court at length and mentions his leges . . . Theudoricianas; he was murdered by his brother Euric in 466 (for 467, see Gillett (1999)) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.72, Ep. 1.2.1, 2.1.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1071–3, Heinzelmann 703, Sivan (1989a)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 123

13/02/20 4:00 PM

124

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Theodorus v.c. Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian A nobilis relative of Eparchius Avitus; hostage of Visigothic king Theoderic I Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.215–20 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1087, Stroheker 224, Heinzelmann 704

425/6?

Theodorus v.c. Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Described as domi . . . nobilis; Sidonius sent him to Tetradius for legal aid Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.10.1–2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1091–2, PCBE 4, 1875, Stroheker 224, Heinzelmann 704

469/70

Theodosius I Augustus Emperor 379–95 Spain, Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Named emperor at Sirmium; restored Valentinian II to power after the defeat of Magnus Maximus in 388 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.109, 354–5 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 904–5 Theoplastus v.i. Bishop 470s Gaul, Geneva? Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius commended the client and slaves of Donidius to him; a Theoplastus appears in the episcopal fasti of Geneva (Duchesne (1907), 1.227) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.5; letters/poems received: Ep. 6.5 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1884 Thorismodus regalis Rex 451–3 Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian Grandson of Alaric I, son of Theoderic I, brother of Theoderic II, Fredericus, and Euric; Sidonius called him Rhodani hospes (‘guest of the Rhône’), perhaps because he made an attack on the city of Arles, which Aëtius could not end in battle (proelio) but which Ferreolus ended by means of a banquet (prandio) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.12.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1115–56, Heinzelmann 705 Tonantius v.c. 460s–470s Gaul, Nîmes/Rodez Roman Nicene Christian Son of Tonantius Ferreolus, friend of Gelasius; called meo Tonantio; discussed poetry; had estates at Prusianum near Nîmes and Trevidon near Rodez; c. 478, Sidonius mentioned some of the same people (Petrus, Domnulus, Severianus) as in the letter sent to Tonantius, and sent him his poem on Petrus, written in 459, about twenty years earlier (annos circiter viginti) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.34, Ep. 2.9.7, 9.13, 9.15.1; letters/poems received: Ep. 9.13 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1123, PCBE 4, 1892, Heinzelmann 706, Consolino (2011b) Trygetius Gaul, Bazas

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 124

v.c. Roman

M/L V Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

125

An inhabitant of Bazas (Vasatium); had recently visited Gibraltar (Calpis); planned to meet Pontius Leontius and his son Paulinus at Langon (Alingonis) on the Garonne but declined to visit Sidonius at Bordeaux Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.12; letters/poems received: Ep. 8.12 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1129, PCBE 4, 1897, Stroheker 225, Heinzelmann 707 Tuldila regalis Rex Dacia Hun Pagan Attacked and killed near the Danube by Majorian Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.485–9, 499–503 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1131

458

Turnus v.c. 460s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Son of Turpio, who had a long-overdue loan from the ex-palatinus Maximus, whom Sidonius induced to remit the interest Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.24; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.24 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1133, PCBE 4, 1899, Stroheker 225, Heinzelmann 707 Turpio v.c. Tribunus et notarius 460s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian A vir tribunicius; borrowed money, still unpaid, from the ex-palatinus Maximus; he was now very ill and Sidonius induced Maximus, who had become a priest, to remit the interest Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.24.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1133, PCBE 4, 1899–1900, Stroheker 225, Heinzelmann 707 Valamer regalis Rex 459/62 Illyricum Ostrogoth Homoian Christian Ostrogothic warlord who devastated Illyricum (Illyris ora . . . excisam . . . Valameris ab armis) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.225 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1135–6 Placidus Valentinianus III Augustus Emperor 425–55 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Called ‘effeminate’ (not, as Anderson (1936) 1.149, a ‘eunuch’), murdered Aëtius (Aetium Placidus mactavit semivir amens); the fathers of Sidonius and Aquilinus served under him; sent Consentius to Constantinople and oversaw the chariot race he won Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.305–6, 7.359, 23.310, 228, 423, Ep. 5.9.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1138–9 Priscus Valerianus v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum ante 456 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Of patrician descent, related to Eparchius Avitus, his daughter married Pragmatius; praefectus praetorio Galliarum before 456, described as vir praefectorius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 8.1, Ep. 5.10.2; letters/poems received: Carm. 8 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1142–3, PCBE 4, 1909, Stroheker 225, Heinzelmann 709

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 125

13/02/20 4:00 PM

126

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Vallia regalis Rex 415–18 Gaul Visigoth Homoian Christian Successor of Sigericus; grandfather of Ricimer (avus huius Vallia; spiritus . . . regis avi); defeated Vandals and Alans in Spain; began settlement of Visigoths in Aquitania Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.363, 5.268 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1147–8, Heinzelmann 710, Mathisen (2018b) Vettius v.i. Dux? 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Called Vettio inlustri; he had a daughter, an only child, and did not remarry after the death of his wife; Sidonius praised him to Industrius; he had city and country properties; as a wearer of the paludamentum, he would have been an ex-general, perhaps a dux promoted to vir inlustris on retirement; Sidonius asked him to persuade Germanicus to adopt the professio religionis; the reading ‘Vettius’ in the Laudianus 104 (as opposed to ‘Vectius’ elsewhere) is probably correct. Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.9.1, 4.13; letters/poems received: Ep. 4.13 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1152, PCBE 4, 1914, Stroheker 226, Heinzelmann 710 Victor v.i. Quaestor sacri palatii 467–8 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian A poet compared by Sidonius to Phoebus Apollo; Sidonius notes: aeternum nobis ille magister erit; his name has been questioned as being the result of a manuscript error Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 1.25 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1158–9, Kelly (2018) Tascius Victorianus v.c. L IV/E V Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Revised the translation of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius the Pythagorean by Virius Nicomachus Flavianus; his version was revised by Sidonius; also edited the first ten books of Livy Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.3.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1160–1 Victorius v.c. Rhetor Gaul, Bordeaux? Roman Nicene Christian? Dulcedo Victorii; in a catalogue of famous rhetors compared to Sapaudus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1162, Heinzelmann 713

IV/V

Victorius v.c. Poet Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Paternal uncle (patruus) of Sacerdos and Justinus, who inherited his patrimonia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.21.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1162, PCBE 4, 1954, Heinzelmann 714

MV

Victorius v.c. Comes civitatis 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Comes civitatis Arvernensis (and dux septem civitatum: Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.20) in the Visigothic administration; Sidonius was his client (excolo ut cliens); described as iure saeculari patronum, iure

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 126

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

127

ecclesiastico filium (cf. redux patronus: Ep. 4.10.2); present at the deathbed of abbot Abraham; according to Gregory of Tours, c. 480 he fled to Rome, accompanied by Sidonius’ son Apollinaris, because he was in amore mulierum luxuriosus; see also Greg. Tur. Vit. patr. 3, Glor. conf. 33, Glor. mart. 44 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.17.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1162–4, PCBE 4, 1955, Heinzelmann 714, Mathisen (2003b) Vincentius v.i. Magister militum 469 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Asked Sidonius to write an account of the fall of Arvandus (damnationis suae ordinem exposcis); given his interest in the Arvandus case, which involved collaboration with the Visigoths, he is probably to be identified as the Visigothic dux and magister militum Vincentius who campaigned in Spain and was killed during an invasion of Italy in 473 (Chron. Gall. 511, s.a. 473). Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7; letters/poems received: Ep. 1.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1168 #3–4, PCBE 4, 1981, Heinzelmann 715 Vindicius vir honestissimus Deacon 470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Called necessarius meus and Vindicius noster; he had recently been made a deacon (leviticae dignitati . . . accommodatissimum), perhaps by Sidonius himself; commended to Petronius for legal advice regarding an inheritance, and commended to Fonteius of Vaison for assistance in another matter; perhaps of curial origin Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.1.2, 7.4.1 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1985, Stroheker 227, Heinzelmann 716, Mathisen 385 Volusianus v.c. Bishop 470s–490s Gaul, Tours Roman Nicene Christian Called domine frater, bound to Sidonius by the lex amicitiae; Sidonius described the two of them as fratres, amicos, commilitones, suggesting that Volusianus had become a priest; had an estate at Baiocasses (Bayeux); asked Sidonius to write an epitaph for the abbot Abraham. Sidonius asked Volusianus to supervise Abraham’s successor Auxanius. Described as unus ex senatoribus (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.26); c. 490, he succeeded Perpetuus as bishop of Tours; see Ruric. Ep. 2.65 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.18.2, 7.17; letters/poems received: Ep. 7.17 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1183, PCBE 4, 2001–2, Stroheker 227, Heinzelmann 717 Anonyma 1 (Licinia Eudoxia) Augusta 437–55 Thrace, Constantinople/Rome Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Theodosius II, wife of Valentinian III, mother of Eudocia and Placidia; supposedly invited Geiseric to attack Rome in 455 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.229 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 410–12 Anonyma 2 (Alypia) f.i. 467 Thrace, Constantinople/Rome Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of the ‘perennial Augustus’ Anthemius, married Ricimer; unnamed by Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.484–6, Ep. 1.5.10, 1.9.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 61–2

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 127

13/02/20 4:00 PM

128

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Anonyma 3 (Attica) f.i. Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Wife of Magnus Felix; unnamed by Sidonius, see CIL 6.32104 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 181–2, PCBE 4, 229, Stroheker 149, Heinzelmann 563

M/L V

Anonyma 4 (Avita?) f.i. MV Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Mother of Sidonius; a close relative of Avitus of Cottion of Clermont (matribus nostris summa sanguinis iuncti necessitudo); she, not the wife of Eparchius Avitus, as in PLRE, was the grandmother of Roscia, because she was with Roscia’s paternal aunts (in aviae amitarumque . . . sinu) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.1.1, 5.16.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonyma 17, Mathisen (1981a) 109 Anonyma 5 f.i. MV Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Wife of Eparchius Avitus, mother-in-law of Sidonius, who tried to recover part of her estate from Euric in 476 (necdum enim quicquam de hereditate socruali vel in usum tertiae sub pretio medietatis obtinui). Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.164–6, Ep. 8.9.2 Anonyma 6 f.i. Gaul, Bordeaux/Burgus Roman Wife of Pontius Leontius, mother of Paulinus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 22.194–6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonyma 18

M/L V Nicene Christian

Anonyma 7 f.i. 471/2 Gaul, Tres Villae Roman Nicene Christian Wife of Thaumastus, mother of Thaumastus of Vienne; recently deceased (recenti caelibatu) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.6.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1240 Anonyma 19 Anonyma 8 f.i. Gaul, Clermont Roman Wife of Ecdicius, had several children Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 20.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1240 Anonyma 22

M/L V Nicene Christian

Anonyma 9 f.i. Gaul, near Cantillia Roman Nicene Christian Wife of Vettius; died while her daughter, an only child, was young Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.9.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1240 Anonyma 23 Anonyma 10 (Alcima) Gaul, Lyon/Clermont

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 128

c.f. Roman

460s

L V/E VI Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

129

A third daughter of Sidonius and Papianilla, named only by Gregory of Tours (Hist. 3.2, 12, Glor. mart. 64); implicitly included among the nostris suisque liberis of Ecdicius and Sidonius; she and Placidina, the wife of Sidonius’ son Apollinaris, later schemed to have Apollinaris chosen as bishop of Clermont Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 17.3, Ep. 5.16.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 54, PCBE 4, 104, Stroheker 144, Heinzelmann 550 Anonyma 11 c.f. M/L V Gaul, Cantillia Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Vettius, an only child, raised by her father after the death of her mother when she was young Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.9.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1240 Anonyma 24 Anonyma 12 c.f. Italy Roman Mother of the emperor Majorian Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.107–16 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1238 Anonyma 7

EV Nicene Christian

Anonyma 13 c.f. MV Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Mother of Aper; daughter of Fronto and Auspicia, sister of Frontina, married an Aeduan; Aper was raised by Auspicia after her death Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21.2–4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonyma 14 Anonyma 14 c.f. 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Wife of the recently deceased Optantius; supported Proiectus’ suit to marry her daughter; Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonyma 15 Anonyma 15 c.f. Gaul Roman Daughter of Optantius; Proiectus wanted to marry her Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonyma 16

460s Nicene Christian

Anonyma 16 c.f. Gaul, Bourges Roman Nicene Christian One of the Palladii, wife of Simplicius; described as a matrona Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.9.24 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1241 Anonyma 29 Anonyma 17 Gaul, Clermont

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 129

c.f. Roman

M/L V

460s–470s Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

130

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Mother of Frontina Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21.4 Anonyma 18 c.f. Gaul, Auvergne Roman Daughter of Turpio, brother of Turnus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.24.6 Anonyma 19 c.f. Gaul, Rhône Roman Mother of Pastor, lived between Lyon and Arles Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.20.4

460s Nicene Christian

460s Nicene Christian

Anonyma 20 c.f. 470s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Daughter-in-law of Eutropia, who wanted to live with her rather than with her father, the presbyter Agrippinus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.2.1–4 Anonyma 21 c.f. 470s Gaul, Troyes Roman Nicene Christian Wife of Gallus, who had left her; bishop Lupus of Troyes ordered him to return to her, which he did Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.9.1 Anonyma 22 c.f. L IV/E V Gaul, Nîmes/Rodez Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Fl. Afranius Syagrius (consul in 382), mother of Tonantius Ferreolus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 24.36, Ep. 1.7.4, 7.12.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1238 Anonyma 10 Anonyma 23 c.f. Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Descendant of Iovinus, consul in 367; wife of Consentius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.170–4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonyma 11 Anonyma 24 c.f. Gaul, Clermont Roman Mother of Eparchius Avitus, described as generosa Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.164–5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonyma 12

EV Nicene Christian

Anonyma 25 c.f. Gaul, Vaison Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Simplicius; Sidonius complimented her marriage and upbringing Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.11.2

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 130

E/M V

460s

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

Anonyma 26 c.f. Gaul Roman Daughter of Priscus Valerianus, married Pragmatius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.10.2

131 450s–470s

Nicene Christian

Anonyma 27 c.f. Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Mother of Sacerdos and Justinus, sister-in-law of Victorius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.21.1

450s

Anonyma 28 c.f. Gaul, Clermont Roman Wife of Philomathius, mother of Philomathia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.8.1

460s Nicene Christian

Anonyma 29 femina honestissima 461 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Daughter of Paeonius, described as honestissima and thus of curial status; given a large dowry to secure a marriage to someone of higher rank Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.05 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1240 Anonyma 20 Anonyma 30 femina honestissima 470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Mother of Amantius (parentes natalibus non superbis sed absolutis), probably of curial origin Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.3 Anonyma 31 femina honestissima Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Christian Mother-in-law of Amantius; enjoyed her grandchildren Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.6–7

470s

Anonyma 32 femina honestissima 470s Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Christian Wife of Amantius, not inferior in rank (non despiciente personam), but much more wealthy Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.6–7 Anonyma 33 femina honestissima 477/82 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian A rich woman moribus natalibusque summatem who married an unnamed vir laudandus after he abandoned his affair with an ancilla Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.6.2 Anonyma 34 Gaul, Lyon

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 131

plebeia Roman

460s Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

132

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Described as libera, the daughter of Sidonius’ nurse; Pudens’ colonus and inquilinus (‘cottager’) had run off with her, so Sidonius asked Pudens to raise him to plebeian and client status to legitimate the relationship Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.19.1–2 Bibliography: Grey (2008), Demicheli (2012) Anonyma 35 plebeia 460s–470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Kidnapped by Vargi and sold openly in the market to an agent (negotiator noster) of Sidonius at Clermont, where she died; Sidonius asked Lupus of Troyes to look into the matter on behalf of her relatives Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.4.1–3 Anonyma 36 liberta Nutrix 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius’ nurse, apparently a freedwoman; her daughter wished to marry the son of Pudens’ nurse Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.19.1–2 Bibliography: Grey (2008), Demicheli (2012) Anonyma 37 famula Nutrix 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Pudens’ nurse, apparently of servile status; her son wished to marry the daughter of Sidonius’ nurse Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.19.1–2 Anonyma 38 famula Spain Vandal Mother of Geiseric, called a serva Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.358–9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 496

EV Homoian Christian

Anonyma 39 famula Gaul Roman Nicene Christian The low-ranking (ancilla) paramour of an unnamed vir laudandus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.6.1

477/82

Anonyma 40 (Caretena) regalis Regina 474 Gaul, Lyon Burgundian Homoian Christian Wife of Burgundian king Chilperic II, compared to Tanaquil and Agrippina; see CIL 13.2372 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.7.7, 6.12.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 260–1, PCBE 4, 424, Heinzelmann 574 Anonyma 41 (Pelagia) regalis MV Gaul Visigoth Homoian Christian Of a barbarian royal family (propago regum); wife of Fl. Aëtius (ducis . . . coniunx), previous wife of Boniface, mother of Gaudentius, plotted against Majorian; barred from Gothic rule

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 132

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

133

(exclusa sceptris Geticis), perhaps because of her conversion to Nicene Christianity; unnamed in Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.130–274 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 856–7, Heinzelmann 667 Anonyma 42 nobilis Spain Visigoth Getic mother of Ricimer, genetrice Getes Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.360–2

EV Homoian Christian

Anonyma 43 ingenua 440s Gaul, Vicus Helena Frank Pagan Blonde bride at a ‘barbarian’, ‘Scythian’ wedding (nubebat flavo similis nova nupta marito); carried off by Majorian (rapit victor nubentem nurum) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.220 Anonymus 1 (Gratian) Augustus Dacia, Sirmium Roman Son of Theodosius I, killed by Magnus Maximus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.355–6 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 400–1

Emperor Nicene Christian

367–83

Anonymus 2 (Magnus Maximus) Augustus Spain Roman Usurper, killed Gratian and executed by Theodosius I Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.355–6 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 588

Emperor Nicene Christian

383–8

Anonymus 3 (Marcianus) Augustus Emperor 450–7 Thrace, Constantinople Roman Nicene Christian Father of Euphemia, father-in-law of Anthemius, called socerum Augustum and princeps, and described as having been deified (parens divos) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.194–216 Anonymus 4 (Theodosius II) Augustus Thrace, Constantinople Roman The father-in-law (socer) of Valentinian III Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.229 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1100

Emperor Nicene Christian

Anonymus 5 (Valentinian II) Augustus Emperor Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Son of Theodosius I, expelled by Magnus Maximus, restored by Theodosius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.355 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 934–5 Anonymus 6 Gaul, Lyon

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 133

v.c. Roman

402–50

375–92

MV Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

134

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Grandson of Fl. Afranius Syagrius, consul in 382, and father of Syagrius (redde te patri), thus also patriciae stirpis Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.8.1–2 Anonymus 7 v.i. Praefectus praetorio MV Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Father of Auxanius, who was described as praefectoriis patribus, probably praetorian prefects Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1220 Anonymus 7 Anonymus 8 (Alcimus?) v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum 448–9 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Father of Sidonius: pater meus praefectus praetorio Gallicanis tribunalibus praesideret; he had at least two unnamed brothers, and a sister was married to Thaumastus, the father of Sidonius’ cousins Thaumastus, Apollinaris, and Simplicius; also had a granddaughter Eulalia who married Probus; he served with the father of Aquilinus; Sidonius never mentions his name, which, based on the names of his daughter Alcima and his nephew Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus of Vienne, might have been Alcimus; curiously, an Alcimus patricius was said later to have been married to Macedonia, daughter of Firminus, bishop of Viviers (Gallia Christiana 16.542) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.3.1, 3.12.5, 4.1.1, 5.9.2, 8.6.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1220 Anonymus 6, Mathisen 365; for the name: Mathisen (1981a) 100–1, 109, followed by Mascoli (2003a), (2010) 18 Anonymus 9 v.i. Praefectus urbi Romae 460s Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian The only unnamed individual in a list of distinguished late antique Italian writers, described as a vilicus (‘manager’) whom the senate of Rome preferred to municipalibus poetis Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.302–3, 309–10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1222 Anonymus 15 Anonymus 10 v.i. Magister L IV Gaul, Lyon Roman Pagan Great-grandfather (proavus) of Sidonius; served as an urban prefect or a palatine or military magister (magisteriis palatinis militaribusque micuerant), if not both; he was equal in titulus to his son Apollinaris, who had been praetorian prefect of Gaul Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.3.1, 3.12.5 Bibliography: PLRE 1, 1011 Anonymus 35 Anonymus 11 (Fl. Merobaudes) v.i. Magister militum 435 Spain, Italy Frank Nicene Christian Panegyrist granted a statue by Valentinian III in Trajan’s Forum in Rome; he had moved from Baetica to Ravenna Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.297 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 756–8, Heinzelmann 652 Anonymus 12 (Nepotianus) Dalmatia

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 134

v.i. Roman

Magister militum Nicene Christian

458

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

135

Accompanied Majorian to Gaul and Lyon in 458–9; father of Julius Nepos, thus probably a native of Dalmatia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.553–7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 778 Anonymus 13 v.i. Procerum maximus 455 Gaul, Viernum Roman Nicene Christian ‘The greatest of the leading men’ (procerum tunc maximus) of Gaul, so presumably a vir inlustris, encouraged Eparchius Avitus at Viernum near Arles to become emperor Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.530–71 Anonymus 14 v.i. Bishop Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Grandfather of Proiectus, described as a praestantissimus sacerdos Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1233 Anonymus 96 Anonymus 15 v.i. Gaul, Auvergne Roman Father of Germanicus of Cantilia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.13.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1237 Anonymus 122

Bishop Nicene Christian

EV

MV

Anonymus 16 v.i. Bishop MV Gaul, Bourges Roman Nicene Christian Father of Simplicius; Simplicius declined to be made bishop on earlier occasions in favour of his father and father-in-law (tam socero quam patre postpositis . . . honorari parentum maluit dignitate quam propria) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.9.20 Anonymus 17 (Hermes) v.i. Bishop 460s Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius mentioned a visit at Narbonne ad pontificem, probably the bishop Hermes (Duchesne (1907) 1.303) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.443 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 980–1 Anonymus 18 (Iamlychus) v.i. Bishop 475 Gaul, Trier Roman Nicene Christian Bishop of Trier (antistitem civitatis vestrae); Sidonius seems not to have known his name; perhaps Iamlychus (Duchesne (1915) 3.33) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.17.3 Bibliography: PCBE 4, 1033–4 Anonymus 19 v.s. Praefectus annonae Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Recommended by Campanianus while Sidonius was praefectus urbi Romae

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 135

468

13/02/20 4:00 PM

136

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.10.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1226 Anonymus 44 Anonymus 20 v.s. Proconsul MV Gaul, Carthage? Roman Nicene Christian Brother of Magnus, father of Camillus, uncle of Magnus Felix; probably proconsul of Africa, as opposed to Asia or Achaea, which had spectabilis rank, at some point before 439 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.5–8, Ep. 1.11.10 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1226 Anonymus 42 Anonymus 21 v.s. Vicarius septem provinciarum? 425/48 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Father of Aquilinus; served with Sidonius’ father under Honorius as a tribunus et notarius; under Valentinian III he governed ‘part of the Gauls’, perhaps as vicarius, whereas Sidonius’ father, as praetorian prefect, administered all of them; he had received his appointment first: unus Galliarum praefuit parti, alter soliditati . . . ut prior fuerit fascium tempore qui erat posterior dignitate Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.9.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1227 Anonymus 49 Anonymus 22 v.s. Dux 460/7? Dacia, Serdica Ostrogoth? Homoian Christian Roman cavalry commander in Anthemius’ army, defended Illyricum against Hormidac Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.281–97 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1229 Anonymus 57 Anonymus 23 v.s. Dux 459/62 Illyricum Roman Nicene Christian Called dux noster; failed to protect Illyricum (Illyris ora) when it was attacked by Valamer’s Ostrogoths (excisam . . . Valameris ab armis) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.224–6 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1228–9 Anonymus 56 Anonymus 24 v.s. 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Father of Proiectus: patre patruoque spectabilibus. His rank suggests that he had held an imperial office Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1230 Anonymus 69 Anonymus 25 v.s. 460s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Uncle of Proiectus: patre patruoque spectabilibus. His rank suggests that he had held an imperial office Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.4.1 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1230 Anonymus 69–70

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 136

13/02/20 4:00 PM

137

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

Anonymus 26 v.c. Comes civitatis Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Christian Comes civitatis Massiliensium; the Arvernian fortune-hunter Amantius became his client Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.5, 7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1229 Anonymus 61

470s

Anonymus 27 (Claudius Claudianus) v.c. Tribunus et notarius L IV/E V East, Rome Roman Pagan Poet and panegyricist, described as Pelusiaco satus Canopo / qui ferruginei toros mariti / et Musa canit inferos superna Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.274 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 299–300 Anonymus 28 v.c. Aulicus Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Collega tuus, Consentius’ partner in the chariot race in Rome; one of the aulici Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.322 Anonymus 29 v.c. Italy Roman Father of Majorian; a numerarius of the magister militum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.116–25 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1235–6 Anonymus 114

Numerarius Nicene Christian

450/5

EV

Anonymus 30 v.c. Bishop MV Gaul, Bourges Roman Nicene Christian Father-in-law of Simplicius, who had earlier declined to be made bishop in favour of his father and father-in-law (socero quam patre postpositis . . . honorari parentum maluit dignitate quam propria) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.9.20 Anonymus 31 v.c. Gaul, Vienne Roman Nicene Christian Grandfather of Mamertus of Vienne, post avorum memoriam Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.1.7

L IV/E V

Anonymus 32 v.c. E/M V Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Father of Tonantius Ferreolus, described as minime silendus, apparently less distinguished than Ferreolus himself Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.12.1 Anonymus 33 v.c. MV Gaul, Cahors Roman Nicene Christian Poet and maximus sodalis of the fathers of Sidonius and Felix, followed Boniface and Sebastian to Athens Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 9.277–88 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1237 Anonymus 120

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 137

13/02/20 4:00 PM

138

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Anonymus 34 v.c. Gaul, Autun Roman Father of Aper; an Aeduan; left unnamed by Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1234 Anonymus 101

MV Nicene Christian

Anonymus 35 v.c. MV Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Brother of Sidonius, father of Secundus, educated and supported by Faustus of Riez: germani . . . servatus tecum . . . pudor Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 16.71–7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1234 Anonymus 98 Anonymus 36 v.c. Gaul, Auvergne Roman Son of Turpio, brother of Turnus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.24.6

460s Nicene Christian

Anonymus 37 v.c. 460s Gaul, Narbonne Roman Nicene Christian Unnamed brother of Limpidius, whom Sidonius described as fraternam bene regulam sequentis; this might be the just-mentioned Marcellinus or the next-mentioned Marinus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.477 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1234 Anonymus 100 Anonymus 38 v.c. Gaul Roman Son-in-law of Simplicius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.11.2

460s Nicene Christian

Anonymus 39 v.c. 461 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Called noster interpres and nuntius, accused Sidonius of being a satirist prior to Majorian’s banquet in Arles Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.8 Anonymus 40 v.c. 461 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Married the daughter of Paeonius; of higher rank than she, he received a good dowry; Sidonius nicknames him Pamphilus and praises his good character Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.5, 7 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1234 Anonymus 102 Anonymus 41 v.c. 461 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Stepfather of Paeonius, of higher rank than Paeonius’ father (claritas vitrici), thus senatorial whereas Paeonius was curial

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 138

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

139

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1234 Anonymus 42 v.c. 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Stepfather of Donidius, who seems improperly to have bequeathed half of Donidius’ estate Eborolacum to a patrician family Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep.3.5.2 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1234 Anonymus 43 v.c. Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Father of Frontina (quam verebatur mater pater venerabatur); an Arvernian Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.21.4

460s–470s

Anonymus 44 v.c. M/L V Gaul, Oléron Roman Nicene Christian Lived with his father Namatius at Oléron (tibi ac patri); Sidonius said that his own son Apollinaris might visit them Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.6.12 Anonymus 45 v.c. Gaul Roman Grandson of Eutropia, now deceased Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.2.1–4

470s Nicene Christian

Anonymus 46 v.c. 470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Paternal cousin (patruelis paternus) of Vindicius; died unmarried and intestate; Vindicius desired to inherit by right of agnate kinship Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.1.3 Anonymus 47 v.c. Cleric 470s Gaul, Vienne Roman Nicene Christian Brother of Salonius; they had a house in Vienne and estates in the countryside, where they spent most of their time; like Sidonius, they were both clerics (professione sociamini) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.15.1 Anonymus 48 v.c. 475/80 Gaul, Soissons/Reims Roman Nicene Christian Father of Remigius and Principius, qui pater vobis . . . cui patri quondam, videlicet vos habenti Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.14.2–3 Anonymus 49 v.c. 477/82 Gaul, Lugdunensis? Roman Nicene Christian Lupus of Troyes suspected that Sidonius had preferred another individual (quem praelatum suspicabare) as a recipient of a volume of letters (libellum); Sidonius replied that this individual

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 139

13/02/20 4:00 PM

140

RALPH W . MATHISEN

had only one letter (and one mention) in the collection whereas Lupus had three (Ep. 6.1, 6.4, 6.9) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.11.5 Anonymus 50 vir honestissimus Decurion MV Gaul Roman Nicene Deceased father of Paeonius, of lower rank than Paeonius’ stepfather; presumably a decurion, given that Paeonius was municipaliter natus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.5 Anonymus 51 vir honestissimus Decurion 466–9 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene A vetus amicus with a new house near a river where Sidonius planned to stop on his way to his country villa outside Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.8.2 Anonymus 52 vir honestissimus Decurion 469/70 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Sidonius gave him a letter to the Breton warlord Riothamus asking help in recovering slaves who had been lured away (Britannis clam sollicitantibus); perhaps a decurion Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.9.2 Anonymus 53 vir honestissimus Decurion Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Son of Proculus, fled to Sidonius, who urged reconciliation with his father Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.23.1

470s

Anonymus 54 vir honestissimus Decurion 470s Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Father-in-law of Amantius; Amantius acquired some of his property (quae ad socerum pertinuerant) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.8 Anonymus 55 vir honestissimus Decurion 477/82 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian A young man (vir laudandus, perhaps an allusion to curial status) who had an affair with an ancilla but broke it off, on Ambrosius’ advice, after he had wasted much of his inheritance (bonusculis avitis paternisque); he then married a respectable woman and enjoyed honestissimus uxorius amor Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.6.1–2 Anonymus 56 vir honestissimus Decurion Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Father of a vir laudandus who had an affair with an ancilla Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.6.2

477/82

Anonymus 57 Gaul

477/82

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 140

vir honestissimus Roman

Decurion Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

141

Grandfather of a vir laudandus who had an affair with an ancilla Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.6.2 Anonymus 58 vir honestissimus Cleric 470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Father of Amantius: parentes natalibus non superbis sed absolutis . . . nihil illustre iactantes ita nihil servile . . . censu modico, probably of curial status and apparently a cleric (militia illis in clericali . . . comitatu); described as extremely parsimonious (granditer frugi) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.3 Anonymus 59 clericalis Gaul, Cantilia Roman Son of Germanicus of Cantilia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.13.4 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1234 Anonymus 103

Priest Nicene Christian

M/L V

Anonymus 60 clericalis Deacon 471/4 Gaul, Auxerre Roman Nicene Christian A refugee fleeing Gothic depraedatio with his family: Sidonius asked bishop Censurius of Auxerre to allow him to harvest a crop he planted on church land Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.10.1–2 Anonymus 61 famulus Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian A dependent (famulus) of Eparchius Avitus; killed by a Hun raider Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.251 Anonymus 62 plebeius Italy, Rome Roman Sounded the trumpet to start the chariot race at Rome Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.339–40

437

450/5 Nicene Christian

Anonymus 63 plebeius Boatman Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Gubernator of the boat and oarsmen (remiges) that Agricola sent to Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.12.1

460s

Anonymus 64 plebeius Gaul, Rhône Roman Manager (actorem) of Pastor’s estate south of Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.20.4

Estate manager Nicene Christian

460s

Anonymus 65 plebeius Carriage driver Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Moderator essedorum, mentioned in Sidonius’ poem for the basilica in Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.10.4

460s

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 141

13/02/20 4:00 PM

142

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Anonymus 66 plebeius Archimagirus Gaul, Nîmes Roman Nicene Christian Head cook at the estate of Tonantius Ferreolus near Nîmes Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9.6

460s

Anonymus 67 colonus Cottager 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian An inquilinus (‘cottager’), originalis, and colonus of Pudens; he had run off with a free woman (libera), the daughter of Sidonius’ nurse; Sidonius asked Pudens to raise him to plebeian and client status (cliens factus e tributario plebeiam potius incipiat habere personam quam colonariam) to legitimate the relationship Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.19.1–2 Bibliography: Grey (2008), Demicheli (2012) Anonymus 68 famulus 466–9 Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian A letter carrier (tabellarius) and slave (puer) of Evodius who delivered a letter to Sidonius while he was on his way to his country estate outside Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.8.1 Anonymus 69 plebeius Scribe 468/9 Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Secretary of Arvandus; after being arrested he admitted writing a treasonous letter dictated by Arvandus (scriba Arvandi correptus) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.5 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1235 Anonymus 107 Anonymus 70 plebeius Scribe 460s–470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian The copy editor (illo contra legente) for Sidonius’ bookseller; he was ill and could not do his job Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.15.1–2 Anonymus 71 plebeius Purchasing agent 460s–470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian An agent (negotiator noster) of Sidonius at Clermont; he purchased a woman ante aliquot annos who had been kidnapped and sold by the Vargi; she died in his household Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.4.1–3 Anonymus 72 plebeius Scribe 460s–470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius’ bookseller (mercennarius bybliopola), also called a famulus, but sounds like an independent businessman. Brought Ruricius a copy of the Heptateuch that he had copied and Sidonius had revised, and also maintained updated copies of Sidonius’ epigrammata Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.8.3, 5.15.1–2 Anonymus 73 Gaul, Troyes

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 142

plebeius Roman

460s–470s Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

143

Killed by Vargi in an attack on travellers near Troyes Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.4.1–3 Anonymus 74 famulus Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian A puer familiaris of Sidonius who announced the arrival of the lector Constans Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.12.2

470s

Anonymus 75 plebeius Gaul Roman Nicene Christian A client (clientem) of Donidius, sent on a mission to a bishop Theoplastus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.5.1

470s

Anonymus 76 plebeius Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Dependant of Sidonius; letter carrier (gerulo litterarum) to Eutropius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.6.1

470s

Anonymus 77 plebeius 470s Gaul, Clermont Roman Jewish Iudaeum praesens charta commendat: a Jew whom Sidonius commended to bishop Eleutherius for help with some unspecified negotium Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.11.1 Anonymus 78 plebeius 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius commended to Fonteius of Vaison the letter carrier, for whom an unspecified necessitas had arisen Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.4.3 Anonymus 79 plebeius 470 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Travelled to Arles to consult the togati (lawyers) about a will; Sidonius asked Leontius of Arles to chivvy the attorneys; perhaps one of the persons Sidonius commended to the lawyer Petronius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.3.2 Anonymus 80 plebeius 470/4 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius asked his cousin Apollinaris to look into damna inflicted on his letter carrier per Genesium vestrum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.6.4 Anonymus 81 plebeius 470/4 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Offered to carry a letter to Sidonius’ cousin Simplicius; Sidonius did a character study on him, and referred to the portitorum vilitate Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.7.1

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 143

13/02/20 4:00 PM

144

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Anonymus 82 plebeius 476 Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian A tabellarius; delivered a letter of Lampridius to Sidonius when the latter arrived in Bordeaux Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.9.1 Anonymus 83 plebeius 477/82 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian A civis of the Auvergne, known to Sidonius but left unnamed; he visited Reims and acquired copies of Remigius’ declamationes that he donated to the church of Clermont Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.7.1 Anonymus 84 plebeius Scribe 477/82 Gaul, Reims Roman Nicene Christian Scribe and bookseller (bybliopola); sold the declamationes of Remigius of Reims to ‘a certain Arvernian’ Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.7.1 Anonymus 85 (Geisericus) regalis Rex Spain, Carthage Vandal Homoian Christian Described as famula satus and as a latro; leader of the ‘Vandal enemy’ Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.57, 348, 441–2, 5.327–49 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 496–9, Montone (2012b) Anonymus 86 (Godegiselus) regalis Spain Vandal Father of Geiseric: incertum . . . patrem Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.358–9 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 515, Heinzelmann 618

Rex Homoian Christian

428–77

406

Anonymus 87 (Rechiarius?) regalis Rex MV Spain Sueve? Homoian Christian Father of Ragnahilda (tibi cui rex est genitor); the Suevic king Rechiarius (PLRE 2, 935) married a daughter of Theoderic I, so a marriage of Theoderic’s son Euric to Recharius’ daughter, Ragnahilda, would be almost expected. Omitted from PLRE Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.8.5 Anonymus 88 (Fredericus) v.i. Magister militum Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian Brother of Theoderic II; supported Eparchius Avitus in 455 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.435, 519 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 484–5, Heinzelmann 611

455

Anonymus 89 v.s. Dux 455 Gaul, Rome Burgundian Homoian Christian A traitorous Burgundian leader (infido . . . Burgundio ductu): perhaps Gundioc or Chiliperic I, who was somehow involved in the murder of Petronius Maximus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.442–3

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 144

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

Anonymus 90 nobilis Spain Sueve Father of Ricimer: patre Suebus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.360–2 Anonymus 91 ingenuus Dacia, Auvergne Hun Killed a servant of Eparchius Avitus, who killed him Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.251

145 EV

Homoian Christian

Soldier Pagan

437

Anonymus 92 ingenuus 440s Gaul, Vicus Helena Frank Pagan Blond bridegroom at a ‘barbarian’, ‘Scythian’ wedding (nubebat flavo similis nova nupta marito) that was disrupted by Majorian’s surprise attack Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.220 Anonymus 93 ingenuus Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Visigothic soldier who wanted a plough Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.410 ff.

Soldier Homoian Christian

455

Anonymus 94 ingenuus Soldier 458 Dacia Hun Pagan Hunnic auxiliary (Scytha) who had served previously with a northern king (classica regis Arctoi sequerer) and makes a long complaint during Majorian’s crossing of the Alps in the winter of early 458 Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.518–39 Anonymae 1 c.f. Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Sisters of Sidonius; his daughter Roscia was cared for in aviae amitarumque . . . sinu Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.16.5

460s

Anonymae 2 plebeius Nutrix 460s Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Clientularum sive nutricum . . . chorus of Papianilla and Sidonius; prepared lunch at Avitacum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.2.10 Anonymae 3 c.f. 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Female family members (matronales partes) who accompanied Volusianus and Lucontius to Bayeux Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.18.2 Anonymae 4 c.f. 470 Gaul, Cottion Roman Nicene Christian Sisters of Avitus of Cottion, one of whom died c. 470/1 and bequeathed the estate Cuticiacum to the other and to Avitus

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 145

13/02/20 4:00 PM

146

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.1.3 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 1239 Anonymae 5 ingenuus 475 Gaul, Livia Visigoth Homoian Christian Two Gothic women (Getides anus), described as nil umquam litigiosius bibacius vomacius, who disturbed Sidonius’ rest when he was in exile at Livia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.3.2 Anonymi 1 patricius IV/V Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Distant ancestors of Tonantius Ferreolus who had been conuls, patricians, and praetorian prefects: they boasted avitas . . . curules, patricias . . . infulas, and triplices praefecturas, and included Fl. Afranius Syagrius, consul in 382. Sidonius awkwardly suggests that if friendship and family had been the determining factors, as opposed to Ferreolus’ age, rank, and status, this book of letters would have been dedicated to him Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.12.1 Anonymi 2 patricius 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius asked Hypatius’ assistance in recovering from a patrician family (domus patriciae) half of Donidius’ paternal estate Eborolacum. Patrician families of Gaul included those of Priscus Valerianus, Tonantius Ferreolus, Magnus Felix, and, from the Auvergne, Eparchius Avitus and Ommatius. Sidonius was well acquainted with all of them Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.5.2 Anonymi 3 v.i. Consul IV Gaul, Auvergne Roman Ancestors (proavi) of Eparchius Avitus who had been consuls and praetorian prefects (quos quippe curules / et praefecturas constat debere nepoti) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.157–9 Anonymi 4 v.i. Praefectus E/M V Italy, Rome Roman Ancestors of Audax who had been prefects of Rome and/or Italy (praefecturae titulis) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.7.3 Anonymi 5 v.i. Praefectus praetorio Galliarum E/M V Gaul, Bourges Roman Nicene Christian Ancestors of Simplicius of Bourges who had been praetorian prefects and bishops: parentes ipsius aut cathedris aut tribunalibus praesederunt, inlustris . . . prosapia aut episcopis floruit aut praefectis Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.9.17 Anonymi 6 v.i. 467–8 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Sons, sons-in-law, and brothers of Gennadius Avienus, whose interests he promoted Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.9.3

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 146

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

147

Anonymi 7 v.c. E/M V Gaul Roman Nicene Christian More recent ancestors of Tonantius Ferreolus, his father and uncles (patrem patruosque), who, Sidonius suggests, were rather less distinguished (minime silendos) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.12.1 Anonymi 8 (Palladii) v.c. Bishop IV/V Gaul, Bourges Roman Nicene Christian Bishops and rhetors, ancestors of the wife of Simplicius of Bourges: de Palladiorum stirpe descendit, they had occupied aut litterarum aut altarium cathedras and were a credit to their order (sui ordinis laude) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.9.24 Bibliography: PLRE 2, 821 Palladii 14, PCBE 4, 1401, Heinzelmann 661 Anonymi 9 v.c. Advocatus 449 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Primoribus advocatorum; present in 449 at Arles when Nicetius delivered a panegyric on the consul Astyrius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.6.5 Anonymi 10 v.c. Aulicus 450/5 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Group of young courtiers (coetus iuvenum, sed aulicorum) engaging in a chariot race in Rome Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 23.312 Anonymi 11 v.c. Proceres, nobiles 455 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Proceres and nobiles who assembled at Viernum outside Arles to acclaim Avitus as emperor: procerum tunc maximus, nobilium . . . sollertia, concurrunt proceres Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.530–77 Anonymi 12 v.c. 455–68 Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Referred to as egregii proceres and patres: senators who heard Sidonius present panegyrics in Rome Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.129, 7.8

Anonymi 13 v.c. 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Leading citizens (civium primi) of Lyon who entertained themselves before mass at the church of St Justus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.17.4 Anonymi 14 v.c. Gaul, Clermont Roman The five children of Philomathia Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.8.1

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 147

460s Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

148

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Anonymi 15 v.c. Gaul, Rhône Roman Brothers of Pastor, lived between Lyon and Arles Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.20.4

460s Nicene Christian

Anonymi 16 v.c. 460s Gaul, Nîmes Roman Nicene Christian Ball players (sphaeristarum contrastantium) on the estate of Tonantius Ferreolus near Nîmes; cf. Ep. 5.17.7 sphaeristarum . . . immiscuit Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9.4 Anonymi 17 v.c. 460s Gaul, Nîmes Roman Nicene Christian Sons of Tonantius Ferreolus, described as lectissimos aequaevorum nobilium principes: one of them was Tonantius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9.7 Anonymi 18 v.c. 461 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Friends of Paeonius who accosted Sidonius in Arles prior to the banquet with Majorian Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.11.8 Anonymi 19 v.c. Gaul Roman Son and grandson of Eutropia, now deceased Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.2.2

470s Nicene Christian

Anonymi 20 v.c. Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Children of Ecdicius, included in the suis liberis of him and Sidonius Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.16.4

470s

Anonymi 21 v.c. 471 Gaul, Auvergne Celt Nicene Christian The nobilitas of Clermont was urged by Ecdicius to abandon ‘the rudeness of Celtic speech’ and become Latini Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.3.1 Anonymi 22 v.c. Delators 474 Gaul, Vaison Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius reported finding the clandestina delatorum . . . vestigia who had betrayed his cousin Apollinaris to the Burgundian king Chilperic II Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.7.1 Anonymi 23 Gaul, Vaison

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 148

v.c. Roman

474 Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

149

Sodales of Sidonius and his cousin Thaumastus who identified those who had informed on Sidonius’ cousin Apollinaris at Vaison Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.7.1 Anonymi 24 v.c. Italy, Rome Roman Children of Audax Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.7.4 Anonymi 25 vir honestissimus Gaul, Lyon Roman Leading men (summates viros) of Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.14.1

474/5 Nicene Christian

Decurion Nicene Christian

460s

Anonymi 26 vir honestissimus Decurion 470 Gaul, Chalon-sur-Saône Roman Nicene Christian Inhabitants of Chalon-sur-Saône (oppidani) who were competing over the election of a new bishop Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.25.1 Anonymi 27 vir honestissimus Student 460s Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Students (caterva scholasticorum) who played ball with Sidonius and his friends while waiting for mass to begin at the church of St Justus in Lyon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.17.6 Anonymi 28 vir honestissimus Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Christian Children of Amantius, and grandchildren (nepotes) of his mother-in-law Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.2.8

470s

Anonymi 29 clericalis Priest 460s Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian The Visigothic king Theoderic II attended Homoian services conducted by a sacerdotum suorum coetus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.2.4 Anonymi 30 clericalis Priest Gaul, Bourges Roman Nicene Christian Presbyters who attended the ordination of Simplicius at Bourges Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.9.3

c.470

Anonymi 31 clericalis Priest 477/82 Gaul, Marseille Roman Nicene Christian Sidonius reported that Graecus of Marseille was suffering anguish on account of ‘certain brothers’ (quorumpiam fratrum necessitate multos pertuleritis angores), perhaps some of his own clergy, as

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 149

13/02/20 4:00 PM

150

RALPH W . MATHISEN

also happened to Sidonius (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.23 surrexere contra eum duo presbyteri, et ablata ei omni potestate) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.4.2 Anonymi 32 militaris Soldier 455 Gaul, Arles Roman Nicene Christian Soldiers present at the tribunal at Viernum outside Arles when Avitus was acclaimed as emperor in 455: nobilium excubias gaudens sollertia mandat . . . milite circumfuso Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.575–7 Anonymi 33 militaris Soldier 469/70 Gaul, Armorica Breton Nicene Christian Breton soldiers; enticed away Sidonius’ client’s slaves (mancipia sua); described as argutos, armatos, tumultuosos; Arvandus suggested to Euric that the Britanni on the other side of the Loire should be attacked Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.7.5, 3.9.2 Anonymi 34 militaris Soldier 471 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Ecdicius’ publicus exercitus, raised with private means (privatis viribus), with additional contributions from outside potentates (parvis extrinsecus maiorum opibus); Sidonius reports that with eighteen equites Ecdicius defeated aliquot milia Gothorum with a loss of only two or three men Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.3.2–7 Anonymi 35 plebeius 460s Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian Carried letters of introduction from Rusticus to Sidonius, who assisted them in their business Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.11.2 Anonymi 36 plebeius 460s Gaul, Lyon/Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Clients (clientesque) of Sidonius, accompanied him on a trip to Toulouse (proficiscenti mihi Tolosam) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.24.4 Anonymi 37 plebeius Gravedigger Gaul, Lyon Roman Nicene Christian Coffin-bearers (corporum baiuli) who desecrated the tomb of Sidonius’ grandfather Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.12.1–2

460s

Anonymi 38 plebeius Physician Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Medici who, Sidonius opines, ‘officiously kill many ill persons’ Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.12.3

460s

Anonymi 39 Gaul, Troyes

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 150

plebeius Roman

Bandit Nicene Christian

460s–470s

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

151

Local bandits (latrunculi) known as ‘Vargi’; they killed one traveller and kidnapped another, selling her into slavery. In Lex Salica 55.4, a ‘Vargus’ was an outlaw, in this case someone who had robbed a grave and was expulsus de eodem pago Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.4.1–3 Anonymi 40 plebeius 470s Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Suppliant letter carriers (supplices baiuli) whose kinswoman (feminam de affectibus suis) had been kidnapped by the Vargi and sold as a slave on the recommendation of Pudens (collaudante contractum) to an agent of Sidonius in Clermont; they had considered pursuing a criminal charge (negotium criminale), presumably in Clermont, but because Prudens was now in Troyes, Sidonius asked bishop Lupus to arbitrate between them and Prudens Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.4.1–3 Anonymi 41 plebeius Astrologers 475/80 Africa Roman Pagan African astrologers consulted by Lampridius: mathematicos quondam de vitae fine consuluit urbium cives Africanarum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.11.9 Anonymi 42 plebeius 470s Gaul, Lyon Roman Photinian Photinians converted by Eucherius: haereticorum numerum minui . . . Photinianorum mentes Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.12.4 Bibliography: La Ville de Mirmont (1909) Anonymi 43 plebeius Boatman Gaul, Bazas Roman Nicene Christian Helmsman and rowers of a boat taking Trygetius to Langon Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.12.5 Anonymi 44 famulus Exploratores Gaul, Nîmes Roman Nicene Christian Dependants of Apollinaris and Tonantius Ferreolus who watched for Sidonius’ arrival Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.9.2

475/80

460s

Anonymi 45 plebeius Scribe 477/82 Gaul, Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Helped copy works (scribarum sequacitas) of Faustus being carried north by Riochatus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 9.9.8 Anonymi 46 libertus Italy, Rome Roman Nicene Christian Slaves freed by Anthemius during his consular ceremony (donabis quos libertate) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 2.544–8 Anonymi 47 Gaul

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 151

libertus Roman

468

475/6 Nicene Christian

13/02/20 4:00 PM

152

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Freedmen of Chariobaudus; they had performed some business (causis quas iniunxeras) and were now returning home Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.16.2 Anonymi 48 famulus 469/70 Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Slaves (mancipia) who had run away to the Bretons; Sidonius wrote to Riothamus to secure their recovery Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.9.2 Anonymi 49 famulus 460s–470s Gaul, Lyon/Clermont Roman Nicene Christian Mostly non-free dependents of Sidonius, described variously as assecularum meorum famulorumque (got drunk visiting Apollinaris and Tonantius Ferreolus), ministerii . . . famulatu (bath servants), famulos . . . mei . . . non totiens torqueantur (Sidonius showed clemency towards his servants), or, when travelling, domum totam, familia . . . nostris . . . puer, or pueri clientesque Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.2.5, 2.9.8, 2.12.3, 4.8.2, 4.24.4 Anonymi 50 famulus 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian Clients (clientes) and slaves (pueri) who accompanied Volusianus on a journey to Bayeux Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.18.2 Anonymi 51 famulus 470s Gaul, Auvergne Roman Nicene Christian The contented slaves of Vettius: servi utiles (rustici morigeri, urbani amici) oboedientes patronoque contenti Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 4.9.1 Anonymi 52 famulus Gaul Roman Nicene Christian Slaves (pueros) of Donidius, on a mission to a bishop Theoplastus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.5.1

470s

Anonymi 53 famulus Murderers Gaul, Bordeaux Roman Nicene Christian Slaves who strangled Lampridius (pressus strangulatusque servorum manibus) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 8.11.11

475/80

Anonymi 54 nobilis Comes 460s Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian Members of the court (minimo comitatu) attending church services with the Visigothic king Theoderic II Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.2.4 Anonymi 55 Gaul, Toulouse

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 152

nobilis Visigoth

Dux Homoian Christian

455

13/02/20 4:00 PM

A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF SIDONIUS

153

Leaders of the Visigoths Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.405 Anonymi 56 nobilis Dux Gaul, Auvergne Visigoth Homoian Christian Visigothic generals (duces partis imimicae) who attacked Clermont Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 3.3.4

471

Anonymi 57 nobilis Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian The ‘senate’ of the Visigoths (Scythicusque senatus, also consilium seniorum) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.403, 458

455

Anonymi 58 nobilis 460s–470s Gaul, Lyon Burgundian Homoian Christian Burgundian elders (Germanorum senectus) impressed by Syagrius’ knowledge of German and skill as an arbitrator Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.5.3 Anonymi 59 ingenuus Soldier 455 Italy, Rome Barbarian Homoian Christian Soldiers and federates (tumultus militum . . . foederatorum) serving at the court of Petronius Maximus Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 2.13.5 Anonymi 60 ingenuus Soldier 457 Italy, Campi Canini Alamanni Pagan 900 Alamannic raiders in the Campi Canini in northern Italy (trux Alamannus / perque Cani quondam dictos de nomine campos / in praedam centum novies dimiserat); defeated by the dux Burco Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.389, 601 Anonymi 61 ingenuus Soldier 457/9 Africa Vandal Homoian Christian Moorish soldiers (milite Mauro) forced to accompany the Vandals in a raid on Campania Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.389, 601 Anonymi 62 ingenuus Soldier 457/9 Africa Moor Pagan Vandal raiders (pinguis . . . Vandalus . . . dat tergum Vandalus) defeated in a raid on Campania Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 5.385–424 Anonymi 63 ingenuus Soldier 460s Gaul, Lyon Burgundian Homoian Christian Barbarian auxiliaries (patroni) stationed on Sidonius’ estate at Lyon; described as crinigeras catervas, they smeared rancid butter in their hair (Burgundio . . . infundens acido comam butyro) Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 12.6–7 Bibliography: Smolak (2011)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 153

13/02/20 4:00 PM

154

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Anonymi 64 ingenuus Soldier 460s Gaul, Toulouse Visigoth Homoian Christian The Visigothic king Theoderic II was guarded by a comes armiger and a pellitorum turba satellitum Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 1.2.4 Anonymi 65 ingenuus 469 Gaul, Bourges Visigoth Homoian Christian Those qui fidem fovent Arianorum at the episcopal election at Bourges in c. 470, suggesting that Bourges was then controlled by the Visigoths Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 7.8.3 Anonymi 66 ingenuus 470s Gaul, Lyon Burgundian? Homoian Christian Barbarians, perhaps Burgundians, converted by Eucherius: a tuo barbaros . . . convincuntur verbo Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 6.12.4 Anonymi 67 ingenuus Soldier 474 Gaul, Vaison Burgundian Homoian Christian A turbo barbaricus aut militaris that Thaumastus feared would accuse Apollinaris of plotting to turn Vaison over to the emperor Julius Nepos Reference(s) in Sidonius: Ep. 5.6.1 Anonymi 68 ingenuus Bandit 478/82 Germania, Saintes Saxon Pagan Saxon archipiratae threatening the Gallic coast near Saintes; according to a superstitioso ritu they decimated their prisoners; cf. piratam Saxona Reference(s) in Sidonius: Carm. 7.369, Ep. 8.6.13–15

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 154

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Sidonius’ Places: A Geographical Appendix Geographical Locations Mentioned in the Works of Sidonius Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Modern bibliography

Addua fl.

R. Adda

Italy

Ep. 1.5.4

Aedui = Augustodunum = Civ. Aeduorum

Autun

Gaul

Ep. 4.12.3; 5.18.1

Alba = Civ. Albigensium

Viviers

Gaul

Ep. 6.12.8

James (1977) 406; Lauxerois (1985)

Albis fl.

R. Elbe

Germany

Carm. 7.391; 23.244

Barrington Atlas 10 F3; for the R. Alve, see Loyen (1933a), Macé (1933), Loyen (1933b)

Alingo

Langon

Gaul

Ep. 8.12.3

Alpes

Alps

Gaul

Caes. Gall. Carm. 7.328; Ep. 1.5.2; 1.8.3; 1.10 2.2.1; 4.15.3; 5.16.1

Anio fl.

R. Aniene

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Anonymus vicus

n/a

Gaul

Ep. 4.8.3

Apta = Apta Julia = Col. Julia Apta = Civ. Aptensium

Apt

Gaul

Ep. 9.9.1

Notitia Galliarum 13

Calentes Baiae = Aquae Calidae

Vichy

Gaul

Ep. 5.14

Peut. tab.1.bc.1–2

Caes. Gall. 5.6

Paul. Nol. Ep. 12.12, 20.3

CAG 33/1 #255 176–7; Villes (1992) 485

Calentes Baiae: CAG 3.138; CAG 03 #306; PECS 181; Loth (1986) 61; Peut./ Miller (1964) 119; Desjardins (1876) 288–93; Corrocher (1976, 1981)

(Continued)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 155

13/02/20 4:00 PM

156

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Aquitania

Aquitaine

Gaul

Ep. 2.10.4 v. 17; 6.12.9

Caes. Gall. 1.1

Arar fl.

R. Saône

Gaul

Carm. 5.208; Ep. 2.10.4 v. 22; 6.12.5

Caes. Gall. 1.12

Arausio = Col. Julia Orange Firma Secundanorum Arausio = Civ. Arausicorum

Gaul

Ep. 6.12.8

Arelate = Col. Iulia Arles Paterna Arelatensium Sextanorum = Civ. Arelatensium

Gaul

Ep. 1.11.2,7; 5.20.4; 6.12.8; 7.12.3

Aremorica

Armorica

Gaul

Carm. 7.370; Ep. 9.9.6

Ariminum

Rimini

Italy

Ep. 1.5.7

Arverni = Augustonemetum = Civ. Arvernorum

Clermont

Gaul

Ep. 3.12.2; 4.12.3; 6.12.8

Arvernia

Auvergne

Gaul

Ep. 1.11.3–4, 2.1.1; 2.6.2; 3.2.1; 3.3.1; 4.21.2–3; 5.6.1; 7.1.1–2; 7.2.3; 8.1.1; 9.7.1; 9.9.3

Atax fl.

R. Aude

Gaul

Carm. 5.209

Athesis fl.

R. Adige

Italy

Ep. 1.5.4

Atrebates = Civ. Atrebatum

Arras

Gaul

Carm. 5.213

Caes. Gall. 2.4

Atur fl. = Aturius fl.

R. Adour

Gaul

Ep. 8.12.7

Vib. Seq. Flum.; Ptol. Geog.2.7

Desjardins (1876) 1.272/3 pl. 6;

Atura = Vicus Julii = Aire-surCiv. Aturensium l’Adour

Gaul

Ep. 2.1.1

Notitia Galliarum 12

Loth (1986) 38, 54

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 156

Modern bibliography

Caes. Gall. 1.31

Mela 2.81; Pliny Nat. 2.32; Raven. cos. 4.28

Desjardins (1876) 1.176/7

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PLACES : A GEOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

157

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Modern bibliography

Aureliani = Cenabum Carnutum = Civ. Aurelianorum

Orléans

Gaul

Ep. 8.15.1

Itin. ant. 367.6; Peut. tab. 1.b.1

CAG 45 #76 83–128; PECS 212; Loth (1986) 62; Peut./Miller (1964) 100, 117; Desjardins (1876) 177–9; Debal (1983)

Avennio = Col. Julia Avignon Hadriana Avenniensis = Civ. Avenniensis

Gaul

Ep. 6.12.8

Avitacum

Aydat

Gaul

Carm. 19.1; Ep. 2.2.3

Baetis fl.

R. Guadalquivir

Spain

Ep. 9.297

Baiae

Baia

Italy

Ep. 5.14.1

Baiocasses = Civ. Baiocassium

Bayeux

Gaul

Ep. 4.18.2

Not. dig. occ. 42

Belgica

Belgium, N. France

Gaul

Carm. 7.547; Ep. 4.17.2; 9.7.1

Caes. Gall. 1.1

Bigorra = Bigorra Castrum = Civ. Tarba

St-Lézer

Gaul

Ep. 8.12.1

Notitia Galliarum 12; Pliny Nat. 4.108; Raven. cos. 4.41

Biterra = Civ. Biterrensium

Béziers

Gaul

Ep. 8.4.2; 9.10.1

Bituriges = Avaricum = Civ. Biturigensium

Bourges

Gaul

Ep. 7.5.1

Brivas

VieilleBrioude

Gaul

Carm. 24.16

Brixillum

Brescello

Italy

Ep. 1.5.5

Villes (1992) 487; PECS 789, 880; Peut./ Miller (1964) 98; Coquerel (1964)

Caes. Gall. 7.5 Villes (1992) 480; Weidemann (1982) 85–6; Gounot (1989) 132

(Continued)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 157

13/02/20 4:00 PM

158

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Brundisium

Brindisi

Italy

Ep. 1.10.2

Burdigala = Civ. Burdigalensium

Bordeaux

Gaul

Ep. 8.9.1; 8.12.1

Burgus

Les Gogues, Cm. de Bourg-surGironde

Gaul

Carm. 24

Byrsa

Byrsa

Africa

Ep. 7.7.2 v. 18

Byzantium

Byzantium

East

Ep. 7.7.2 v. 15

Cabillonum = Civ. Cabillonensis

Chalon-surSaône

Gaul

Ep. 4.25.1

Cahors Cadurci = Divona Cadurcorum = Civ. Cadurcorum

Gaul

Carm. 9.281

Caesena

Cesena

Italy

Ep. 1.8.2

Calabria

Calabria

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Calpis

Gibraltar

Spain

Ep. 8.12.2

Cantilia

Chantelle-laVieille

Gaul

Ep. 4.13

Clausetia

-----

Gaul

Ep. 5.13.1

Clitis fl.

R. Clitis

Gaul

Carm. 5.209

Clitumnus fl.

R. Clitunno

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Cotti

Cottian Alps

Gaul

Carm. 7.525

Cottion

-----

Gaul

Carm. 24.75

Cremona

Cremona

Italy

Ep. 1.5.5

Cuticiacum

-----

Gaul

Ep. 3.1.2–3

Dalmatia

Dalmatia

Italy

Ep. 1.5.7

Danubius

R. Danube

Germany

Ep. 8.12.3

Duranius fl. = Dorononia fl.

R. Dordogne

Gaul

Carm. 22.103

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 158

Other references

Modern bibliography

Itin. ant. 456.5, 458.5, 461.2; Itin. peut.: Itin. burd. 549.7–9

PECS 172; CAG 33/2; James (1977) 411-12 Villes (1992) 485; CAG 33/1 #63 109–12; Maufras (1904)

Pliny Nat. 4.108–9; Notitia Galliarum 10; Ptol. Geog. 2.7

Villes (1992) 61–6; PECS 279; Sol (1936)

Peut. tab. 1.b.1; Raven. cos. 4.40

CAG 03 #24 44–8; Fanaud (1967)

Ruric. Ep. 2.45; Auson. Mos. 464

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PLACES : A GEOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Eborolacum

Ebreuil

Gaul

Ep. 3.9.2

Elaver fl. = Elaris fl.

R. Allier

Gaul

Carm. 5.209

Eridanus fl.

R. Po

Italy

Ep. 1.5.3

Etruria

Tuscany

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Euphrates fl.

R. Euphrates

East

Ep. 7.17.2 v. 5

Europa

Europe

Europe

Carm. 2.47; 5.8, 206–7

Fabaris fl. = Farfarus fl.

R. Farfa

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Fanum Fortunae

Fano

Italy

Ep. 1.5.7

Gabales = Anderitum Gabalum = Civ. Gabalum

Javols

Gaul

Carm. 24.23; Ep. 5.13.2

Gaditani

Cadiz

Spain

Ep. 8.12.2

Gallia

Gaul

Gaul

Caes. Gall. Carm. 2.378; 1.1 5.206–7, 356, 446, 559; 7.117, 216, 298, 321, 516, 544, 585; Ep. 1.2.6; 1.7.4–5; 1.11.6; 3.12.5 v. 7; 4.17.3; 5.7.1; 5.9.2; 5.16.1; 6.12.5; 7.12.3; 8.6.5, 7; 9.13.5 v. 15

Gallia Cisalpina

Cisalpine Gaul Italy

Ep. 1.5.7

Caes. Gall. 6.1

Garumna fl. = Garuna fl.

R. Garonne

Carm. 7.304; 22.108; Ep. 8.12.5, 7; 8.9.5 v. 44; 8.11.3 v. 31; 8.12.5

Caes. Gall. 1.1; Auson. Ep. 27.74; Ptol. Geog. 2.7; Raven. cos. 4.40

Gaul

Other references

159 Modern bibliography CAG 03 #83 67

Caes. Gall. 7.34–5, 53

CAG 48 #4 Notitia Galliarum 10; 33–43; Alla (1972–3) Pliny Nat. 4.108–9; Ptol. Geog. 2.7

Desjardins (1876) 1.272/3 pl. 6

(Continued)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 159

13/02/20 4:00 PM

160

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Gergovia

-----

Gaul

Carm. 7.152

Caes. Gall. 7.4

Gothia

Gothia

Gaul

Ep. 7.12.3

Graecia

Greece

East

Ep. 1.2.6

Gratianopolis = Cularo = Civ. Gratianopolitana

Grenoble

Gaul

Ep. 3.14.1

Grinicum

Grigny

Gaul

Ep. 7.17.3

Helena

-----

Gaul

Carm. 5.215

Hiberia

Spain

Spain

Ep. 8.5; 9.13.5 v. 116

Hispania

Spain

Spain

Carm. 7.527; Ep. 9.12.1; 9.13.5 v. 116

Hyrcania

-----

Germany

Carm. 7.326

Insula Tiberina

Tiber Island

Italy

Ep. 1.7.12

Italia

Italy

Italy

Ep. 1.2.6

Caes. Gall. 1.10

Iura montes

Jura Mountains

Gaul

Ep. 4.25.5

Caes. Gall. 1.2

Lacus

Lac d’Aydat

Gaul

Ep. 2.2.16

Laesora

Lozère (Mt)

Gaul

Carm. 24.44

Lambrus fl.

R. Lambro

Italy

Ep. 1.5.4

Lapurdum = Civ. Lapurdensis

Bayonne

Gaul

Ep. 8.12.7

Ledus fl.

R. Laz

Gaul

Carm. 5.208

Leptis Magna

Lepcis

Africa

Ep. 8.12.3

Liger fl.

R. Loire

Gaul

Ep. 1.7.5; 3.1.5; Caes. Gall. 7.1.1; 7.12.3 3.9

Liguria

Liguria

Gaul, Italy

Carm. 9.291, Ep. 1.5.4; 9.13.5 v. 12; 9.15.1 v. 44

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 160

Modern bibliography

Caes. Gall. 1.1

Not. dig. occ. 42; Greg. Tur. Hist. 9.20

Villes (1992) 486–7; PECS 483–4; Jullian (1905)

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PLACES : A GEOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

161

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Modern bibliography

Lirinus

Lérins

Gaul

Carm. 16.104; Ep. 7.17.3; 8.14.2; 9.3.4

Liviana

Douzens

Gaul

Ep. 8.3.1

Peut. tab. 1.b.2

Peut./Miller (1964) 109

Lugdunensis Tertia

Third Lugdunensis

Gaul

Ep. 4.18.2

Lugdunum = Civ. Lugdunensium

Lyon

Gaul

Carm. 14.24; Ep. 1.8.1; 2.10.2; 7.13.1; 9.3.5

Itin. ant. 359.1

Peut./Miller (1964) 94

Massilia = Civ. Massiliensium

Marseille

Gaul

Carm. 23.155; Ep. 7.2.1

Matrona fl.

R. Marne

Gaul

Carm. 5.208

Mediterraneus

Mediterranean Gaul Sea

Ep. 8.12.7

Medulorum litus

Médoc

Gaul

Ep. 8.12.7

Metaurus fl.

R. Metauro

Italy

Ep. 1.5.7

Mincius fl.

R. Mincio

Italy

Ep. 1.5.4

Mosa fl.

R. Meuse

Gaul

Carm. 5.208

Mosella fl.

R. Moselle

Gaul

Ep. 4.17.1

Nar fl.

R. Nera

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Narbo = Col. Julia Paterna Claudia Narbo Martius Decumanorum = Civ. Narbonensium

Narbonne

Gaul

Carm. 7.475, 22.1, 36–7; Ep. 8.4.2

Peut./Miller Itin. ant. 389.6, 397.2; (1964) 109; Gayraud (1981) Peut. tab. 1.b.2; Itin. burd. 552.2

Nemausus = Col. Julia Augusta Nemausus Volcarum Aremecorum = Civ. Namausensium

Nîmes

Gaul

Ep. 2.9.1

Loth (1986) 49 Itin. ant. 388.7, 396.5; Peut. tab. 1.c.2; Itin. burd. 552.8

Nicer fl.

R. Neckar

Germany

Carm. 7.324

Caes. Gall. 1.1; Raven. cos. 4.26, Greg. Tur. Hist. 5.40

Auson. Ep.

Duval (1955) 215

Caes. Gall. 4.9

(Continued)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 161

13/02/20 4:00 PM

162

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Modern bibliography

Nitiobroges = Vesunna = Petrocorii = Petrucorii = Civ. Petrocoriorum

Périgueux

Gaul

Ep. 8.11.1

Caes. Gall. 7.7; Pliny Nat. 4.108–9; Peut. tab. 1.a.1; Ptol. Geog. 2.7

Villes (1992) 125–9; PECS 972–3; HigounetNadal (1983)

Oceanus

Atlantic Ocean Gaul

Carm. 7.304; 22.108; Ep. 8.12.5, 7; 7.1.1

Caes. Gall. 1.1

Octavianus ager

-----

Gaul

Ep. 8.4.1

Olario insula = Uliaros insula

Ile d’Oléron

Gaul

Ep. 8.6.12

Padus fl.

R. Po

Italy

Ep. 1.5.5, 1.8.2; Caes. Gall. 9.13.5 v. 111 5.24

Pannonia

Hungary

East

Carm. 7.590

Phocis

Marseille

Gaul

Carm. 23.13

Picenum

-----

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Prusianum

-----

Gaul

Ep. 2.9.7

Pyrenei

Pyrenees (Mts) Gaul

Carm. 7.527

Ravenna

Ravenna

Italy

Carm. 9.298, Ep. 1.5.5, 1.8.2; 5.16.1; 7.17.2 v. 19

Reii = Reii Apollinares = Col. Julia Augusta Apollinaris Reiorum = Civ. Reiensium

Riez

Gaul

Ep. 6.12.8; 9.9.1

Notitia Galliarum 13

Rhenus fl.

R. Rhine

Gaul

Carm. 2.378; 5.208; 7.527; Ep. 4.17.2

Caes. Gall. 1.1

Rhodanus fl.

R. Rhône

Gaul

Carm. 5.208; 7.301; Ep. 3.1.5; 6.12.5; 7.1.1; 7.12.3; 9.13.5 v. 114

Caes. Gall. 1.1

Rhodanusia

Lyon

Gaul

Ep. 1.5.1

Not. dig. occ. 42; Steph. Byz.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 162

Pliny Nat. 4.109

Desjardins (1876) 1.272/3 pl. 6

Caes. Gall. 1.1

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PLACES : A GEOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Roma

Rome

Italy

Ep. 1.5.1; 1.8.1; Steph. Byz.; 9.14.2, 4 v. 1 Scymnus of Chios, Descriptio orbis

Rubicon fl.

R. Rubicon

Italy

Ep. 1.5.7

Ruteni = Segodunum Rutenorum = Etodunum = Civ. Rutenorum

Rodez

Gaul

Carm. 24.33; Ep. 4.15.2

Sancti Iusti sepulchrum

Tomb of St Justus

Gaul

Ep. 5.17.3

Senonia

Sens

Gaul

Ep. 7.5.3

Septimania

-----

Gaul

Ep. 3.1.4

Raven. cos. 4.29

Sequana fl.

R. Seine

Gaul

Carm. 5.208

Caes. Gall. 8.57

Sestiae Baiae = Aquae Sextiae = Col. Augusta Aquae Sextiae = Civ. Aquensium

Aix

Gaul

Carm. 23.13

Notitia Galliarum 12

Susa

Susa

East

Ep. 7.7.2 v. 7

Syrticus ager

Syrtes

Africa

Carm. 17.13; Ep. 8.12.1

Taionnacus

-----

Gaul

Ep. 8.8.1

Tarnis fl.

R. Tarn

Gaul

Carm. 24.45

Tarraconensis

-----

Spain

Ep. 9.12.1

Tiberis fl.

R. Tiber

Italy

Carm. 2.332; Ep. 1.5.8; 4.17.1; 8.9.544

Ticinum

Pavia

Italy

Ep. 1.5.3

Pliny Nat. 4.108–9; Notitia dignitatum; Peut. tab. 1.b.2; Ptol. Geog. 2.7

163 Modern bibliography

Villes (1992) 133–9; PECS 818–19; Duval (1955) 215

Pliny Nat. 4.109; Auson. Mos. 465

(Continued)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 163

13/02/20 4:00 PM

164

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Other references

Modern bibliography

Tolosa = Col. Julia Tolosa = Civ. Tectosagum = Civ. Tolosatium

Toulouse

Gaul

Carm. 7.435; Ep. 4.8.1; 4.24.2; 5.13.1; 9.16.3 v. 66

Itin. ant. 458.3; Itin. burd. 551.2

PECS 928; Labrousse (1969)

Tres Villae

-----

Gaul

Carm. 24.84

Trevidos

Gaul Trevidon, Cm. de St-Laurent-deTrèves

Carm. 24.32

Tricasses = Augustobona Tricassium = Civ. Tricassium

Troyes

Ep. 6.4.2; 7, 13, 1

Tricastini = Civ. Tricastinorum

St-Paul-Trois- Gaul Châteaux

Ep. 6.12.8

Triobris fl.

R. La Truyère Gaul

Carm. 24.22

Troia

Troy

East

Carm. 5.195; 7.274; Ep. 2.2.19

Tuncrum fl.

-----

Germany

Carm. 23.244

Turoni = Caesarodunum = Civ. Turonensium

Tours

Gaul

Carm. 5.211

Tyrrhenum mare

Tyrrhenian Sea

Italy

Carm. 7.526; Ep. 6.12.6

Umbria

Umbria

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Vac(h)alis fl. = Vacalus fl.

R. Waal

Germany

Carm. 5.209, 13.31, 23.244; Ep. 8.3.3

Valentia = Julia Valentia = Civ. Valentina

Valence

Gaul

Ep. 6.12.8

Vardo fl.

R. Gard

Gaul

Ep. 2.9.9

Gaul

Ep. 8.12.1

Vasates = Cossium = Bazas Civ. Vasatica

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 164

Gaul

CAG 48 #43 68; Bernardy (1960)

Caes. Gall. 2.35, 7.4, 75; Peut. tab. 1.a.1; Ptol. Geog. 2.8.14

CAG 37 #150 76–105; PECS 182–3; Pietri (1983)

Caes. Gall. 4.10

Itin. burd. 550.2; Pliny Nat. 4.108–9; Ptol. Geog. 2.7

CAG 40 33; Duval (1955) 219; Villes (1992) 40–2

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PLACES : A GEOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

Ancient name

Modern name

Region

Sidonius references

Vasio Vocontiorum = Civ. Vasiensium

Vaison

Gaul

Ep. 5.6.2; 7.4.4

Velinus lacus

Lago delle Marmore

Italy

Ep. 1.5.8

Vialoscum = Martialis

Volvic

Gaul

Ep. 2.14.1

Vienna = Col. Iulia Augusta Florentia Viennensium = Civ. Viennensis

Vienne

Gaul

Ep. 5.6.1; 7.1.6; 7.15.1

Viernum/Ugernum

Beaucaire

Gaul

Carm. 7.571–2

Visurgis fl.

R. Weser

Germany

Carm. 23.244

Vorocingus

-----

Gaul

Carm. 24.52; Ep. 2.9.7

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 165

Other references

165 Modern bibliography

Walckenaer (1839) 1.343

Peut. tab. 1.c.1

Peut./Miller (1964) 129

13/02/20 4:00 PM

3 DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS Gavin Kelly

1 Introduction

S

IDONIUS’ LETTERS, LIKE Pliny the Younger’s, were published without specific indications of dating and arranged in a way that included a broad forward movement in time but with numerous exceptions, ‘not preserving chronological order as I wasn’t writing a history’, as Pliny said (Ep. 1.1.1). It was the general practice for ancient letter collections to be organised on principles other than chronology, and there are certainly differences between the approaches of modern readers, especially scholars, and the expectations of ancient readers or writers.1 Still, encountering a text like a letter collection that presents manifold fragments of the author’s life, one might think it a natural thing for any reader, informed or uninformed, contemporary or in distant posterity, to try to make an assessment of relative chronology, to form a narrative, to put the story in order to some degree. The same instinct is also a natural response to Sidonius’ poems, even if less compelling. In the late nineteenth century, Eugène Baret went so far as to reorder the letters, first within books and then, in a second edition, overall, into what he thought was a chronological order (he also reordered the poems).2 Such processes of chronological reordering have been a common feature of scholarship on ancient letters since the Renaissance, and compared to many other letter-writers, Sidonius has got off comparatively lightly.3 We are now more sensitive to the aesthetics of arrangement within books as a deliberate strategy and would be unlikely to repeat Baret’s experiment, but this question of dating has continued to preoccupy scholars. Mommsen sketched out a broad chronology in the introduction to Lütjohann’s edition.4 Monographs like those of C.E. Stevens, Jill Harries, and Frank-Michael Kaufmann deal repeatedly with the problem;5 the standard prosopographies also have datings to offer.6 Perhaps most influentially, André Loyen provides a valuable set of letter-by-letter notes at

I should like to thank Alison John for assisting my research on the letters, and audiences at New Haven, Bari, and Basel for responses to some of the ideas herein. I should also like to thank Sara Fascione and Giulia Marolla for comments on drafts; and Tiziana Brolli, Michael Hanaghan, and Stefania Santelia for help with individual queries. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gibson (2012); see also Mathisen (2013a) 221: ‘An obsession with dates is a modern issue.’ Baret (1878, 1887); see also Furbetta in this volume, ch. 17, sect. 4.3, for a complete listing of Baret’s ordering. See Gibson (2012, (2013c) for general surveys; see Beard (2002) on the treatment of Cicero. Mommsen in Lütjohann (1887) xliv–liii. Stevens (1933), Harries (1994), Kaufmann (1995). PLRE 2, PCBE 4, Stroheker (1948), Heinzelmann (1982).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 166

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

167

the back of volumes 2 and 3 of his Budé, and other editors and commentators have similarly offered their judgements. The most notable and useful recent contribution on the letters is by Ralph Mathisen, an author who has made many contributions to the prosopography of late antique Gaul.7 This is, then, a long tradition. It is hard for those writing in it to avoid being tralaticious and repeating the conclusions of their predecessors dressed up in barely different garb. Some conclusions are repeated because they are self-evidently right, but in many, perhaps most cases, what is repeated is an educated guess: it is, after all, more satisfying to reach a tentative conclusion than none. Tentative conclusions can through repetition be transformed into what pass for established facts. So in what follows, I shall attempt to make as clear as possible the evidence base on which datings have been made. I follow Mathisen’s view that most letters are uncertainly dated,8 and will often argue with the overly certain datings particularly evident in the work of Loyen, which have led to unsafe historical reconstructions.9 In the manuscript tradition, the poems follow the nine books of letters. The most widely used modern editions, the bilingual texts of Anderson and Loyen, put the poems first. I too will deal with the poems first, since their dating, if not always more certain, is generally simpler, and because the majority of the discrete poems, and the date of their coalescence into their current collection(s), seem likely to be earlier. I shall begin with the panegyrics and the shorter pieces associated with them (section 2), then move to the shorter poems (section 3), not only including the collection of Carmina minora (Carm. 9–24) but also briefly covering the poems preserved in the letters (Carm. 25–41), to aid the understanding of Sidonius’ ongoing commitment (or not) to verse. The letters will require longer and more considered coverage of the methodological problems around dating, including the extent to which the letters were adapted for publication, or can even be viewed as autobiographical fictions (section 4). I will then proceed to look at the question of the separate publication10 of the individual books of letters (section 5), before summarising conclusions on the dating of the letters, though without attempting to date all 147 or 148 of them (section 6).11

2 The Panegyrics and Associated Poems Sidonius’ three epic panegyrics are transmitted in reverse chronological order. Each of these hexameter poems is associated with a preface in elegiacs; the panegyrics to Majorian and 7 8 9 10

11

Mathisen (2013a) (see also Mathisen 2014); many earlier contributions are collected in Mathisen (1991a). Mathisen (2013a) 221. See the remarks of Delaplace (2015) 241. I use the word ‘publication’ here and below with all due caution and aware that it can have anachronistic associations: see Mathisen (2013a) 224–5 n. 12, urging the use of ‘circulation’. However, ‘publication’ does represent an idea expressed in Sidonius’ writing with the word editio and its cognates, the noun vulgatus, the verb propalo, etc. The count is traditionally 147 letters across the nine books, all but one (Ep. 4.2 from Mamertus Claudianus) from Sidonius. However, Ep. 4b, which follows a lacuna, seems certainly to be a separate letter from 4a (as Köhler (1995) ad loc. argues against Loyen), giving a count of 148. The lacuna does not look as if it was caused by the omission of a small passage of a couple of lines. Perhaps the likeliest cause would be the loss of a bifolium from the middle of a gathering: on the further likely assumption that the gathering was a quaternion, we could calculate that the first six sides of the work from 1.1 to 1.4.2 had an average of 219 words each and that the loss would therefore be as much as 900 words, potentially equivalent to several letters.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 167

13/02/20 4:00 PM

168

GAVIN KELLY

Table 3.1 The Panegyrics Carm.

Transmitted title

Date

1

Praefatio panegyrici dicti Anthemio Augusto bis consuli

Performed 1 January 468

2

Panegyricus (Anthemii)

Performed 1 January 468

3

Editio ad libellum

Soon after December 458

4

Praefatio panegyrici dicti d.n. imperatori caesari Iulio Valerio Maioriano

Performed December 458

5

Panegyricus (Maioriani)

Performed December 458

6

Praefatio panegyrici quem dixit socero suo Romae

Performed 1 January 456

7

Panegyricus (socero suo Romae dictus)

Performed 1 January 456

8

Editio libelli scripta ad Priscum Valerianum virum praefectorium

Soon after 1 January 456

Avitus are each associated with an additional dedicatory poem, Carm. 3 and 8 respectively (Table 3.1).12

2.1 The Panegyrics, the Prefaces, and their Context of Delivery Sidonius’ chief model for his verse panegyrics was of course Claudian, but whereas Claudian’s epic panegyrics often take the reader straight into the allegorical ‘story-world’ in which their main action unfolds, each of Sidonius’ three panegyrics gives some sense of the context in which they were performed, in a manner reminiscent of prose panegyrics.13 The two panegyrics for imperial consulships, those of Avitus and Anthemius, place us clearly in Rome on the first day of the year, with references to the god Janus (Carm. 7.11, 2.8), and addresses to the senators in the audience (Carm. 7.8 patres, 2.13 proceres); the Panegyric of Avitus closes by giving a cue to the senators to applaud (7.599–600),14 that of Anthemius by referring to the next stage of the New Year ceremonies, manumissions in the Forum of Trajan (2.544–80). Similar hints come in their prefaces, which were presumably also performed. The preface to Avitus’ panegyric closes with a broad hint at his familial relationship to the addressee (Carm. 6.29–36), and that for Anthemius allegorises Sidonius’ own performance as the inept whinnyings of the centaur Chiron at Jupiter’s coronation, and explains that he spoke only after the leading men (post magnos proceres, Carm. 1.24); he also picks out an official in the audience as his one-time

12

13 14

For the evidence underlying the transmitted titles given in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (for which the manuscripts present minor variations, but which clearly go back to the archetype), see the apparatus of Lütjohann (1887) for incipits and explicits, to which I have added the evidence of Vaticanus Latinus 1661 as an additional member of the α family (see Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16, sect. 6, and Census #69). Each of the panegyrics proper is called simply Panegyricus at the incipit, presumably because the names of the laudandi had been included in the titles of the prefaces; the names/descriptions of the addressees, in parentheses above, are given at the explicit of each panegyric. On Claudian’s ‘story-world’, see Coombe (2018). On the role of the audience in performances of panegyric, see Ross (2020).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 168

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

169

teacher (1.25).15 For the Panegyric of Anthemius we also have the additional evidence of Sidonius’ Ep. 1.9 to Heronius, explaining how he came to be invited to deliver the panegyric and how it led to his promotion to prefect of Rome.16 The Panegyric of Majorian was written to mark the emperor’s adventus to Lyon (Carm. 5.575), a city which had previously resisted his army and therefore needed to petition him for forgiveness.17 The year was still 458, since Majorian is consul (5.2), but it was late in the year, since he is attested by legislation as having been in Ravenna until 6 November.18 A December date seems likely, probably before 28 December, since the first anniversary of Majorian’s acclamation as Augustus fell on that day but goes unmentioned.

2.2 Carm. 3 and 8 The two additional poems, Carm. 3 and 8, are both called editio (respectively Editio ad libellum and Editio libelli scripta ad Priscum Valerianum virum praefectorium). Editors tend to leave this revealing word out of the title. It is clear, however, that their original function was to accompany the separate publications of the panegyrics of Majorian and Avitus. Carm. 8 clearly belongs shortly after the Panegyric of Avitus, long enough for the senate to have decreed Sidonius the statue in the Forum of Trajan in which he took such pride (8.7–8, cf. Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 21–8), but before Avitus’ fall later in the year: the poem is addressed to another family connection of Avitus, the prefect Priscus Valerianus. Carm. 3 is thematically connected through its allusions to Vergil with the praefatio to the Panegyric of Majorian (Carm. 4), and chooses to single out another courtier to whom Sidonius was close as the judge of his work (3.5): Petrus, Majorian’s magister epistularum and a poet, who is one of a number of officials to be mentioned in the panegyric (Carm. 5.564–73).19 These poems make it clear that the panegyrics of Avitus and Majorian were circulated individually soon after their publication.20 This is hardly surprising for works which were intended to be an immediate form of political messaging, promoting the current regime and the author’s career alike.

2.3 Publication as a Collection? The Panegyric of Anthemius has no covering poem, but that it was also circulated soon after its delivery, at least informally, is the implication of Letter 1.9 to Heronius, which presents itself as a cover letter enclosing a literary work in the manner of Pliny and thus as the counterpart, in a sense, to Carm. 3 and 8.21 But does the collection and publication of the three panegyrics

15

16

17 18 19 20

21

The fact that Sidonius’ panegyric came at the end of the proceedings in the senate is also clear from his announcement of what will happen next, discussed above. The official referred to in the preface was quaestor of the palace, but the name Victor sometimes attributed to him is a manuscript corruption. See the Epilogue in this volume, p. 731, and Kelly (forthcoming). The form Heronius is preferable stemmatically to the alternative ‘Herenius’, found in some manuscripts, and is also that preferred by PLRE 2. For more on this letter see sect. 4.2 below. See also below on Carm. 13. See Seeck (1919) 406; Loyen (1942) 59 and n. 1. PLRE 2, 866 (Petrus 10); he is also mentioned in Ep. 9.13.4. Loyen (1960) 1.xxxi suggests that the publication of the Panegyric of Majorian would have been accompanied by a republication of that of Avitus, to form a collection of six poems. This seems neither provable nor, given Majorian’s recent role in suppressing Avitus’ regime, particularly likely. My assumption that Carm. 3–5 would have been published as a group is shared by Wolff (2015b) 470. See further on this letter sect. 4.2 below.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 169

13/02/20 4:00 PM

170

GAVIN KELLY

together belong to the period shortly after the delivery of the Panegyric of Anthemius, to 468 or 469? And if so, did such a collection incorporate the Carmina minora, 9 to 24, as well? Both these possibilities have been commonly assumed to be the case,22 partly because of the belief that Sidonius soon afterwards renounced poetry on ordination,23 and both seem superficially plausible but are unproven. All we know for certain is what we can deduce from the archetype, that at some point Sidonius or somebody else appended the panegyrics and the Carmina minora to the nine books of letters. In fact, the archetype as we can reconstruct it also contained a version of Ausonius’ Caesares after the end of the shorter poems, which should warn us not to assume that the complete works must have been collected by Sidonius.24 We shall discuss this question further below (section 3.2) once we have considered the shorter poems. That said, the structure of the panegyrics with their prefaces and editio poems makes sense as a group. In political terms, the reverse chronological order, with the current regime first, would be obvious if the poems were assembled under Anthemius, and the lack of an editio poem for Anthemius might suggest that it was published together with the republication of its predecessors.25 But doubts bubble up: was it actually complimentary to Anthemius to include panegyrics of his predecessors? Whether Sidonius’ panegyrics were grouped together before or after Anthemius’ fall, politics presented a problem for the collection: the emperors whose praises he sang were all violently overthrown, and his grand hopes for their future deeds were dashed. It may be argued that reverse chronological order makes the disastrous politics of his time less intrusive than an order that encouraged reading as a series. Similarly, the inclusion of the editio poems for Avitus’ and Majorian’s panegyrics encourages the reader to enjoy or criticise the poems as works of art rather than as political statements. The preface to the Panegyric of Anthemius, meanwhile, fulfils some of the functions of the editio poems, like them humbly presenting the author’s modesty about his work, and even referencing a third party as a critic, the anonymous quaestor (Carm. 1.25). The difference in placement of the editio poems is noteworthy: before both preface and Panegyric for Majorian, after both preface and Panegyric for Avitus. Might it be conjectured that Sidonius moved the editio poem of the Avitus panegyric from an original position before the preface so that it would round off a collection of panegyrics suitably?26 However, this can only be speculation. Finally, I would like to observe that Sidonius’ panegyrics not only display plenty of indications of their ephemeral political purpose, but also show no discernible signs of having been subsequently rewritten after delivery.27

3 The ‘Shorter Poems’ The collection of shorter poems (9–24) cannot be dated precisely in the way that the panegyrics can, but its contents resemble them in (for the most part) exhibiting an occasional

22 23 24 25 26

27

Loyen (1960) 1.xxx, Harries (1994) 3, 5–7, and passim, Santelia (2012) 50, Filosini (2014a) 14 (with a little caution). See Ep. 4.3.9, 7.17.1, 8.4.3, 8.16.2, 9.12.1–2, Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 55–6. See Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16. So Stevens (1933) 100, citing Germain (1840) 40; Sivan (1989a) 91–2; Harries (1994) 6. One attraction of the placement of the editio poem after the Panegyric of Avitus is the responsion between plausere dei, ‘the gods applauded’, in Carm. 7.599 and adhuc populo simul et plaudente senatu, ‘while people and senate together still applaud’, in Carm. 8.9. See, however, Santelia (2002b) 258 and n. 49 for the suggestion that one should take seriously the rhetoric of revision found in the dedicatory poems.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 170

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

171

character and in clearly belonging to the earlier, pre-episcopal part of Sidonius’ career.28 As with the panegyrics, there is no sign of subsequent rewriting after their original composition, though in one instance a paratextual preface may be later than the poem proper. While most or all are occasional poems that will plausibly have circulated independently, it is clear that Sidonius at some point made a collection: the opening (9) and closing poems (24) of the Carmina minora are the dedication and conclusion of a collection, and both in the same hendecasyllabic metre. But before turning to the question of the collection or collections, I propose to look at dating criteria for the individual poems.

3.1 Dating Individual Poems Poem 9, as stated above, is the introductory poem for a collection, a long praeteritio of subjects Sidonius will not cover. It dedicates the collection to Magnus Felix and functions as a pair with poem 24, also in hendecasyllables.29 The only dating criteria that have been inferred are the last poets named in the catalogue: Anthedius, Hoen(i)us, Lampridius, Leo, and Severianus (9.312–15). Unfortunately this brings little clarity, and Loyen’s suggestion that the catalogue ends by the time of Majorian’s death in 461 has rightly been rejected: we know nothing else about Hoenius’ floruit, little about Severianus, and of Anthedius only that he was dead by the late 470s (8.11.2), but Lampridius’ career lasted into the late 470s and Leo was still alive after 484.30 A better terminus ante quem might be the fact that Magnus Felix’s status as a praetorian prefect and patrician (presumed to be c. 46931) is not indicated, but that may not be considered definitive either. Carm. 10 and 11 consist of the Epithalamium for Ruricius, later bishop of Limoges, and Hiberia, preceded by an elegiac preface. Despite Ruricius being a well-known figure, it is hard to find dating criteria. Perhaps the best are two letters by Ruricius (2.57–8) addressed to Sidonius’ successor as bishop of Clermont, Aprunculus, who seems to have died c. 490: Ruricius makes a plea for his sons, acting as priests under Aprunculus’ direction. This probably implies a marriage in the first half of the 460s or before.32 Carm. 12 is a recusatio directed to an Arvernian fellow senator, Catullinus, for Sidonius not writing an epithalamium: the poet is distracted by having Burgundians billeted on his property, presumably in Lyon. Since the last line appears to refer to the accusation against Sidonius of writing a satire in 461, an event in which Catullinus was caught up (Ep. 1.11), the poem is probably to be dated to that year or soon after.33 It should be noted that in Ep. 1.11.3 Catullinus

28

29 30 31 32

33

Shorter poems/Carmina minora is a modern title, and it is a stretch to call poems like 9 or 23 short (respectively 346 and 512 hendecasyllables). But as a neutral description it seems preferable for this distinctive group of poems than to take the self-depreciating designation nugae, ‘trifles’ (Carm. 9.9), as a title. Note that Sidonius thought nugae could include prose (Ep. 3.14.1). Epigrammata is another term used by Sidonius to describe these poems (see esp. Ep. 2.8.2; Mondin (2008) 474); cf. in this volume Consolino, ch. 10. See Santelia (2002a) 43–6. Loyen (1960) 1.xxxii, corrected by Schetter (1992) 354. See n. 48 below. This chronology is dependent on the information of Gregory of Tours, Hist. 3.2. For a sensible discussion that acknowledges the lack of firm chronological anchors for Ruricius, see Filosini (2014a) 13–17. So Sirmond (1652) ad loc. (Notae, 144), followed by Stevens (1933) 66, Anderson (1936) 1.212 n. 1, Loyen (1943) 68, and (1960) 1.104 n. 3, Schetter (1992) 353 and n. 32, Harries (1994) 91. A possible alternative dating to 457, when the presence of Burgundian federates in Lyon is well attested, is referred to at Loyen (1960) 1.xxxiii. The Burgundian presence in c. 461 is presumably linked to the appointment of Gundioc as magister militum; see Stevens (1933) 91 n. 3.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 171

13/02/20 4:00 PM

172

GAVIN KELLY

is described as illustris while the heading of the poem makes him a mere clarissimus: an inconsistency perhaps best explained by the suggestion that, in a letter probably written years afterwards, Sidonius anachronistically gave Catullinus a title he only received later.34 Carm. 13, in twenty elegiacs and twenty hendecasyllables, is addressed to the emperor Majorian and pleads for a tax remission. It refers to the desolation of Lyon and is very close in time to the panegyric (Carm. 5) of December 458.35 Carm. 14 and 15 are an epithalamium for the marriage of Polemius and Araneola (the latter being the sister of Magnus Felix, the dedicatee of the collection begun by poem 9 and completed by poem 24), preceded by a prose letter to the groom and a hendecasyllabic preface. Dating is based on the reference to the bride’s father Magnus as vir consularis (Carm. 14 ep. 2): he held his consulship in 460. In the Epithalamium itself, Araneola, appropriately for her name and lineage, is seen in the temple of Minerva weaving a consular robe for her father depicting his various offices (Carm. 15.145–59). It has sometimes been argued that this places the poem before and the dedication after the consulate, but given the games with time that the genre involves, certainty on that point is impossible. The whole ensemble presumably belongs in 461, or else very soon after.36 Carm. 16, the Euchariston (or Eucharisticon) to Faustus of Riez, is the only professedly Christian work among the shorter poems. It refers to a visit made to Riez in a hot summer now past (pridem, Carm. 16.78). Loyen, in the belief that Faustus only became bishop of Riez in 460 and that pridem denoted a long space of time, was therefore inclined to push this poem later and make it a later addition to the collection. Loyen was also influenced by an erroneous inference from the manuscript tradition, to be discussed below, and perhaps also by his tendency to see explicitly religious statements as growing more frequent as the 460s passed.37 In fact, the start of Faustus’ episcopate cannot be dated more closely than between 452 and 462.38 The dating of the poem is open, limited only by the mention of Sidonius’ role in bringing up a younger brother not otherwise explicitly mentioned in his oeuvre,39 and by the compilation of the collection.40 Carm. 17, in elegiacs, invites Ommatius, a neighbour in the Auvergne and father of Hiberia of Carm. 11-12, to a sixteenth birthday party within his family on 29 July.41 Were this to refer to twin children of Sidonius’ and were one to accept the conventional date for his marriage

34

35

36

37 38

39

40

41

See the discussion of Ep. 1.11 in sect. 4.2 below and Harries (1994) 91 n. 38. Köhler (1995) ad Ep. 1.11.3 interprets illustris in a non-technical sense, while Loyen (1970) 2.215 n. 47 sees v.c. as a generalising term for senators that does not exclude Catullinus having a higher rank. That said, the discrepancy could be used to argue that the Carmina minora were edited some time before the letter was written (as will indeed be the conclusion of sect. 3.2 below). Stevens (1933) and Harries (1994)’s reconstructions place it slightly before, Loyen (1960) 1.xv, Schetter (1992) 353 n. 32, and Prévot (2013b) 1762 a little later. Ravenna (1990) 10 is not very forthcoming on the dating question, simply asserting a date of 461 or 462 and referring to Loyen. Loyen (1960) 1.xxxiv. See below at n. 74. According to Schetter (1992) 354 and n. 40, between 449 and 462; but this is narrowed down in PCBE 4, 734–45, at 736. If one sees Carm. 17 as pertaining to Sidonius’ otherwise little-known younger brother, mentioned at Carm. 16.71–7, this poem is presumably dateable a few years after that one. The thoughtful remarks of Santelia (2012) 46–50 focus mainly on the dating of the collection. In the end she tentatively suggests a date of c. 468 for Carm. 16. Natalis nostris decimus sextusque coletur (Carm. 17.3): Anderson (1936) 1.254 n. 1 corrects what he sees as Mommsen’s mistake (in Lütjohann (1887) xlix) of seeing nostris as referring to twin children of Sidonius, rather than a dative of agent (‘by our family’). He is probably right. The idea that nostris = nostrorum or nostrarum is, however, a long-standing one, found in Sirmond (1652) ad loc. and even in the transmitted title of the poem (for which see the table at the end of this section).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 172

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

173

in c. 452/3, this would belong in the late 460s, much later than the rest of the Carmina minora (which indeed was once thought to be the case42), but it has been attractively conjectured by Loyen that it might refer to Sidonius’ younger brother (Carm. 16.72), in which case we could place it in the 450s, some years before Carm. 16.43 Another possibility, given the age of Roman aristocratic women at marriage, is that the birthday might be that of his wife Papianilla, which would place it in the early to mid-450s. Carm. 18–21 are elegiac epigrams, two for inscription in the baths of his villa, an invitation to his brother-in-law, and a cover note for a gift of fish. They could belong any time after Sidonius’ marriage and acquisition of Avitacum, though those on the baths probably belong before Ep. 2.2 (the dramatic date of which is an uncertain time in the 460s: see below), which refers (§7) to verses in his bathhouse. The datings of Carm. 22 and 23 are plausibly connected. That of Carm. 23, a thank-younote-cum-panegyric of Sidonius’ host in Narbonne, Consentius, is inferred from the section in praise of the Visigothic king Theoderic (23.69–73), who exercised control over Narbonne from c. 461 or 462 until his assassination in 466 or, perhaps, 467.44 For Carm. 22, the hexameter praises of the Burgus of Pontius Leontius near Bordeaux, Sidonius presents himself in the initial prose letter to the castle’s owner as being at Narbonne at the time of writing. There is a strong temptation to identify this with the stay in Narbonne for which Sidonius offers perhaps slightly delayed thanks in Carm. 23, and to date Carm. 22 accordingly. In the case of Carm. 22, various attempts have been made to make this dating more precise. Two letters, Ep. 8.11 and 8.12, deal with a stay in Bordeaux during which Sidonius is in the circle of Pontius Leontius. The second of these is addressed to Trygetius from Bordeaux in winter and promises him a seafood feast in Bordeaux. Trygetius is said to have recently travelled as far south in Spain as Gibraltar, and Stevens identified this journey with a campaign attested in Hydatius in 458/9 (and the language is more consistent with warfare than a private journey).45 This would argue for a date earlier in the 460s rather than later. However, neither the chronological connection between Carm. 22 and 23 nor the attempts to date Carm. 22 on the basis of Ep. 8.11 can be certain, as Sidonius might have made multiple trips to Bordeaux or Narbonne in the 460s.46 Carm. 24, the so-called Propempticon ad libellum, is as previously mentioned a pendant to poem 9. The poet addresses his completed book, sent from Avitacum on an indirect itinerary that takes it eventually to the home of the book’s dedicatee Magnus Felix and his family. The other individuals named are friends mentioned in letters from the 460s.47 The terminus post quem is Felix’s father’s consulship in 460 (Carm. 24.90); another office-holder named is Tonantius Ferreolus, praetorian prefect of Gaul in 451 (35–6). A virtually certain terminus ante quem can be found in an argument from silence: the absence of reference to Felix’s own praetorian prefecture in 469, in succession to Arvandus.48 Given that other high offices are mentioned, it would

42 43

44 45 46 47

48

See below the end of sect. 3.2. Loyen (1960) 1.126 n. 2, endorsed by Santelia (2010b). The brother was younger (see the reference to his lubrica aetas, Carm. 16.72), and yet old enough to be the father of Secundus, to whom Sidonius writes as to an adult in Ep. 3.12, generally dated to the end of the 460s. By that stage, Sidonius’ brother must have died. See Gillett (1999), Delaplace (2015), esp. 240–1. Stevens (1933) 66–7. See Delhey (1993) 9–12 for a judicious discussion. E.g. Domitius (Carm. 24.10, Ep. 2.2), Sacerdos and Iustinus (Carm. 24.27, Ep. 5.21), Tonantius Ferreolus, and Apollinaris (Carm. 24.34–6 and 53; both inter alia in Ep. 2.9). This is not absolutely certain, but is the best reconstruction: see Stevens (1933) App. D (pp. 196–7), PLRE 2, 463–4 (Felix 21), Harries (1994) 15.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 173

13/02/20 4:00 PM

174

GAVIN KELLY

Table 3.2 The ‘shorter poems’ Carm.

Transmitted title

Date

9

Excusatoria ad v.c. Felicem

Before 467. As Carm. 24

10 and 11

Praefatio Epithalamii dicti Ruricio et Hiberiae Epithalamium dictum Ruricio et Hiberiae

Before c. 465, probably c. 460

12

Epigramma ad v.c. Ommatium quod epithalamium scribere non valeret

461 or soon after

13

Epigramma quo a Maioriano imperatore trium capitum remedium postulavit

December 458 or soon after

14 and 15

Sidonius Polemio suo salutem Praefatio Epithalamii dicti Polemio et Araneolae Epithalamium dictum Polemio et Araneolae

461 or soon after

16

Euchariston ad Faustum episcopum

Early 460s?

17

Epigramma quo invitavit v.c. Ommatium ad natalem diem suorum

450s (or late 460s)

18 19 20 21

De balneis villae suae supra lacum positae Tetrastichon supra piscinam Ad Ecdicium sororium suum De piscibus nocte captis

450s or 460s 450s or 460s 450s or 460s 450s or 460s

22

Sidonius Pontio Leontio salutem Burgus Pontii Leontii

462–6/7, probably earlier in period

23

Ad Consentium civem Narbonensem

462–6/7

24

Propempticon ad libellum

After 460, before 467. As Carm. 9.

be astonishing if this poem, and therefore the collection, postdated Felix’s promotion. Sidonius was still prefect of Rome when Arvandus was deposed (in fact, as Harries shows, the Arvandus affair is likely to be the cause of Sidonius’ falling out with Felix49), and so this poem, sent from Avitacum, must come from before Sidonius’ departure for Rome in 467. This terminus should also count for the collection as a whole. We may conclude this section with a table (Table 3.2), listing mostly approximate dates (as with Carm. 1–8, this is an attempt to reconstruct the archetype’s titles).

3.2 The Collection(s) of Shorter Poems The combination of poems 9 and 24 shows that Sidonius did on at least one occasion circulate a libellus of his shorter poems. There has been a tendency in scholarship to complicate the history of the collection and assume that certain poems may have been added to it in successive stages. This is not intrinsically implausible, as the history of the letter collection illustrates

49

Harries (1994) 15–16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 174

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

175

(below, section 5). Moreover, in a letter that Loyen dates to 469 (Ep. 2.8.2), Sidonius refers to an existing collection of Epigrammata to which his mercennarius bybliopola (literally a bookseller, perhaps closer to a secretary) can add new poems such as the epitaph he sends.50 (In fact, the publication of Philomathia’s epitaph came in the letter: there is, significantly, no duplication between the Carmina and the poetry that Sidonius includes in his letters.) However, it must also be acknowledged that while in the letter collection Books 8 and 9 are clearly marked as subsequent additions, there are no such explicit indications in the collection of shorter poems. What does need to be considered is the fact that the manuscript tradition diverges on the order of the last few poems. The order in our editions, with Carm. 24 at the end, is found only in one strand of the manuscripts tradition, the group called α by Dolveck (in chapter 16 below); in family β, poem 24 comes before Carm. 22 and 23. If one accepts Dolveck’s analysis of the stemma as bipartite, there is no obvious way to tell which is the archetypal order, but the implication of the ordering in β would be that Carm. 22 and 23 are extraneous to a collection consisting of Carm. 9–21 and 24, and were added later. Given the shared errors in the tradition, the two orderings cannot go back to two different authorial versions: if the order of β is authentic, the order in α with 24 at the end will be a change made long after Sidonius’ time, presumably with the aesthetically comprehensible aim of putting the envoi poem at the end.51 André Loyen, building on the arguments of Kraemer and Klotz, argued that the Carmina minora as we have them do not represent the collection as announced in poem 9 (nugas temerarias amici / sparsit quas tenerae iocus iuventae, 9–19; nos valde sterilis modos Camenae / rarae credimus hos brevique chartae, / quos scombros merito piperque portet, 318–2052). He posited three separate editions, one containing Carm. 9–15 and 17–21, published in c. 461, a second adding 16 and 24, from 464 or 465, and a third and definitive edition incorporating 22 and 23 from c. 469.53 The argument for Carm. 16 and 24 being later additions was rightly critiqued by Schetter. In contrast to the genuine uncertainty about the order of Carm. 22, 23, and 24, the fact that 16 is postponed in manuscript T to a position after the short poems 17–21 is of no significance, an innovation arising from an error by a medieval copyist.54 Schetter argues instead for a first collection containing Carm. 9–21 and 24, with the subsequent additional publication of 22 and 23 taking place at some point between 462 and 466. Schetter follows Loyen in seeing a contradiction between the prospectus in Carm. 9 and the sheer length of the collection. Both seem to me to be putting too much weight on a literary stereotype (brevis . . . charta, Carm. 9.319, is a topos best exemplified from Martial 5.6.7) and to misunderstand the literary joke of poem 9, which holds forth for over three hundred lines before this proclamation of the lack of inventiveness or inspiration. The contrast between

50

51 52

53 54

There is no particular justification for this date for Ep. 2.8, which depends partly on a false dating of Ep. 1.3 to 467 rather than to 455, discussed below at the end of sect. 4.1. Since in that letter Philomathius was still fairly lowly in the administration, and since in Ep. 5.17, taking place before Philomathia’s death in Ep. 2.8, he is a vir illustris, Loyen (1970) 2.247 and 256 assumed that Ep. 5.17 must date to shortly after the feast of St Iustus described, and in his reconstruction of Sidonius’ career the only such feast which Sidonius could have attended in Lyon between 467 and his ordination was in 469. Once the dating of 1.3 is corrected, Ep. 5.17 and 2.8 can both potentially be somewhat earlier in the 460s, though 2.8 obviously comes at a point when Sidonius already has a collection of poems. On the term bybliopola, see Santelia (2000). So Schetter (1992) 351. ‘The rash trifles of your friend, scattered in the playfulness of tender youth . . . we entrust these measures of a most sterile muse to infrequent and brief paper, which would deservedly wrap mackerels and spice.’ Loyen (1960) 1.xxxi–xxxv; see also Kraemer (1908) 44–7, Klotz (1923) 2233–4. Schetter (1992) 350.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 175

13/02/20 4:00 PM

176

GAVIN KELLY

the length of the collection (1,844 lines, plus prose equivalent to another 100 lines) and that of earlier poetry books is irrelevant since Sidonius was certainly writing for codex publication, where there were none of the limitations of bookrolls.55 More recently, in an article on the term epigramma in late antiquity, Luca Mondin has robustly and concisely cast doubt on the theory of multiple editions, even in the modified form expressed by Schetter.56 He argues that the Carmina minora are indeed referred to in Ep. 2.8.2 as Epigrammata; that there are good positive reasons to consider Carm. 22 part of this collection (focusing on the modesty topoi in the prose epilogue57); and that there are no internal reasons of chronology and content or factors in the transmission that stand in the way of a single publication of a collection of 16 poems, rather than a series of multiple publications. This conclusion has been welcomed by, for example, Stefania Santelia.58 The one area in which Mondin’s view may deserve qualification, though, and where some evidence may survive that points to an incremental growth of the collection, is the β family’s ordering of poems 24, 22, and 23, which could well be original. The argument will depend on other criteria. The chronology of the individual poems certainly does not provide a compelling case to put these two much later than the rest: Carm. 22 and 23 can date no later than 467 and very possibly as early as 462 or 463; the few of the others that can be precisely or approximately dated come from the late 450s or early 460s (Carm. 12, 13, 14, 15), and most could come from any time from the early 450s to the late 460s. So one could easily imagine a unitary publication of the Carmina minora as we have them at any point from about 462 or 463 onward. In this discussion I have followed a general trend in recent scholarship on the question in clearing away inherited assumptions. I think one such assumption remains to be challenged. Even those who have cast doubt on Loyen’s theory of multiple collections have tended to assume a complete collection of twenty-four Carmina, panegyrics and occasional poems, made precisely in 469, between Sidonius’ prefecture of Rome (which he won in part from Carm. 1–2, the latest item in the collected poems) and his ordination as bishop (after which he would supposedly give up poetry).59 Since Sidonius tells us nothing about his election to the see of Clermont, we know rather little about this period, and this phase of editorial activity in 469 is something repeatedly asserted rather than with a sound evidentiary base. An important assumption behind it is that the poems are, like the letters, an incremental creation by Sidonius himself. But in fact, Sidonius’ poems clearly fall into two collections: three panegyrics and related poems – a grouping which, as argued above, might well have been published together by Sidonius, possibly in 469, but need not have been – and sixteen shorter poems.60 The latter

55

56 57 58 59

60

The line calculation is from Schetter (1992) 345; Schetter also points out the existence of a lacuna at Carm. 9.197. Sidonius’ vocabulary in referring to books blends the vocabulary of bookrolls with that of codices in a way that is often hard to interpret. For a survey of his usage see van Waarden (2016a) 32–40. Mondin (2008) 473–5. But Consolino in this volume, ch. 10, p. 342 n. 5, counters his argument on genre. Santelia (2012) 50. See Stevens (1933) 108, Loyen (1960) 1.xxx, Harries (1994) 6–7, 172 (‘his farewell to the world’), Santelia (2012) 50, Delaplace (2015) 245. Schetter (1992) argues that the terminus ante quem for the publication of the shorter poems is 472, but this is simply Mommsen’s estimated date for the publication of Letters Book 2 (neither the general modern consensus nor secure: see below). For the renunciation of poetry see n. 23 above and sect. 3.4 below. The numeration, of course, is a modern calculation, first introduced in the edition of Vinet (1552), on which see Furbetta in this volume, ch. 17, sect. 2.2. Given the great unevenness in the length of the poems, and some places where the number of units may be questionable, I am uneasy about reconstructions that place too much significance on the neatness of multiples of 8. (See e.g. Daly (2000), Hernández Lobato (2006).)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 176

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

177

are most unlikely to have been published in 469. The main reason that 469 gained currency as a date for these poems was the assumed date of the birthday poem (Carm. 17) if it referred to Sidonius’ children; but long after that assumption, and the concomitant belief that Sidonius was a father of twins, was shown to be unnecessary, scholars still cling to the date of 469.61 From what we have seen above, there is every reason to see the shorter poems as an assemblage from around 463 or a little later (or conceivably as an assemblage from slightly earlier supplemented in the mid-460s by two further poems). There are also good reasons that they cannot have been published for the first time in 469. In discussing Carm. 24 above, I showed that the one argument sometimes used to argue for publication in 469 is the evidence of Ep. 2.8 about the potential addition of Philomathia’s epitaph to Sidonius’ epigrammatum . . . voluminibus. Sidonius was at this stage putting together his collection. But the argument is confused: in the first place, this passage may offer evidence for the publication of the shorter poems, but it excludes the panegyrics; second, as explained above, there is no good reason to date the letter to that year rather than to some point earlier in the 460s.62

3.3 Conclusions on Carmina 1–24 We know for certain that Sidonius’ panegyrics for Avitus and Majorian were circulated independently, and it is quite plausible that Anthemius’ was too. It is also plausible that the bloc of eight poems was put together in their current order by Sidonius after the delivery of the Panegyric of Anthemius on 1 January 468, though not necessarily immediately. We also know for certain that there was a collection of shorter poems, beginning with 9 and ending in 24, dedicated to Magnus Felix. It is possible that there was more than one edition, but not a necessary inference. This collection was almost certainly finalised earlier in the 460s. It is not certain whether the decision to include first the panegyrics and then the Carmina minora after the letters in the common ancestor of our manuscripts was that of Sidonius or somebody else.

3.4 Poems in the Letters Before turning to the letters it may be useful to list indications about the poems in the letters (Table 3.3). Some observations should be made. First, as was noted above, there is no duplication between Carm. 1–24 and the poems preserved in the letters, and, as also noted above, Ep. 2.8.2 introduces Carm. 27 with reference to an existing publication of epigrammata. Still, at least some of these poems have a dramatic date before the publication of the Carmina minora: certainly Carm. 25, 35, and 37, conceivably 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32. This suggests that the Carmina minora collection is not a comprehensive collection of all Sidonius’ poetry before its date of circulation, and so we cannot therefore assume that poems in the letters of uncertain date (e.g. Carm. 27 or 28) must have been written later than the original Carmina minora collection. Second, Carm. 26–31, as well as 33, are either epigraphic or at least composed

61

62

Stevens (1933) 108 n.1 makes this assumption, which was shown to be unnecessary by Anderson (1936) 1.254 n. 1. Later works have not realised the implication for the date of the Carmina minora. It is a striking demonstration of how a single over-confident dating can have knock-on effects for the entire chronology of Sidonius’ life: indeed Stevens (1933) 207 even used this poem as a terminus post quem for Sidonius’ ordination. See n. 50 above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 177

13/02/20 4:00 PM

178

GAVIN KELLY

Table 3.3 The poems in the letters Carm.

Ep.

Description

Date

25

1.11.14

Improvised elegiac couplet

461

26

2.8.3

Epitaph of Philomathia, 15 hendecasyllables

Later 460s, maybe 469 (after Carm. 32)

27

2.10.3

Inscription for Basilica of Patiens in Lyon, 30 hendecasyllables

460s?

28

3.12.5

Epitaph for his grandfather Apollinaris, 20 hendecasyllables

Late 460s?

29

4.8.5

Inscription for silver bowl of Queen Ragnahilda, 12 elegiacs

466/7 or after

30

4.11.6

Epitaph of Mamertus Claudianus, 25 hendecasyllables

First half of 470s

31

4.18.5

Poem for the basilica of Martin at Tours, 20 elegiacs

Mid- to late 460s?

32

5.17.10

On Philomathius’ face-towel, 4 elegiacs

460s, maybe 469

33

7.17.2

Epitaph for Abraham, 30 elegiacs

Later 477

34

8.9.5

Praise (?) of king Euric, 59 hendecasyllables

477

35

8.11.3

Old verse epistle to Lampridius, 54 hendecasyllables

Letter from c. 478, poem early 460s

36

9.13.2

Demonstration of how to write asclepiads, 28 lesser asclepiads

Late 470s?

37

9.13.5

From a poetry competition under Majorian, 120 anacreontics

459 (letter late 470s)

38–9

9.14.6

Reversable elegiac couplets

Unknowable

40

9.15.1

Display piece on how to write iambics, 55 lines Late 470s?

41

9.16.3

Autobiographical poem in sapphics, 84 lines

Late 470s?

for potential inscription (note that the hendecasyllabic epitaphs all have a total line-count divisible by five63), and of these the funerary inscriptions represent a genre absent from the Carmina minora. Third, Sidonius’ claimed renunciation of poetry after he became a bishop has a number of demonstrable exceptions (the epitaphs for Mamertus Claudianus and Abraham, the reluctant praises of Euric, and in Letters Book 9 the display pieces in anacreontics and iambics, and indeed the closing sapphics in which the renunciation is paradoxically repeated).64 One cannot automatically assume that the other poems, especially epitaphs, must belong before his ordination. 63

64

A feature that suggests presentation in columns: compare Sidonius’ own eighteen-line epitaph, which had two columns of nine lines. For further parallels see Consolino’s ch. 10 in this volume, p. 361 n. 101. References for renunciation of poetry, n. 23 above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 178

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

179

4 The Problems of Dating the Letters As I suggested in the introduction, the problems of dating the letters are rather more severe than is the case for the poems. In practice relatively few letters can be very precisely dated. In this section I shall first summarise the means that are generally used to date letters, and the limitations inherent in them (section 4.1); this involves holding back some rather more fundamental questions arising from the relationship between letter and collection until section 4.2.

4.1 Methods Used to Date the Letters The methods used to date Sidonius’ letters are various. Since the later fifth century is not one of the better-attested parts of Roman history, and since the letters are often unspecific, there are a number of challenges.65 Letters can be linked to known historical events. For example, at the most basic we know that the emperor Anthemius was acclaimed in 467 and celebrated his second consulship in Rome in 468, so Sidonius’ letters before and after this celebration (Ep. 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10) and his concomitant appointment to the prefecture of Rome (Ep. 1.9.8) can be dated with reasonable accuracy. But beyond that possibilities are limited. Mathisen’s invaluable study points to a number of events described in the letters that can be externally dated, but also points out that they are limited to a small minority of letters and how often the letters that describe them are clearly written later: Majorian’s presence in Lyon in 459 or in Arles in 461 confirms the dramatic date of events in Ep. 9.13 and 1.11 respectively, but the letters themselves were written considerably later, and if in the earlier instance Sidonius indicates the chronological distance (about twenty years, Ep. 9.13.6), he does not in the second. These events include Visigothic aggression in the Auvergne (471–5: Ep. 3.1–4, 7, 9 and many more thereafter), the urban prefecture of Audax (474 or possibly 475: Ep. 8.7), the ‘revolt’ of Vaison (475: Ep. 5.6), and the cession of the Auvergne (475: Ep. 7.7).66 There are potential problems here. For example, the external evidence for dating of events may be dubious. If one accepts the arguments for redating the murder of king Theoderic II of the Visigoths and the accession of Euric from 466 to 467, it affects the potential dating of Ep. 4.8, in which Sidonius composes a poem (Carm. 29) for inscribing on a silver bowl for Euric’s queen (as well as Carm. 23 which praises Theoderic).67 The defeat of the Bretons under Riothamus, presumed to be a terminus ante quem for Ep. 3.9, has been moved later than 469 in recent scholarship.68 Perhaps the best example of the instability of such evidence consists of the case of the trial of Arvandus, described in Ep. 1.7. At the beginning of Arvandus’ trial Sidonius was still prefect of Rome; by its end he had left the city. Arvandus’ punishment (exile in place of the original death sentence) is externally dated to 469, which in turn provides a date for the letter in that year or conceivably at the very end of 468. The sole independent source for this date is Cassiodorus’ Chronicle (s.a. 469), written roughly half a century later and providing reasonably accurate but not infallible dates where it can be tested.69 If the Chronicle is correct,

65 66 67 68 69

What follows owes much to Mathisen (2013a). Mathisen (2013a) 222–3. For the redating of Euric’s accession, see Gillett (1999) and Delaplace (2015) 240–1, and discussion at n. 43 above. Gillett (1999) 25 n. 85. The account of Paul the Deacon Hist. 15.2 seems to be based on Cassiodorus.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 179

13/02/20 4:00 PM

180

GAVIN KELLY

Sidonius’ prefecture lasted a whole year, or close to it, from January 468 to the last months of the year at least or to (early?) 469: a length of time not contradicted by the letters but which one would not have inferred from them. And yet it is common enough for chronicles to be out by a year, and some modern accounts place the trial and the end of Sidonius’ prefecture in the previous year.70 Similarly, it is often possible to date letters to general periods in Sidonius’ life, such as his period out of public life before 467, his episcopate, his exile, and after his exile.71 But such dating can be rather imprecise (one thinks of Loyen’s dating of the villa letter, Ep. 2.2, ‘vers 465, fin juin’), and some of the watershed dates are far from certain, such as Sidonius’ ordination (probably late 469, but debated72). Moreover, such datings can often rely on inferences about the mood, but a letter on a secular subject that does not mention his episcopate is not invariably written before his ordination.73 Loyen has a questionable habit of using Christian expressions in letters from before Sidonius’ episcopate to date them to c. 469, shortly before his ordination.74 Dates can also be attributed relative to other letters, especially to the same addressee. Sidonius generally ensures that letters that refer specifically or loosely to earlier letters are positioned after them in the collection: so Ep. 1.5 tells Heronius about his journey to Rome and 1.9 about his experiences there; Ep. 1.6 hopes that Eutropius will join the public service and Ep. 3.6 reflects on their shared service; Ep. 3.4 to Felix commends the letter-bearer Gozolas and Ep. 4.5 reintroduces him; and so on with few exceptions.75 More generally, attempts are sometimes made to date letters by their position in the collection, whether on the basis of what book they are in or through connections with letters immediately around them. The first approach has some validity, as we shall see. For example, it would be reasonable to assume that a letter in Books 1–7 was before c. 477 when Books 1–7 were put together. But the danger here is that too many assumptions have been made about datings for books, as we shall see in the next section; so the gains are fairly limited. Certainty is often lacking about letters before the visit to Rome in 467, or (in the case of the last two books) after 477. The second approach, looking for connections between adjacent letters, has most cogently been put forward by Mathisen, who proposes that the arrangement of letters is often connected to the organisation of Sidonius’ archive, and that letters on related themes or sent by the same carrier can sometimes be found near each other.76 While Mathisen makes some acute suggestions, there are two reservations. First, the connections that he sees as based on practical issues of storage may also be viewed aesthetically – for example the bundling together of

70

71 72 73

74

75 76

Sivan (1989a) 92. Others have assumed a date of 468 without explanation (e.g. Mathisen (2013a) 222, Hanaghan (2019) 10, 63, 190). The point matters, since there are many events to fit into Sidonius’ curriculum vitae the following year. Per litteras Mathisen has explained his view as being that the trial is likely to have occurred in 468 given the usual brevity of prefectures and allowing time for the commutation. Mathisen (2013a) 223–34. Mathisen (2013a) 224 n. 8. Purely for example, Ep. 2.1, 3.6, and 3.8 are all letters that may or must belong after his episcopate but do not mention it (see on Ep. 2.1 on p. 191 below). See also sect. 5.1 below on Ep. 8.6, misdated by Loyen to before the episcopate, essentially because the tone seemed too unepiscopal. To exemplify simply from Book 2: see his remarks on Ep. 2.2 (placed earlier), 2.4, 2.6, 2.12 (in Loyen (1970) 2.246–8). For this principle see Mommsen in Lütjohann (1887) L; Peter (1901) 157. Mathisen (2013a) 234–46.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 180

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

181

letters to bishops in Book 6 and the first half of Book 7. Second, Mathisen’s own examples show that apparent dossiers may not be close in time. The classic example here is Book 1, in which Ep. 5 and 7–10 clearly relate to Sidonius’ journey to Rome in 467 and subsequent appointment to the urban prefecture. Ep. 1.3, 4a, and 6 are also linked to a journey to Rome, and it would be natural to think they were from the same journey.77 But Mathisen himself has demonstrated beyond doubt on prosopographical grounds that these three letters belong to Sidonius’ journey to Rome in 455 along with his father-in-law, the emperor Avitus.78 So a Roman narrative arc seems to be created, but it melds together letters from two journeys undertaken in very different circumstances twelve years apart. This should warn us against taking it for granted that adjacent letters on related themes are placed there because they are chronologically close together

4.2 Letters Adapted or Created for the Collection The discussion so far has worked on the assumption that it is arrangement with limited respect for chronology and lack of explicit historical references that make dating the letters so hard; it is now time to turn to a rather more fundamental issue. From the very first letter, two perspectives are possible on the collection (Ep. 1.1.1): . . . ut si quae litterae paulo politiores varia occasione fluxerunt, prout eas causa, persona, tempus elicuit, omnes retractatis exemplaribus enucleatisque uno volumine includam . . . that if any letters written with a little more polish have flowed from my pen on different occasions as this or that affair, person, or situation called them forth, and to revise and correct the originals and combine them all in a single book. First, the letters are documents written in the past and retrieved by the author; in later programmatic letters Sidonius will evoke the materiality (or metaphor) of letters retrieved from a cupboard, for example (Ep. 8.1.1, cf. 9.13.6), or crumbling ancient bits of paper (Ep. 9.16.2). Second, although the letters were already somewhat polished, they are being subjected to revision for publication in a single physical volume, and will supposedly be subject to further improvement by the dedicatee of the volume, Constantius. They are part of a collection for which they are being revised, and at the point of entering the collection may not just have a different meaning from when they were first written, but may actually have been rewritten. What is the nature and extent of potential rewriting? The question is tied to other questions: is the primary unit the correspondence as a whole or the individual letters within it? Are Sidonius’ letters actually a source contemporary with the events they describe? It has always been clear to Sidonius scholars, even if not always made explicit, that the letters exist on a continuum between real documents and compositions for the collection. Thus even André Loyen, for example, whose approach was to treat them as real documents to which a firm date could be attached, was perfectly capable of arguing that a letter might have been written for the collection (for example, Ep. 1.11).79 The most recent major contribution

77 78 79

Ep. 4b is almost certainly a separate letter: see n. 11 above. Mathisen (2013a) 235–8. Loyen (1970) 2.xiii and 246. On this letter see further at the end of this section.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 181

13/02/20 4:00 PM

182

GAVIN KELLY

on Sidonius, Michael Hanaghan’s Reading Sidonius’ Epistles, takes a vigorously sceptical and theoretically grounded approach that points out the extent to which individual letters include fictive elements; he argues also that many letters evade the revelation of a clear dramatic date. A few years ago, in editing New Approaches, Joop van Waarden and I found ourselves confronting two powerful chapters written from starkly contrasting and not easily reconcilable standpoints. Ralph Mathisen took a practical approach to the acknowledged problems of dating and reconstructing the storage of the original physical letters, while Roy Gibson illuminated the extraordinary extent to which the architecture of the collection reflects Pliny’s letter collection.80 The influence of Pliny is of course particularly striking in the opening letter to Constantius, which not only cites Pliny along with Symmachus as a principal model but is as a whole an expanded imitation of Pliny’s opening letter. The parallel extends to the remarkable feature that Roy Gibson has pointed out, the imitation of a play on words in the names of the first and last addressees of Pliny’s private letters, Septicius Clarus and Fuscus Salinator, with the names and initial letters of his own first and last addressees, Constantius and Firminus.81 While the opening letter to Constantius does not have an existence outside the collection or represent a letter that has been sent before, nevertheless it (like many of Sidonius’ other dedicatory letters) adopts a pose of being a different sort of letter: the type that encloses a literary work for criticism and improvement. Unlike Pliny’s Clarus, this request is made of Constantius – but in language that, as Jill Harries has pointed out, echoes another letter of Pliny.82 The idea of correction by the dedicatee, which is present here as in other letters, surely has to be seen as a polite fiction, since there is no time for it to occur. Textual adjustments at the time of publication are a phenomenon common in letter collections more generally, indeed potentially in any form of occasional writing from the ancient world. We have already seen the frank acknowledgement of the process of stylistic adjustment in the first letter, and this process is repeatedly referred to throughout the collection. Although one may suspect that the calls to others to aid are intended as compliments rather than genuine requests for help, differences can be identified. In one of Sidonius’ models, Symmachus, it has been observed that the first book contains a higher number of archaisms than the later books, and this is in the only book thought to have been adapted for publication by the author himself.83 In the case of Sidonius, all books were adapted for publication by the author, but it has been argued that one can still see a higher degree of allusivity in the letters of the first two books.84 Larger adaptations were surely made to adapt original letters to the literary ideal of a letter that only covered one topic, and to explain things that have not previously been introduced in the collection. A classic example on a small scale comes in the first letter of Book 3, when Sidonius appears for the first time as a bishop. He writes to thank his relative and schoolfriend Avitus for a donation to the church of Clermont, cui praepositus etsi immeritus videor (‘whose head, however unworthily, I seem to be’, Ep. 3.1.2). The letter is clearly datable to 471, at least a year after Sidonius became bishop – a fact of which Avitus, as a relative

80 81 82

83 84

Mathisen (2013a), Gibson (2013a), Hanaghan (2019). Gibson (2011), (2013b) 347–8. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.3 has non recensendas . . . sed defaecandas, ut aiunt limandasque commisi ~ Plin. Ep. 1.10.11 illi te expoliendum limandumque permittas. Harries (1994), 11 n. 27. Haverling (1988) 136–7, 254–5, Callu (1972) 18; see Kelly (2016b). Stevens (1933) 171 n. 2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 182

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

183

and a benefactor of the church, was obviously fully aware. The fact is rather mentioned for the benefit of readers of the collection.85 Other minor changes likely to have been made for publication might be the coding of potentially embarrassing references to individuals (for example, Ep. 9.6.1, 9.7.1).86 But it is also possible to imagine that whole letters may be added for the purposes of the collection. As already discussed, the opening letter to Constantius hardly had an identity independent of the collection, because it is imagined as accompanying it, and the same goes for the other concluding and prefatory letters (Ep. 7.18, 8.1, 8.16, 9.1, 9.16). Similar to these is Ep. 8.5 to Fortunalis, whose opening words, Ibis et tu in paginas nostras, amicitiae columen, Fortunalis, Hibericarum decus illustre regionum (‘You also shall find a place in my pages, tower of friendship, Fortunalis, bright glory of Spanish lands’), break the pretence that we are reading a succession of discrete letters written for purposes other than the collection: Sidonius writes to Fortunalis so that he can become part of the collection.87 Other such moments come at Ep. 7.12, aptly described by van Waarden as a ‘proem in the middle’,88 where Sidonius comments prominently on the placing of Tonantius Ferreolus not in first position in the book but as the first (religiously minded) layman, or Ep. 9.15, where he remarks that no letter to Gelasius has yet been included in the work, and hereby adds one along with a poem, since he heard that Gelasius had enjoyed the poem sent to the younger Tonantius two letters ago. Another possible sort of literary addition was identified in Joop van Waarden’s recent commentary on Ep. 7.12–18.89 Ep. 7.14 is addressed to a certain Philagrius – an individual whom Sidonius has never met in person but with whom he feels a close bond because of their shared intellectual ideals. They see each other inwardly with the eye of the soul. The ideas expressed in the letter owe much to Sidonius’ Platonist friend Mamertus Claudianus, though twisted perhaps towards Sidonius’ aim of creating a Christian aristocratic elite to steer the affairs of Romans in the absence of traditional office-holding. Philagrius is of course an authentic aristocratic name of the period – the name of one of the ancestors of Sidonius’ father-in-law.90 The possible family relationship goes unmentioned here, and it is tempting to consider Philagrius, lover of his estates, a remarkably apt name for the senator of Clermont or Lyon who lives deep in the country and whom Sidonius has somehow never encountered. Philagrius, whether or not an invented addressee, seems to be a nomen loquens, as Constantius and Firminus also are.91 A well-known play on names also comes in the addressee of Ep. 2.2, Domitius: he and Sidonius share names with Domitius Apollinaris, the addressee of one of Pliny’s two villa letters on which this letter is modelled.92 There may well be further examples of talking names or invented addressees.

85 86 87

88 89 90 91 92

See Stevens (1933) 170. Peter (1901) 156 n. 1. The initial et links it to the previous letter in the collection, to Sidonius’ old friend, Consentius of Narbonne. It is interesting to note that the passage alludes to exactly the same passage of Horace (Carm. 2.17.3–4 Maecenas, mearum / grande decus columenque rerum) that he alluded to twice in his panegyric of Consentius (Carm. 23.2 Consenti, columen decusque morum . . . , ibid. 70–1 decus . . . / columen salusque): see Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 156. The divided allusion binds the otherwise unknown Fortunalis into Sidonius’ oeuvre. Van Waarden (2016a) 53. Van Waarden (2016a) 118–19. See also van Waarden in this volume, ch. 1, sect. 4.2.1. See Mathisen’s Prosopography, ch. 2, p. 114. Gibson (2013b) passim. See e.g. Harries (1994) 10, Mratschek (2008) 373–4, Gibson (2013b) 345–6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 183

13/02/20 4:00 PM

184

GAVIN KELLY

Two related forms of creative alteration for the collection can be exemplified in the letters of Book 1. The first has already been referred to: the arrangement of letters 3, 4a, and 6, dealing with the visit to Rome of 455–6, in a sort of overlapping collage with letters 5 and 7–10, dealing with the visit to Rome in 467–9. A fictitious impression of a single journey may be given. The second form of creative alteration concerns Ep. 1.5 and 1.9, the two letters to Heronius from Rome. The first tells of Sidonius’ journey from Lyon to Rome in autumn 467. Sidonius arrives ill, but is revived by prostrating himself before the memorial of the Apostles at St Peter’s; he takes up lodging at an inn, where at the moment of writing he is hiding from the din of the imperial marriage celebrations – the marriage of the daughter of Anthemius, the new emperor sent from Constantinople, and the generalissimo Ricimer. Ep. 1.9 picks up at exactly the same moment, and continues the story with his choice of senatorial patrons, his selection to deliver a panegyric of the new emperor on 1 January, and his reward of appointment as prefect. The letter ends by revealing itself as a cover letter for the said panegyric. Helga Köhler in her commentary attractively proposed that these two letters were probably originally one letter, which had been divided up to avoid including a single letter of excessive length in the book. She adduced a number of pieces of evidence: the themes of both letters are announced in the questions of the correspondent quoted back at him at the start of Ep. 1.5; epistolographical formulae cluster at the start of Ep. 1.5 and the end of 1.9; a verbal echo at the start of Ep. 1.9 picks up precisely from the end of 1.5.93 (This division of long letters might be explained by the Plinian model: in the two Vesuvius letters Pliny self-consciously interrupts himself at the end of Ep. 6.16 only to pick up a few letters later in 6.20.) The striking ending of the first letter, and the beginning of the second, in the portentously described wedding of Alypia and Ricimer may also be considered too good to be true: a comment that reflects with marked negativity on the current political circumstances and on the political unity praised in the panegyric – as if the author knew that the emperor and his son-in-law would before long be engaged in a bitter civil war.94 The extent to which letters have been adapted for publication is never going to be certain. The most important insight from the point of view of dating is that any letter can have several possible dates. These include the date of original composition; the date of incorporation into a collection (which might conceivably happen more than once, on the standard assumption that Book 1 and perhaps Book 2 were published separately before being incorporated into a collection of Books 1–795); and the dramatic date. The last may be earlier because the author has decided to tell the story of an event in the past, or it may be because letters are set at a time chosen for dramatic convenience.96 Ep. 1.11, for example, consciously focuses entirely on describing an episode that took place at some point in the past (the first half of the year 461), but its sense of its own time of writing is vague – other than that Sidonius is at leisure (otium) and looking back at active imperial service (militantem, 1). Its incorporation in the collection has several functions, including a description of Sidonius’ skills in politics and in poetic improvisation; a positive characterisation of the emperor Majorian that contrasts implicitly with 93 94

95 96

Köhler (1995) 265. Hanaghan (2019) 173 is sceptical about Köhler’s suggestion, but at 61–3 he is highly insightful about the narrative drama created by the ending of 1.5. See also Hanaghan (2017c) and below sect. 5.2.3. See further below sect. 5.1. See Hanaghan (2019) ch. 3 on what he calls the Erzählzeit, with illuminating discussions among other letters of Ep. 1.5 (60–3), 1.7 (63–6), 1.10 (66–7), 1.6 (68–9), 3.12 (69–72).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 184

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

185

Sidonius’ less admiring view of his successor Anthemius in earlier letters of the same book and those of the following book.97 It puts an apt seal on a book on Sidonius the politician, showing both his success and the vicissitudes of politics (compare the penultimate letter of the following book, Ep. 2.13, which shows much more clearly why a man should renounce politics). Even André Loyen was willing to suggest that this letter may have been composed at the time of the compilation of Book 1 to fill out a selection that seemed slightly thin (‘pour compléter un recueil un peu mince’).98

4.3 Conclusions on the Problems of Dating Some readers might wonder whether the implication of this discussion is that the whole exercise of dating letters should be abandoned. My own view is that this would be unduly pessimistic, even unscholarly. But those considering the letters as historical evidence or attempting to write commentaries in the future do need to give more consideration to the problems of the exercise than has sometimes been the case. First, in a very high percentage of letters it will be impossible and inappropriate to reach a firm conclusion other than in very broad terms, and it is better to build arguments on the full range of possibilities than on speculation or a hunch. Second, when a rough or even relatively precise date can be calculated it may be impossible to tell whether this is a date of composition or a dramatic date. Third, it is vitally important in dating the letters to consider the date of incorporation into the collection as well as the date of writing. The next section will therefore consider the question of the publication of individual books of Sidonius’ oeuvre.

5 The Publication of Individual Books Sidonius claims that his eighth and ninth book of letters were published as additions to an existing collection, and scholars have believed him (as we shall see in section 5.1). Moreover, for over a century, scholars have tended to argue that Books 1 to 7 were also published in more than one stage. Mommsen thought that Book 1 had been published in c. 469, Book 2 c. 472, Books 5 and 6 c. 474 or 475, Book 7 in 475 (too early a date for the last events described in the book); he does not offer dates for Books 8 and 9 but sees them published ahead of Sidonius’ death, which he places on 21 August 479 (again earlier than the consensus of modern scholarship).99 Stevens by contrast thought that the letters were published only after 477, in short order but with Books 1, 2, and 3 published separately, followed by 4 and 5 together, and each of the rest one by one – a process he imagines to be in response to the ongoing demands of readers.100 Loyen extends Mommsen’s timeline thanks to a better understanding of the chronology of the 470s, but the basic picture is similar: Book 1 was published separately in 469; Book 2 plausibly also separately in 470; Book 3 at the end of 474 before his exile; Books

97 98 99

100

See Hanaghan (2019) 104–12. Loyen (1970) 2.246. Mommsen in Lütjohann (1887) li–liii. Remarkably, Mommsen reached a view on Sidonius’ death by emending Zenone imperatore of Sidonius epitaph as transmitted in MS C to Zenone consule (a reading which is now in fact attested in IRHT, Collection privée 347, Dolveck’s ch. 16 in this volume, Census #53: see Furbetta (2015b)). See also below, sect. 5.1. Stevens (1933) 168–74.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 185

13/02/20 4:00 PM

186

GAVIN KELLY

4 and 5 on his return from exile a couple of years later, Book 7 in 477, Book 8 in 478 or 479, and Book 9 in 482. A different view is found in Harries’ work: for her the original publication from c. 469 is Books 1 and 2, a fuller collection of 1–7 was published in 477, and the two final volumes came at intervals after that, with Book 9 in or after 481.101 Finally, Ralph Mathisen mildly refines Harries’ model, proposing an original publication of Book 1 in 469, a publication in c. 477/8 of Books 1–7, and that of the remaining two books in c. 480 and c. 482.102 Book divisions were by the time of Sidonius predominantly imposed for the sake of artistry and convenience, in the manner of modern chapter divisions. There is no good reason to think that they ever corresponded to scrolls that could be separately circulated: in the history of the book we are a long way into the period when codices were the norm, and the book lengths have none of the uniformity of length typical of rolls (though one can imagine added books being provided in the form of additional quires, which need not be of uniform length).103 One might argue that the approaches of Mommsen, Stevens, and Loyen are overly indebted to the idea of books as practical units. Equally, as we shall see further below, they probably take insufficient account of the aesthetic relationship of Sidonius’ book arrangements to those of the two models, Pliny and Symmachus, whom he cites in his very opening sentence. In considering the publication of Sidonius’ books of letters we have only internal evidence to rely upon: this may be based on explicit authorial statements, or it may be inference on other grounds (inferring a terminus ante quem from silence about major events, or, as already discussed, from the cumulative datings of other letters in the same book), or somewhere in between (ambiguous authorial statements, for example). If we begin with explicit authorial statements, the clearest division between the letters consists of Books 1–7, Book 8, and Book 9.

5.1 The Separate Publication of Books 1–7, Book 8, and Book 9 The end of Book 7 returns to Constantius of Lyon, the addressee of the original dedicatory letter of Book 1, in which he was asked to refine and polish the letters to follow (Ep. 1.1.3). In the last letter of Book 7, addressed to the same Constantius (Ep. 7.18), Sidonius opens with a quotation of Vergil (a te principium, tibi desinet (= Eclogue 8.11)), and hopes that Constantius will enjoy the work he sought (petitum . . . opus, Ep. 7.18.1). Sidonius sends us right back to the first letter. The first letter of Book 8 is addressed to Petronius, and explicitly treats what is to follow as an emptying out of the cupboards in the wake of a ‘previous publication’, ‘additions to a volume already out’ (superiore vulgatu, Ep. 8.1.1, iam propalati augmenta voluminis, 8.1.2). The brevity of the addition is emphasised (parvi adhuc numeri, 8.1.1), with a comparison to a marginal addition. At the end of Book 8 comes another letter to Constantius concluding the new collection, offering the toil of correction (correctionis labor) of Book 8 to Petronius and the honour of publication (honor editionis) to Constantius (Ep. 8.16).104 The first letter of Book 9 is addressed to Firminus, who is said to have pointed out the precedent of Pliny for adding a ninth book to the previous ones (Ep. 9.1.1). Again, addition to a previous book is explicitly

101

102

103 104

Harries (1994) 7–10; this is the current communis opinio and is followed by e.g. Mratschek (2017) 312, Hanaghan (2019) 108, 170–4, 191. Mathisen (2013a) 225–31. The list of authors here is a selective one, of course; one might add many other names (e.g. Peter (1901) 154–7), as well as those who have published commentaries on individual books. See Stover (forthcoming). The metaphors by which the book is imagined in this letter are deliberately mixed. Sidonius likes to conjure up images of writing on scrolls, much as moderns do of using their pen.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 186

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

187

attested (opusculo prius edito praesentis augmenti sera coniunctio est, ‘the addition of this present supplement to a work already published is tardy’, 2), and he refers to the problem of one body of material having a single beginning but three epilogi (that is, Ep. 7.18, 8.16, 9.16). The book ends with a further letter to the same Firminus (Ep. 9.16), explicitly closing the collection. Nowhere other than between Books 7, 8, and 9 do we find this explicit language that suggests a break in publication. The datings of the individual letters match this. While some letters towards the end of Books 1–7 portray the end of Roman power in the Auvergne and Gaul (in 475–7), Book 8 presents itself as taking place in a post-Roman world, even if it has a few letters from earlier.105 And the same phenomenon of letters from the late 470s or perhaps even later (again with an admixture of some earlier ones) can be found in Book 9.106 Moreover, there are letters in Books 8 and 9 describing published works that look very much like the collection of Books 1–7. In Ep. 8.6.2 to Namatius, Sidonius boasts how Nicetius, a much admired member of the older generation, ‘extols with boundless eulogy the volumes of the present work’ (praeconio . . . immenso praesentis opusculi volumina extollit). The plural volumina is sufficient here to show that this is not, as Loyen thought, a reference to Book 1, and in fact the letter clearly belongs to 477 or after, since Sidonius at its close affects just to have heard the news that Namatius has joned Euric’s navy. We are implicitly in a period after the end of Roman rule.107 As for praesentis opusculi, it is a reminder of the paradoxical way that letters can have an existence within the collection as well as independently. In Ep. 9.11 Sidonius discusses a book that he had sent to bishop Lupus: the book (libellus, 1; volumen, 2, 3; opus, 2; liber, 3) had been made available (reseratu, 2; in operibus edendis, 4), was ‘full and weighed down with a variegated mass of topics, times, and persons’ (plenum onustumque vario causarum temporum personarumque congestu, 3, an allusion to Ep. 1.1.1 prout causa persona tempus elicuit); Lupus had three letters in it, including one in first position in a book (5, referring to Ep. 6.1, 4, and 9), and is often mentioned in letters to others (Ep. 4.17.3, 7.13.1, 8.14.2, and 8.15.1). All of this points to a collection of Book 1 to 7, or conceivably 1 to 8. So it seems certain that Books 8 and 9 are indeed later additions, belonging to the late 470s or early 480s. This does not, of course, rule out the strong possibility that Sidonius already intended to supplement his seven-book collection at the time he published it. It has been argued by Roy Gibson that the false endings in Book 7 and Book 8 emulate a feature of Pliny’s nine-book collection of personal letters – as does so much else in Sidonius.108 Can we in fact date Books 8 and 9? Scholarly approaches have been to assign them to dates after Books 1–7 with a certain degree of imprecision. In Book 8, many letters are selfevidently set in a period where Roman government no longer exists: Ep. 8.2, 8.3, 8.6, 8.9, and 8.11 (since the last, describing the death of the addressee of Ep. 8.9, must self-evidently postdate it). Ep. 8.7 congratulates Audax on his appointment as prefect of Rome, which we know from external evidence was in 474 or at the latest 475 under Julius Nepos; Ep. 8.12 is from the early 460s;109 and Ep. 8.8 may also be an older letter. There are no firm dating criteria

105

106 107 108

109

See Overwien (2009b) for a forceful reading of the book in these terms, and below for discussion of individual letters. See the end of this section for discussion. Against Loyen (1970) 2.216, see PLRE 2, 771 (Namatius 1) and Kaufmann (1995) 165–6 n. 459. Gibson (2013a, 2013b). It is tempting when dealing with an author as artful as Sidonius to keep in mind the faint possibility that the addition of Books 8 and 9 to 1–7 is in fact an internal feature of a collection published as the nine books we have them, but much incidental evidence points to their being later additions. See above, sect. 3.1.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 187

13/02/20 4:00 PM

188

GAVIN KELLY

for Ep. 8.4,110 and none for Ep. 8.13–15 except that Sidonius is clearly a bishop. Ep. 8.1, 5, and 16 are letters of dedication or written for the collection. So other than that the collection postdates the end of Roman Gaul and the publication of 1–7, there is no firm dating criterion for Book 8. As for Book 9, a number of older letters are found in the episcopal letters 2–11. In Ep. 9.2, Sidonius characterises himself as a novus clericus, so c. 470; Ep. 9.3 is during his exile of 475–7; Ep. 9.4 is dated plausibly enough to 473 by Loyen and placed in the middle of the sequence of letters to Graecus; Ep. 9.5 signals the conclusion of war between the Visigoths and Burgundians in 477;111 Ep. 9.6, 7, 8, and 10 have no dating criterion other than that Sidonius is a bishop and that 9.8 belongs after 8.14 to the same addressee.112 Ep. 9.9 seems to be written in the period when Clermont was troubled by Visigoths in the summers, and is dated by Loyen and Kaufmann to 471.113 Ep. 9.11, as we have already seen, looks back on the collection of Books 1 to 7 (and conceivably also 8); Lupus is said to have been bishop for fifty years. The letters that follow, Ep. 9.12–16, clearly form a set, after ten preceding letters all addressed to bishops. Ep. 9.12 to Oresius refuses a request for new poems on the basis of Sidonius’ religious commitment (while admitting that he may include old poems in future letters). It is, it turns out, one of those letters that draws attention to its position in the collection and is at least partially composed for it, and the letters that follow include poems both old (in their dramatic date at least), such as Carm. 37 in Ep. 9.13.5, and new, such as Carm. 36 in Ep. 9.13.2, Carm. 40 in Ep. 9.15.1, and Carm. 41 in Ep. 9.16.3. In doing so, there are some internal connections: Ep. 9.15 alludes to Ep. 9.13, and Ep. 9.16 to 9.15. Two of the letters have approximate dating criteria. Ep. 9.12 remarks first that Sidonius had shunned poetry when he devoted himself to religion (1) and then that he had held silence for three Olympiads (2). Loyen interpreted the first as meaning 469 or 470 and added twelve years to make a date of 481 or 482.114 Meanwhile, Ep. 9.13 dates itself approximately twenty years after the poem Sidonius had recited at Majorian’s court, in 479. Loyen meanwhile dated Ep. 9.14 to Burgundio slightly earlier than the others in the group, on the basis of the political circumstances that made it impossible for Burgundio to study in Rome. But it is tempting to see if these five letters, at least three of which show clear signs of being written for the collection, can be dated more closely to each other, and seen as an epilogue to the collection. In an article of 2015, Luciana Furbetta drew attention to the hitherto unknown version of Sidonius’ epitaph in the manuscript IRHT Collection privée 347, which gave a date for Sidonius’ death of 21 August in Zeno’s consulship (Zenone consule), rather than 21 August when Zeno was emperor (Zenone imperatore), as attested in C.115 In many ways a consular

110

111 112 113 114 115

Loyen’s argument at this point is a good example of his over-confidence, arguing that the letter’s final encouragement to adopt a religious life, combined with the ongoing recognition of Consentius as a great Gallic poet in Carm. 40 (Ep. 9.15.1) 22, should encourage us to place it as late as possible (Loyen (1970) 3.216) – as if exhortations to religious commitment were invariably successful or involved giving up poetry. Kaufmann (1995) 183 n. 538. In all these cases Loyen suggests more precise dates on weak grounds. Loyen (1970) 3.213, Kaufmann (1995) 183. Loyen (1970) 3. See n. 99 above, and in this volume van Waarden ch. 1, sect. 2, Mathisen ch. 2, sect. 10.7, where the opposite view is taken.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 188

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

189

date makes more sense; Zeno was sole consul in 475 and 479, so the lack of a colleague’s name would not be a problem (if Sidonius had died in 479, the correct formula would, technically speaking, be Zenone Augusto iii consule, but iteration numbers are not invariably used in practice: other western inscriptions from this year do not have them116). The reading Zenone consule could certainly be an interpolation or a conjecture. But is it possible that Sidonius died in 479? The manuscript discovery makes it tempting to look again at the last letters of Book 9. Ep. 9.13 places itself about twenty years after an event datable to 459. Ep. 9.12, meanwhile, says that Sidonius has not written poetry for three Olympiads. While he had in fact written some shorter poems, as amply attested by section 3.4 above, it might be possible (1) to date Sidonius’ poetic silence not from his consecration but from his last major poem, the Panegyric of Anthemius of 1 January 468, and (2) to postulate that he counted the three Olympiads inclusively. That would take us to winter of 478/9. The very last letter, Ep. 9.16, is set in a winter where ink freezes in the pen of Sidonius’ amanuensis. While this is obviously also a metaphorical winter, there is nothing to stop us from seeing the last five letters as belonging to the early part of the year 479, and from considering the death-date of 21 August 479 implied by the new version of the epitaph as potentially authentic. Of course, it should be acknowledged that the reading might be an error, and other evidence (that of Gregory of Tours, for example) should be duly considered. But at any rate, the investigation above shows that in terms of actual chronological criteria, there is very little to date Books 8 or 9 other than them being subsequent to Books 1 to 7 and to the end of Roman power in Gaul.

5.2 Were Books 1 and 2 Published Earlier Than the Rest? There are no explicit statements of a new beginning or formal closure coinciding with a bookend between the opening letter of Book 1 and the end of 7. Ep. 5.1 has something of a prefatory feel, while Ep. 3.14 (the final letter of its book) has a closural one, but this is evidence for artful arrangement rather than a new start. Equally, aesthetic patterns are discernible across the collection (for example, the second letter of the first book is addressed to his brother-in-law and contains a positive physiognomical description of a Gothic king, while the second last letter of the third book, Ep. 3.13, is addressed to his son and contains a negative physiognomical description of a parasite117). But it is hard to infer from aesthetic patterns like this anything about the date of publication of groups of books, as opposed to the conclusion that arrangement mattered when Sidonius was creating the final collection. The case for the early publication of Book 1 and possibly Book 2 rests on two premises. The first of these is that Sidonius refers back to letters already published at places in Books 3–7. The second is that nothing in those books can be dated later than 469, and there is no reference to his episcopate. A further test might be whether the publication of any of the content of these two books in the time around 469 would be particularly timely or particularly ill-timed.

116 117

See CLRE s.a. 479 (p. 492). Köhler (1995) 8, Giannotti (2015) 228.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 189

13/02/20 4:00 PM

190

GAVIN KELLY

5.2.1 References to the Letters as Already Available? Passages that have been seen as reflecting back on existing publications of letters include the following:118 •

•

•

•

Ep. 3.14.1 to Placidus (the final letter of a book): Quamquam te tua tenet Gratianopolis, comperi tamen hospitum veterum fido relatu quod meas nugas sive confectas opere prosario seu poetarum stilo cantilenosas plus voluminum lectione dignere repositorum. gaudeo hoc ipso, quod recognovi chartulis occupari nostris otium tuum, ‘Although you are still detained in your dear Grenoble, I have learned by the trustworthy report of old friends that you are kind enough to esteem my own trifles, whether fashioned as prose or warbling in poetic style, above the reading of the volumes in your cases. This itself is a delight to me, to have learnt that my sheets occupy your leisure hours.’ Sidonius then goes on to speak about critics of his work (studii nostri derogatoribus, 2). Ep. 4.10.2 to Felix (Sidonius is attempting to resume contact with his old friend, who seems to have fallen out with him): sed dicere solebas, quamquam fatigans, quod meam quasi facundiam vererere. excusatio istaec, etiamsi fuisset vera, transierat. post terminatum libellum, qui parum cultior est, reliquas denuo litteras usuali, licet accuratus mihi melior non sit, sermone contexo: non enim tanti est poliri formulas editione carituras, ‘It is true that you used to say, though in a bantering way, that you were overawed by my “eloquence”. This excuse of yours, even if it had been true, had passed. After finishing my little book, which is a little more polished, I am once again fashioning my letters henceforth in ordinary speech (although in my case elaborate embellishment might be no improvement); for it is not worthwhile polishing phrases which will never be published.’ Ep. 4.22.1 to Leo: Vir magnificus Hesperius . . . praecipere te dixit ut epistularum curam, iam terminatis libris earum, converteremus ad stilum historiae, ‘The honourable Hesperius . . . reported that you enjoined me to turn the care I exercise on letters to the composition of history, now that the books of the former are finished’ (or ‘once the books of the former are finished’?119). Ep. 5.1.1 to Petronius: audio quod lectitandis epistulis meis voluptuosam patientiam impendas, ‘I hear that you devote pleasurable pains to the reading of my letters.’ (The poem goes on to offer a gift of neniae, ‘dirges’, in place of copies of letters.)

Of these four letters, the first, which refers to light works in both prose and verse but not specifically to letters, is barely datable. The following text does suggest the possibility of informal circulation of letters in shapes less than book form. The fourth was dated by Loyen to 470/1 on the assumption, first, that the individual named is attached to the church of Clermont, so after ordination, and, second, that at least one book of letters has recently been published – which Loyen assumed to have been in the late 460s.120 It is not impossible that the letters that Petronius, the future dedicatee of Book 8, likes (re-)reading are simply those that he or those known to him have received from Sidonius.

118

119 120

One interesting pair of letters here omitted from discussion is Ruricius, Ep. 1.8 to Sidonius and its reply Sidon. Ep. 4.16. Ruricius acknowledges having sinned against Sidonius by copying a codex that belongs to him without permission. There is, however, no indication of what the work is or even whether it is actually by Sidonius himself (Mathisen (1999a) ad loc. thinks not). This alternative translation does not convince me, but it is essentially the same as that of Anderson, a good judge. Loyen (1970) 2.255.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 190

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

191

The second and third letters above are securely datable to a period late in the production of the first seven books, during Sidonius’ exile from Clermont in 475–7 (me soli patrii finibus eliminatum peregrinationis adversa fregerunt, Ep. 4.10.1; peregrinatio nostra, Ep. 4.22.4), during which he is known to have been working on the assembly of his collection.121 They are a long time after the alleged publication of Books 1 and 2 in 469; they refer to a recent or even imminent completion of either a book, libellus, or multiple libri, which is inappropriate to the first two books; the references are either to a more recently completed partial work (and so are not evidence for Books 1 and perhaps 2 in the late 460s), or, better, refer to Books 1–7 as we have them, in which these could be seen as letters included in the collection while it was being completed and as written at least partially for them, with a similar role to Ep. 7.12 to Tonantius Ferreolus. In conclusion, the evidence that Sidonius had already published letters in book form before his complete edition of Books 1–7 is rather more ambiguous than it may at first sight appear. He had certainly acquired a reputation (Mamertus Claudianus called him veteris reparator eloquentiae, ‘restorer of the old eloquence’: De statu animae, praef.). Some nugae in prose were available to Placidus in Grenoble, but were these full books of letters? One might actually suggest from the contrast between Sidonius’ chartulae (pieces of paper) and the physical books in cupboards or shelves (voluminum . . . repositorum, Ep. 3.14.1) that they were not.

5.2.2 Termini for the Publication of Books 1 and 2 It is true that nothing in Books 1 and 2 can be dated with absolute certainty later than 469: as we have seen, the letters of the first book cluster in the main around his two known visits to Rome, in 455–6 and 467–8/9.122 Those in Book 2 are markedly harder to date, since the book largely concerns aristocratic leisure: many letters simply belong to some point in the 460s before or after his visit to Rome. The opening letter of the book, Ep. 2.1, is the one that has probably received the latest dating, since it includes an attack on the corrupt official Seronatus, accused of collusion with the Visigoths. This has traditionally been dated to 470 or 469 dependent on when scholars date Sidonius’ ordination, which it is seen to precede. But a good case has been made by Gillett that Seronatus’ activity is likely to belong considerably later, that the reference to the emperor Anthemius’ lack of resources fits better in 472 than in 469 or 470.123 In that case, Sidonius would be bishop by the time the letter was written. The fact that the episcopate is not mentioned in the second book is a strategic decision by Sidonius in the arrangement of his letters: a book on politics, a book on otium, and then mention of his episcopate in the first letter of Book 3 (matched at the end of the grouping Books 1–7 by two books either to bishops or, from 7.12 to 7.18, of lower but still religious status). This fits with Roy Gibson’s analysis: Gibson points out that the delayed mention of the episcopate matches Sidonius’ model Pliny, who reaches his consulate in the third book of letters.124 In that case, Sidonius’ failure to mention the episcopate before Book 3 cannot be taken as a terminus ante quem for either of the first two books.

121

122 123 124

‘As for me, banished from the borders of my ancestral soil, I have been broken by the adversities of wandering’, ‘our wandering’. On the chronological problems related to Sidonius’ prefecture see sect. 4.1 above. Gillett (1999) 28 n. 98; see also Delaplace (2015) 248 n. 71. Gibson (2013b) 347–8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 191

13/02/20 4:00 PM

192

GAVIN KELLY

5.2.3 The Message of Books 1 and 2 in c. 469 Are there any reasons to assume the publication of either of these books in the period between Sidonius’ urban prefecture and his ordination would be particularly apt – or inept? The context in which Sidonius was ordained is notoriously obscure, but one clear inference is that his sympathy for Arvandus, charged with collusion with the Visigoths against Anthemius, made Sidonius unpopular among his fellow nobles. After the end of his urban prefecture, he had much to explain, and so the idea of a publication of Book 1 with a partially exculpatory purpose may be tempting. Another letter in Book 1 may contribute to this: immediately after the prefatory letter, Sidonius begins (Ep. 1.2) by answering a request from his brother-in-law, Agricola, to describe the court of king Theoderic of the Visigoths (453–66/7). It seems surprising that Agricola needed to know this information, being the son of Avitus, a man with a long relationship with the Goths. Sivan’s attractive theory is that this letter was originally circulated in 456 as an open letter in Gaul and Rome in defence of the close alliance that Avitus had with the Goths.125 She then argues, admittedly taking the date of 468/9 for the publication of Book 1 for granted, that in 469 Sidonius put the letter in such a prominent position as part of an implicit defence of a good relationship with the Visigoths.126 As Sidonius was soon to take a very different view of the Goths, this argument could be adduced in support of early publication of Book 1, even if it can only explain some of the choices made in the compilation of Book 1.127 By contrast, one problem with seeing the publication of Book 2 and perhaps also Book 1 in this period may come from the treatment of the emperor Anthemius. This problem has already been touched on at several points. The opening letter of Book 2 remarks that no help can be expected from the emperor Anthemius (si nullae, quantum rumor est, Anthemii principis opes, Ep. 2.1.4), and it has been argued that the situation of the letter as a whole better fits 471 or 472 than the usually ascribed date of 469 or 470. But even if that argument were not credited, it would be tactless and risky to publish such a letter when Anthemius was still the legitimate emperor or before Seronatus was condemned, as Mommsen long ago pointed out.128 There are other statements about Anthemius, even in Book 1, that raise similar questions. As already mentioned, Sidonius arrives in Rome at the time of the marriage of Ricimer and Anthemius’ daughter at the end of Ep. 1.5 and the story is picked up at the same point in 1.9. The emphasis is on this as a futile, noisy, and wasteful business (post imperii utriusque opes eventilatas, Ep. 1.9.1129), and it is tempting to see an ironic addition after the civil war between father-in-law and son-in-law had begun in earnest, a couple of years later. The inclusion in Ep. 1.7.5 of Arvandus’ jibe against the Graecus imperator, even if in the mouth of another, is also striking. If it seems not quite certain that these cannot belong in Anthemius’ reign – Michael Hanaghan, for example, in a detailed analysis points out that they avoid direct criticism130 – the criticism of Anthemius nonetheless sits uneasily with early publication of Book 1 and, even more, Book 2. 125 126 127

128 129 130

Sivan (1989a) 89. Sivan (1989a) 91–4. This approach has perhaps most cogently been argued by Harries (1994) 12–14: see also Delaplace (2015) 245–6. For further thoughts and references see Hanaghan (2019) 96. Mommsen in Lütjohann (1887) li. Note the intratextual link to the nullae . . . opes of Anthemius in Ep. 2.1.4. Hanaghan (2019) 105–8. He is wrong at 174 and n. 15 to adduce the panegyric as offering covert criticism.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 192

13/02/20 4:00 PM

DATING THE WORKS OF SIDONIUS

193

5.3 Conclusions on the Publication of the Books within the Collection In section 5.1 it was shown that the unitary publication of Books 1 to 7 in c. 477 was plausibly followed by that of 8 and 9. This might at first sight seem a challenge to the Plinian model of nine books, by showing it as an afterthought. In fact, it is possible to conclude that Sidonius wrote seven books with the intention of adding to them; the false closure can then be seen as mirroring a feature of Pliny’s collection. A significant number of the letters in Books 8 and 9 create a greater impression of being written for the book. Such dating criteria as there are show that these books were not necessarily written very long after the edition of Books 1–7, and indeed the death-date suggested by the newly discovered version of the epitaph could be authentic. It is not a necessary conclusion that Sidonius published either Book 1 or Book 2 of the letters before his other books (sections 5.2 and 5.2.1), and before his ordination; there is a strong case that at least one letter in Book 2 may belong sometime after Sidonius’ ordination (section 5.2.2), and while some aspects of the selection of letters in Book 1 might have particular point in c. 469, there are other aspects of Books 1 and 2 that would fit better later (section 5.2.3). Importantly, the fact that the two books do not mention his ordination does not mean that they must have been published before it. Sidonius was capable of holding back letters for narrative purposes, and the Plinian model offers a partial explanation. Were any of Sidonius’ letters formally published before the collection of Books 1–7 in c. 477? The references inside the collection can be explained by more informal forms of publication in ways that preceded the current collection, including the circulation of individual letters. If any of the current books were previously circulated, Book 1 is much the likeliest. But I add one thought: if Book 1 was published separately, it was almost certainly without the current opening letter, which responds very closely to Ep. 7.18 in its contents. The single volume referred to there will be Books 1–7.131 I have had cause to mention the Plinian model so far, but it is worth mentioning that Sidonius probably knew the author that he mentions even before Pliny in Ep. 1.1.1, Symmachus, in a seven-book collection.132 Perhaps Sidonius meant to write first a Symmachan and then a Plinian collection.

6 Conclusion: Chronology and the Study of Sidonius In this chapter I have argued that dating the poems and letters of Sidonius needs an approach that understands the full range of possibilities and acknowledges the limitations of any conclusions. Excessive certainty brings the danger of misleading those who want to use Sidonius as a historical source, or just to understand how different texts fit together. The challenges are greater for the letters, since the letter collection is at least as important a literary construct as the individual letters, which were clearly changed in various ways for publication and may have taken on different meanings at the time of publication; some letters may not have had an existence outside the collection. Where scholars may reasonably disagree is in their understanding of the extent to which the collection supersedes and overwrites the ‘original’ letters. Of the panegyrics and shorter poems, I have assumed that the works have not been rewritten on later occasions: the absence of such changes cannot be proved, but neither can their presence. 131

132

Van Waarden (2016a) 258; see also his close discussion of the term volumen, ibid. 32–40. It is clear that volumen refers to the material book, not to a scroll. There is therefore no problem with it consisting of something relatively large, pace Stevens (1933) 168 and Harries (1994) 7. Roda (1979).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 193

13/02/20 4:00 PM

194

GAVIN KELLY

The conclusions can be summarised as follows: Sidonius’ panegyrics make a coherent collection, which Sidonius might well have put together shortly after the delivery of the Panegyric of Anthemius in 468, but we cannot prove this (section 2). The Carmina minora are a separate and coherent collection (subject to the proviso that Carm. 22 and 23 may be extraneous to it); this collection belongs in the mid- rather than the late 460s, and the scholarly assumption of a unified collection of all 24 carmina in 469 is not well founded (sections 3.1–3). It seems unquestionable that there was a collection of letters Books 1–7 made in c. 477, and that Books 8 and 9 were added later (but possibly not much later), and I argue that Sidonius may have finished his collection (and died?) as early as 479. The evidence for the circulation of individual books of letters before 477 is much weaker than has been assumed, though individual readers did read versions of letters or prose works by Sidonius before 477. If any of the current books were separately published, Books 1 and 2 are the only candidates, and Book 1 a much more plausible one than Book 2 (section 5). How does this affect the dating of individual letters, something offered in plenty of individual cases here but not for the whole corpus? It will still often be possible to come up with a dramatic date, narrow or broad, for a letter, but the place in the collection should also be considered as part of the process. If, as I think, Book 2 was not circulated until the collection was formed in 477, for example, the timeless description of Sidonius’ villa in Ep. 2.2, set in a seemingly endless summer, becomes even more clearly an idealistic and nostalgic picture – something which is the case whether it was genuinely written to a schoolteacher in Clermont in the mid-460s or was actually composed by Sidonius in the gloom of his banishment from his see a decade later, with an appropriate name attached at the start.133 Scholars who are interested in dating and in the historicity of the letters need to hold both possible approaches in mind; readers are entitled to acquiesce in Sidonius’ careful curation of his story, or to rebel against it.

7 Further Reading The standard discussion of the dating of the letters, though not without many problems in methodology and conclusions, is that in the ‘Chronologie des lettres’ in Loyen (1970) 2.245–57 and 3.213–19; for the shorter poems see Schetter (1992). Observations on individual poems and letters can be found in the various commentaries to individual poems or books, and valuable remarks applicable to the whole oeuvre can be found in Stevens (1933), Harries (1994), and Kaufmann (1995), as well as Martindale’s Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE) 2. The best introduction to the methodological problems is to read the adjacent and contrasting chapters by Mathisen (2013a) and Gibson (2013a). Hanaghan (2019) illustrates throughout the fictive qualities of Sidonius’ work and of its sense of time.

133

See at n. 92 above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 194

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Part II Sidonius in his Political, Social, and Religious Context

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 195

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 196

13/02/20 4:00 PM

4 SIDONIUS’ POLITICAL WORLD Michael Kulikowski

S

IDONIUS APOLLINARIS WAS born into a world that had ceased to exist at the time of his death. At one level simply banal – none of us dies in the world we were born into, presuming we live more than a week or two – that statement is true of Sidonius in a non-trivial way: his letters show us that Sidonius, probably not alone, experienced his own biography within a generation aware of its own political belatedness – elegiacally, sometimes bitterly, nostalgic for the world they were raised in, a world that was utterly and irrevocably gone.1 To take the palmary example, in his late Ep. 8.6.2 to Namatius, Sidonius is acutely aware of standing on the cusp of two generations. He is proud to have been acknowledged as surpassing both his juniors and his elders in the political and the literary arts (plurimos iuvenum nec senum paucos vario genere dictandi militandique) but the letter makes clear that such arts are ghosts of a lost past.2 It is no surprise that Sidonius should have felt this way. He was born around the year 430.3 In 449, when his father was the praetorian prefect per Gallias, he witnessed – probably in Arles – the consular games of Astyrius, at which he was too young to be seated.4 His recollection of this moment, with the distribution of largesses and the presentation of petitions, makes for a purple passage in Ep. 8.6, already one of the most nostalgic letters in the collection.5 From birth into adulthood, men born at the same time as Sidonius would have known only a single western emperor, Valentinian III, and an imperial college of Theodosius II and Valentinian. But they would never have witnessed the unified action of eastern and western empire – the last time the eastern dynasty had intervened positively on behalf of its western cadet branch

1

2 3

4 5

The idea of belatedness is that of Harold Bloom. He conceived of it primarily with reference to literature, and the literary belatedness of Late Antiquity has been ably explored in ‘The Library of the Other Antiquity’, a series from Winter-Verlag edited by Marco Formisano. But the concept of belatedness can be applied to manifestations of political culture as well, where it is inextricable from the question of how specifically generational experience, understanding, and memory are formed. Generational knowledge has a long history of investigation, beginning with the philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey and the exiled sociologist Karl Mannheim at the LSE, and with the philosophers José Ortega y Gassett and Julián Marías in Spain. More recent work of importance has come from the critic Fredric Jameson, and there is a large literature on literary and artistic generations that tends to assume their existence rather than demonstrate it. More recent sociological treatments are rare (e.g. Attias-Donfut (1988)), and the problem has tended to be subsumed into the vast literature of memory studies and a growing psychological literature on the generational transmission of trauma. Generational knowledge and experience are real phenomena: the difficulty in using them historically is finding a suitable heuristic. I am presently at work on a monograph that will consider this problem in detail. The same theme, but linking the decline of Latin letters to the failure of Roman arms, is found in Ep. 8.2. PLRE 2, 115–18 (Apollinaris 6). See van Waarden’s ch. 1, sect. 6, in this volume. For individuals mentioned in Sidonius, see also Mathisen’s prosopography in ch. 2 of this volume. PLRE 2, 1120 (Anonymus 6); 174–5 (Astyrius). Ep. 8.6.5–9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 197

13/02/20 4:00 PM

198

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

was in 425.6 By the time Sidonius reached adolescence, Aëtius was secure in his power, with the Augusta Galla Placidia sidelined and every rival general shunted off the political stage. But this supremacy had come at the cost of hollowing out the structural props of the western state – Aëtius (as well as defeated rivals like Felix, Bonifatius, and Theoderic) had perfected a model of political behaviour first discernible at the turn of the fourth to the fifth century: securing a position in the imperial hierarchy by threatening to destroy it by force, in a manner altogether different from the dynamics of usurpation current in the third and fourth centuries.7 Aëtius, himself a child of the catastrophic reign of Honorius, repeatedly placed himself outside the legitimate state hierarchy, relying on hired or borrowed armies, in order to turn around and claim a dominant position within the state.8 When institutions were handled so casually and so brutally, their substantive value became drastically less than any symbolic value they retained. In the East, the steady supply of new gold, and the dominance of a class of petits fonctionnaires who relied on the state for their own economic clout, helped to entrench a resilient state structure.9 In the West, the steady loss of tax revenue, and the demonstrable utility of private armies in support of semi-public ambitions, created an enormous gap between what palatine and provincial bureaucracies could provide and what historical memory suggested they should be able to provide. The men who created this gap had risen to power in the shadow of the magister militum Flavius Constantius (briefly, in 421, the emperor Constantius III).10 They had no intention of destroying the things they were fighting over, but it was the curse of Sidonius’ generation to endure the brutal consequences and try to understand them. Sidonius’ letters (and to some extent even his panegyrics) have the effect of exposing this gap between empire as symbol and imperial reality, between historical memory and present capacities. At the formal level, the recherché content and l’esprit précieux of both the letters and the poems exist in a timeless zone of literary intertextuality, but they betray the spirit of belatedness in its technical definition – not nostalgia alone, but rather an anxious and melancholic conviction of absolute decline that goes beyond literary topos.11 What follows will sketch the outline of Gallic political history in the generation of Sidonius and his immediate ancestors, illustrating how the confident world of his youth disappeared into the political disarray of his old age.

1 The Historical Background Gaul had been one of the engines of fourth-century political life. Arles and Trier had frequently housed emperors or their Caesars. The creation of a Gallic regional prefecture in the 340s created along with it a powerful establishment, linking the regional senatorial aristocracy with the 6

7 8

9 10 11

There are many, many narrative treatments of fifth-century history and all are embedded in the ageless question of decline and fall (versus ‘transformation’). The classic accounts are Seeck (1910–21) vol. 6, Bury (1923) vol. 1, and Stein (1928) 388–590 = Stein and Palanque (1959) 247–399. All are now showing their age. Those more recent treatments most in tune with the analysis presented here are Halsall (2007) 220–83 and Delaplace (2015) 122–256. But for how the very same uneven and generally sparse evidence of this period can be open to radically differing interpretations see Heather (2005) and its numerous restatements. A much fuller statement of the views given here can be found in Kulikowski (2019). For an outline of this dynamic, see Kulikowski (2014). Zecchini (1983) and Heather (2005) 267–375 interpret Aëtius anachronistically, as a bulwark of empire and ‘the last of the Romans’ (as Procopius, Wars 3.3.15, called him in the sixth century), following the long-standing traditions of popular narratives like Hughes (2015). Stickler (2002) is far more nuanced and the treatment of Delaplace (2015) 185–214 is unlikely to be bettered. This is the clear lesson to be learned from Banaji (2007, 2016). For whose career see Lütkenhaus (1998). For the esprit précieux, see famously Loyen (1943) and more recently Roberts (1989).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 198

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

199

international officer class (civilian and military) that thoroughly dominated political life in the second half of the century. This Gallic establishment was acutely aware of its own sectional interests, generally ill-disposed towards the analogous rival establishment at Sirmium, and chary of what it saw as the Constantinian dynasty’s tendency to privilege the Persian frontier over the western empire.12 Generals who had come up through the western military hierarchy were repeatedly implicated in the century’s usurpations and consequent civil wars. Spain was largely demilitarised, but Britain and the Rhineland were heavily garrisoned and had deep reservoirs of experienced junior officers and men and materiel enough to sustain prolonged campaigns.13 Nevertheless, there is some reason to wonder whether the cycle of usurpation and rebellion – Magnentius, perhaps Silvanus, then Magnus Maximus, and Eugenius and Arbogastes – did more damage to the long-term stability of the Gallic prefecture, and to the infrastructure of the northern Gallic diocese, than one would first imagine.14 It has been argued, plausibly if not definitively, that the giant bloodletting of the Magnentius revolt (350–3), and the thinning of the dense defensive network of (especially) the lower Rhineland that went with it, were never fully repaired and that substantial parts of Germania II, Belgica II, and Lugdunensis II were only intermittently or ineffectively administered as the century progressed.15 Be that as it may, the Gallic interior seems to have enjoyed a quiet prosperity throughout the period, and its senatorial aristocracy enjoyed a rare (and nepotistic) moment in the spotlight of history during the ascendancy of Ausonius and his family under Gratian.16 What changed everything was the reign of Honorius and disasters it wrought on the West. We can follow political events in some detail in this period, although there is no cause to rehearse them at length here.17 The invasion of the Germaniae and the Belgicae in 406/7 conditioned everything that followed. On New Year’s Eve 406, there began an invasion of Alans, Vandals, and Suevi that coincided with and exacerbated the effects of military revolts in Britain already underway.18 The usurper Constantine ‘III’ crossed to the continent with most or all of the remaining British field army, seized control of the Gallic provinces as far as the Alps, brought the Spanish government into his camp, and negotiated an uneasy peace with the invaders that confined them to Germania II and Lugdunensis II for three years. Constantine was greatly aided by the chaos in Italy, caused first by Alaric’s incursions and then by the murder of the patricius Stilicho. First Honorius’ regent and later his father-in-law, Stilicho was the last of the military men who had been formed by the rules of the fourth-century empire.19 Though he dominated only the imperial West, he thought in terms of a single empire, with integral eastern and western partes, and of a stable hierarchy of governance in both the civilian and military realms. His death brought on the scene a generation of younger courtiers and officers who had never known the system to function properly: they made their way by seizing their chances as 12

13

14

15 16 17

18

19

The rivalry of the respective high commands is best explored in Kelly (2013c), with further implications drawn out in Kulikowski (2015). For Spain, see Kulikowski (2004) 65–84; for Britain, Mattingly (2008) with Birley (2005) 401–60 for the chronology; for the Rhineland, Hoffmann (1969–70) 333–424 as modified by Scharf (2005) 185–282, and Drinkwater (2007) 266–363 on the frontier dynamic. There is some question about whether Silvanus actually usurped the purple, as narrated in Ammianus 15.5–6: there are no coins, which are generally diagnostic of an actual usurpation. This is a key contention, well supported, of Halsall (2007) 74–96, 195–200. A really adequate treatment of Ausonius and his family awaits an author; in the interim, there is Sivan (1993). The first pathbreaking treatments were Mazzarino (1942) and Demougeot (1950). See now, along with Drinkwater (1998) and Kulikowski (2000), Halsall (2007) 203–34 and Delaplace (2015) 117–64. Note that Kulikowski (2000) is wrong to argue for a date one year earlier, although the article’s other arguments stand. Cameron (1970) remains an essential study of Stilicho.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 199

13/02/20 4:00 PM

200

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

rebellion succeeded rebellion and court intrigues were resolved by open violence, and without the pretence of legal process or obedience to a chain of command.20 They also had much less experience of the wider empire, and fewer long-distance connections. The fifth century would exacerbate this shrinking of horizons. In Gaul, Constantine himself reflects that trend. When the murder of Stilicho suddenly rendered him safe from assault from Italy, he negotiated with Honorius and got far enough in that process for imperial regalia to be sent to him. The Gallic aristocracy was now deeply implicated in his regime – Sidonius’ grandfather Apollinaris served as praetorian prefect to Constantine’s son, the Caesar Constans -- but sections of the Spanish aristocracy and of Constantine’s own high command were less sure.21 He faced an uprising in central Spain and then the rebellion of his best general, Gerontius,22 who proclaimed his own puppet emperor and stirred up the invaders of 406/7: breaking out of the Belgicae and Lugdunenses, they raided far and wide south into the Aquitanicae, Novempopulana, and Narbonensis I, before crossing the Pyrenees into Spain in autumn 409. Several Gallic sources reflect the shock experienced by these peaceful regions, wholly unused to raiding and military occupation, but while the memory of events was a permanent scar, southern Gaul swiftly recovered. Spain, by contrast, where the Alans, Vandals, and Sueves ran wild until 411, was permanently transformed and never fully reintegrated into the imperial order. In Italy, where Alaric had sacked Rome in 410 and promptly died, his brother-in-law Athaulf needed to withdraw the Gothic army to safer ground, laden with treasure and a bevy of well-born hostages.23 Among them was Honorius’ young sister Galla Placidia, with whom he would soon play a critical role in the politics of Gaul.24 In 411, the newly dominant strongman in Honorius’ regime, a man of Balkan origin named Flavius Constantius, gathered the Italian field army, crossed into Provence, besieged Arles, and defeated Constantine. The usurper and his family were executed, while the stillless legitimate regime of Gerontius ended in mutiny and his suicide. Meanwhile, however, a new section of the Gallic elite had risen up against the regime of Honorius. In Germania II in the Rhineland, an aristocrat named Jovinus was proclaimed emperor in 411, backed by his brothers Sebastianus and Sallustius and by two trans-Rhenan warlords, a Burgundian named Guntiarius, and an Alan named Goar.25 This marks an important stage in western imperial politics: the willingness of western aristocrats to seize power in collaboration not just with serving imperial generals, but with strongmen outside the imperial hierarchy altogether.26 The political dynamic would continue – it defined the empire into which Sidonius was born. Jovinus’ regime had some, rather unclear, continuity with that of Constantine III, and Constantius returned to Italy for the winter rather than confront the new usurpation immediately. Athaulf led his followers to Gaul, initially contemplated joining the regime in Germania II, but instead helped suppress it. Claudius Postumus Dardanus, the praetorian prefect of Gaul who had remained loyal to Honorius, was personally responsible for killing Jovinus – Sidonius (Ep. 5.9.1) suggests that Dardanus remained a bête noire of Gallic aristocrats two generations 20 21 22 23 24

25 26

Matthews (1975) 284–328. PLRE 2, 113 (Apollinaris 1). PLRE 2, 508 (Gerontius 5). For the sack, and its various interpretations, see Meier and Patzold (2010) and Lipps et al. (2014). PLRE 2, 176–78 (Athaulfus); 888–9 (Placidia 4). There are a number of book-length treatments of Galla. None is satisfactory. PLRE 2, 621–2 (Iovinus 2), 983 (Sebastianus 2), 971 (Sallustius 2), 526 (Guntiarius), 514–15 (Goar). The four stages in which the imperial West fell apart are treated schematically in Kulikowski (2012).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 200

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

201

later. An orgy of revenge killing marred the start of 413.27 Allies of the Honorian regime hunted down the supporters of Constantine and Jovinus, others using the excuse to settle local scores. Though Ravenna granted an amnesty to the Gauls in June of that year, the comity of Italian and Gallic aristocracies was never really restored. It would take a full generation before the break became obvious, but Gallic and Italian elites were already turning increasingly inwards – by the time a Gallo-Roman tried to govern Italy as emperor in the 450s, the parting of the ways was a long time in the past.28 In the immediate aftermath of Constantine and Jovinus, the Gallic aristocracy could not help but feel alienated from the feckless Honorius and brutal Constantius. More congenial to many southern Gallic senators was the company of Athaulf and his followers. Narbonensis, rich, urban, and cultured, would become the base for yet another imperial regime, and this one legitimately Theodosian: Athaulf would marry Galla Placidia, daughter and sister of emperors, and Narbonne could serve as a quasi-imperial residence. The Roman aristocrat Priscus Attalus, who had briefly assumed the purple during the stand-off between Alaric and the Ravenna regime, delivered the epithalamium at the nuptials of 1 January 414. Placidia may already have been pregnant, or at any rate swiftly became so: the child would be named Theodosius, making imperial ambitions most evident.29 Grasping the scale of the threat, Constantius used a naval blockade to force Athaulf out of Gaul into Spain, where he would could more easily supply his men. Barcino, where Athaulf and Placidia set up court, was marginal in a way that Narbonne was not, yet Constantius did not rest easy until hearing that the infant Theodosius had died, taking the genuine dynastic challenge with him into his silver coffin. Athaulf’s enemies needed no other excuse and he was assassinated in summer of 415. Constantius, emboldened, negotiated the handing over of Placidia to the Ravenna regime, and then forced her into a much-resented marriage. But for the rest of her long career, which lasted well into Sidonius’ youth, she could rely upon Gothic allies to press her own advantage in politics. Meanwhile, Sidonius’ Gallic forebears found themselves temporarily cowed by the aftermath of the usurpations. What the central government did to restore order is not entirely clear, and much of the north of Gaul seems to have been rather quietly abandoned to the devices of local governance from then on. The middle Rhine, the Moselle valley, and the rich territories of southern Lugdunensis remained plugged into the mainstream of imperial politics, as of course did the Aquitanicae and the Narbonenses, but along with Britain, northern Gaul was rapidly becoming post-imperial. Constantius paid the Gothic army in Spain to campaign against the Alans, Vandals, and Sueves, which they did with stunning success until 418, when the general recalled them to Gaul and settled them in a swathe of land from Bordeaux to Toulouse. The logic of this move has been much debated, as not all of Spain had been restored to imperial control; we can probably best understand Constantius’ decision as preserving a useful force more subject to his personal control than were the crack units of the field army, and also a stick with which to beat any Gallic aristocrats who might have a lingering nostalgia for the era of the usurpations.30 We may now safely begin to call the followers of Athaulf, a motley collection of varied origin, Gothic and otherwise, the Goths. They were ruled from 418 by a distant relative of 27 28 29 30

PLRE 2, 346–47 (Dardanus). These points were made as long ago as Stroheker (1948); Kulikowski (2013) is a mise au point. See Marchetta (1987) for a reading of the literary evidence on this regime. Delaplace (2015) 155–62 is now the fullest treatment, and manages to avoid the hindsight that informs too many discussions.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 201

13/02/20 4:00 PM

202

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

Alaric named Theoderic. The Gothic stick was accompanied by a carrot, a new council of the seven provinces, to meet annually at Arles, and to serve as a forum for Gallic interests in interactions with the imperial court in Italy.31 Significantly, the provinces in which Theoderic and his Goths were settled were meant to take an active part in the deliberation of this council. Though the settlers of 418 would in time be transformed into a Gothic polity with a territorial kingdom, no one could have foreseen any such outcome at the time, and certainly no one intended it. For the moment they were loyal servants of the Ravenna regime, where in 421 Constantius became Honorius’ fellow Augustus, a move never recognised by the eastern emperor. He was already the father of an imperial princess, Justa Grata Honoria, born in 418, and of an imperial heir, Valentinianus, born in 419.32 Constantius’ controversial reign did not last long, for he died in September 421, only months after taking the purple. He left behind a regime in which there was no figure with the skills or the power base to equal his own predominance. Regardless of Constantius’ death, western affairs looked more stable at the start of the 420s than they had in many a decade. The rival generals Bonifatius and Castinus waged low-grade hostilities, but Placidia’s support for the former allowed him to regularise a commanding position that he had improperly seized in Africa.33 Unlike the earliest years of the century, the precise events of which have to be understood if subsequent events are to make sense, we can pass relatively rapidly through the 420s, as the details of their endless political wrangling did not in themselves have any lasting effect. Honorius died in 423 and a courtier named Iohannes usurped the throne.34 Galla Placidia was by then based at the court of her cousin Theodosius II at Constantinople, and an eastern army restored her and her son Valentinian III to the western throne in 425. The brief reign of Iohannes had exacerbated the failures of imperial governance on the imperial margins and also thrown up new warlords hoping to imitate the successful hegemony once enjoyed by Constantius. Apart from Placidia’s protegé Bonifatius, the most important of these was Flavius Aëtius, though his real successes belong to the 430s and later.35 He comes to our attention in 425 for one very significant reason – he had been a supporter of Iohannes and just after the usurper had been defeated, he arrived back in Italy from Pannonia, where he had secured the help of a large mercenary army of Huns. Aëtius had been a hostage at a Hunnic court in the 390s and he would rely on Hun allies and mercenaries throughout his career. In 425, the Huns were bought off and returned home without consequence, but their presence had been enough to cow Placidia and her generals into making Aëtius a magister militum himself, the first of many occasions when he would threaten the imperial government to better his position in it. The Huns would remain a permanent presence in the western empire into which Sidonius Apollinaris was born.36 The other main dynamic of the 420s was ceaseless, but fruitless, campaigning on the Rhine frontier, probably mainly directed at Frankish warbands, and in Spain, where the modest restoration of imperial authority of the 410s was rapidly lost: Suevic and Vandal rulers fought one another ineffectually until, in 429, the Vandal king Geiseric transported his followers to Africa.

31 32 33

34 35 36

This council was still an important forum in Sidonius’ day: see Ep. 1.3.3. PLRE 2, 568–69 (Honoria); 1138–39 (Valentinianus 4). PLRE 2, 237–40 (Bonifatius 2); 269–70 (Castinus 2). Wijnendaele (2015) treats Bonifatius’ career comprehensively. PLRE 2, 594–95 (Ioannes 6). PLRE 2, 21–29 (Aetius 7). Amid an enormous bibliography on the Huns, see especially Thompson (1948) and Bóna (1991).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 202

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

203

Moving eastwards from Tingitana by cabotage, Geiseric seized control of the Mauretanias and contemplated moving on the urban heartlands of Numidia, Proconsularis, and Byzacena. Like the Huns, the Vandals now became a permanent part of the western political landscape.37

2 Politics in Sidonius’ Early Years Sidonius’ political world was, more than anything else, shaped by events of the 430s and 440s, which began with the rivalry of Aëtius and Bonifatius spiralling into open warfare. Aëtius had, through well-judged murders, made himself the senior magister militum, but Placidia continued to loathe and mistrust him. Aëtius held the consulate of 432, in which year she tried to depose him and replace him with Bonifatius in the same role. In the pitched battle they fought at Rimini, Aëtius was thoroughly defeated, but Bonifatius received a wound that proved fatal. Fleeing to Pannonia, Aëtius again returned with a force of Huns whose support allowed him to regain his position and also to take the title of patricius. Having successfully suppressed his main rivals, he then turned to negotiating a settlement with Geiseric: the Vandals were ceded control of the Mauretanias and part of Numidia in 435. His response to events in Gaul was quite different: Burgundian warlords from the region of Worms had begun to encroach on Germania I, Maxima Sequanorum, and Lugdunensis II with the cooperation of a part of the local aristocracy. Rather than allow this, Aëtius unleashed his Hunnic allies on the Burgundians, destroying their nascent polity.38 The Pannonian Huns were now ruled by the brothers Bleda and Attila, who had succeeded their uncle Rua in 434. They would spend the next few years consolidating their leadership, and with it Hunnic hegemony over swathes of eastern and central Europe. For the time being, Hunnic forces continued to be crucial to Aëtius’ control of the West, but in the 440s, they turned their unwelcome attention on the east. Before that, in 437, the long-planned marriage of Valentinian III to his cousin Licinia Eudoxia had taken place, and the union soon produced two daughters, the younger of whom was betrothed to Aëtius’ equally young son early in the 440s.39 That stored up problems for the future, but challenges from his junior officers were of greater concern to Aëtius in the immediate term. The Gothic king Theoderic had been able to establish himself, in the 420s and 430s, as a trusted authority figure in the southwest of Gaul.40 Already local Gallo-Romans, and not just his Goths, might find it easier to appeal to him in local disputes than to seek the uncertain assistance of an increasingly distant imperial hierarchy. Sidonius, as a boy in Lyon, would have been aware that parts of Gaul, those nearest the Gothic court, were simultaneously inside, and also outside, the empire.41 When Theoderic and Aëtius came to blows, as they did in the late 430s, Gallo-Romans had for the first time to ask themselves hard questions about what it meant to be a Roman, the emperor’s subject, in times of such conflict. In the 37

38 39 40

41

Steinacher (2016) supersedes all previous monographs on the Vandals, although there are valuable interpretative insights in Modéran (2014), to be read in conjunction with Modéran (2003) on the Mauri. See also Berndt and Steinacher (2008). Favrod (1997) 44–60, Delaplace (2015) 194–6, 220–50. PLRE 2, 410–12 (Eudoxia 2). The account of Wolfram (2009) 178–248 differs in many respects from the analysis of Gothic history developed here, but the section on the Goths in Gaul is fundamentally sound in its treatment of the sources. Note that Wolfram must not be cited from the 1989 English translation, which does not reflect the many updates in subsequent German editions. For Sidonius’ early years, Harries (1994) 36–53.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 203

13/02/20 4:00 PM

204

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

430s, the answer was clear for most of the provincials: the emperor was the emperor and his legitimately empowered representatives were the real Roman government. Forty years later, by contrast, a meaningful majority of provincial elites could see themselves as Romans and yet actively prefer a Gothic or Burgundian king to the emperor. Sidonius lived through that momentous transformation in worldview, and he was never able to reconcile himself to it. The reasons Theoderic and Aëtius clashed in 436/7 are unclear, but the general Litorius, commanding a few imperial forces and a large number of Huns, gave the king’s forces a severe beating before going on to rampage through Armorica (Lugdunensis II and III).42 The region’s population seems to have preferred local leadership and the absence of taxation to imperial governance, probably a belated reaction to decades of neglect – although in official discourse, they were ‘Bacaudae’, rebellious peasants at best, malign bandits at worst.43 Litorius again attacked Theoderic in 439 and this time lost very badly. Thereafter, for the next decade or more, Theoderic reigned peacefully at Toulouse, campaigning in Spain, sometimes in the imperial interest and sometimes on his own behalf. Likewise in 439, Geiseric seized control of Carthage and with it the grain harvest on which the whole Mediterranean economy depended. Sidonius’ Gaul, for all its well-documented interest to us, was actually something of a sideshow in the era’s politics, at least by comparison to the existential threat that the Vandal seizure of Africa represented. A major cooperative attempt between the courts of Valentinian and Theodosius to retake the critical province collapsed in mutual acrimony in 441, and in the next year, a treaty formally ceded most of Numidia and all of Proconsularis and Byzacena to the Vandals; with those key provinces conceded, the notional return of the Mauretanias and Tripolitania to imperial governance was no more than a dead letter.44 This was a really significant moment in the deterioration of imperial control, not just because the crippling loss of revenue meant the western state could never again sustain the costs of its existence, but because it was the first time that a part of the empire had been formally ceded to any power other than the Persian kings.45 (Persia was different, its rulers always treated as all but equals of the Roman emperor.) The Sueves in Gallaecia, the Goths in Aquitania and Narbonensis: these were not cessions of imperial territory, though they might eventually have become so. With the Vandals, it was actual and de iure. Once such a thing became possible, the hitherto unimaginable – a dissolution of imperial rule – could be imagined. And yet from the perspective of Aëtius, the early 440s must have looked quite promising. If his relationship with the Huns was perhaps not as close as it had once been, now that Bleda and Attila were consolidating their central authority, he nevertheless had come to terms with Geiseric, had bloodied Theoderic’s nose sufficiently to keep him in line, and most importantly, he was now able to exercise real control over the emperor in Italy. Our main signal of this is not so much the betrothal of Gaudentius to Valentinian’s daughter Placidia, but the virtual retirement of the elder Galla Placidia, now well into her fifties.46 After nearly two 42 43

44 45

46

PLRE 2, 684–85 (Litorius). The word Bacaudae or Bagaudae is Celtic and occurs in a handful of third-, fourth-, and fifth-century sources (though not Sidonius), where it describes antagonists of the imperial government. Scholars debate the real nature of these mysterious bandits or rebels, but the sources can be found in Sánchez León (1996). Bandits that Sidonius does name are Vargi, which as the name suggests are ‘wolves’ or predators who, in Ep. 6.4, have kidnapped a woman and sold her into slavery. Halsall (2007) 242–54, Delaplace (2015) 196–204, Steinacher (2016) 103–46. On the economic impact of these events, Wickham (2005) remains the single best treatment, though it is difficult to extract a summary version of his argument from the massive tome. PLRE 2, 494 (Gaudentius 7), 887 (Placidia 1).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 204

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

205

decades of keeping Aëtius in check through her Gothic connections and her support for rival generals, she now retreated to Ravenna, where she built a great many churches, but generally removed herself from politics. Moreover, of the other western generals, only men who owed their careers to Aëtius remained, men like Astyrius, Sigisvultus, and Merobaudes.47 They showed no signs of rebellion towards their patron and served him loyally on campaign, mainly in Spain and more to counter Theoderic’s influence there than to achieve any meaningful governance. In northern Gaul, the imperial presence was confined to islands of control in the Rhineland, at Trier, Mainz, and Strasbourg, but for a time it seemed as if the southern Gallic aristocracy had reconciled itself to peaceful accommodation with the Italian regime. So much was this the case that in 443, Aëtius felt able to settle the remaining Burgundians in that part of Maxima Sequanorum known as Sapaudia (to the north of modern Savoy, which takes its name from that Latin place-name).48 For western politics, the 440s were quiet. Attila had his brother Bleda killed, but even then he continued to concentrate his attention on extorting as much money as possible from the eastern empire. By the end of the 440s, most of the more important Balkan cities had been put to the sack, some more than once, and a huge swathe of land south of the Danube was, if not wholly depopulated, certainly devoid of an imperial military presence. It is likely that Attila would have eventually turned on the now-richer pickings of the West even had he not been given an excuse to do so, but in 449, he was. Valentinian’s younger sister, Justa Grata Honoria, had borne the title of Augusta since the later 420s, and presumably travelled with her brother’s court in the ensuing decades. She followed the normal example of Theodosian princesses, remaining unwed rather than risk the creation of cadet lines that might threaten the reigning emperor: the example of her mother Placidia, first with Athaulf, then with Constantius, served as a cautionary tale of the alternative. In 449, the same year Sidonius had joined his father in Arles to watch the consular games of Astyrius, Honoria decided she had had her fill of political quiescence and began plotting a coup – or so we may infer despite much being obscured by the later official story, in which an affair with one of her own procurators was the alleged offence.49 Valentinian had the man executed and betrothed Honoria to an undistinguished Italian senator whom he designated consul for 452.50 Honoria declined to acquiesce, instead inviting Attila to an alliance and marriage to herself. This made good political sense: Geiseric was already connected to the family of Valentinian, Aëtius was planning to be grandfather of an emperor, and to call on Theoderic would have met the implacable opposition of Aëtius. Honoria’s plan was certainly sufficiently frightening that Valentinian nearly had her executed – their mother’s last major achievement was intervening to save her life, before she herself died in 450. Attila, meanwhile, pressed his claim, demanding the western empire as his bride price. In April 451, he invaded Gaul, at the head of his elite Huns and a large army of subject tribes (Gepids, Ostrogoths, Rugi, Heruls, and Sciri).51 Aëtius called up allied troops from the Belgic Franks and the Sapaudian Burgundians, and – no 47

48 49 50 51

PLRE 2, 1010 (Sigisvultus), 756–8 (Merobaudes). Though in his Panegyric to Majorian, Sidonius places the future emperor at the heart of the action as early as this (Carm. 5.198–290), there is no justification for thinking he was more than a very junior officer. Favrod (1997) 185–226, Delaplace (2015) 189–96. PLRE 2, 416 (Eugenius) for the procurator, whose only appointment with history this was. Fl. Bassus Herculanus, PLRE 2, 544–45 (Herculanus). Sidonius has surprisingly little to say about Attila’s invasion, merely a bravura passage in the Panegyric to Avitus (Carm. 7.315–60), an epistolary disavowal, to Prosper (Ep. 8.15), of a planned epic poem on the subject, and an allusion to his correspondent Ferreolus’ having fought against Attila (Ep. 7.12.3). Thompson (1948) 130–48, still valuable; Halsall (2007) 250–4; Delaplace (2015) 204–10.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 205

13/02/20 4:00 PM

206

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

doubt reluctantly – sent an embassy to Toulouse to secure the help of Theoderic. His ambassador was Sidonius’ father-in-law, Eparchius Avitus, and he seems to have convinced the king to coordinate his response to Attila with Aëtius, rather than to go it alone.52 The Gothic and imperial armies brought Attila and his following to battle near Troyes, with the forces on both sides as large as could be mustered in the fifth century. The Huns were routed, but Theoderic died on the battlefield and his eldest son Thorismund rapidly withdrew in order to consolidate his own hold on the Goths against his younger brothers Frederic and Theoderic II. As Attila withdrew to Pannonia to regroup, Aëtius clearly dared not risk a follow-up confrontation, which meant that – despite the hold Attila has long had on imaginations both ancient and modern – the aftermath of his invasion did little more than restore the status quo ante. But Attila was not ready to give up, and in 452 he invaded Italy, sacking Aquileia and Milan and continuing to demand Honoria for his wife. (She herself is never heard of again, and it may be that Valentinian had her killed now that their mother was dead and gone.) Be that as it may, the Italian climate took its toll on the invading army, as it had so often in the past, and after receiving an embassy from the city and senate of Rome that included its bishop Leo, the Hun king withdrew back across the Alps, where he died in 453, his empire disintegrating almost instantaneously. In Gaul, at the same time, Thorismund was murdered by his brothers Frederic and Theoderic, the latter of whom seems to have taken control of the Goths with the former’s approval.53 This transfer of power, which took place without the slightest reference to imperial authority, marks a new phase in the disintegration of the western empire, and the start of a new political order: after the early 450s, we need to see the Goths not as imperial clients, of indeterminate legal status but subject to the emperor, but rather as a de facto independent kingdom on imperial soil. It is Sidonius’ glowing pen-portrait of Theoderic’s court, in which the king is as much Gallic aristocrat as barbarian ruler, that more than anything symbolises this transformation.54 The fact that Theoderic studiously avoided provoking Aëtius after his accession in 453 may suggest that he understood the seriousness of the step he had taken and believed that only discretion would allow him to hang on to his new status.

3 The End of the Western Empire Attila’s death did not mark a return to stability, as it should perhaps have done. Instead, Valentinian’s court descended into tragic farce worthy of Honorius’ reign.55 In September 454, Valentinian murdered Aëtius with his own hand, resenting the patrician’s control as much as Honorius had resented Stilicho.56 Unlike half a century earlier, however, there was no immediate bloodbath. Either Valentinian had a stronger hold on his court and the officer class than the sources can demonstrate, or Aëtius had so effectively overshadowed his subordinates that none dared envisage taking his place. Indeed, the sources are mainly silent on the impact of Aëtius’ murder. But the murder of Valentinian III was a different matter, the beginning of the end of the Roman West. On 16 March 455, two former bodyguards of Aëtius cut the emperor down on the parade ground, and so died the last male heir of Valentinian I and 52 53 54 55 56

Sidonius of course exaggerates the role of his father-in-law Avitus at 7.336–53. See PLRE 2, 115–16 (Thorismodus), 1071–3 (Theodericus 3), 484 (Fredericus). Ep. 1.2. Halsall (2007) 254–6, Delaplace (2015) 204–10. Sidonius, Carm. 7.359, is pungent: Aetium Placidus mactavit semivir amens, ‘Placidus, the mad eunuch, slaughtered Aëtius.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 206

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

207

Theodosius I.57 There was no obvious successor. The eastern emperor Marcian had been only grudgingly accepted as legitimate by Valentinian III and was in no good position to influence the western succession. None of Aëtius’ most successful junior officers was on the spot, and so the succession devolved upon Petronius Maximus, a member of an influential Roman senatorial family, the Anicii.58 With the approval of a compliant senate, Maximus married Valentinian’s widow Eudoxia and betrothed his son to her daughter Eudocia. That was a mistake, as the princess had long since been promised to Geiseric’s son Huneric. Since it was spring, the sea was open, and Geiseric wasted little time. A Vandal fleet descended upon Rome and the city was quite systematically looted, its treasures shipped back to Carthage. Eudoxia, Eudocia, Placidia, and Aëtius’ son Gaudentius accompanied the returning Vandals as honoured guests. Maximus was torn to pieces in the street by the Roman mob who blamed him for their fate.59 Neither senate nor people chose another emperor.60 Instead, one arrived from Gaul. The Gallic aristocrat Eparchius Avitus, father of Sidonius’ wife Papianilla, had accepted a post in Maximus’ short-lived government, undertaking an embassy to Toulouse to announce the new emperor’s accession.61 He was still there (perhaps helping patch up a feud between Theoderic and Frederic) when news of Maximus’ death arrived.62 He took the opportunity, and the military backing Theoderic would provide, to claim the purple for himself, and the Gallic aristocracy was fully supportive. At Arles, in July of 455, the Gallic provincial assembly conferred their seal of legitimacy on the prior military proclamation by Theoderic and his Goths.63 A portion of the Gothic military accompanied Avitus to Rome, while Theoderic and the larger part of his army invaded Spain, intending to destroy the Suevic kingdom in Gallaecia once and for all.64 In Rome, the new emperor was received cautiously at best. On 1 January 456, his son-in-law Sidonius delivered what would prove the first of three panegyrics, to three different emperors, in the course of just over a decade. The tension of the situation can be inferred not from the baroque architecture of Sidonius’ text but from the not-so-subtle warning it issues to the Roman senate – Italy has had her chance, and now Gaul will repair the damage Italian failures had caused. We have long since seen the relative alienation of the Gallic aristocracy from its Italian counterpart, and from an Italian regime that increasingly ignored Gallic desires. Now, and foolishly, Avitus did nothing at all to conciliate the Romans. With very few exceptions (such as the urban prefect Vettius Iunius Valentinus), the whole of Avitus’ administration was drawn from Gauls.65 The same was true of the senior military officers, though the lesser commands in the Italian comitatenses were held by would-be heirs to Aëtius like Ricimer, Maiorianus (the future emperor Majorian), and Remistus.66 These saw little to be gained by helping make a

57 58 59 60 61 62 63

64 65 66

Unusually, their names are preserved: PLRE 2, 1117–18 (Thraustila 1), 810 (Optila). PLRE 2, 749–51 (Maximus 22). On Maximus, Sidonius is prudently quiet: Carm. 7.441–51 and Ep. 2.13. Steinacher (2016) 192–205. PLRE 2, 196–8 (Avitus 5), 830 (Papianilla 2). That a confrontation was brewing between the Gothic brothers was argued to little notice in Kulikowski (2008). This is a sign of how the dynamic had changed – with its being so unclear what constituted the legitimate imperial army, Theoderic’s men could enact the traditional military acclamation of a new emperor. See Delaplace (2015) 215–20. A major source for the acclamation, though filtered through the panegyrical lens, is Sidonius, Carm. 7.452–602. Kulikowski (2004) 186–9. PLRE 2, 1140, with the nomen Vettius confirmed in CIL 6.41403. PLRE 2, 942–5 (Ricimer 2), 702–3 (Maiorianus), 939 (Remistus).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 207

13/02/20 4:00 PM

208

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

success of the Avitan regime, though Ricimer got himself promoted to a senior magisterium after launching a successful raid against some Vandals in Sicily early in 456. When Avitus returned to Gaul to celebrate Easter at Arles, he was disturbed by the subversive rumours reaching him from Italy, and when he returned to confront them, Ricimer and his lieutenant Majorian rose in open revolt. With no popular support in Italy, Avitus fled, but was cornered at Placentia, deposed, ordained, and immured. He was soon dead, though the circumstances of his death are obscure.67 There was an interregnum, with neither Ricimer, nor Theoderic, nor Geiseric wanting to make the first move, all of them wondering how Marcian might respond. The eastern emperor died in 457, meaning an empire-wide lapse in legitimate succession. At Constantinople, the choice of the junior officer Leo over the better claimant, Marcian’s sonin-law the patrician Anthemius, suggested that little if any response to western events would be forthcoming from the East.68 So Ricimer set about reconciling, or at least securing the passivity of, the other western power players, Theoderic in Gaul, Geiseric in Africa, the Burgundian Gundioc in Sapaudia, and the Gallic aristocrats who had been partisans of the dead Avitus.69 Sidonius gives a strong impression of the uncertainties and fears of this era, when a return to civil war in Gaul looked like a distinct possibility.70 It never came, however, with Leo granting Ricimer the honour of the patriciate early in 457 only for Majorian to proclaim himself Caesar in April. Continuing to feel his way cautiously forwards, Majorian waited till December of 457 to proclaim himself Augustus, and he and Leo each assumed the consular fasces of 458 without the eastern court actually recognising the new Augustus in the West. Early in that year, with the new magister militum per Gallias Aegidius, Majorian travelled to Gaul, where the Aquitanian and Narbonensian senators were cowed and acquiescent.71 Not so Gundioc, and not so some portion of the Lugdunensian aristocracy that sided with him, for we find one of Majorian’s officers putting Lyon itself under siege, forcing the Burgundians and their Gallic partisans to accept the new Italian regime; in return Gundioc and his family were brought into the imperial high command as senior officers.72 Shortly thereafter, Theoderic and Majorian each personally commanded his own army in a ritual show of force that the two sides sensibly ended with negotiation.73 Sidonius delivered the second of his three imperial panegyrics to Majorian, conveniently ignoring the latter’s implication in the deposition and death of his father-in-law. That done, Geiseric was the last outstanding threat. In 460, Theoderic sent an army to secure the coastal routes of eastern Spain and prepare an invasion fleet, Majorian following with the Italian field army. Geiseric, unsurprisingly, found out about these plans and, since he commanded a strong and competent standing navy, struck pre-emptively, destroying the fleet in its harbour at Carthago Nova.74 Thwarted,

67

68 69 70

71

72

73 74

See Burgess (1987) with the supplementary notes in Burgess (2011) 5–7. Sidonius is utterly silent. See also, in this volume, van Waarden, ch. 1, on Sidonius’ biography, sect. 4.1.3. PLRE 2, 663–4 (Leo 6), 96–8 (Anthemius 3). PLRE 2, 523–34 (Gundiocus). This is particularly vivid in Ep. 1.11, which speaks of a coniuratio Marcell(ini)ana that has provoked endless and unavailing speculation among scholars. See also in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 4.1.4, and Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 9.8, nn. 157 and 175. PLRE 2, 11-13 (Aegidius). On Majorian and the Gallic senate, Harries (1994) 89–95. For his reign, see Oppedisano (2013). Sidonius’ sympathies with the Burgundian over the Gothic are made clear by his use of the Latin tetrarcha – thus ‘legitimate delegate of legitimate ruler’ – for the Burgundian kings: Ep. 5.7. Harries (1994) 85–7, Halsall (2007) 262–6, Delaplace (2015) 220–5. As previous note, with Steinacher (2016) 210–19.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 208

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

209

Majorian loitered in Gaul, his authority melting away. Returning to Italy, he was confronted by Ricimer at Dertona in Piedmont on 2 August 461 and beheaded five days later. Again, several months passed without a western emperor, till in November Ricimer plucked the senator Libius Severus from obscurity and invested him with the purple, in a move that the East never recognised.75 None of the surviving Aëtian generals recognised him either: Marcellinus in Dalmatia and Aegidius on the Loire essentially became local warlords with no more legitimacy than Theoderic, and less than Gundioc and his brother Gundobad, who were both senior officers loyal to the regime of Severus.76 In other words, meaningful markers of imperial legitimacy had disappeared, thoroughly complicating the question of who owed legitimate allegiance to whom. Theoderic had bided his time, deciding which way to jump, but ultimately threw in his lot with Ricimer and Severus and sent an army to counter Aegidius on the Loire. In the ensuing battle, the Gothic forces were defeated and the king’s brother Frederic was killed.77 Geiseric, meanwhile, used the failure of Majorian’s expedition and the eastern revulsion from Ricimer’s new puppet to open negotiations with the eastern court: Eudoxia, Eudocia, and Placidia were sent to Constantinople, Eudocia still betrothed to Geiseric’s son Huneric and now with Leo’s full approval.78 Gundioc proved a more effective commander than Theoderic and Frederic had done, and pressed Aegidius hard enough for the latter to seek an alliance with Geiseric himself. That came to nothing – the Vandal was quite happy to let various factions of Gauls and Italians savage one another – and when Aegidius was murdered, in 464 or 465 and in circumstances that remain mysterious, his son Syagrius took over his father’s remaining troops and set up as a petty warlord somewhere between the Loire and the Seine.79 With that, Gaul north of the Loire had ceased to be part of the Roman Empire. A tiny enclave at Trier at least professed itself to be part of the organs of the state, but we have only Sidonius’ side of a correspondence that may assert a far rosier picture than anyone else actually saw.80 In most other respects, it is hard to see the early 460s as anything other than a war of all against all. Ricimer could more or less hold his own in Italy, but not project his power beyond it. Gundioc and Theoderic kept to their own spheres in Gaul, both ostensibly loyal to the Italian regime and hostile to the warlords of Spain and northern Gaul, but each having to reckon with a portion of the southern Gallic aristocracy that was not reconciled to their legitimacy. To no one’s regret, Severus died in November 465.81 For the first time, the chastened Ricimer seriously considered cooperating with the eastern emperor Leo. He allowed the western throne to stand vacant for over a year while negotiating with Constantinople. Leo saw in this newfound detente an opportunity to rid himself of a potential rival, the late Marcian’s son-in-law Anthemius. After a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing, Anthemius was proclaimed Caesar at Constantinople in 467, travelling thence to Italy with a substantial eastern army under the command of the freebooter Marcellinus, now legitimised by the 75 76 77 78 79 80

81

PLRE 2, 1004–5 (Severus 18). For Marcellinus at this juncture, see Kulikowski (2002). Delaplace (2015) 229–38. Steinacher (2016) 216–17. PLRE 2, 1041–2 (Syagrius 2). See Sidon. Ep. 4.17 for a (later) letter to a comes Trevirorum (who is praised for preserving the Latin language in Belgic and Rhineland territories – an allusion to the loss of imperial control there). Like the dux Mogontiacensis (on which see Scharf (2005) 283–316), the comes Trevirorum was a fifth-century creation, an ad hoc reaction to the haemorrhage of imperial power and the failure of imperial administration in Gaul. Sidonius places ostentatious emphasis on his natural death: Carm. 2.317 naturae lege.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 209

13/02/20 4:00 PM

210

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

eastern government as a check on the capacities of Ricimer.82 On 12 April, just outside Rome, Anthemius was proclaimed Augustus and later in the year, Anthemius’ daughter Alypia was married to Ricimer.83 The next step was to cement the alliance with a combined assault on Geiseric. First, however, Anthemius celebrated his second consulship, and his first as emperor. Leading the Gallic embassy to Rome was Sidonius Apollinaris, who with strategic amnesia now delivered the third and final imperial panegyric of his career.84 His reward, from an emperor unconnected to any of the ill feeling between Italy and Gaul, was the urban prefecture.85 Once again, Sidonius had committed himself to a vision of imperial unity and power which a great many Gallo-Romans no longer believed in, not least because they had to live in a world where that unity was very little in evidence. Southern Gaul had been shaken, in 466, by the murder of Theoderic and the accession of his assassin, his youngest brother, Euric.86 Most of what we know of Euric’s personality and attitudes comes from the hostile pen of Sidonius and so must be approached with a cautious scepticism.87 It is possible, though not fully borne out by the evidence, that Euric was in general less solicitous of the kingdom’s senatorial grandees than Theoderic had been; certainly he seems to have been more committed to his Homoian Christianity, or at very least he ran afoul of the Chalcedonian episcopate more frequently than his brother had done.88 It is equally clear, however, that a far from negligible sector of the Gallo-Roman elite much preferred the Gothic ruler to the footling ‘Greek emperor’ that Italy wished to impose on them.89 Arvandus, the praetorian prefect per Gallias, for instance, suggested that Euric seize control of Gaul from Anthemius, a move which allowed his political rivals (among them members of Sidonius’ family) to denounce him as a traitor. A prudent Sidonius absented himself from the prefect’s trial at Rome, and Arvandus defended himself with spirit, freely admitting to his correspondence with Euric and refusing to see anything untoward in it.90 It seems genuinely to have surprised Arvandus when he was condemned to death for maiestas, a fate that his few allies got commuted to exile. Posterity has, unsurprisingly, latched on to the extant writings of nostalgic oppositionists like Sidonius, but it certainly seems that the silent majority of the provincial elite were more of a mind with Arvandus.91 They, like Euric, remained unreconciled to the regime of Anthemius, and acted to all intents and purposes as inhabitants of a separate polity.

82 83

84 85

86

87 88

89

90 91

Halsall (2007) 271–4, Steinacher (2016) 221–6. PLRE 2, 61–2 (Alypia). Sidonius expresses his (conventional) hopes for the marriage at Ep. 1.5.10 and Carm. 2.484–6, and refers to it again in Ep. 1.9. The journey to Italy is recounted in Ep. 1.5. The panegyric is Carm. 2, its preface Carm. 1. Sidonius refers to his accession to the prefecture at Ep. 1.9.6–8 and again in later life, at Ep. 9.16.3. He wrote Ep. 1.10 while in office. See Harries (1994) 141–59. Delaplace (2015) 238–56, 280–1; Wolfram (2009) 186–95 for a contrary interpretation. See Gillett (1999) for a dating of the murder to 467. See, for instance, the open hostility of Ep. 3.1. Stroheker (1937) remains a fascinating example of the interwar communis opionio. For Sidonius on Euric’s Homoian faith, see Ep. 7.6. Though a full-on supporter of Anthemius, Sidonius was not averse to a bit of discreet raillery at Greek pretensions: Ep. 4.7.2. PLRE 2, 157–8 (Arvandus), Harries (1994) 159–66. Sidon. Ep. 1.7 is the only substantial evidence and our understanding of the whole affair is mediated through Sidonian prejudices, but see, for instance, the – admittedly undated – letter 4.8.1, with one Evodius (to whom Sidonius is clearly well disposed) in the service of Euric, and the famous 8.3 to Leo of Narbonne, who is said to compose speeches for the king.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 210

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

211

The Gothic king did not, however, see any great value in aggression at this point, while Ricimer and Anthemius preferred to consummate their plans against Geiseric.92 When the sea opened in the spring of 468, the joint expedition of East and West was launched, two fleets sailing from Constantinople and one from Italy, carrying a great part of the field armies of both partes imperii, as well as mercenary units from as far away as Sweden.93 One eastern army met with great successes in Tripolitania, but that was hardly the most important province in the Vandal kingdom. The other eastern force rendezvoused with Marcellinus in Sicily and then sailed on Carthage, with unhappy results – a flotilla of fireships sank the better part of the eastern fleet and sent its commander Basiliscus fleeing headlong back to Constantinople. Marcellinus then succumbed to an assassin, while the relationship of Ricimer and Anthemius grew steadily worse. The two very nearly went to war in 470 (prevented only by the intervention of bishop Epiphanius of Pavia) and neither could afford more than a notional interest in Gallic affairs. As far as Italy was concerned, the Burgundian Gundobad was technically magister militum per Gallias, while Provence, with Arles, was still held by garrisons commanded by the Italian regime. Then, in 471, Euric besieged Arles and defeated the army sent to relieve it under Anthemius’ son Anthemiolus, who died in the attempt.94 Gundobad, shrewdly calculating the odds in each region, abandoned Gaul for Italy, joining Ricimer in the fight against Anthemius. Those parts of Aquitania and Provence that were not yet garrisoned by Euric’s soldiers were now left to their own devices and Euric promptly demanded their loyalty and subordination to his regime.95 Meanwhile, Leo sent the blameless Anician nobleman Olybrius to Italy, ostensibly to mediate between Ricimer and Anthemius, but as much to get a dynastic threat out of Constantinople (Olybrius was married to Placidia, daughter of Valentinian III).96 Instead, Ricimer proclaimed Olybrius emperor in April 472 and carried on with his war against Anthemius, besieging him in Rome. The city fell in July, Anthemius was captured and executed, and Ricimer died just a month later. Gundobad stepped seamlessly into his role as patrician and senior magister militum, and sent his brother Chilperic back to Gaul as magister militum per Gallias – the latter was not, of course, recognised outside the territories controlled by the Burgundians, though those Arvernians who remained implacably opposed to Euric, Sidonius loudly amongst them, accepted the fiction of his legitimacy.97 Sadly for Gundobad, Olybrius was dead of dropsy by November. As was now normal, an interregnum ensued, whatever negotiations were taking place utterly obscure to us now. Finally, early in March 473, the hitherto unknown comes domesticorum Glycerius was proclaimed emperor, prompting Euric to send in an army under a Gaul named Vincentius, who was defeated and killed by Gundobad’s officers Sindila and Alla.98 If Euric had no intention of compromise with Gundobad and his new protegé, neither did Leo back in Constantinople. But the eastern emperor Leo died in January of 474, leaving a child 92 93

94

95

96 97 98

For the Vandal campaign, Halsall (2007) 271–4, Steinacher (2016) 221–6. Fagerlie (1967), Woloszyn (2009), and especially Fabech and Näsman (2017) for the way the Vandal campaign and the subsequent imperial civil wars fuelled the warrior economies of the Baltic. PLRE 2, 93 (Anthemiolus). On the events, cf. Delaplace (2015) 249–56 and Wolfram (2009) 192–5. Sidonius’ Ep. 7.1 is among his most explicit comments on these events. Harries (1994) 222–38 treats this as ‘the end of Roman Clermont’, the traditional perspective derived chiefly from Sidonius’ own testimony (see especially Ep. 7.1, 7.5, 7.6). It did (and does) not take account of how well most Gallo-Romans adapted to the new dispensation. PLRE 2, 796–98 (Olybrius 6). PLRE 2, 286–87 (Chilpericus 2). PLRE 2, 514 (Glycerius), 1168 (Vincentius 3), 1016–17 (Sindila), 60–1 (Alla).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 211

13/02/20 4:00 PM

212

MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI

successor whose father, Flavius Zeno (husband of Leo’s daughter Ariadne), became co-emperor in April of that year. By November, the child Leo II was dead and Zeno was sole emperor in the East.99 The West soon felt the impact of these changes as well: Zeno, like Leo before him, was possessed of less dynastic legitimacy than were other rivals, one of whom, Julius Nepos, he now sent to Italy as legitimate Augustus of the West.100 Gundobad assessed the situation, decided that the imperial game was no longer worth the candle, and retired to rule in Lugdunensis and Maxima Sequanorum, where he would serve as a check on Euric’s ambitions.101 Deprived of his protector, Glycerius surrendered to the arriving easterners and accepted exile in Dalmatia. Nepos, meanwhile, made a final gesture towards the existence of an actual imperial government beyond the Alps – and Sidonius managed one last illusion about a return to past certainties. His brother-in-law Ecdicius was appointed magister militum (whether praesentalis or per Gallias is ambiguous) by the new Italian regime, but that meant less than Sidonius, by now bishop of Clermont, might have hoped.102 Far from signalling imperial restoration, it was accompanied by a recognition of Euric’s legitimate control of all southwestern Gaul (he would be a useful check on any attempt by Gundobad to restore his position), including those parts of Aquitania that had been resisting him for the past three years. In exchange for this, Euric permitted Nepos to garrison Arles and Marseille with troops loyal to the Italian regime.103 Not surprisingly, Sidonius experienced all this as the bitterest betrayal of his and his kinsmen’s loyalty,104 but it was nothing but the logical outcome of a process by which the vast majority of the bishop’s provincial compatriots had come to terms with, and even come to like, the new post-imperial order of things. Few shared Sidonius’ nostalgia for an imperial ideal that few had ever experienced, and even fewer did so with the same emotional intensity. When Nepos, far from secure, agreed to cede Arles to Euric as well, Ecdicius retreated to Italy, to what practical purposes we cannot really say. He found himself a complete alien to the political landscape and was rapidly replaced by a new magister militum, Orestes. He, in turn, promptly fell out with Nepos, who was compelled to withdraw to Dalmatia, the last emperor of the west to have been appointed by a legitimate eastern emperor. Orestes put his young son Romulus on the throne as emperor, but found governance more difficult than mutiny had been.105 That there was hardly anything left to govern did not help matters. When the last remnants of the Italian field army again mutinied, they did so without putting up an imperial pretender to challenge Romulus. Instead, from later 475 till August 476, Orestes and the general Odoacer – the latter calling himself king of Italy – vied for the carcass of the western state, until Orestes was captured and executed at Placentia in August 476.106 Romulus was deposed but allowed to retire to an imperial estate; Odoacer sent the imperial regalia back to Zeno in Constantinople and asked to govern Italy as king and Zeno’s representative, an offer that the eastern emperor, himself politically beleaguered, could hardly refuse. There remained 99 100 101

102

103 104

105 106

PLRE 2, 664–5 (Leo 7), 1200–2 (Zenon 7). PLRE 2, 777–8 (Nepos 3). One of the great innovations of Halsall (2007) 488–97 was to recognise that governing with royal authority was a clear second best, a fall-back position for men who had failed in, or exhausted the possibilities of, Roman office. PLRE 2, 383–4 (Ecdicius 3) and especially Ep. 5.16. For Sidonius’ consecration, Harries (1994) 169–86 and Gotoh (1997). Halsall (2007) 273–83, Delaplace (2015) 249–56. Cf. Wolfram (2009) 192–5. Ep. 7.7.2 facta est servitus nostra pretium securitatis alienae, ‘our slavery is the price paid for the safety of others’; 7.7.6 namque alia regio tradita servitium sperat, Arverna supplicium, ‘for any other surrendered region can expect slavery, the Auvergne torture’. PLRE 2, 811-12 (Orestes 2), 949–50 (Romulus 4). PLRE 2, 791–3 (Odovacer).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 212

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ POLITICAL WORLD

213

a legitimate western emperor exiled in Salona until the murder of Nepos in 480. But there was no longer a western empire in any meaningful sense. Odoacer proved a competent and relatively popular ruler in Italy for more than a decade. Indeed, for the rest of Sidonius’ lifetime, Odoacer was in control of Italy, with no opposition we can detect, obvious or otherwise. But by choosing to rule as rex rather than as magister militum behind a puppet emperor, he was following the example of Gundobad, though the latter had admittedly returned to Gaul to take on that role. The point, however, is that by 476, the imperial title had become worthless, at least within the hurly-burly of western imperial politics. If Gundobad went back to his Burgundian and Lugdunensian supporters before the collapse of Glycerius, it was because he had decided there was no way to succeed as the backer of an imperial puppet. Odoacer made the same calculation, and the Roman senate backed him – they sent an embassy to Zeno asking for Odoacer to be granted the title of patricius, in other words, asking that he be acknowledged as western hegemon, while not so much as hinting that a western emperor might be a desideratum. Odoacer conformed to everyone’s hopes by minting coins only in the name of Julius Nepos until after the latter’s murder, and by never presuming to mint a gold coinage at all.107 In Gaul, political life was remarkably stable in the last years of Sidonius’ life. Euric, who would die in 484 leaving his son Alaric (II) as king, spent his last years trying vainly to maintain Gothic hegemony in Spain, a losing proposition given more than fifty years of intermittent disorder in the peninsula and the consequent devolution of government to local and circumscribed environments.108 He was more or less able to control the route from the old diocesan capital, Emerita in Lusitania, up through Toletum in the Meseta, and on to Tarraco on the Mediterranean and the coastal route to Gaul. Beyond that, Gothic armies could launch punitive expeditions, but achieve little else. On the Loire, Gothic ambitions were constrained by increasingly active Franks, though it was not until well after Sidonius’ death that we see the outlines of a durable Frankish polity beginning to form.109 With the Burgundians, Euric maintained a frigid neutrality, neither side wishing to tackle the other and risk opening their northern frontiers to invasion. We do not know in what year Sidonius died, or even whether he lived to see Alaric succeed his father.110 But whenever it was, he went to his grave in a world that bore almost no resemblance to the one for which he harboured a lifelong nostalgia.

4 Further Reading Recent treatments of the fifth century and the end of Roman rule in the West in tune with the analysis presented here are Halsall (2007) and Delaplace (2015). A fuller statement can be found in Kulikowski (2019). A radically different interpretation – based not on Roman weakness but on Germanic force – comes from Heather (2005).111

107

108 109

110

111

Kraus (1928) is the classic study of his minting, since supplemented but never replaced. The narrative sources for the reign are so slender that Stein (1928) 587–90 = Stein and Palanque (1959) 395–9 remains standard. Kulikowski (2004) 203–9, Halsall (2007) 296–300, Delaplace (2015) 270–80. Halsall (2007) 303–10, Delaplace (2015) 283–9. Other accounts of the early Franks are overly optimistic about their unity and their leaders’ capacity to command obedience. For the reign of Alaric, see Kulikowski (2004) 203–15, 236–71, Halsall (2007) 296–300, Delaplace (2015) 283–8. Cf. Wolfram (2009) 195–206. For the year of Sidonius’ death, see in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2(1), Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 10.7, and Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 5.1. See n. 6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 213

13/02/20 4:00 PM

5 SIDONIUS’ SOCIAL WORLD Sigrid Mratschek

Time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future, and time future contained in time past. (T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets)

1 Time Present and Time Past: A Response to the Collapse of Roman Imperial Power?

I

autobiography included in the last letter of his collection, Sidonius Apollinaris referred with pride to the time-defying bronze statue (statua perennis) that was dedicated to him in 456 in Trajan’s Forum in Rome: his statue, together with Claudian’s and Merobaudes’, were the last three to be erected in the writers’ gallery (inter auctores) in the exedrae of the libraries of Latin and Greek literature, visible to all at this site of memory.1 It is fascinating to observe Sidonius the senator, torn between survival strategy and inner conviction, assuming the role of exemplar and combative bishop, paving the way for his own generation towards N THE POETIC

Chapters 5 and 6 have a joint theoretically substantiated introduction (ch. 5, sect.1) and conclusion (ch. 6, sect.7) intended to provide an insight into the interaction between society and literature, and the vital tension between ‘time present’ and ‘time past’. These chapters are gratefully dedicated to Martin West, who was always happy to discuss epistolographic and poetological questions with me, and also deepened my appreciation of the academic traditions of Oxford and All Souls College. The chapters have benefited greatly from the lively discussions at the International Conference on ‘Sidonius, his Words and his World’ at Edinburgh, in November 2014. Thanks are due to Raphael Schwitter and Lisa Bailey for their thought-provoking books, to Ralph Mathisen and Roy Gibson for their unpublished contributions on ‘Sidonius’ people’ and ‘Sidonius’ novel canon of epistolographers’, and to Jill Harries for her stimulating insights. In particular, I should like to thank Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden for their careful reading and their work in convening this major joint project: the conference remains memorable both for its intellectual atmosphere, fully worthy of its setting in the ‘Athens of the North’, and for the friendly conviviality shared by all. Faber & Faber Ltd. and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company kindly gave permission to quote the excerpt of T.S. Eliot’s ‘Burnt Norton’ above. 1

Sidon. Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 27–8; see Chenault (2012) 111, 130 table A: ‘Honorific inscriptions’, and Mratschek (2017) 319–20. The bronze statue with inscription was dedicated to Claudian in 400 in the names of Arcadius and Honorius, at the senate’s request (CIL 6.1710 = ILS 2949); cf. Claud. Get. praef. 9 adnuit hunc princeps titulum poscente senatu. See Cameron (1970) 248–9 and Kelly (2012) 241–3. Fl. Merobaudes, magister utriusque militiae in Italy and Spain, was praised for his unusual combination of literary and military skills, when he was honoured with a statue in 435 (CIL 6.1724 = ILS 2950), cf. Sidon. Carm. 9.299–301 (unnamed) and Hydat. Chron. 120 Burgess [128 Mommsen]. See Gillett (2012) 274–5. Ammianus (14.6.8 and 18) comments scathingly on the statue cult of the idle urban elites of Rome and on their unfrequented libraries; his criticism does not hold good for the Gallo-Roman Sidonius, the Spaniard Merobaudes, and the Alexandrian Claudian, all of whom had a distinguished record of political activities.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 214

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

215

the security of medieval Christianity2 – meanwhile continuing to regard himself as the last remaining representative of a more glamorous bygone age, and withdrawing more and more into the self-constructed illusion of his own world. Memory points forwards as well as backwards.3 So overwhelming was the power of remembering for Sidonius that it defined his present, deformed his past, and became engraved in the collective memory of future generations. He was an eyewitness as the Visigothic king Euric used his conquests to create the most important successor state to the Roman Empire, a Gallic-Spanish regnum, with some ten million people living on three-quarters of a million square kilometres.4 But in his revised letter collection and its subsequent publication in book form, this late antique author modelled his social world of the Dark Ages and the empire’s disintegration into a simulacrum of the Golden Age of Augustus or Trajan in dialogue with Pliny the Younger.5 Sidonius’ vision of a Rome fading away in timeless elegance into the twilight of a barbarian age, was – as Greg Woolf has persuasively shown – ‘a response to threatened change, rather than a reflection of continuity’.6 Peter Brown7 has defined this attitude as ‘hyper-Romanity’, because Sidonius presented what remained of the Roman Empire as a ‘model society’: ‘the home of laws, the training-school of letters, the assembly-hall of high dignitaries, the head of the universe, the mother-city of liberty, the one community in the whole world in which only slaves and barbarians are foreigners’.8 Glimpses of contemporary society, as perceived by Sidonius and mirrored in his letters, are thus to be regarded not as depictions of empirical reality, but as reflections and constructions of his persona: depictions of the present and hopes for the future are indissolubly bound up with the culture of the past.9 The style and structure of Pliny’s letter collection,10 together with themes and motifs of the Golden Age, provided Sidonius with a background against which he could redefine his shifting roles as politician, bishop, and leading figure in the literary circles of the Gallo-Roman elite engaged in a ‘war of cultures’, and could differentiate them from his model.

2 3

4

5

6

7 8

9

10

By the appeal to enter the clergy (5.4) and the performance of the episcopalis audientia (5.5). On the concept of cultural memory based on external storage media and cultural practices, see the definitions of Jan Assmann (1992), (2006) 70, and Aleida Assmann (1999) 19; also her project on ‘The Past in the Present. Dimensions and Dynamics of Cultural Memory’ (since 2011); on the dichotomy of the narratives of the past in ‘Experience and Teleology’, Grethlein (2013) title, preface, and 29–52 ‘on traces of teleological design’; on temporality in Sidonius recently Hanaghan (2019) 58–90: ‘Reading Time: Erzählzeit und Lesezeit’. Wolfram (2009) 187, Heather (1996) 181–91, and Ward-Perkins (2005) 14–15. Cf. the comprehensive bibliography of Ferreiro (2014). According to Delaplace, ‘a reorganisation of Roman Gaul rather than the creation of a kingdom’: see Wood, Préface, in Delaplace (2015) iii. However, the term regnum in reference to the Goths and Burgundians occurs several times in Sidonius: see Christiansen and Holland (1993) 194–5, Christiansen et al. (1997) 613; contra Delaplace (2015) 167–8. In the present volume, see Kulikowski, ch. 4, sect. 3. Compare Pliny’s ‘journey from light to dark’: see Gibson (2015) esp. 230–2, also in this volume, ch 11, and the poetics of history conceived by White (1986) in his ‘Metahistory’. Sidon. Carm. 7.540–41 portavimus umbram / imperii, ‘we endured that shadow of Empire’. See Woolf (1998) 164, n. 2; also Jones (2009) 25. Brown (2012) 404. Cf. Harries (1996) 44 and Pohl (2018) on Romanness and identities. Sidon. Ep. 1.6.2 (on Rome) domicilium legum, gymnasium litterarum, curiam dignitatum, verticem mundi, patriam libertatis, in qua unica totius orbis civitate soli barbari et servi peregrinantur. As with Eliot’s poems, ‘time is switched off in such a space of tradition’: see Assmann and Assmann (1987) 7–8. Cf. Watson (1998) 178, 196, Hardie (2019), Elsner and Squire (2016) on visual memory in Roman rhetoric. Overwien (2009b) regards the letters as a ‘political tool’ in Sidonius’ fight for Gaul, but takes insufficient account of the artful stylistic elaboration prior to publication. They certainly do not express a general ‘cultural pessimism’, as wrongly assumed by Kaufmann (1995) 263–8. As Sidonius declared programmatically (Ep. 1.1.1 and 4.22.2).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 215

13/02/20 4:00 PM

216

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

There have so far been few attempts at literary-epistolographical analysis of Sidonius’ art and coded communication with a view to understanding his culture and society and the construction of his self. The fundamental requirement for such an approach is the close integration of reception aesthetics and sociocultural analysis, as demonstrated by Gibson for Pliny.11 Just as the literary genre of the letter is linked to the sociopolitical milieu within which it operates, and that milieu influences the writer’s presentation of his self, so the individual letter seeks to exercise influence through its artistry and positioning within the collection, and to construct a social and cultural universe of its own. The stage designed for the actors to play out their roles provides the setting for processes of cultural and sociopolitical negotiation; visualisation and focalisation through the persona of the writer, and of the recipient, generate a reader’s perspective that might be said to flash selected glimpses of the author’s circle past the eye of the observer like a montage of images.12 Sidonius’ evocation of literary role models and spatial concepts during a period of political and religious turmoil prompts his audience to engage in discourse with past voices that are made relevant to the present. In his attempt at crisis management, Sidonius’ powers of persuasion and communication prove to be a tool for creating both artistic authority and cultural identity.

2 Pliny in Late Antique Gaul: Oases of Romanitas One of the most prominent exponents of epistolography, the younger Pliny, hailed the age of Trajan as a true literary renaissance that had ‘brought an abundant harvest of poets’, and he expressed his delight at the current vigour of literary studies.13 Similarly, Sidonius praised the ‘flourishing studies’ (florentia studia) in the liberal arts being pursued by the grammarians and rhetors of late antique Gaul, whose literary productivity surpassed that of any earlier era.14 It took nearly three centuries for Pliny’s letters to come back into favour, at the end of the fourth century, and 350 years to find in Sidonius the reader who would proclaim them to be his model.15 While booksellers in Lyon had a copy of the letters in stock during Pliny’s lifetime, and manuscripts were in circulation in Gaul during the fourth century,16 the reader known to have studied them most thoroughly was Sidonius Apollinaris.17 As a blue-blooded aristocrat from Lyon he 11 12

13

14

15

16

17

Gibson (2012), cf. (2011, (2013a, 2013b); cf. Mratschek (2013, 2017). Webb (2009) passim on the ways in which visual and textual media work collaboratively and competitively with each other. Comparable with the younger Pliny: see Mratschek (2017). For the renaissance of literature in the age of Trajan see Plin. Ep. 1.13.1 Magnum proventum poetarum annus hic attulit . . . iuvat me, quod vigent studia. Sidon. Ep. 4.21.4 hic te imbuendum liberalibus disciplinis grammatici rhetorisque studia florentia monitu certante foverunt, ‘here eminent schools of grammar and rhetoric nurtured you, each in eager rivalry as they sought to ground you in the liberal arts’. On the production of literature, see Mathisen (1988a) and Mratschek (2002) 39, 44–6. Sidon. Ep. 4.22.2 ego Plinio ut discipulus adsurgo, ‘to Pliny I yield homage as a pupil’. See Whitton (2019) 43 with n. 126, 319 with n. 180, and Hanaghan (2019) 176-8. On Pliny’s letters in Gaul, see Plin. Ep. 9.11.2 (in Lyon, c. 107) bybliopolas Lugduni esse non putabam ac tanto libentius ex litteris tuis cognovi venditare libellos meos, ‘I did not think there were booksellers in Lyon, and was all the more pleased to learn from your letter that they sell my books.’ Another reader was Ausonius (Cent. nupt. p. 153.4 Green): lasciva est nobis pagina, vita proba, ut Martialis [Green (1.4.8), codd. Plinius] dicit. meminerint autem, quippe eruditi, probissimo viro Plinio in poematiis [Ep. 4.14, 5.3] lasciviam . . . constitisse, ‘“My page is naughty, but my life is clean”, as Martial says. But let them remember, learned as they are, that Pliny, a most honourable man, shows looseness in his little poems.’ Here he follows Catullus (16.6–11), quoted by Plin. Ep. 4.14.5. On the reading of Pliny’s Letters from the third to the fifth century, see Gibson and Rees (2013) and the revised view of Cameron (2016b). Sidon. Carm. 13.23–4 (Lyon as patria), Ep. 1.5.2 (Rhodanusia nostra), 1.8.1 (mei), 5 (civitas nostra, i.e. Lyon). See Stevens (1933) 61–2, 171, Harries (1974) 34–47, Cameron (2016b) 479–81.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 216

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

217

displayed his snobbish superiority over foreigners and men from merely municipal stock by quoting the Vergilian verse addressed by Pallas, son of the mythical king Evander of Latium, to the foreign invader Aeneas: Qui genus, unde domo? – ‘Who are you by birth and where do you come from?’18 A politician and author of elaborate letters like Pliny, Sidonius initiated a vigorous correspondence with the local authorities, the landowning nobility, including twentythree bishops, and a few prime political actors of the time.19 His network reached as far north as the English Channel and Trier20 and stretched south to the Mediterranean coast, west to Nantes and Bordeaux, and east to the Jura, Geneva, and the Grenoble Alps. Outliers included correspondents in Spain, Liguria, and on the Adriatic. At the age of almost fifty, Bishop Sidonius again attempted to continue the literary success of his friend Johannes, through whom ‘the Latin language, shattered by this tempest of wars, had reached port, although Latin arms have suffered shipwreck’.21 Sidonius loved polarities: Euric, the successful Visigothic king, master of Gaul from the Pyrenees to the Loire and the Rhône, is stylised in the bishop’s literary output under the guise of Rome’s archetypal foe, Hannibal, the embodiment of the uncultivated barbarian, whom Ennodius, a distant relative of Sidonius, depicted ‘burbling some unintelligible native mutterings’.22 As Ward-Perkins explains, these stories do not prove that Euric could not speak Latin, but they do show that Gothic was still a live language at his court. The more clearly Rome’s weakness and the ‘slender thread of Tiber’s flow’ were revealed under Euric’s regime,23 the more intensively Sidonius worked on revising and publishing his correspondence. He meant it to be a compensation for the loss of Rome, and his legacy to future generations.24 After the surrender of Clermont in 475, Sidonius abandoned his role as an organiser of Gallic resistance and switched to communication strategies. The Roman aristocrats, living in the secluded splendour of their estates, felt increasingly cut off from each other as the Visigothic invasion progressed; the act of letter-writing became their ‘survival strategy’, establishing oases of Romanitas, making it possible to keep friendships and social intercourse alive from day to day, and becoming a marker of class and cultural solidarity.25 Nine volumes of letters and twenty-four poems served to proclaim his message across the Gothic provinces in Gaul: a renewed vision of the cultural and political values of the Roman past, and the dissemination of new religious thinking on behalf of the church, in support of the interests

18

19 20 21 22

23

24

25

Sidon. Ep. 1.11.5 (on Paeonius, a homo novus) alludes to Verg. Aen. 8.114, Aeneas’ landing in Italy. See Harries (1994) 26–7, Mathisen (1993) 10–13 and ch. 6 on the thinking and outlook of the aristocracy in barbarian Gaul. See the list of addressees in Kaufmann (1995); Dill (1899) 195 n. 2, counting seventeen bishops, is wrong. Volusianus’ praedia Baiocasssina near Bayeux (Sidon. Ep. 4.18.2); Arbogastes, count of Trier (7.13.1). Sidon. Ep. 8.2.1 sub hac tempestate bellorum Latina tenuerunt ora portum, cum pertulerint arma naufragium. Sidon. Ep. 7.7 (see Mratschek (2013) 249–71), 4.22.3: Euric as potentissimus rex. Cf. Ennod. v. Epif. 89–90 at Euricus, gentile nescio quod murmur infringens, fertur ad interpretem rex locutus, ‘but Euric, it is told, talked to the interpreter, burbling some unintelligible native mutterings’. See Ward-Perkins (2005) 75. On Ennodius’ relationship to Sidonius, cf. Mathisen (1981a) 104 = Mathisen (1991a) 22. Carm. 34 (Ep. 8.9.5) 42–4 Eorice, tuae manus rogantur, / ut Martem validus per inquilinum / defendat tenuem Garumna Thybrim, ‘Euric, your troops are called for so that the Garonne, strong in its settlers, may defend the dwindled Tiber.’ Sidonius (Ep. 8.2.2) regards his literary legacy and that of his circle as natalium vetustorum signa (‘the signs of ancient birthright’) and solum . . . posthac nobilitatis indicium (‘henceforth the only token of nobility’) for his descendants. See Harries (1996) 241–2, Mathisen (1988a) 51 = Mathisen (1991a) 51, Mratschek (2002) 48, inter alia. Sidon. Ep. 7.11.1 sed quoniam fraternae quietis voto satis obstrepit conflictantium procella regnorum, saltim inter discretos separatosque litterarii consuetudo sermonis iure retinebitur, quae iam pridem caritatis obtentu merito inducta veteribus annuit exemplis, ‘but since the tempest of battling kingdoms breaks noisily upon our desire for quiet brotherly communion, this custom of epistolary converse will rightly be maintained, at least between parties sundered and removed from one another; it was deservedly introduced long ago for reasons of friendship and is in agreement with old examples’. See Mathisen (1993) 108–12, Jones (2009) 25, van Waarden (2010).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 217

13/02/20 4:00 PM

218

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

of both.26 Three regional elites were his allies in the struggle to keep the Gallic aristocracy alive: a group from his own region, the Auvergne, a second in cosmopolitan Narbonne, and another composed of the intellectual circle of Bordeaux.27 The foci of Sidonius’ correspondence were his native Lyon (Lugdunum) and his adopted home of Clermont (Augustonemetum). Lyon, at the confluence of the Rhône and Saône and at the intersection of the four principal routes, was the central traffic hub of Gaul.28 But his heart belonged to Clermont in the land of the Arverni, and his favourite villa, Avitacum, was here too. Small and provincial though it might be, Clermont was not subject to the metropolis of Bourges, capital of Aquitanica Prima.29 Sidonius employs the rhetorical device of a praeteritio and a triple anadiplosis on taceo (Ep. 4.21.5) to draw his readers’ attention to ‘the particular charm’, the peculiarem iucunditatem, of Clermont and the Auvergne: ‘I say nothing of the cultivated plain’, he wrote, ‘where waves of corn are swaying in the wind that bring profit without danger; . . . this is a region gentle to travellers, fruitful to the tiller, delightful to the hunter.’ Clermont is a ‘place that, when but once seen, . . . often induces many visitors to forget their own native land. I pass over the city itself, which loves you above all else.’30

3 The Correspondents: Epistolographic Networks and Political Space Christians like Sidonius were heirs to an impressive culture of letter-writing following on from pagan role models – Cicero, Pliny, Symmachus – who deployed the letter as an effective means of establishing social and political networks for patronage and to ensure that their ideas entered circulation among their peers. In accordance with the rules of communication (amicitiarum iura) in Late Antiquity, letters would impose a reciprocal obligation (officium votivum) on the recipient in the same way as gifts (munera) and called for a reply (obsequia).31 As in Symmachus, letters were a vehicle for conveying friendship which was cultivated and deepened by its correct performance (religiones quibus iure amicitia confertur).32 The 147 letters of Sidonius’ collection were addressed to 117 correspondents, mainly his friends in the Gallo-Roman elites and the 26 27 28

29 30

31

32

Amherdt (2004) 373–87. Loyen (1943) 65–92 and Köhler (1995) 10. Majorian had given Sidonius his patria and his vita back in 458 when he saved Lyon from being ruined by an oppressive tax burden (Sidon. Carm. 13.23–5). On the topography, see Reynaud (1998) 18. Harries (1994) 12, n. 30. Sidon. Ep. 4.21.5 taceo territorii peculiarem iucunditatem; taceo illud aequor agrorum, in quo sine periculo quaestuosae fluctuant in segetibus undae . . . ; viatoribus molle, fructuosum aratoribus, venatoribus voluptuosum; . . . quod denique huiusmodi est, ut semel visum advenis multis patriae oblivionem saepe persuadeat. (6) taceo civitatem ipsam tui semper amantissimam. Sidon. Ep. 4.7.3 percopiose me officii votivi compotem fecit, ‘he has enabled me to discharge my incumbent duty to the full’, 8.14.8 quia tuorum apicum detulit munera, meorum reportat obsequia, ‘since he brought me the boon of a letter from you, now he carries to you my respects in return’. Cf. 6.6.1 officiorum . . . sermonem, ‘the payment of my respects’, 8.9.1 (sc. litteras) quibus silentium meum culpas, ‘(your letter) in which you complain of my silence’, 9.4.1 propositae sedulitatis officia, ‘the obligations of our planned diligent correspondence’. See Mratschek (2018a, 2018b) with reference to Bourdieu’s concept of gift-exchange. Symm. Ep. 7.129 (ed. Seeck 213–14): see Matthews (1985) 81 = Matthews (2010) 234 and Mratschek (2002) 390–1. Cf. Sidon. Ep. 4.7.1 amicitiarum iura, ‘the claims of our friendship’, 7.17.1 lege amicitiae, quam nefas laedi, ‘the law of friendship, which it would be infamous to violate’, 7.10(11).2 quocirca salutatione praefata, sicut mos poscit officii, ‘so after the greeting which ordinary courtesy demands’, with Symm. Ep. 7.66 salutationis honore praefato, ‘having first given you the honour of greeting’, and 4.23.2 salutationis officium, ‘the duty of greeting’. They have the same function in the Greek East: see Cabouret (2014) 151–2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 218

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

219

clergy, or the political leadership in the Visigothic kingdom and in Burgundy.33 The focus is on writing about his own self; and, with one exception, all the letters are composed by the author himself.34 The author emphasises how the pagan tradition of epistolography lives on in his letters – in cultural terms through his shaping of individual letters according to their respective functions, and in social terms as shown by his audience, addressees, and readers. While Sidonius acknowledges his debt to Pliny the Younger for the stylistic principle of variatio and the structure of his letter collection,35 he consciously opts for a different approach in his dedication: rather than follow Pliny’s choice of a praetorian prefect such as P. Septicius Clarus, he apologetically passes over his relative Tonantius Ferreolus, a praetorian prefect, in favour of the priest Constantius, a close friend from Lyon.36 Sidonius considered that the humblest churchman (minimus religiosus) must take precedence over the most distinguished layman (honoratus maximus). A bishop and himself one of the boni, he argues that the first red-letter title of the whole collection (primae titulorum rubricae) can thus not be fittingly bestowed on Ferreolus (7.12.1) – only ‘the Proem in the Middle’ – and matches the action to the word by dedicating his letter collection (Books 1–8, at least) to Constantius, the priest not holding high office.37 Constantius was actively involved in revision and publication of the text.38 High-born, a gifted orator and excellent poet, he came from the same social and cultural milieu as Sidonius, and had kinship ties to his circle.39 The two friends were closely linked by shared activities.40 But the decisive factor behind Sidonius’ choice of dedicatee was the deep gratitude (gratiae quam fundamenta tam culmina, ‘both the foundation and the culmination of gratitude’) that Constantius had earned when he visited Clermont during the Visigothic siege in winter 473.41 The advice given by the priest after seeing the ravaged city for himself 33

34 35 36 37

38

39

40

41

On the number of addressees, see Kaufmann’s (1995) Prosopography, 275–356. The number of addressees is unchanged by the question of whether there may in fact be the remains of 148 letters, since Ep 1.4b lacks an address (see Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, n. 11). For a full and reasoned prosopography of Sidonius’ oeuvre, including social network analysis, see in this volume Mathisen, ch. 2. Sidon. Ep. 4.2 by Claudianus Mamertus. Sidon. Ep. 1.1: see Gibson (2011, 2013b). Sidon. Ep. 1.1, 3.2, 7.18 (to Constantius); cf. 7.12.1; 4 (to Ferreolus) commented on in n. 37. See the chiasmus and the ambiguity at Sidon. Ep. 7.12.4 (to Ferreolus): praestantior secundum bonorum sententiam computatur honorato maximo minimus religiosus, ‘according to the view of the best men, the humblest ecclesiastic ranks above the most exalted secular dignity’. According to Mratschek (2017) 311-13, primae titulorum rubricae refers to the whole letter collection and to Constantius (cf. the front cover of MS Laud. Lat. 104, fol. 2r, from the Bodleian Library, Oxford); according to van Waarden (2016a) 60–1, however, to the collection of bishops and Lupus (Ep. 6.1–7.11). Ferreolus, praef. praet. Galliarum 451 and rector columenque Galliarum, ‘helmsman and mainstay of the Gauls’ (Carm. 24.35), has not actually entered the ranks of the clergy; see PLRE 2, 465–6 and Mratschek (2017) 311–12. But see the excellent observation of Ep. 7.12 as a ‘proem in the middle’ by van Waarden (2016a) 53–5 and 80–1: Tonantius Ferreolus is treated ‘as though he were the lowest ranking bishop’ and accorded ‘an intermediary position’ because of his eminent rank. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.3 tibi . . . has litterulas . . . defaecendas . . . limandasque commisi, ‘I submit these letters to you for revision and purging.’ Sidon. Ep. 3.2.2 nobilitate sublimis, 9.16.1 praestantioris facundiae dotes, vir singularis ingenii, 2.10.3 eminens poeta; cf. his verse inscription in the basilica at Lyon (2.10.3) for which Sidonius and other friends also wrote poems. A son of Ruricius was called Constantius; on nomenclature and possible kinship, see Ruric. Ep. 2.24, 2.43; cf. Mathisen (1981a) 107, n. 46 = Mathisen (1991a) 25, n. 46, (1999a) 24, n. 30. Sidon. Ep. 2.10.3 on the poems on the Basilica of St Justus: the tumultuarium carmen of Sidonius in hendecasyllables (Carm. 27 in §4); hexameters by Constantius and Secundinus to the right and left of the altar. Sidon. Ep. 3.2.4. The travelling distance from Lyon to Clermont was 180 km! See Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 13.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 219

13/02/20 4:00 PM

220

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

encouraged the townspeople to rebuild their homes and resume their common defence policy.42 He was backed by the authority and great wealth of Bishop Patiens of Lyon.43 As a holder of government office under three Roman emperors and then of a bishopric, Sidonius, like Pliny the Younger before him, exemplified how political duty and literary inclination might typically interact: his ironic comment that he owed the urban prefecture (468) purely to ‘the good style’ of his panegyric veils the harsh reality that the emperor Anthemius badly needed endorsement by the Gallo-Roman aristocracy.44 The conspicuous silence of Sidonius about his consecration as a bishop (469) in succession to Eparchius, a relative of his wife, suggests that this sudden shift was not a happy promotion from worldly dignity to spiritual honour.45 As in his everyday life, the secular and ecclesiastical aristocracy around him were divided into two distinct circles in his social thought and in his correspondence: men of letters and high-ranking clerical dignitaries. Formally, the difference in etiquette is clear at first glance, from the letters’ opening and closing salutations.46 High culture and high office are the main criteria for inclusion in the correspondence. The honour of first and last mention in the series of the episcopal letters (6.1 and 9.11)47 goes to Lupus of Troyes, episcopus episcoporum. According to Sidonius, the recipient of more than one letter in the collection, like Lupus, might feel especially honoured, which suggests that an act of self-fashioning is involved.48 The regional distribution of the correspondents is illuminating: the centres of letter production in Gaul, and the routes by which letters were circulated, can be traced through the distribution patterns of the letters. Sidonius spent most of his life in the Roman enclaves of the Auvergne and the Rhône valley. As with the correspondence of senators from the old days – Pliny, Symmachus, Ausonius – exchanges of letters were most intensive in the areas where Sidonius, his relatives, and friends had their homes.49 With sixteen recipients in Lyon

42

43 44 45

46

47

48

49

Sidon. Ep. 3.2.1 quas tu lacrimas ut parens omnium super aedes incendio prorutas et domicilia semiusta fudisti! . . . quae tua deinceps exhortatio, quae reparationem suadentis animositas!, ‘what tears you shed, as if you were the father of us all, over buildings levelled by fire and houses half-burnt . . . and then how animating was your encouragement, what a great spirit you showed in urging them to rebuild’, 3.2.2 quibus tuo monitu non minus in unum consilium quam in unum oppidum revertentibus muri tibi debent plebem reductam, plebs reducta concordiam, ‘it was at your admonition that they returned not only to a united town but also to a united policy, and to you the walls owe the return of their people, to you the returned people their harmony’, 9.16.1 (Constantius as vir . . . consilii salutaris, ‘man of wholesome judgment’). See Harries (1994) 226–7. Sidon. Ep. 6.12.5; Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.24. See below, sect. 4. Sidon. Ep. 1.9.8 stili occasione. See Harries (1994) 11-12. Harries (1994) 15, van Waarden (2011b) 1, Brown (2012) 405; see Gotoh (1997) and Gerth (2013) 158 for an alternative perspective. Cf. Delaplace (2015) 25 supposing ‘a radical change of his political position’. Salutation to his literary friends: name of the addressee, in the dative, with the possessive pronoun suo; to the bishops: domino papae; farewell salutation to his friends: vale; to the bishops: memor nostri esse dignare, domine papa (‘deign to keep us in mind, lord bishop’). See Mathisen (2013a) 241–2. Sidon. Ep. 9.11.5 adde, quia etiam in hoc . . . reverentiae tuae meritorumque ratio servata est, quod sicut tu antistitum ceterorum cathedris, prior est tuus in libro titulus, ‘add that also in this point have I shown due consideration for your venerable character and merits, that namely, just as you hold the first place among the enthroned bishops, so your name forms the first superscription in a book’. Sidonius began a letter to Fortunalis with the words (8.5.1): ‘You also shall find a place in my pages, pillar of friendship’, Ibis et tu in paginas nostras, amicitiae columen. He apologises to Gelasius for not yet having included him in his letter collection (Ep. 9.15.1): deliqui, quippe qui necdum nomine tuo ullas operi meo litteras iunxerim. Claudianus Mamertus complained that he was not mentioned in Sidonius’ correspondence (Ep. 4.2.2). In Transpadana, in central Italy directed towards Rome, or in Aquitania; see Bowersock (1986) 1-12 (Symmachus and Ausonius); Sivan (1993) 66–79 (Ausonius); Mratschek (2003) (Pliny’s circle and its geographic reach).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 220

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

221

and fifteen in Clermont, his correspondence is distinctly concentrated in his own patria and that of his wife Papianilla. Only in three instances is it certain that letters have a destination outside Gaul: one was sent to Spain, one to the former imperial residence at Ravenna, and one to Rome.50 The anodyne letter of congratulations to Audax, prefect of Rome in 474/5, is an exception, but in the period of dissolution of Roman rule in Gaul, there is no other record of any direct exchange of letters between Sidonius and influential power-brokers in Rome itself, fastigatissimi consulares such as Gennadius Avienus, one of the negotiators with Attila, or Fl. Caecina Decius Basilius, a former praetorian prefect of Italy.51 Sensitive communications with the old centre of power were conducted face to face. An epistle to a good friend from Lyon records how Sidonius, after a fruitless search, found accommodation in the palace of a former prefect of Rome, and gained access to the imperial court and the urban prefecture through advice given by the prominent ex-consul Caecina Decius Basilius.52 The dynamic region of Sidonius’ communications extended from Aquitania to Provence, to the two Narbonnensian provinces, Viennensis and Aquitanica II: nine letters went to relatives and friends in Narbonne, five to Vienne, four each to Nîmes, Arles, and Bordeaux. Sidonius’ correspondence illustrates how far the retreat had progressed: the urban centres of Gallo-Roman culture and those who still upheld that culture had withdrawn into southern Gaul, where they were clustered around the new headquarters of the praetorian prefecture at Arles, and the dense channels of communication and interactive networks that once linked the aristocracy of Gaul and Italy had been gradually crumbling since 420.53 In Sidonius’ hybrid correspondence, two epistolographical cultures overlap: the classical senatorial form focused on the elite circle and limited to a single narrowly defined cultural landscape; and the trail-blazing new concept of global communication among Christian intellectuals.54 While the lion’s share of the letters went to big landowners of his own class, Sidonius, as bishop of Clermont, devoted a special ‘collection within the letter collection’ (Ep. 6.1–7.11, 8.13–15, 9.2–11) to his fellow bishops associated with a third class, the conversi 50

51

52

53

54

Sidon. Ep. 8.5.1 (to Fortunalis, a native of Spain) Hibericarum decus inlustre regionum, ‘bright glory of Spanish lands’. It is uncertain whether Oresius came from Tarraconensis (Ep. 9.12.1 pagina . . . quae trahit multam similitudinem de sale Hispano in iugis caeso Tarraconensibus, ‘a letter from you . . . which bears much likeness to Spanish salt cut on the hills of Tarraconensis’). He may be identical with the founder of the church at Narbonne (CIL 12.5336 = ILCV 1806: date 445). Candidianus, to whom Ep. 1.8.1–2 is addressed, was a native of Cesena (Caesenatis . . . verna), but lived in Ravenna (te Ravennae felicius exulantem). Audax is congratulated on his promotion to a prefecture in Sidon. Ep. 8.7, and must be Castalius Innocentius Audax 3 (PLRE 2, 184–5), attested epigraphically as prefect of Rome under Julius Nepos in 474/5 (see CIL 3.9335 = 15.7110a-e = ILS 814); it is not, however, evident from the letter itself that the prefecture is urban rather than praetorian or that Audax was based in Rome. Debate continues over whether the Ligurian poet Proculus (Carm. 40 (Ep. 9.15.1) 44 humo atque gente cretus in Ligustide) can be identified with the Proculus to whom Ep. 4.23 is addressed: this view is raised doubtfully in Loyen (1970) 3.176 n. 69, and opposed in PLRE 2, 923–4 (Proculus 4). Sidon. Ep. 1.9.2. On Avienus (PLRE 2, 193–4 (Gennadius Avienus 4)), cos. 450, on Basilius (PLRE 2, 216–17 (Basilius 11)), cos. 463, PPO Italiae 458 and 465, see Cameron (2012) 150–3 and Croke (2014) 122. Sidon. Ep. 1.9.1 blanda hospitalitas, ‘cordial hospitality’, of Paulus, a man of prefectorian rank, identified as Fl. Synesius Gennadius Paulus, praefectus urbi before 467 (PLRE 2, 855 (Paulus 36)), 1.5.9 conducti deversorii parte susceptus, ‘I found quarters in a hired lodging’, 1.9.6 (on Basilius) egit cum consule meo, ut me praefectum faceret senatui, ‘he got my consul to appoint me as president of the senate’. Heronius (Herenius according to Köhler 1995), addressee of the letter and accompanying letter, lived in Lyon (Ep. 1.5.2 Rhodanusiae nostrae moenibus). Wickham (2005) 181 and Riché (1976) 177–83 rightly emphasise ‘the greater strength of southern aristocracies’, cf. Mathisen (1992) 236–7 on the historical background and Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 16 on the disappearance of Rome from the correspondence. On the World Wide Web of Christians see Mratschek (2002) 266–73, fig. 16 (395–6), fig. (rear endpaper), and (2010).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 221

13/02/20 4:00 PM

222

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

(Ep. 7.12–18), and this correspondence was a typical example of Christian communication in aiming for as wide a dissemination as possible.55 Euric, who saw the Catholic church as a pillar of Romanitas,56 often left sees vacant for years,57 or banished incumbents, and occasionally handed Catholic churches over to the Arian clergy.58 Sidonius’ strategy in response was to build up a network of correspondents linking Gaul’s episcopal sees,59 which ensured that contact among office-holders was preserved, and also constituted a decision-making body for the election of new bishops. Most of the letters to the bishops of his day60 – there were a few also to officials in the Visigothic kingdom of Aquitania and in Burgundian Sapaudia on the upper Rhône – were official, either recommendations or legal interventions; most of them, again, unlike those to his literary friends, were one-off letters and served to enhance the writer’s status as a man of power and prestige.

4 Reorientation: Ritual and Religion Brought up as they had been according to the traditions of classical education,61 Sidonius and his friends sought inspiration from the pagan Latin literature of the past (see chapter 6 in this volume). Yet these traditional patterns of Roman life and a superficially static cultural atmosphere concealed an almost imperceptible metamorphosis that over time saw many of the rituals of a cultivated private life gradually integrated into a Christian religious system and interpreted in a new way. The younger Consentius, clam sanctus, iam palam religiosus, provides a clear example of the new way of life. Before his retirement, he had been charged with the oversight of Avitus’ palace.62 The architecturally notable features of his villa included not only colonnades and baths

55

56

57

58

59 60

61

62

For the third category, the conversi, which link both extremes, and the ‘Ascetic Letters’, see van Waarden (2016a) passim, esp. 22–6. On globalisation see Mratschek (2019). Sidon. Ep. 7.6.6 (on Euric) praefatum regem Gothorum . . . non tam Romanis moenibus quam legibus Christianis insidiaturum pavesco. . . . ut ambigas, suae gentis an suae sectae teneat principatum, ‘I fear the said king of the Goths less for his designs against our Roman city walls than against our Christian laws. . . . that one doubts whether he is more the ruler of his nation or of his sect’. See Harries (1996) 43. Sidon. Ep. 7.6.7–9, esp. 7 (on the catholici status valetudo occulta, the ‘secret malady of the body Catholic’): in Bordeaux, Périgueux, Rodez, Limoges, Javols, Eauze, Bazas, Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, Auch, etc., no successor bishops were elected (7.6.8 nulla in desolatis cura diocesibus parochiisque, ‘no oversight in the desolate [urban] dioceses and [rural] parishes’). See Stein (1928) 380, Harries (1994) 34, 45, Pietri (1998) 214. Sidon. Ep. 7.6.9 taceo vestros Crocum Simpliciumque collegas, quos cathedris sibi traditis eliminatos similis exilii cruciat poena dissimilis, ‘I need scarcely mention your colleagues, Crocus and Simplicius, ousted from the thrones to which they had succeeded and suffering different tortures from a similar exile.’ On the exiling of Crocus, which may have been from Nîmes, Simplicius from Bourges, and Volusianus from Tours by the Goths c. 496 on suspicion of collaboration with the Franks (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.26), of Aprunculus (Sidonius’ successor in Gothic Clermont) from Langres by the Burgundians in the early 480s (2.23), and also of Faustus of Riez, see Stein (1928) 580 and Harries (1994) 34, n. 18. Cf. PCBE 4, 173 (Aprunculus 2), 743–4 (Faustus 1), 2002–3 (Volusianus 1). But note the rhetorical overstatement in Ep. 7.6 referred to by Wood (1992) 12–13, Mathisen and Sivan (1999) 38–9, 41–2, Schwitter (2015) 270–5. On the concentration in Gaul, see Gemeinhardt (2007) 237; cf. Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 15, fig. 4. He permits himself epitaphs and mytho-poetic interpolations, however, e.g. Sidon. Ep. 6.12.6 (comparison with Triptolemus), 7.2.9 (marriage fraud as comedy from Attica or Miletus), 7.9.8 (‘Scyllae’ of abusive tirades), 7.3.1 (comparison with Apelles, Phidias, and Polyclitus). Sidonius (Ep. 5.21.1) said of himself: mihi quoque semper a parvo cura Musarum, ‘I also from boyhood have constantly cultivated the Muses’; Carm. 23.210–13 (on Consentius). See Mratschek (2020). Sidon. Ep. 8.4.4 ut qui Christo favente clam sanctus es, iam palam religiosus, ‘you who by Christ’s grace are pious in private, now also openly religious’. On Consentius’ career and his post of cura palatii in 455/6 (Carm. 23.255, 432), see PLRE 2, 308–9 (Consentius 2), Mathisen (1991a) 150, 172, 200, Matthews (1975) 339–40.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 222

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

223

but a private chapel (sacrarium).63 Ancient practices of aristocratic mobility to maintain social contacts (amicitia) were replaced by pastoral visits in the name of Christian charity (caritas).64 The poet Sidonius who had visited the estate of Pontius Leontius in 461/2, and had referred to the church there as a temple of that god (templa dei) who is the greatest, was now invited in his episcopal capacity to consecrate a baptistery (baptisterium) on Elaphius’ lands near Rodez and invited a friend to take part in the new ritual of the Rogations at Clermont.65 Sidonius was trying to recruit his friends and relatives as members of the clergy. In the early to mid-470s, when Ruricius was becoming interested in adopting a religious life, Sidonius sent him a copy of a part of the Old Testament.66 He considered that for a prominent politician like Tonantius Ferreolus, who had defended his country against the Huns and Arles against the Visigoths commanded by King Thorismund, and had earned respect by securing tax relief for landowners in Gaul, it should be easy to exchange his place among the praetorian prefects (inter praefectos Valentiniani) for one among Christ’s saints (inter perfectos Christi) as a priest.67 The aristocratic and wealthy Volusianus, a landowner residing near Bayeux, whom Sidonius had asked to take charge of St Cirgues abbey at Clermont ‘over the head of the abbot’, reappears ten years on as bishop of Tours.68 The former Palatine official Maximus of Toulouse adopted an ascetic appearance and lifestyle, but continued to reside in his villa as a priest.69 Another senator followed the ascetic way of life, but wore the cloak of a military commander, not the cowl of a monk.70 The traditions of leisure (otium) extolled by Sidonius had likewise changed fundamentally. The old pursuits were now in competition with specifically Christian modes of behaviour, or might be invested with new Christian significance. Talented poets like Constantius and Sidonius, now priests and bishops, vied in composing verse inscriptions for the new basilica of St Justus in Lyon, commissioned by Bishop Patiens.71 Earlier, in the cultivated house of Consentius, who headed the literary circle in Narbonne, Sidonius had felt physically surrounded by the presence of the Muses.72 Now, as a bishop, he recommends to Consentius that when he withdraws to

63

64

65

66 67

68

69

70

71

72

Sidon. Ep. 8.4.1 tum sacrario porticibus ac thermis conspicabilibus late coruscans, ‘next, it gleams far and wide from the conspicuous chapel, colonnades, and baths’. On aristocratic friendship (amicitia), see Mathisen (1993) 13–16; on episcopal visits to Vienne, Rodez, Bourges, Chantelle-la-Vieille, see Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 7–8. Sidon. Carm. 22.218 (Leontius’ Burgus): templa dei qui maximus ille est, ‘the temple of that god who is greatest’. See the discussion on dating in Delhey (1993) 9–12 and Kelly ch. 3 sect. 3.1. Ep. 4.15.1 (Elaphius’ castellum) nam baptisterium, quod olim fabricabamini, scribitis posse iam consecrari, ‘for you write that the baptistery, which you had long been building, is now ready for consecration’. Sidon. Ep. 5.14.1 (Rogations): see Bailey (2016) 113–15. Sidon. Ep. 5.15 (Heptateuch for his relative Ruricius): see Mathisen (1999a) 22, 29, 87 (Stemma), 119–20. On Ferreolus, Sidon. Ep. 7.12.3–4; cf. the alliterative wordplay; see n. 37 and van Waarden (2016a) 53–82. Sidonius advises Elaphius to undergo ‘open conversion’ (4.15.2). Sidon. Ep. 7.17.4 quaeso, ut abbas sit frater Auxanius supra congregationem, tu vero ut supra abbatem, 4.18.2 and Vita Vigoris 5, AASS Nov. 1, 300 (praedia Baiocassina); Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.26 (valde dives), Ruric. Ep. 2.65 (nobilitas). See Heinzelmann (1982) 717 and PCBE 4, 2001–3 (Volusianus 1); cf. the discussion in van Waarden (2016a) 200–1. Sidon. Ep. 4.24.2 (villa), 3 (habitus . . . religiosus), 4 (impacto sacerdotio). See Harries (1994) 215–16 and Bailey (2016) 40 on external markers of the clergy. Sidon. Ep. 4.9.3 (on the vir illustris Vettius) novoque genere vivendi monachum complet non sub palliolo sed sub paludamento. Note the alliterative wordplay palliolo – paludamento. On the exemplary layman and the diversity of religious behaviour, see Bailey (2016) 117–18. Sidon. Ep. 2.10.3–4 (for Bishop Patiens, with a copy to Hesperius): the tumultuarium carmen of Sidonius in hendecasyllables; hexameters by Constantius and Secundinus to the right and left of the altar (see also above n. 40). Cf. 4.18.5 (for Bishop Perpetuus of Tours). Sidon. Carm. 23.500–1 post quas (sc. thermas) nos tua pocula et tuarum / Musarum medius torus tenebat, ‘after the bath your cups and a couch in the midst of your Muses would claim us’. On the rhetorical functions of the Muses, see Mratschek (2020).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 223

13/02/20 4:00 PM

224

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

his house his ‘tongue should be dedicated to praising heaven, the mind intent on thoughts of heaven, the right hand busy dispensing offerings of heaven’.73 In the thanksgiving to Faustus of Riez, author of De spiritu sancto, he invokes not the Muses but the Holy Spirit, and recalls emotionally charged scenes from his own baptism by the bishop.74 Sidonius defends Faustus against the charge of semi-Pelagianism by means of a Christian metaphor when favourably reviewing his second book, On the Doctrine of Grace: Faustus has merely placed pagan philosophy at the service of the church, Sidonius argues, overcoming the pagans ‘with their own weapons’.75 Claudianus Mamertus, his opponent, a man of eloquence and a precursor of scholasticism, dedicated himself untiringly to neo-Platonic philosophy without on that account forsaking religion; he was a priest, and brother to the bishop of Vienne.76 In spite of their deviation from official church doctrine, Faustus and Sidonius were venerated after death as saints.77 Gaul had a long-standing tradition of euergetism. The social-anthropological concept of gift-exchange specific to ancient cultures was reinterpreted and given transcendental significance as Christian almsgiving when Bishop Patiens of Lyon, at his own expense, organised grain distribution not only for the Rhône and Saône valleys but beyond his diocese as well, and Sidonius’ brother-in-law Ecdicius reportedly kept 4,000 people fed during a famine.78 They were honoured as benefactors and commemorated by later generations as recipients of miracles.79 The munificence of the Christian bishop, Patiens, was compared with that of Triptolemus, a hero in pagan mythology who was almost immortalised for his invention of agriculture.80 To 73

74

75

76

77 78

79

80

Ep. 8.4.4 invigiletque caelestibus lingua praeconiis, anima sententiis, dextra donariis. On demarcating lectiones spiritales (Ep. 7.9.1) from pagan literature, see Eigler (2003) 148–9. Sidon. Carm. 16.5–6 magis ille veni nunc spiritus, oro, pontificem dicture tuum, ‘rather do you come, great Spirit, I pray, to speak of your pontiff’, 16.78–88, esp. 81–4 hospite te (i.e. Fausto) nostros excepit protinus aestus / pax, domus, umbra, latex, benedictio, mensa, cubile. / . . . voluisti, / ut sanctae matris sanctum quoque limen adirem, ‘your hospitality straightway greeted my hot discomfort with peace, home, shade, water, benediction, bed, and board. . . . you were willing for me to approach also the hallowed threshold of the hallowed mother’. See Santelia (2012) 122–6 with improved interpretation by Köhler (2015) 124–5 and PCBE 4, 1764–5 (Sidonius 1); not a baptism, but confession; cf. Amherdt (2014) 424–5; on poetics, see Condorelli (2008) 145–8, Hernández Lobato (2014a), and Mratschek (2020). Gennadius 86 (91 Richardson): Faustus . . . conposuit librum De Spiritu Sancto. Sidon. Ep. 9.9.15 Stoicos, Cynicos, Peripateticos haeresiarchas propriis armis, propriis quoque concuti machinamentis. Cf. Ambr. In psalm. 118 21.10–12; Aug. Doctr. christ. 2.60; Paul. Nol. Ep. 16.11. PCBE 4, 740–1 (Faustus 1), and Hebert (1988) 329–30. Sidon. Ep. 4.11.1 vir siquidem fuit . . . doctus, eloquens, acer et hominum aevi, loci, populi sui ingeniosissimus quique indesinenter salva religione philosopharetur, ‘he was a man . . . learned, eloquent, ardent, the most talented among men of his time, his country, and of his people, and one who ceaselessly devoted himself to philosophy without detriment to religion’, 5.2.1 peritissimus Christianorum philosophus, ‘the first of all Christian savants’. Cf. Sidonius’ epitaph for him (Carm. 30 (Ep. 4.11.6) 17–18): antistes fuit ordine in secundo, ‘he was a priest of the second order’. On the philosophy of De statu animae and its inspiration from Porphyry, see Brittain (2001) 259–60 and Schmid (1957) 170–9. Faustus in southwestern Aremorica (PBCE 4.735, s.v. Faustus 1), Sidonius in Clermont: see Prévot (1993b). Sidon. Ep. 6.12.5 post Gothicam depopulationem, post segetes incendio absumptas, peculari sumptu inopiae communi per desolatas Gallias gratuita frumenta misisti, ‘when the crops had been consumed by fire you sent free supplies of corn through all the devastated Gallic lands at your private expense to relieve the public destitution’. See Harries (1994) 227. Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.24 (Ecdicius) eos [pauperes] per omne tempus sterelitates pascens, ab interitu famis eximit. fueruntque . . . amplius quam quattuor milia promiscui sexus, ‘by feeding them through the whole period of the famine he saved them from death by starvation; there were more than 4,000 of both sexes’. See Mratschek (2008) 378, and on Christian gift-giving (2018b, 2019). Sidonius himself (Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.22) and Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 34.7) likewise typified the amator pauperum: see Mratschek (2002) 601–2 and (2018b). Sidon. Ep. 6.12.6 fabularum cedant figmenta gentilium et ille quasi in caelum relatus pro reperta spicarum novitate Triptolemus, ‘the inventions of pagan fable must yield pride of place, with their Triptolemus supposedly consigned to heaven for discovering the unfamiliar corn-ear’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 224

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

225

Ecdicius, amator pauperum, and his descendants a voice from heaven prophesied a perpetual supply of bread.81 Sidonius assured his cousin Avitus, who had endowed the church in Clermont with his estate, Cuticiacum, that in return for his gift he had come by an inheritance as a ‘reward from Heaven’.82 And he rejoiced over the piety of the new comes of the Auvergne, Victorius, who paid for a holy man to be accorded a funeral ‘appropriate for a bishop’.83 A contrastingly light-hearted image of Sidonius as bishop presents him reading Terence and Menander in the company of his son.84 On consecration as bishop he had declared his intention to renounce poetry ab exordio religiosae professionis, but continued nevertheless to circulate his pagan poems privately among his friends, retaining copies with a view to one final publication.85 Sidonius the bishop had not the slightest scruple in comparing the ascetic lifestyle of Euric’s adviser Leo with the Life of Apollonius of Tyana.86 As Most has shown, the early-third-century biography of this thaumaturge can be read as a pagan version of the resurrection of Jesus and his miraculous appearance.87 Sidonius the secular author, whose panegyrics elevated deceased emperors to the company of the gods (divi), used the term deus in the singular to describe divine power.88 Flatly declining to write works of theology or contemporary history, he nevertheless agreed that, rather than write a History of the Huns, he would accept a commission from the bishop of Orléans to compose a hagiography of the latter’s predecessor, Anianus, who in 451 had repelled the Huns from the city walls of his see.89 Late antique Christianity was by no means a predetermined, immutable, and ageless set of doctrines, ethical requirements, and sanctions.90 On the contrary, the reformation of the religious landscape was characterised by a remarkable experimental variety and diversification of religious expression, as European life became Christian. Whether Sidonius was ‘religious’ or not remains, given his silence, an unresolved question.91 The same applies to most other bishops of 81

82 83

84

85

86

87

88

89 90 91

Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.24 (vox . . . e caelis lapsa) Ecdici, Ecdici, quia fecisti rem hanc, tibi et semini tuo panis non deerit in sempiternum, eo quod obaudieris verbis meis et famem meam refectione pauperum satiaberis, ‘(a voice coming down from heaven:) ‘Ecdicius, Ecdicius, as you have done this, you and your descendants will never be short of bread in all eternity, because you obeyed my words and relieved my hunger by feeding the poor.’ Cf. Sidonius’ praise in Ep. 3.3 (to Ecdicius). Sidon. Ep. 3.1.3 Nicetiana namque . . . hereditas Cuticiaci supernum pretium fuit. Sidon. Ep. 7.17.2 totum apparatum supercurrentis impendii quod funerando sacerdoti competeret impertiens (sacerdos here means bishop). On Victorius’ further religiously motivated donations, see Brown (2012) 406 and Jones (2009) 221; on a latent animosity towards Victorius concerning the primacy of patronage, cf. van Waarden (2016a) 207–9. Sidon. Ep. 4.12.2 with Hanaghan (2019) 54: legebamus, pariter laudabamus iocabamurque, ‘we were reading, praising, and jesting together’. Models exist in the solicitude of Ausonius for his grandson’s education (Protrepticus) and in Symmachus (Ep. 5.5). See Eigler (2003) 150, allegedly ‘without further consequences’; cf. Gerth (2013) 160–71. Sidon. Ep. 9.12.1: renunciation of poetry. Ep. 9.13.6 tales enim nugas in imo scrinii fundo muribus perforata post annos circiter viginti profero in lucem, ‘for I now bring to light about twenty years after they were written some trifling verses which have been lying at the bottom of a book-case, nibbled full of holes by the mice’. See Mratschek (2017) 311, 314–36. Ep. 8.3.5 lege virum fide catholicae pace praefata in plurimis similem tui, ‘read a man who – be it said with all due deference to the Catholic faith – was in most respects like you’. On the complicated and still controversial Christian interpretation of Apollonius, see Most (2004) 112–13, 245, and recently Cameron (2011) 556–8 on a ‘depaganised Apollonius’. Sidon. Carm. 2.542 si mea vota deus perduxerit, ‘if god further my prayers’, 2.317–18, where Sidonius wrote that Severus, the western emperor, after his death auxerat . . . divorum numerum, ‘had increased the ranks of the gods’. See Cameron (1970) 197. Sidon. Ep. 8.15.1, although he did claim to have begun work on the history of the Huns, see Harries (1994) 18–19. Cf. Fried (2008) 100, on ‘Religion and Church’ in the Middle Ages. Sidon. Ep. 7.14.9 ascribes the role of an ecclesiastic or a religious person (religiosus) to Philagrius and the shadow of one (imaginem) to himself: a topos of modesty? Demandt (2007) 510 calls him a cultured Christian (‘Kultur-Christen’); but see van Waarden (2011a) 111 and (2016a) 17–22: ‘The Lerinian background is Sidonius’ natural habitat.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 225

13/02/20 4:00 PM

226

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

Late Antiquity, though not to advocates of ascetic ideas.92 It is clear, however, that from the fifth century onwards acquisition of a bishopric provided aristocrats with a highly effective means of maintaining their prominence in local society and keeping up the activities expected of their rank: public benefactions, patronage of buildings, and the leisure to engage in literature. This in no way implied that pagan philosophy, myths, and social practices had become irrelevant: they lived on into the Middle Ages as part of the assets of a newly evolving educational culture that was to unite and perpetuate Roman, Greek, and Christian thought in its reservoir of knowledge.93

5 Transformation: The Patron and his Messengers With the imperial court transferred to Ravenna in 402/3 and with much of Gaul occupied by Visigoths and Burgundians, we enter the fragmented and volatile new world of an Age of Transition. Gallo-Roman senators lost their political influence in the empire, and communications were forced into new channels. Deprived of access to the emperor as a source of dispensation of honours and distinctions, they chose, as Sidonius noted (Ep. 2.1.4), either to leave their homeland or remain and join the clergy: statuit . . . nobilitas seu patriam dimittere seu capillos.94 It was no coincidence that both the readiness of wealthy aristocrats to seek episcopal office and the growth of the monastic movement in Gaul reached their apogee in the period when close ties with central government began to loosen.95 Sidonius’ letter collection presents a picture of this transition from the serene daylight of Ausonius’ world of educated aristocrats to a world of churchmen mediating with warlords on behalf of their people. His letters differ from those of the Church Fathers in that they served no ‘sacramental function’, and the messengers were not a mirror image of their master:96 ‘They had business to transact.’97 Sidonius’s copyist and bookseller was a paid professional, who personally brought a manuscript written in his own hand to Ruricius.98 The letter-writer used his messengers as highly mobile agents to keep open the channels through which information could arrive from crisis-hit areas, to bring support to friends and subordinates, and to keep his readers up to date with the culture and literary production of Gaul. In 468, in his capacity as urban prefect, Sidonius received a personal briefing from the prefect of the Annona about an impending famine in Rome.99 In winter 471/2, after Eutropius’ diocese had been laid waste by Euric’s soldiers, Sidonius confided to 92

93 94 95

96

97 98

99

See Mathisen (1993) 91–3, Rapp (2005) 193, and Jones (2009) 114–28: ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocrats’. One criterion could be the portrayal of conversion, e.g. in Augustine’s Confessions. Such as the library of Claudianus Mamertus (Sidon. Ep. 4.11.6). See further ch. 6, sect. 5. For a different view, see Frye (1994) 60–1 and Delaplace (2014) 24. Sidonius’ choice for the episcopal elections of Bourges was a vir spectabilis and layman (Ep. 7.8.2–3): see Norton (2007) 178–80 and van Waarden (2011a) 558. Most of the bishops promoted to the Metropolitan sees came from aristocratic families. See Heinzelmann (1976) 231 and (1982) on the evidence provided by bishops’ epitaphs, Mathisen’s case study on individual families (1979d), and the inferences drawn by Rapp (2005) 192–3. But note the doubts of Patzold (2014) arguing for an increasing role of the local elites, a consequence of the loss of local power by the defensor civitatis, see Schmidt-Hofner (2014) 511–22. On Sidonius’ successors in the see of Clermont, cf. Jones (2009) 116, contra Patzold (2014) 531–2. See further Bailey in this volume, ch. 7. The messengers Sidonius sent to Rusticus of Bordeaux (Ep. 2.11.2) were an exception. Cf. Conybeare (2000) 55–9 and Mratschek (2011). A point well put by Harries (1994), ch. 10, ‘The bishop at work’ (207–21), esp. 208. Sidon. Ep. 5.15, esp. 1 librum igitur hic (sc. bybliopola) ipse deportat heptateuchi, scriptum velocitate summa, ‘so he [the bookseller] is bringing you by his own hand a copy of the Heptateuch, written by him with great speed’. Cf. 2.8.2 mercennarius bybliopola, ‘the bookseller I employ’. On the humble role of copyist, see Cameron (2011) 491 and 496; see also Santelia (2000). Sidon. Ep. 1.10.1 accepi per praefectum annonae litteras tuas.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 226

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

227

the bishop of Orange that he was ‘ravenous for news’.100 To relatives who had retreated before the Visigoths to Vaison in the south, he wrote enquiring about conditions there.101 Like the rest of his peer group, Sidonius employed slaves to carry his mail, but when opportunity arose, he would also ask friends and acquaintances to convey letters for him.102 In terms of social standing, the messengers (tabellarii, geruli, portitores) embraced all classes and religious denominations from Jews (Gozalas, Promotus) to clergy (Constans, Faustinus, Vindicius, Megethius), from clients and slaves (clientes, pueri) and free-born but despised paupers of low birth (personae despicabiles, obscurae, humiles) to officials, such as a vir tribunicius (Petrus) or a praefectus annonae serving under Sidonius, and blue-blooded viri clarissimi (Theodorus and Eminentius).103 As required by epistolary etiquette, high-ranking correspondents like the Count Arbogastes opted wherever possible to have their news conveyed by a senator of equal standing: Eminentius was the grandson of Sidonius’ former host Pontius Leontius, and was extolled in a letter from Bishop Faustus of Riez as dulce decus nostrum, ‘my dear glory’.104 But bottlenecks developing in a time of mass migrations might necessitate the adoption of emergency solutions, prompting occasional mockery and parody from Sidonius: one such instance was the commissioning of an illiterate and impoverished Goth (peregrinus, rusticus, pauper), who mixed with the rabble and lived a hand-to-mouth existence at the expense of rich villa owners; another is the case of the doltish messenger Hermes, who lost the reply letter and is wittily contrasted by Sidonius with Pliny’s unfailingly reliable messenger of the same name.105 The correspondence shows us Sidonius at the head of a widely ramified patronage system and of a body of clergy in Clermont not always focused on matters spiritual. A key role was played, as in Classical Antiquity, by letters of recommendation (commendationes), which were one of the main obligations of a bishop and Roman patron. Almost half of the messengers (thirteen of twenty-seven) were petitioners in their own cause. The matters raised were predominantly financial transactions and disputes, although one letter, to Bishop Lupus of Troyes, asked him to support reconciliation in a marital crisis.106 From Leontius of Arles, Sidonius

100 101

102 103

104

105

106

Sidon. Ep. 6.6.2 avidam nostrae ignorantiae . . . esuriem; 6.6.1 (Goths as foedifraga gens); cf. 6.12.8. Sidon. Ep. 4.4.1–2 and 4.6.1 to Simplicius and Apollinaris, Sidonius’ cousins. See Mathisen in this volume, ch. 2, sect. 10.4; contra Harries (1994) 177, Kaufmann (1995) 278, 358: Sidonius’ uncles. See Mratschek (2002) 274–324: ‘Das Postwesen’ (The postal system) and ‘Die Boten’ (The messengers). E.g. Sidon. Ep. 4.8.3 (puer of Evodius), 3.9.2 (humilis obscurus despicabilis), 3.4.1, 4.5.1 (Gozolas), 8.13.3 (Promotus), 4.12.2 (lector, a reader called Constans), 3.10.1 (Theodorus), 1.10.1 (praefectus annonae). My thanks for a tabulation of the messengers go to Ralph Mathisen, as well as to Joop van Waarden. See also the complete list in Kaufmann (1995) 244, n. 747. In this volume, see Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 11.2, and Wolff, ch. 12, sect. 3.14. From Bordeaux, Sidon. Ep. 4.17.1; cf. Faustus, Ep. 15 (MGH AA 8.282). See Mathisen (1982) 371 = (1991a) 372, and PBCE 4.628, s.v. Eminentius 1–2; on Arbogastes, Anton (1984) 1–52 and Nonn (2010) 106. Sidon. Ep. 4.7.1–3, esp. 2 (probably a Goth) cum invitabitur peregrinus ad domicilium, trepidus ad conloquium, rusticus ad laetititam, pauper ad mensam, et cum crudos caeparumque crapulis esculentos hic agat vulgus, illic ea comitate retractabitur ac si inter Apicios epulones et Byzantinos chironomuntas hucusque ructaverit, ‘when you bid the stranger welcome to your home, the nervous messenger to a talk with you, the bumpkin to your gaiety, the poor man to your table, and when a man who is here the ringleader in a dyspeptic mob that gorges itself on a surfeit of onions, there finds himself treated with as much courtesy as if he had hitherto made himself sick in the company of gormandising Apicii and of posturing carvers from Byzantium’, 4.12.3 (the ‘lector’, i.e. reader Constans) illum ipsum Hermam stolidissimum, ‘that senseless Hermes’. Cf. Plin. Ep. 7.11.6–7 has epistulas Hermes tulit exigentique (sc. Corelliae) . . . vides . . . quod libertus meus meis moribus gessit, ‘Hermes took her this letter, and when she asked . . . You see . . . what my freedman did in accordance with my wishes.’ Sidon. Ep. 6.9.1 Vir iam honestus Gallus, quia iussus ad coniugem redire non distulit, litterarum mearum obsequium, vestrarum reportat effectum, ‘Gallus, who has now established his character by immediately complying with your order to return to his wife, takes back in this letter my dutiful respects, and takes back in himself the effectual result of your letter.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 227

13/02/20 4:00 PM

228

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

expected that he deploy the authority of his episcopal office and the expertise of trained lawyers in a testamentary issue so as to secure ‘a safe haven’ for the messenger;107 he pleaded with Bishop Censorius to overlook the rent owed to the church by a deacon from Clermont who had fled the depredations of the Goths and illegally set up a little farm on land owned by the diocese of Auxerre;108 he asked Bishop Theoplastus of Geneva to provide hospitality for the client and slaves of Donidius of Nîmes, and also to find favourably in his friend’s legal case.109 In a time of crisis, correspondence and trade still continued to link the Mediterranean with the Arvernian hinterland: an amusing and illustrative anecdote concerns Sidonius’ lector and courier Amantius, who routinely transformed himself into a trader (negotiator) on the way from Clermont to Marseille.110 His services were so valuable that he gained Sidonius’ support in quashing an actio de repetundis, after he had used false assurances to abduct and impregnate the daughter of a rich Massiliote family.111 What had changed was not patronage or recommendation letters, but the sphere of influence of the actors involved, who, with the episcopalis audientia in the fourth century and universal synods, now occupied important clerical rather than political office, often, like Sidonius himself, without having held a previous position in the church.112 Lawyers, secular authorities like Riothamus, king of the Bretons, and landowning friends whom, before his ordination (469), Sidonius had asked to intervene against the powerful and well-connected (potentes et factiosos) afterwards became the exception.113 For legal assistance in property cases was now increasingly arranged by the bishops in Gaul. But bishops were not only judges, they were arbitrators and mediators as well.114 When Sidonius requested legal support or intervention in 107

108

109

110

111 112

113

114

Sidon. Ep. 6.3.2 commendamus apicum portitorem . . . grandis actionibus illius portus securitatis aperitur. negotium huic testamentarium est . . . hunc eatenus commendare praesumo, ut . . . auctoritas coronae tuae dissimulantibus studeat excudere responsi celeritatem, ‘I commend to you the bearer of this letter . . . a great haven of security will be opened to his pleas. His case concerns a will . . . I take it upon me to recommend him to the extent that . . . the influence of your Excellency may exert itself to force a quick response from those negligent gentlemen.’ Sidon. Ep. 6.10.1 hic cum familia sua depraedationis Gothicae turbinem vitans in territorium vestrum delatus est ipso . . . pondere fugae, ‘he with his family, seeking an escape from the whirlwind of Gothic depredation, was carried into your territory by the very impetus of his flight’, 6.10.2 huic si legitimam, ut mos est, solutionem perexiguae segetis indulgeas, ‘should you, as is your custom, let him off the statutory payment due for his exceedingly small bit of land’. See Harries (1994) 213–14. Sidon. Ep. 6.5.1 cuius (sc. Donidii) clientem puerosque commendo, profectos seu in patroni necessitate seu in domini. laborem peregrinantum qua potestis ope humanitate intercessione tutamini, ‘I commend to you his client and slaves, who have left home on the urgent business of patron or master. Support the labour of these travellers with all the help, the sympathy, and the invervention you can give.’ Sidon. Ep. 7.7.1 Ecce iterum Amantius, nugigerulus noster, Massiliam suam repetit, aliquid, ut moris est, de manubiis civitatis domum reportaturus, si tamen cataplus arriserit, ‘Here is Amantius again, the bearer of my trifles; he is returning again to his well-loved Massilia in order to carry home, as usual, his pickings from the city’s spoils – at least if the incoming ships should favour him’, an ambiguous joke, alluding to the commercial dealings and rich dowry of his wife. On Marseille, a late antique success story, see Loseby (1992) 165–85 and Brown (2012) 412. Sidon. Ep. 7.2. See Harries (1994) 214–15 and Jones (2009) 100–3 on Amantius’ ‘rhetoric of inclusion’. On the full jurisdiction (episcopalis audientia) of bishops in the period 331–408 according to Sirm. 1, see Sirks (2013) 79–88. Sidon. Ep. 3.10.3 to Tetradius, a lawyer from Arles (cf. Carm. 24.81–3): a legacy dispute, resolution uncertain; 5.1.3 to the jurist Petronius: the agnatic property right of Vindicius, deacon of Clermont, to an estate at Arles; 3.9.2 to King Riothamus: an appeal to restore slaves to a poor man, a non-native (peregrinus pauper) in the land of the Bretons. On the individual jurists, see Liebs (1998), but overall his approach is too positivist. Ep. 5.19.2 to Pudens: the sanctioning of a legitimate marriage (connubium) through the release of a tenant farmer, a colonus (inquilinus). See Mathisen (2003a) 64–5 and Jones (2009) 173–4. Harries (1999) ch. 10, ‘Dispute settlement II’: episcopalis audientia, focusing on their role as iudex and arbiter (191–211).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 228

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

229

disputes, he would send the petitioner (petitor) as a messenger in his own cause to the appropriate fellow bishop, whose role was to decide and settle the case. In recommendations and supra-regional decisions, the authority of a nobilis is now combined with that of a bishop and city governor, a position that also became attractive for the local elites after 500.115 The bringer of messages was no mere postman: he might be a close friend or trusted bearer of important personal or political news. Mere salutations in the manner of Symmachus for the sake of keeping friendships alive were rare,116 but on occasion a request would be so sensitive that Sidonius preferred to limit himself to a terse recommendation for the messenger. His letter to Bishop Eleutherius contained only a vague request for support in financial dealings with a Jew; another letter asked the bishop of Vaison to ‘use his authority’ to solve the messenger’s problem.117 Sometimes the topic was so explosive and the political situation (Arvernae forma vel causa regionis) so tense that Sidonius would send an oral message rather than a letter.118 While Euric was laying siege to Clermont, Sidonius could not contemplate visiting Provence. And now the city’s courageous defender was seized by an attack of claustrophobia. He painted a heart-rending picture of the distress surrounding him to convince Graecus, an envoy from Nepos to Euric, of the seriousness of the situation (Ep. 7.10(11).1): ‘and I, shut in here within the half-burnt confines of a fragile wall, am totally debarred by the menace of a war close at hand’. With his metaphor of the burning wall, which calls to mind a familiar Horatian proverb, Sidonius is deploying his characteristic combination of artistry and rhetoric to emphasise to his equally well-read fellow bishop that the conflict was spreading very rapidly, as if with the energy of wildfire (incendia . . . vires), necessitating his intervention:119 for Graecus’ property is at risk too when the wall of his neighbour (that is, Sidonius) catches fire – nam tua res agitur, cum proximus paries ardet. In the atmosphere created by political crises between Visigoths and Burgundians before Euric captured Arles and Marseille in 477, the two correspondents agreed that, if need be, they would suspend epistolary contacts altogether.120 As no courier

115

116

117

118

119

120

On the transformation of the local nobility in ‘Clovis’s World’, see Schmidt-Hofner (2014) 518–20 and Patzold (2014) 541–3. Sidon. Ep. 2.3.1 (to Magnus Felix) vir amicitiarum servantissime, ‘you with your characteristic regard for the claims of friendship’, like Q. Fabius, Cn. Pompeius, Germanicus; 9.4.1 (to Graecus) ne forte videatur ipse plus litteras ex more deposcere quam nos ex amore dictare, ‘lest perhaps he should think that he calls for our letters as a matter of habit rather than that we compose them as a labour of love’. Sidon. Ep. 6.11.1–2 (to Eleutherius) (1) Iudaeum praesens charta commendat . . . (2) quae sit vero negotii sui series, ipse rectius praesentanea coram narratione patefaciet, ‘The present note commends to you a Jew . . . It is best that he should tell you with his own lips in a personal interview the whole story of this trouble’; 7.4.4 (to Fonteius) praeterea commendo gerulum litterarum, cui istic, id est in Vasionensi oppido, quiddam necessitatis exortum sanari vestrae auctoritatis reverentiaeque pondere potest, ‘further, I commend to you the bearer of this letter; a bit of trouble has arisen for him over here – your town of Vaison, I mean; it can be set right by the weight of your influence and sanctity.’ Sidon. Ep. 7.10(11).1. In the ancient world, there was neither copyright nor the right to confidentiality of correspondence; see Mratschek (2011) 109. Sidon. Ep. 7.10(11).1 et ego istic inter semiustas muri fragilis clausus angustias belli terrore contigui. Cf. Hor. Ep. 1.18.84–5 nam tua res agitur, cum proximus paries ardet, / et neglecta solent incendia sumere vires, ‘for you own safety is at stake when your neighbour’s wall burns, and fires neglected tend to gather strength’. Sidon. Ep. 9.3.1 dum sunt gentium motibus itinera suspecta, stilo frequentiori renuntiare dilataque tantisper mutui sedulitate sermonis curam potius assumere conticescendi, ‘[it is the wisest and safest course] with the roads rendered insecure by the commotions of peoples, to renounce our rather too busy pens, putting off for a little our diligent exchange of letters, and concerning ourselves rather with silence’. For the capture of Arles and Marseille, see Burgess (2001) 87–9, 99, and Delaplace (2015) 255. See Loyen (1970) 2.xxi n. 2, 3.204 n. 9, and Stein (1928) 585, n.7 for conflicts between Visigoths and Burgundians from 471 onwards over Provence, and PBCE 4.1779, s.v. Sidonius 1, between Saxons and Franks on the Loire 470/1. On the difficulties affecting postal communications (difficultas itineris intersiti) between Soissons and Clermont, cf. Ep. 8.14.8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 229

13/02/20 4:00 PM

230

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

could travel the public highways without being subjected to intrusive body searches and physical ill-treatment by the sentries, the tribune Petrus was advised by Sidonius in Bordeaux that, against the ‘tempestuous uproar of colliding kingdoms’, he should, for discretion’s sake, present his request to Faustus, the bishop of Riez, in private.121

6 The Worlds of the Others: Barbarians in Contemporary Imagery, Perception, and Reaction Sidonius shared Pliny the Younger’s attachment to his homeland,122 but his was a new and more emotional style of Roman patriotism, a hyper-Romanity in a universal empire seen by its citizens as defining the civilised world, and challenged solely by the barbarians within and beyond its borders.123 Sidonius reminded his brother-in-law Ecdicius that the land of their birth had a right to first place in their affections, summas in adfectu partes;124 and the two became leaders of the resistance movement which defended Clermont tenaciously for three years (473–5) against the annual onslaughts of the Visigoths under King Euric and the threat of absorption into the expanding Gothic kingdom.125 But Sidonius’ picture of a unified Gallic aristocracy bound together by a common love for classical tradition, standing fast as the last ‘Romans’ against the onrushing tide of barbarism, was wishful thinking. It was a desperate appeal for united action in the face of the increasing fragmentation of the Gallo-Roman elites, and a means of explaining himself and the world to others so as to justify his actions:126 when, for instance, with Avitus defeated, he transferred his loyalty to the victorious Majorian; when his support for Arvandus led to a headon clash with an influential group of fellow aristocrats, including his own cousin and a circle of high-ranking imperial officials led by Polemius and Magnus Felix;127 when during the defence of Clermont he broke away from a sizeable group of influential bishops and landowners, only to run into opposition in the city itself;128 and when he accepted Euric’s rule after his return from exile in 476–7 and nurtured contacts with friends at court.129 An appreciable number of his peers in the Gallo-Roman aristocracy followed the ‘standards of a victorious people’ and went on to carve out successful careers at the Visigothic court.130 The Aquitanian Namatius put an end to Saxon 121

122 123 124 125

126

127 128

129 130

Sidon. Ep. 9.3.2 quod custodias aggerum publicorum nequaquam tabellarius transit inrequisitus, qui . . . plurimum sane perpeti solet difficultatis, dum secretum omne gerulorum pervigil explorator indagat, ‘that a courier can by no means pass the guards of the public highroads without a strict scrutiny; he . . . usually experiences a great deal of difficulty, as the watchful searcher pries into every secret of the letter-carriers’; Ep. 7.11.1 conflictantium procella regnorum. Plin. Ep. 1.3.1 (cit. Cat. 2.1) thought of his native town of Comum as deliciae meae. On the term ‘barbarian’, see Mathisen (2000) 17, n. 3; on the Gallic perspective, Brown (2012) 402. Sidon. Ep. 3.3.1 (on Arverni mei) to Ecdicius, 472/3: primum quod summas in adfectu partes iure sibi usurpat quae genuit. Sidon. Ep. 2.1.4, 3.3.3–6, 3.4, 3.7, 5.16.1, esp. 3: vicinae quoque obsidionis terror. Ecdicius spent part of his fortune on recruiting a body of fighting men, and risked his life on several occasions while leading them (Ep. 3.3.7–8). See Kaufmann (1995) 170–219. The Arvernian Calminius reportedly participated in the siege of Clermont under duress (Sidon. Ep. 5.12.1). On Calminius and other senators, see Harries (1996) 38–42, (1994) 246, Delaplace (2015) 236, 244–6, and more generally Rebenich (2008) 175. Harries (1994) 176–9, Delaplace (2014) 3–24, and Mathisen, ch. 2, pp. 80–1. Sidon. Ep. 3.2.2 on opposition in Clermont. Participants in the negotiations between Euric and Iulius Nepos, in addition to Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia (5.17.10), were the bishops Basilius of Aix, Leontius of Arles, Faustus of Riez, and Graecus of Marseille (7.6.10). E.g. Leo, Lampridius, and Victorius; see below and ch. 6; cf. Harries (1996) 36–44. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.16 (to Namatius) primum quod victoris populi signa comitaris. On Romans in Visigothic service, see Mathisen (1993) 126–8, Mathisen and Sivan (1999) 31–3.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 230

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

231

piracy along the Atlantic seaboard – while serving Euric as admiral of the Visigothic navy based at Bordeaux.131 After Clermont surrendered in 475, its first comes under Euric was Victorius, who had been dux of seven cities in Aquitanica I in the early 470s.132 Elaphius and Leo held high office under the Visigothic king Alaric II, and Sidonius’ own son Apollinaris led an Arvernian contingent to fight for the Visigoths against the Franks at the battle of Vouillé in 507.133 It was during the fifth century that geographic or ethnic affinities – metaphorical concepts of citizenship – became widely accepted as indicators of personal identity for both Romans and barbarians across late antique Gaul – supplanting legally attested civic status.134 Such designations as ‘citizen of the Goths’ (civis Gothus) for the Homoian debater Modaharius, or ‘citizen (at the court) of the Visigoths’ for Lampridius of Bordeaux, illustrate the considerable degree to which these new notions of civic identity depended on the territory held by one’s rulers.135 This accorded well with the Goths’ desire to live under the rule of law. Sidonius publicly denounced the vicar of Aquitanica, Seronatus, as a collaborator on the grounds that he ‘trod underfoot the laws of Theodosius, putting forward those of Theoderic’, leges Theodosianas calcans, Theudericianasque proponens.136 The presence at the courts of Euric and Alaric II of Roman jurists such as Leo of Narbonne, who could ‘expound the Law of the Twelve Tables’, and Syagrius junior, ‘a new Solon of the Burgundians’, was symptomatic of the new thinking on statehood.137 Decoded, Sidonius’ metaphorical language suggests that Leo, counsellor of the most powerful king, can be linked with the compilation or publicising of the Code of Euric, and the learned Syagrius with the lex Romana Burgundionum in which the Theodosian Code is regularly cited.138 Sidonius was well aware that law was a defining feature of the emerging new societies: as King Euric ‘restrained peoples by arms, so now throughout the bounds of his increased dominion, he restrains arms by statutes’.139 The promulgation of Euric’s Law c. 477 was an emphatic statement of sovereignty.140

131

132 133

134 135

136

137

138

139 140

Sidon. Ep. 8.6.13 asseveravit nuper vos . . . inter officia nunc nautae, modo militis litoribus Oceani curvis inerrare contra Saxonum pandos myoparones, ‘he affirmed that recently you . . . in discharging the duties now of a sailor, now of a soldier, were roving the winding shores of Ocean to meet the curving sloops of the Saxons’. PLRE 2, 1162–4 (Victorius 4), Harries (1994) 129, Mathisen and Sivan (1999) 31. On Elaphius, vir sublimis semperque magnificus frater, ‘egregious Lord and always sublime Brother’ (Ruric. Ep. 2.7), see PCBE 4, 619–29 (Elaphius). On Leo, ‘consiliarius’ of Alaric II, see Greg. Tur. Glor. mart. 91 (MGH SRM 1.54). Cf. Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.37 maximus ibi tunc Arvernorum populus qui cum Apollinare venerat, ‘there and then, a great number of Arvernians having come with Apollinaris’; Alc. Avit. Ep. 51 (on his military office). See PLRE 2, 114 (Apollinaris 3), and Mathisen (2003b) 68–9. Mathisen (2018c); cf. Humfress (2014) 140 on the emergence of new legal ‘ethnic’ identities. Sidon. Ep. 7.6.2–3 Modaharium, civem Gothum, haereseos Arianae iacula vibrantem, ‘Modaharius, a Gothic citizen, launching his darts of Arian heresy’, Carm. 2.239–42 sed Scythicae vaga turba plagae, feritatis abundans, / dira, rapax, vehemens, ipsis quoque gentibus illic / barbara barbaricis, cuius dux Hormidac atque / civis erat, ‘but a roaming multitude from the Scythian region, teeming with savagery, frightful, ravening, violent, barbarous even in the eyes of the barbarian people around them, whose leader and citizen was Hormidac’. Cf. Carm. 7.373–5 on a citizen (civis) of the Alemanni, not of the Romans. Sidon. Ep. 2.1.3. Not a ‘Code of Theoderic’, but a concept of Gothic law; see Matthews (2000) 331–2, Harries (1994) 126, and Delaplace (2015) 248, disputing Wallace-Hadrill (1962) 40. For Sidonius, Seronatus was ‘the Catiline of our age’ (2.1.1). Sidon. Carm. 23.446–9, cf. Ep. 4.22.3, 8.3.3 (Leo), 5.5.3 (Syagrius). See Harries (1994) 61, 222–3, 130–1, WardPerkins (2005), 70–1, Heather (2011) 115–4, and Humfress (2014) 140–55. Matthews (2000) 332; cf. Liebs (1998) 16–22, 25, (more critically) Harries (2001) 48–9 (Leo), and Humphress (2014) 151 (Syagrius). Sidon. Ep. 8.3.3 modo per promotae limitem sortis ut populos sub armis, sic frenat arma sub legibus. It is uncertain whether the Code was the work of Euric (466–84) or of Alaric II (484–507). See Harries (2001).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 231

13/02/20 4:00 PM

232

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

Sidonius’ attitude to cooperation with the Goths and to their settlement in Gaul was deeply critical. He was personally affected, through his conflict with Seronatus, who promoted barbarian interests by planting Gothic hospites in Roman villas, and through his litigation over his mother-in-law’s land, two thirds of which had probably been seized by a Goth.141 His deeply ingrained aversion to the alien rulers is clear from his ironical remark to a fellow senator (Ep. 7.14.10): ‘You shun barbarians because they have a bad reputation; I avoid them, even when they have a good one.’142 The perception of others by this Gallo-Roman bishop and champion of the fight against the Visigoths involved many divergent images of barbarians. Like his predecessors, Sidonius views exchanges between Romans and barbarians in terms of the supra-epochal concept of alterity and identity, and distinguishes two categories of counter-world in his ‘rhetoric of confrontation’.143 On one hand, this is effected by stereotypical attributions of collective group characteristics (skin and hair colour, dress code, customs, practices, norms) accompanying mechanisms of identification or dissociation. Their physical size, lack of cultivation, clothing, and mentality – which is both ferocious and stolid (ferociam stoliditatemque) – make them akin to animals, devoid of sensibility, brutal, prone to sudden rage.144 What they lack in order to achieve true humanity, Sidonius writes, is not the Bible, but philosophy and poetry.145 Clichés of this type regarding the nomadic way of life of the ‘barbarians’, who reject all civilisation and teach their enemies the meaning of fear, derive from a tradition of ethnographic writing about the rise and fall of states dating back to Herodotus, with his distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ cultures, and are also widely encountered among more recent authors like Ammianus.146 Sidonius provides some textbook examples in his humorous invective against the Burgundians billeted in Lyon c. 461, who rub rancid butter into their hair and reek from early morning of garlic and onions147 – or the two female prison warders in Livia, Goths and ‘the most quarrelsome, drunken, vomiting

141

142

143 144

145 146

147

Sidon. Ep. 2.1.3 (on Seronatus): see Harries (1996) 40, 8.9.2 (hereditas socrualis). This is the interpretation put forward by Harries (1994) 240–1, (2001) 39–51, also Humfress (2014) 145 and Liebeschuetz (2015b) 171, 205; a different view is taken in Goffart (1980) 248–51 and (2006) 133–4 (interpreted as division of inheritance according to Codex Euricianus); on the debate, see Kulikowski (2001) 33–8 and Halsall (2003) 42–3. Barbaros vitas (i.e. the educated Philagrius), quia mali putentur, ego etiamsi boni. From the time of Cicero, aristocrats like Sidonius (7.14.1) claimed to be the boni, meaning the ruling class of ‘the best’; see Mratschek (1993) 4–5; cf. van Waarden (2016a) 160–1; probably a humorous allusion to the ethical commitments (sapientia) of the ideal orator (Cato Fil. 78, cited in Quint. 12.1): orator est, Marce fili, vir bonus dicendi peritus. See Alexander (2007) 98. Cf. Cicero’s vir bonus (De orat. 2.85). Sidonius (Ep. 7.14.7) confused Cicero’s son Marcus with the homonymous of Cato. Overview in Gehrke (2004) 362–75; definition in Harries (1996) 41; representation in the letters, Fascione (2019). E.g. Sidon. Ep. 4.1.4 on the bestialium rigidarumque nationum corda cornea fibraeque glaciales and illorum ferociam stoliditatemque, quae secundum beluas ineptit brutescit accenditur of the Sygambrian marsh-dwellers, the Caucasian Alans, and the mare-milking Gelonians; Ep. 5.7.4: a catalogue of similar beasts and further examples of inappropriate dress and behaviour; Carm. 7.363: likening of Goths to ‘ravening wolves’ (raptores . . . lupi); also the catalogues of barbarians (e.g. Carm. 5.473–7): see Goffart (2006) 110–11 and Mathisen (2011) 17–42, esp. 26. Sidon. Ep. 4.1.4, Carm. 7.495–8. See Demandt (2007) 385. Hdt. 9.122, where ‘hard cultures’ are defined as backward, poor, unwelcoming, nomadic, and vigorously independent, ‘soft cultures’ as civilised, luxury-loving, seductive, and often ruled by a central government; see Luce (1997) 57–9 and Woolf (2011) 14. On Ammianus, see Kelly (2008) 283–4 and Vergin (2013) 211–21; cf. Woolf (2011) 112–13 on the tenacity of ethnic stereotyping. Sidon. Carm. 12.6–7 quod Burgundio cantat esculentus, / infundens acido comam butyro?, 12.14 cui non allia sordidumque cepe / ructant mane novo decem apparatus. On the billeting, see Goffart (1980) 245 and von Rummel (2007) 170–1; on fiction drawn from a classical stereotype, Jones (2009) 34.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 232

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

233

creatures the world will ever see’.148 The barbaric tunes bawled out by the seven-foot Burgundians reduce Sidonius’ verse, with its mere six classical feet, to impotent silence.149 The din from the old women ranting on the other side of the prison skylight (impluvium) keeps Sidonius and his tormenting fears awake night after night.150 Tropes of the barbarian were the common subtext to the new barbarian stories being created in the Roman West, and mirrored changing relations in the contact zone: ‘They change constantly to suit the communicative and persuasive strategies of those who employ them.’151 Thus, for example, Sidonius will ignore the ethnic origins of individual actors, choosing not to count them as barbarians if they are culturally and linguistically integrated into the Roman system of rule, and perhaps both blue-blooded and Catholic as well. Among his discursive narrative and communicative strategies of cultural identity he projects the figure of the ‘noble savage’ as a role model for his own society – and in order to demonstrate the superiority of his own class. Although not developed and exploited until the eighteenth century, when it was popularised by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, this figure was implicitly present very much earlier: in the Histories of Herodotus, in Tacitus’ Germania, and also in Salvian.152 The hordes of the Migration Period, Sygambrians, Alans, and Gelonians, were often more despised as uncouth barbarians than feared as a threat to the established political order.153 Sidonius’ perception of the society he lived in was characteristically antithetical: on the one hand the relatively uncultured type (rusticus), who earns his living by manual labour (illiberalis labor), on the other the cultured aristocrat whose rise to distinction is assisted by his command of the artes liberales and by political achievements.154 For anyone with the intellectual capacity to engage in debate with the author, there was no exclusion. Arbogastes, a descendant of the homonymous Frankish general, even found a place within the exclusive circle of Sidonius’ correspondents after sending him a truly literary letter (litteras litteratas).155 The son of the comes Arigius and of a lady from a wealthy Gallo-Roman family, and governor of the Middle Moselle from 480 as comes of Trier, with the support of residual Roman troop units and Frankish foederati, Arbogastes was also a Catholic Christian and as such had no difficulty, once Trier had fallen to the Franks, in exchanging his position for that of bishop of Chartres.156 By contrast, Sidonius confronts his audience

148

149

150 151 152 153 154

155

156

Sidon. Ep. 8.3.2 duae quaepiam Getides anus, quibus nil umquam litigiosius bibacius vomacius erit, 8.3.1 non valebat curis animus aeger . . . , nunc per nocturna suspiria . . . distractus. See Harries (1994) 238. Moenia Livianorum, the Livian walls (8.3.1), means the walls of Livia, but cf. the Peutinger Table (MGH AA 8.443): m.p. XVII a Ebromago m.p. XII ad Livianam (i.e. Capendu near Carcassonne). Sidon. Carm. 12.9–11 ex hoc barbaricis abacta plectris / spernit senipedem stilum Thalia, / ex quo septipedes videt patronos. See Mratschek (2020). In Ep. 5.5.3, he describes the Burgundians as aeque corporibus ac sensu rigidi . . . indolatilesque (‘ungainly and uncouth in body and mind alike’). Sidon. Ep. 8.3.2 nam fragor ilico, quem movebant vicinantes impluvio cubiculi mei duae quaepiam Getides anus. Woolf (2011) 112. On Sidonius’ strategies see Egetenmeyr (2019). Opelt and Speyer (2001) 813–95, esp. 859–60, s.v. Barbar. Sidon. Ep. 1.4.1. On the ‘social and political message’, see Amherdt (2004), (2001) 16, 40, and Overwien (2009b). Sidon. Ep. 4.17.2 (ch. 6.3), see Amherdt (2004) and Näf (1995) 137–9. On comparing uncultivated persons to ‘barbarians’, Ep. 8.11.3, 9.11.6. Sidon. Ep. 4.17.1 (to Arbogastes) Eminentius amicus tuus, domine maior, obtulit mihi quas ipse dictasti litteras litteratas et gratiae trifariam renidentis cultu refertas, ‘Your friend Eminentius, my honoured Lord, has handed me a letter written by your own hand, a truly literary letter, replete with the grace of a three-fold charm.’ Litteras litteratas alludes to Auson. Ep. 17.13–14 Green (for his favourite pupil, Paulinus). Burgundio, the addressee of Ep. 9.14, a senator and poet (9.14.3–4), is likely to be of Burgundian descent; see Kaufmann (1995) 287–8, no. 16, referring to Schönfeld (1911) 55. Sidon. Ep. 4.17.2. See PLRE 2, 142 (Arigius 1), Anton (1984) 22–39, and Nonn (2010) 105–6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 233

13/02/20 4:00 PM

234

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

with the incongruities of an overturned social order that gives the uneducated authority over the educated, and he denounces as illegitimate the barbarian rule that has institutionalised these wrongs. King Euric’s court, ironically referred to as the Athenaeum (‘Temple of Learning’), and Ragnahilda, Euric’s queen, who rates the extrinsic value of a silver dish above the true worth and artistry of the author’s distichs engraved in it, become butts for the mockery of his sophisticated readership.157 In his letters, Sidonius constantly devises new ways of staging history, and manipulates his readers by projecting a sequence of visual impressions that reveals the historical process of transformation. He captures the dynamic of the political shift from Roman Empire to Visigothic kingdom by focusing visually on scenes from the public appearances of their representatives. His subtle handling of flashback in association with this ‘iconography of power’ casts light on his own day and invites his readers to draw comparisons. As a nineteen-year-old adolescent Sidonius had seen with his own eyes the mesmerising visual display of Roman ceremonial when Astyrius became consul (449). We see the praetorian prefect’s son at the court in Arles, standing in a line of high dignitaries in resplendent robes close by the sella curulis of the consul.158 He was dazzled by the brilliance of the consular toga palmata steeped in Tyrian purple, which, in Sidonius’ metaphor, was echoed in the speech of the panegyrist – ‘still more richly coloured and more suffused with gold’.159 For the opening entry in his letter collection, Sidonius chooses the unusual visual presentation of the ‘non-Roman royalty’ of Theoderic II in 455/6.160 By means of a meticulously precise description of Theoderic’s physiognomy and kingly duties, he stylises the ‘barbarian’ king of the Visigoths into the embodiment of the ideal monarch, receiving deputations and hearing disputes on a daily basis.161 The addressee (Agricola, the son of the emperor Avitus) and the reader are rhetorically transformed into immediate spectators as Theoderic is made to represent Greek elegance, Gallic opulence, and Italian vivacity.162 A cameo illustrating how the author learnt that losing a dice-game to the king was a sure way to gain favour also shows the audience that Sidonius played some part in Theoderic’s daily routine. The letter has thus been read as an ‘affirmation of political allegiance’.163 But a focus on reception aesthetics and temporality may be meaningful: in the early 470s, when the letter was published as part of a libellus, and in c. 477, when Sidonius produced his final and authorised edition, the Visigothic king was long since dead, murdered by his brother Euric, and Sidonius became the first writer to publish a panegyric of an independent barbarian king for a broader 157

158

159

160

161

162

163

Sidon. Ep. 4.8.5 namque in foro tali sive Athenaeo plus charta vestra quam nostra scriptura laudabitur, ‘for in that sort of forum or Athenaeum your writing material will get more praise than my writing’. On the ‘poème-bijou’ and an intertextual reference to Claudian Carm. min. 45, see Guipponi-Gineste (2014) and Mratschek (2017) 315. The Athenaeum, Hadrian’s famous educational institution at Rome, is used by Sidonius as a symbol to describe Tonantius Ferreolus’ and Faustus’ libraries (Ep. 2.9.4, 9.9.13) and Burgundio’s promised audience (9.14.2). Sidon. Ep. 8.6.5 adhaerebam sellae curulis . . . mixtusque turmae censualium paenulatorum consuli proximis proximus eram. See Harries (1994) 52–3, Brown (2012) 404–5, and PCBE 4, 1759–60 (Sidonius 1) on his date of birth in 430/1. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.6 et illam Sarranis ebriam sucis inter crepitantia segmenta palmatam plus picta oratione, plus aurea convenustavit. See PLRE 2, 174–5 (Fl. Astyrius) and 782–3 (Fl. Nicetius) (the panegyrist). Sidon. Ep. 1.2. Preceded only by the programmatic epistle introducing the collection. On the dating, see Stevens (1933) 67 and Sivan (1989a). Sidon. Ep. 1.2.4–9. On the political relationships see Sivan (1989a); on physiognomy-related and panegyric tradition, Gualandri (1979) 56–8, 67–74; on the legations Humfress (2014) 145. Sidon. Ep. 1.2.6 videas ibi elegantiam Graecam, abundantiam Gallicanam, celeritatem Italam. Note the ambiguous second person of the potential subjunctive. See Harries (1996) 36–7. Sidon. Ep. 1.2.8. For its dissemination under Theoderic II see Sivan (1989a) 86 and Harries (1994) 128, with her quotation (1996) 36.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 234

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SOCIAL WORLD

235

public and posterity, thereby placing his subject on a par with the Roman emperors.164 He had positioned his idealised portrait of Theoderic centrally and prominently in his letter collection so as to serve as a model of civilitas and Romanness and to hold up a ‘mirror for princes’ to the successor king and his own aristocratic peers.165 Unlike the consul’s curule chair, however, the throne was ringed by armour-laden Gothic nobles, and pelt-clad bodyguards barred the way.166 At the age of forty Sidonius again captivates his audience with his talent for observation after watching from the crowd as the Frankish prince Sigismer’s wedding procession passes through the streets of his home city of Lyon.167 Even now, in peacetime (c. 470), it was an intimidating sight, with the light reflecting off the weapons borne by the young barbarian kings escorting Sigismer and by the prince’s own retinue in their animal-hide boots, a counter-image to the toga-clad people (gens togata) celebrating Ricimer’s wedding at Rome three years earlier.168 With the focus on Sigismer in the centre of the procession, wearing a scarlet cloak, set off by the reddish glint of gold, resplendent in the pure white silk of his tunic and with his sword by his side, the pageantry seems to Sidonius to be a ‘pompa rather of Mars than of Venus’: his clothing looked like a general’s paludamentum at an adventus ceremony.169 Thus, the enthusiasm aroused in the massed citizenry by such a picturesque spectacle, and in Sidonius’ correspondent, Domnicius, as he visualises the weapons,170 is not shared by the letter’s author: Sidonius is seized with total apathy (impatientia, that is, ἀπάθεια), and indeed experiences a sense of alienation from his friend and his fellow citizens.171 In accordance with Roman rhetorical theory, which considered sight 164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

Reydellet (1981) 49, 70–1, 76–7. Cf. Sidon. Ep. 4.10.2 (the libellus, containing probably Book 1 or Books 1 and 2); see Harries (1994) 7–10, Mathisen (2018a), and Mratschek (2017) 312 on the editorial process. For a different view see Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 5.2, pp. 189–92 in this volume. Sidon. Ep. 1.2.1 quia Theudorici regis Gothorum commendat populis fama civilitatem, ‘because report commends to the world the graciousness of Theoderic, King of the Goths’. Cf. 1.2.6 (n. 155), in addition ‘dignity of state, attentiveness of private home, ordered discipline of royalty’. Sidonius’ panegyric (Carm. 7.495–6) claims that Theoderic received his education in Roman law from Avitus, and depicts him as protector and patron of the Roman population (23.71–2 Romanae columen salusque gentis); see Humfress (2014). Sidon. Ep. 1.2.4 circumsistit sellam comes armiger; pellitorum turba satellitum ne absit, admittitur, ne obstrepat eliminatur. Cf. Stilicho’s satellites pelliti (CTh 9.42.22 from 22 November 408; Rut. Nam. 2.49) and pellita iuventus (Claud. IV Hon. 466). Stevens (1933) 94, n. 7, 175, Loyen (1970) 2.155, 254, n. 20, and von Rummel (2007) 174 consider that the regius iuvenis Sigismer was more probably of Frankish than of Burgundian provenance; Kaufmann (1995) 159–60, 296, no. 28, believes him to have been a Frank from the Middle Rhine. Sidon. Ep. 4.20.2 regulorum autem sociorumque comitantum forma et in pace terribilis; quorum pedes primi perone saetoso talos adusque vinciebantur, 4.20.3 quorum (sc. clipeorum) lux in orbibus nivea, fulva in umbonibus. Cf. 1.5.11 (Ricimer’s wedding), alluding to Verg. Aen. 1.282: see von Rummel (2007) 388–9; also Schwitter (2015) 164–5. The expression in pace terribilis, ‘terrifying even in peacetime’, permits us to date the letter to c. 470: see Loyen (1970) 2.155, 254, n. 20, and PLRE 2, 1008 (Sigismer), who dispute Stroheker’s dating of 474 ((1948) 164, no. 104). Sidon. Ep. 4.20.3 ut in actione thalamorum non apparet minor Martis pompa quam Veneris, 4.20.1 ipse (i.e. Sigismer) medius incessit, flammeus cocco rutilus auro lacteus serico. Note the allusion introduced by flammeus to the bridal veil, flammeum. Nevertheless, it was a general’s paludamentum: see Mathisen (2012) 92, n. 59, and the detailed but positivist approach of von Rummel (2007) 179–81, 382. Wearing a military chlamys was forbidden to senators (CTh 14.10.1: 382 CE). Sidon. Ep. 4.20.1 Tu [i.e. Domnicius] cui frequenter arma et armatos inspicere iucundum est, quam voluptatem . . . mente conceperas, si Sigismerem . . . vidisses! On Domnicius, one of Lyon’s leading citizens, civium primi (Ep. 5.17.4, 6), and clarissimus vir, see PLRE 2, 372 and Kaufmann (1995) 296, no. 28. Sidon. Ep. 4.20.3 nam cum viderem quae [sc. spectacula] tibi pulchra sunt non te videre, ipsam eo tempore desiderii tui inpatientiam desideravi, ‘for when I saw that you were not seeing the sights your eye delights in, at that moment I wanted not to feel the want of you’. Sidonius addresses Domnicius (Ep. 5.17.6) as frater. Inpatientia (‘ἀπάθεια’) in Stoic philosophy means a state of mind in which one is not disturbed by such passions as longing and desire, and, in Pyrrhonian scepticism, the eradication of all feeling: see Sorabji (2002) 194–6 and 198–200; misinterpreted by von Rummel (2007) 181. It was not the ‘peaceloving citizens’ that were frightened (thus Harries (1996) 36); Sidonius alone was gripped with fear and loneliness.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 235

13/02/20 4:00 PM

236

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

to be the sharpest of our senses, Sidonius seems keen to create visual scenes in the mind of the reader, of a vividness which, by means of internal focalisation, provokes interest in deciphering their message.172 Since 455, when the proclamation of Eparchius Avitus as emperor would not have been successful without the backing of Gothic auxiliaries, it had been clear for all to see that power had shifted from the ‘emperors dressed in purple’ to the ‘kings who dress in animal skins and carry arms’:173 a few years after Sigismer’s wedding, in 474, a Burgundian king, Chilperic, ruled at Lyon ‘governing Lyonese Germany’ (Lugdunensem Germaniam).174 However, the aristocrats who had been active in politics before the conquest of the Auvergne were subsequently to play a crucial role in the further dissemination of Roman culture and as key figures in the processes of generating, circulating, and transforming knowledge, thanks to the spatial extension of episcopal communication and to their presence at the courts of the Visigothic and Burgundian kings.175

172

173

174

175

Cic. De orat. 2.357 acerrimum autem ex omnibus sensibus esse sensum videndi, ‘sight, however, is the sharpest of all our senses’. On the connections between vision and imagination, and the mental processes involved in both, esp. through tropes such as ἐνάργεια, illustratio, and evidentia, cf. Quint. Inst. 6.2.32. On ‘visual memory’ and ‘virtual visions of Roman mnemonics’, see Elsner and Squire (2016) 203–4; on the use of creating and communicating images, Webb (2016) 208–13; on internal focalisation, Genette (2010) 121–4, 217–20. Sidon. Ep. 7.9.19 vel ante pellitos reges vel ante principes purpuratos. Cf. 1.9.2 Anthemius as purpuratus princeps, Carm. 5.363 pellitus . . . hostis (i.e. Theoderic II), 7.219 in media pelliti principis (i.e. Theudorici) aula. Ep. 1.2 is conspicuously silent on Theoderic’s dress code. Animal pelts (pelles) are a pejorative stereotype and synonym for the new class of barbarian rulers; see von Rummel (2007) 146, 154, 166–8, 182, 391. On the emperor’s purple chlamys, see MacCormack (1981) e.g. 180, and Mathisen (2012) 92, fig. 5; on Avitus’ reign, see Harries (1994) 54. Note the poignant sarcasm of Sidon. Ep. 5.7.7. On Chilperic’s reign at Lyon (6.12.3) and Genava (Greg. Tur. Vit. patr. 1.5), see PLRE 2, 286–7 (Chilpericus II) and Harries (1994) 224, 230–2. Further reading for this chapter is provided at the end of chapter 6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 236

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6 CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS Sigrid Mratschek

1 Renovatio: Cultural Revival in the Style of Pliny

T

defined the Roman senatorial aristocracy and determined its membership were not confined to personal rank, exercise of power, and relationship with the emperor: an important role was also played by cultural practices and habits of self-presentation. Birth and origin, education and lifestyle, landholdings and villas, social prestige and the memory of their ancestors (memoria) were the essential markers of identity.1 Amicitia – the widely accepted belief that aristocrats not only held particular honours and pursued particular activities but also thought alike – was the ideal that underlay the sense of allegiance that individuals felt to this self-aware peer group in Gaul and fostered a feeling of solidarity among its members.2 Their local or regional patriotism was closely bound up with their devotion to what they considered to be the best of the classical culture in which they had been educated.3 Sidonius and his friends lived in the midst of barbarians:4 Clermont looked west to Visigothic Aquitania, and east to Burgundian Lyon. From Sidonius’ point of view, the settlement of Burgundians and Visigoths meant not simply loss of territory and homeland, but also the progressive erosion of civilisation and intellectual life. His greatest concern was that the purple of aristocratic diction (nobilium sermonum purpurae) might, if not nurtured, grow pale and disappear.5 When he invoked a celebrated passage of Horace’s Ars Poetica (15–16), it was to illustrate to his readers the visual quality of the elaborate poetic language in which his fellow senators communicated, a language artfully and artistically fashioned from a HE CRITERIA THAT

Chapters 5 and 6 have a joint theoretically substantiated introduction (ch. 5, sect. 1) and conclusion (ch. 6, sect. 7). See further ch. 5, note preceding n. 1. 1

2

3 4

5

Rebenich (2008) 173–4. On self-perception and social discourses, see Hess (2019), and Meurer (2019) using Sidonius and Ennodius to represent Gaul and Italy. Mathisen (1993) 9–16: ‘The Aristocratic Background of Late Roman Gaul’, and Harries (1994) 246–50. Cf. ch. 5, sect. 2, sect. 3, and sect. 6. Chadwick (1955) 302 and Harries (1994) 16–17, (1996) 34–5. Sidon. Carm. 12.1–4 me . . . inter crinigeras situm catervas / et Germanica verba sustinentem, ‘me, put up with long-haired hordes, having to endure German speech’. On the ubiquitous presence of barbarians (here in the Arras area), cf. Carm. 5.219 with Loyen (1960) 1.177 n. 38 (barbaricus resonat hymen, ‘a barbarian marriage-song resounds’); Gennadius (Vir. ill. 92) makes a comparable statement: inter barbarae ferocitatis duritiam, ‘amid the duress of barbarian savagery’. Sidon. Ep. 2.10.1 sic omnes nobilium sermonum purpurae per incuriam vulgi decolorabuntur, ‘so will all the purple ornaments of aristocratic diction be dulled by the slovenliness of the mob’. Also Carm. 22 ep. 6 multis isdemque purpureis locorum communium pannis, ‘many as well as purple patches of stock phrases’. Here, note the contrast with usualis sermo, ‘ordinary language’ (Ep. 4.10.2), see Harries (1994) 2–3. See also Ep. 9.3.5 describing Faustus of Riez as utrarumque doctissimus disciplinarum, ‘an expert in both disciplines [i.e., theological and juridical usage]’, and Alc. Avit. Carm. 6 prol. (MGH AA 6/2. 27); see Mratschek (2002) 47, 406–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 237

13/02/20 4:00 PM

238

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

complex intertextual weave of classical and biblical allusions, and the exclusive preserve of the cultural elite to whom alone it made sense.6 For Sidonius and his circle the beauty of the Latin language (sermonis pompa Latini) had long since faded from view in the Belgian provinces and the Rhineland; poetry had capitulated to the advancing Germanic language.7 Refined sensibility and the intellectual life were a bulwark against the barbarians and a last refuge from the progressive dissolution of the old order. The hope was that mutual reassurance among those of one’s rank as to the value of the shared cultural tradition, coupled with disparagement of those who shirked the effort involved, would safeguard the Latin language ‘against the rust of vulgar barbarisms’.8 It was not by mere caprice that Sidonius lauded his friend Johannes as litterarum quodammodo iam sepultarum suscitator, fautor, assertor, presenting Johannes as the language’s reviver, promoter, and champion, who had halted the decline of culture and revived a literature already dead and buried – echoing Pliny’s praise for Titinius Capito, ‘the restorer and reformer of literature in its decline’ (litterarum . . . senescentium reductor ac reformator) in the age of Trajan.9 Like Pliny and Pliny’s friends, Constantius of Lyon, to whom Sidonius dedicated his letter collection, was an ‘enthusiastic patron not merely of literature, but of the creators of literature’ (immodicus . . . fautor non studiorum modo verum etiam studiosorum).10 But the most meritorious achievement of all was that of Sidonius himself, according to Claudianus Mamertus, who, in line with his own agenda, extolled him as veteris reparator eloquentiae, resuscitator of the long-vanished art of rhetoric.11 In aspiring to a revival (renovatio), Sidonius was seeking not to turn the clock back, but rather to retain and revitalise the old concepts and values in changed political, economic, and social circumstances. 6

7

8

9 10

11

Hor. Ars 15–16 purpureus, late qui splendeat, unus et alter / adsuitur pannus, ‘one or two purple patches are so stitched on as to glitter far and wide’. Brink (1971) 95 glosses the disputed term ‘purple patch’ as meaning unity of descriptive writing and poetic narrative structure; Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 165 as an expression of the ‘jewelled style’, Rudd (1989) 15 as a ‘form of decoration’, esp. in descriptive passages, Newlands (2013) 74–5 as Sidonius’ ‘attempt to describe a new genre’, Schwitter (2015) 145–6 as an ‘intertextual mosaic structure’ generating deliberate obscurity (obscuritas); contra Hardie (2019) 223–49. For differing interpretations of the complete Horatian intertext in Sidon. Ep. 9.16.4, see Loyen (1943) 114, who perceives contradiction, Pelttari (2016), who detects irony, Condorelli (2008) 159–60 and Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 166–7, focusing on ring composition as a principle of unity, and Mratschek (2017), who interprets it in terms of a structural principle underlying his correspondence: Sidonius adopted the rules of the Horatian Ars Poetica (21–3) as a unifying model for his letter collection. Sidon. Ep. 4.17.2 (to Arbogastes, comes of Trier). On the sound of Germanica verba, see Mratschek (2020) on Carm. 12.4 and 9–11 (cf. this volume, ch. 5, sect. 6). Sidon. Ep. 2.10.1 ut, nisi vel paucissimi quique meram linguae Latiaris proprietatem de trivialium barbarismorum robigine vindicaveritis, eam brevi abolitam defleamus interemptamque, ‘[the number of slipshod people has so increased] that, unless there are at least a modest few like yourself to defend the exact use of the language of Latium from the rust of vulgar barbarisms, we shall shortly be lamenting its extinction and annihilation’. See Gemeinhardt (2007) 225. Sidon. Ep. 8.2.1; cf. Plin. Ep. 8.12.1. See Krasser (1995) 66–8 and Mratschek (2008) 221–2. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.3. Plin. Ep. 6.6.3 used the same wordplay in his recommendations for Iulius Naso: erat non studiorum tantum, verum etiam studiosorum amantissimus, ‘he was a true lover, not only of literature, but also of creators of literature’. Note the echoes of the characterisation of Vibius Severus (Plin. Ep. 4.28.2): studiorum summa reverentia, summus amor studiosorum, ‘the highest regard for literature, the greatest love of creators of literature’. Cf. Pliny’s self-display as ‘a supporter and recommender’, fautor etiam commendatorque (Ep. 6.23.5). See Gibson in this volume ch. 11, sect. 3, on Pliny and Symmachus as ‘primary models’. Claud. Mam. Stat. an. praef. (CSEL 11, 20.17), the letter in which he dedicates De statu animae to Sidonius. This view was widely held, e.g. Ruric. Ep. 2.26.8 (eloquentiae flore, ‘[Sidonius’] blooming eloquence’) and Sidon. Ep. 5.2.1 to Mamertus on how the correspondents reciprocally enhanced each other’s status. On the decline of rhetoric cf. Claud. Mam. Ep. 2 to Sapaudus (CSEL 11, 204.22–3). See Shanzer (2005) 91 and Gemeinhardt (2007) 225.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 238

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

239

There was innovation as well as renovation. As Sidonius and his compatriot, the poet Rutilius Namatianus, observed: ‘The essence of rebirth is the ability to rise after misfortunes.’12

2 The Construction of History: Creating Identity from the Past It was for this reason that Sidonius remodelled history to serve the needs of the present, illustrating it wherever necessary with highlights (purpura) from the epic repertoire of classical exempla from history and myth that Quintilian identified as supporting evidence for the moulding of opinion.13 Present-day protagonists thus became part of the exemplary past stretching back to Augustus and beyond him to the foundation of Rome. It suited Sidonius’ own self-presentation to expunge the heroic record of Gaul’s rising against Rome under Vercingetorix from the collective memory in favour of a dubious genealogy representing the Arverni as descended from Trojan (that is, Roman) origins. During the defence of Clermont he assumed the mantle of ‘the Decius of our day’ when calling, with all the epic fervour of Silius Italicus, for resolute resistance against the ‘barbarian’ Hannibal, now embodied in Euric, the Visigothic king.14 This idealised image of the resistance fighter was to acquire added lustre in the elogium of his epitaph, in which Sidonius, as head of the military force (rector militiae) and judge in the forum (forique iudex), not only overcame the onslaughts of the hordes from beyond the pale, but curbed the unbridled fury of the barbarians (furor barbaricus) through legislation.15 In the course of such processes of appropriation, myths presented as timeless verities became meaningful narratives, and historical exempla of virtue and vice became patterns capable of moulding collective action.16 Sidonius mobilised heroes from Rome’s mythical past, such as Serranus and Fabricius, and armed them with the invective of a Cato against Carthage, of a Cicero against the public enemy Catiline, so that they might stir the descendants of the 12

13

14

15

16

Rut. Nam. 1.140 ordo renascendi est crescere posse malis; cf. Sidon. Carm. 7.7 cui [Romae] fixus . . . / ordo fuit crevisse malis, ‘it has been her [i.e. Rome’s] fixed destiny to grow greater by misfortunes’. See Hardie (2019) 246 and Schierl (2013) 245. On the concept of political and cultural renewal cf. also the ‘reparatio Reipublicae’ on coinage under Theodosius I reprised by Oros. Hist. 7.34.5, and the ‘contorniates’ glorifying the Roman and classical past. On exempla, see Stoehr-Monjou in this volume, ch. 9, sect. 3. Cf. Quint. 5.11 (on both historical and mythical exempla), esp. 6: potentissimum . . . exemplum, id est rei gestae aut ut gestae utilis ad persuadendum id, quod intenderis, commemoratio, ‘an example is the most effective [means of corroborating proof], that is to say the mention of an event which either took place or is treated as having taken place, in order to make your point convincing’. See Newby (2014) 263 n. 38. On the mythological apparatus, e.g. Sidon. Carm. 7.17–40 (council of the gods, with catalogue of the gods attending), 7.45–598 (the goddess Roma as an allegorical representative of the wishes of the city, and Jupiter’s speech); see Cameron (1970) 193, Watson (1998) 184–93, Kulikowski (2008) 338–9, Schindler (2009) 182–98, and Kelly (2012, 2013b). Sidon. Ep. 7.7.2 is an echo not only of Luc. 1.429, but also of Hannibal’s capture of Capua in Silius Italicus and Livy, as shown by van Waarden (2010) 350–1, together with the new interpretation by Mratschek (2013) 249–71. Compare the story of the Trojan origin of the Franks, Woolf (2011) 117. Lütjohann (1887), vi, v. 4–9: rector militiae forique iudex / mundi inter tumidas quietus undas / causarum moderans subinde motus / leges barbarico dedit furori, / discordantibus inter arma regnis / pacem consilio reduxit amplo, ‘head of the police force, judge in court, quiet amid the world’s billowing waves, then managing the turmoil of lawsuits, he imposed laws on the barbarian fury; for the realms that were involved in an armed conflict he restored peace by his great prudence’. Sidonius was not involved in the redaction of the Codex Euricianus. On the role that Sidonius may have played in the peace negotiations between Visigoths and Burgundians in 476, see Prévot (1993b) 228; the negotiator’s role is ascribed to Sidonius’ son by Condorelli (2013a) 279. For further discussion of the epitaph and its problems, see in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2, point 1, Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 10.7, and Kelly ch. 3, sect. 5.1. Cameron (2011) 513, Leppin (2015) 1-18, Schmitzer (2015) 71–92, and Watson (1998) on the special charge acquired by myths in Sidonius.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 239

13/02/20 4:00 PM

240

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

leading statesmen of Gaul into committing themselves politically.17 Major landowners such as Syagrius, great-grandson of Fl. Afranius Syagrius, consul in 382, were expected to emulate role models from the distant republican past by forsaking the ploughshare and donning the toga, as Camillus and Serranus had done.18 Sidonius praised Eucherius, who later became the people’s candidate for the see of Bourges, calling him, echoing the words of Pliny (Ep. 6.21.1), an exemplum for the present and an exceptionally effective operator (vir efficacissimus): at this point in history, with the empire disintegrating into ruins, Eucherius brought to mind such past luminaries as L. Iunius Brutus, who played a leading part in the expulsion of the kings from Rome, and T. Manlius Torquatus, dictator twice and consul three times, whose bravery and patriotism (virtus ac pietas in patrem patriamque) during the Gallic invasions of the fourth century BCE had become proverbial.19 Under Euric such conduct was no longer appropriate: no wonder a vir illustris of the calibre of Eucherius, from the days of a former empire, was put to death in a fitting manner in the kingdom of the Visigoths: at Euric’s command, a section of ancient wall was made to topple and crush him.20 Sidonius’ epic panegyrics, a means of political communication in the style of Claudian,21 kept rulers mindful of the glorious past and its focus on expansion of the imperium by holding up a ‘crisis mirror’ of their own epoch, suggesting both decay and regeneration (regeneratio imperii).22 Praise combines with protreptic. The elaborate claim that the past is linked to the present must be seen against the background of civil war and usurpation. Trajan the conqueror, the very ideal of an emperor, from the perspective of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages,23 became the identification model for a Gaul menaced by Franks, Alamanni, and Burgundians. In a politically fragmented world, a remembered imperial genealogy provided the Gallo-Roman aristocracy with enduring paradigms of ethical conduct as a guarantee for the future. In his panegyrics on Avitus (Carm. 7.102–18) and Majorian (5.314–27), Sidonius held up a mirror for princes, as it were, by making the emperors file past for review.24 In his judgement, a ruler 17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

Sidon. Ep. 8.8.1 (appeal to Syagrius) Dic, Gallicanae flos iuventutis, quousque tandem ruralium operum negotiosus urbana fastidis?, ‘Tell me, you flower of our Gallo-Roman youth, how long are you going to busy yourself with rustic activities and disdain those of the town?’ See PLRE 1, 862 (Syagrius 2) and Kelly (2016b) 213–14 distinguishing the Syagrii; on Fabricius in detail Stoehr-Monjou (2014); cf. Furbetta (2013a). Sidon. Ep. 8.8.2 quid Serranorum aemulus et Camillorum cum regas stivam, dissimulas optare palmatam?, ‘why guide the plough handle in competition with Serranus and Camillus and yet forgo all ambition for the consul’s robe?’ Sidon. Ep. 3.8.1 (to Eucherius) quotes Plin. Ep. 6.21.1 and continues with a triple litotes: neque si Romana respublica in haec miseriarum extrema defluxit, . . . non idcirco Brutos Torquatosque non pariunt mea saecula . . . de te mihi ad te sermo est, vir efficacissime, ‘although the Roman commonwealth has sunk to such an extreme helplessness . . . it does not follow that my times never give birth to a Brutus or a Torquatus . . . I’m speaking to you about yourself, you marvel of efficiency.’ On Manlius Torquatus’ celebrated duel with the Celtic leader (361 BCE), see Liv. 7.10.4. Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.20. See PCBE 4, 658–9 (Eucherius 3), and Brown (2012) 406. Cameron (1970) 193, Schindler (2009) 181–215, Ware (2012) 42–4, Rees (2012b) 46–8, Gillett (2012) on ‘epic panegyric’ as a new genre of communication (fig. 12.1), and Kelly (2012, 2013b) focusing on individual motifs. The Latin word panegyricus, deriving ultimately from Isocrates’ Panegyrikos from 380 BCE, seems to have been used first in Latin as the title for Isocrates’ work by Cicero (Orat. 37) and Quintilian (Inst. 3.8.9; 10.4.4); see TLL 10, 1.203–4. E.g. Aur. Vict. Caes. 13.8: Trajan as aequus clemens patientissimus . . . perfidelis, ‘just, merciful, extremely patient, very loyal’; Amm. 30.9.1 si . . . vixerat ut Traianus et Marcus, ‘if he had lived like Trajan and Marcus’. Cassiod. Var. 8.13.4 from 526 CE: redde nunc Plinium et sume Traianum, ‘put off Pliny, and take up Trajan’. See Cameron (2016b) 481, Kelly (2015) 230–1, Watson (1998) 193; cf. von Moos (1988) 464–6 with n. 922 on the invention of the Institutio Traiani in the medieval period. A well-known anecdote places Magnus, Majorian’s praefectus praetorio Galliarum in 458–9 and consul in 460, on the same pedestal as Licinius Sura, who was Trajan’s most dependable friend (Sidon. Carm. 5.561): before the assembled senate, Trajan entrusted him with his sword; see Cass. Dio 68.15.4–16, Plin. Pan. 67.8, and Aur. Vict. Caes. 13.9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 240

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

241

found favour only if he had ‘merited’ the title: Trajan qualified, by his habit of winning, and Vespasian for similar reasons (simili . . . labore).25 Anthemius, an emperor who came from the East, was welcomed implicitly as a superior alternative to the barbarian Ricimer on account of his compendious ‘Roman’ scholarship, which embraced all the artes liberales and the entire παιδεία of the past from the pre-Socratics to Tacitus.26 In Sidonius’ public discourse with his audience, the political history of the aristocracy in Gaul reached its pinnacle with the reign of Avitus. In his panegyric of the emperor Avitus, when Roma, brought low, bemoans her downfall, only a ‘new Trajan’ is able to help her.27 Until very recently, it was generally believed that the outbreak of hostilities between Goths and Romans prompted Avitus’ mission to the Visigothic court in Toulouse;28 and this, indeed, was what Sidonius’ panegyric aimed to suggest to his senatorial audience. But according to Kulikowski’s thought-provoking interpretation, there was an imminent threat of civil war between the royal brothers and rivals Theoderic II and Frederic.29 The traditional image of the Roman treaty being sealed by the brothers joining hands, with Avitus as peacemaker in the middle, reminded Sidonius of Romulus and Tatius, exempla from Rome’s early history. In the new reading, this points to the alliance (foedus) between the rightful king and his brother,30 while the communis opinio is that the treaty is between Avitus and Theoderic.31 Sidonius’ distortion of historical reality, embedding Avitus in a glorious Roman past, is thus a legitimation strategy: it deflects attention from the fact that it was these negotiations that led to the proclamation – in Arles, July 455 – of his own father-in-law as emperor, with armed Gothic support.32 25

26

27

28

29 30

31

32

Sidon. Carm. 7.116–7 Traianum nescio si quis / aequiperet, ‘I don’t know if anyone can match Trajan’; 5.317–18 Traianum Nerva vocavit, / cum pignus iam victor erat, ‘Nerva called Trajan to power when his son was already a conqueror’; cf. 5.326 (on Vespasian) simili . . . labore, ‘with similar exertion’; 7.110–11: inclitus armis / Vespasianus, ‘Vespasian, famous in war’. As in Pliny, the comparison (Trajan – Domitian) becomes a ‘guarantee of truth’; see Kelly (2015) 227 following Bartsch (1994). Carm. 2.155–92. On Anthemius’ ‘being appreciated for his potential by an enlightened state’, see Watson (1998) 195; on Aurora as a surrogate for Constantinople, Kelly (2012) 258–60, 264, (2013b) 187–9. Sidon. Carm. 7.116–8 Traianum nescio si quis / aequiperet, ni fors iterum tu, Gallia, mittas / qui vincat, ‘I don’t know if anyone can match Trajan, unless you, Gaul, should again send someone who surpasses him.’ On comparable ‘similarities’ between Trajan and Theodosius in panegyric literature, see Kelly (2015) 236–8. E.g. Gillett (2003), ch. 3: ‘The Hero as Envoy: Sidonius Apollinaris’ Panegyric on Avitus’ (84–112), esp. 86–7, 108–9. Kulikowski (2008) 335–52. Sidon. Carm. 7.435–8 post hinc germano regis, hinc rege retento / Palladiam implicitis manibus subiere Tolosam. / haud secus insertis ad pulvinaria palmis / Romulus et Tatius foedus iecere, ‘then [Avitus] kept on one side the king, on the other side the king’s brother, and with joined hands they entered Toulouse, city of Pallas. In the same way, Romulus and Tatius established their treaty joining hands beside the couches of the gods.’ See Kulikowski (2008) 343–6. On Romulus-Avitus and Tatius-Theoderic invoking the Livian hypotext (1.10–13.8), see Watson (1998) 188–9, Gualandri (2000) 105–29, Furbetta (2014b) 80–1, focusing on the comparison Avitus/Apollo, and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 102–3 identifying Fabricius/Romulus as a model for Avitus. On Aeneas-Avitus and Evander-Theoderic (Verg. Aen. 8.51–5), see Jolivet (2014) 111–28. Sidon. Carm. 7.516–9 (Theoderic to Avitus) ‘suadere meum est; nam Gallia si te / compulerit, quae iure potest, tibi pareat orbis / ne pereat.’ dixit pariterque in verba petita / dat sanctam cum fratre fidem, ‘“I can only make suggestions; in fact, if Gaul compels you, as it has the right to do, the world would obey you in order not to perish,” he said, and right away, together with his brother, gave his solemn pledge in the required words.’ Marius Avent. Chron. s.a. 455 (MGH AA 11.232): levatus est Avitus imperator in Gallias. et ingressus est Theodoricus rex Gothorum Arelatum cum fratribus suis in pace, ‘Avitus was elevated as emperor in Gaul, and the Gothic king Theoderic peacefully entered Arles with his brothers.’ See Kulikowski (2008) 336–7, 347–8, Gillett (2003) 86–7 and (2012) 284.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 241

13/02/20 4:00 PM

242

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

3 Reading the Classics: Creative Elites in Gaul Under Augustus, Vergil had considered the art of government to be the preserve of the Romans, leaving intellectual and aesthetic arts to the Greeks.33 For Sidonius, as for the younger Pliny, the canon of typically Roman responsibilities also included preserving the cultural heritage, aesthetic sensibility, and education. Did he merely wish to surpass Vergil in demanding that the preservation of cultural superiority be seen as an enduring responsibility of the Gallo-Roman elites? Or did he and his friends reimagine posterity as the continued existence, not of civic community as such, but of a community of readers like themselves?34 The essence of eruditio or παιδεία was familiarity with the classical authors, and such familiarity was a defining characteristic of the aristocrat and permitted shifts of status in the acculturation process of the barbarians: ‘The more you read,’ Sidonius asserted (Ep. 4.17.2), ‘the more you will come to appreciate, day by day, that the educated are no less superior to the unlettered than men are to beasts.’35 An uneducated mind (subagreste ingenium), however, would exclude the individual from this circle, however lofty his position.36 The senator Syagrius becomes a target for Sidonius’ teasing, having learnt to speak the Germanic language – a barbarian in his presence must fear producing a barbarism.37 In contrast, the author discovers ‘traces of our vanishing culture’ in Arbogastes, the grandson of the Frankish general, and urges him to develop them through constant reading.38 Reading the classics, and thus constantly reliving the past in the present, was an act that created identity, as is shown by the example of the rhetor Hesperius, ‘a jewel of friends and star of letters’.39 On getting married, Hesperius received from Sidonius not a congratulatory telegram but a strong exhortation to persevere in his study of the past through incessant reading. His mentor reminded him of a whole series of renowned orators, from the republic to the present day, whose wives had supported their literary ambitions: what Marcia did for Hortensius, Terentia did for Cicero, Calpurnia for the younger Pliny, Pudentilla for Apuleius, and Rusticiana for Symmachus.40 Sidonius’ efforts seem to have been crowned with success, for the gens maintained their leadership role as a consequence of the culture of reading. Ruricius, bishop of Limoges, was delighted to see his sons enrolled in the school of rhetoric run by Hesperius: ‘With the world in 33

34 35

36

37

38

39

40

Verg. Aen. 6.847–52 excudent alii spirantia mollius aera / . . . , vivos ducent de marmore voltus; / orabunt causas melius . . . / tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento / – haec tibi erunt artes – pacique inponere morem, ‘others will beat out the breathing bronze more smoothly, coax features to life from the marble, plead cases with greater eloquence . . . : you, Roman, be sure to rule the world (these will be your arts), to crown peace with justice’. Woolf (2012) 298. Cited below, n. 38. Note the chiasmus beluis homines – rusticis institutos. See Ward-Perkins (2005) 80–1 and Demandt (2007) 467. Cf. Ep. 7.14.10 (to Philagrius) lectioni adhibes diligentiam, ego quoque, ‘you devote great attention to reading; so do I’. Hernández Lobato (2012a) 250 concludes ‘that to Sidonius the entire world is déjà lu’. Subagreste ingenium (Amm. 30.4.2) refers to Valens rather than to Domitius Modestus; see Tränkle (2008) 505–8; contra Matthews (1989) 461 and Eigler (2003) 9–11, 118. Sidon. Ep. 5.5.3 quod te praesente formidet linguae suae facere barbarus barbarismum, ‘that in your presence the barbarian is afraid to perpetrate a barbarism in his own language’. See Ward-Perkins (2005) 79–80. Sidon. Ep. 4.17.2 granditer laetor saltim in inlustri pectore tuo vanescentium litterarum remansisse vestigia, quae si frequenti lectione continuas, experiere per dies, quanto antecellunt beluis homines, tanto anteferri rusticis institutos, ‘I am very glad that at any rate in your illustrious heart there have remained traces of our vanishing culture. If you extend these by constant reading you will discover for yourself as each day passes that the educated are no less superior to the unlettered than men are to beasts.’ On his descent, see ch. 5, sect. 6. Sidon. Ep. 2.10.5 opus est ut sine dissimulatione lectites, sine fine lecturias, ‘you must read without distraction, keep reading without end’; 4.22.1 Hesperius, gemma amicorum litterarumque. See Eigler (2003) 126–7, Näf (1995) 137, and Krasser (1995) 79–89. Sidon. Ep. 2.10.5–6. Cf. Plin. Ep. 4.19.2 soon after his marriage to Calpurnia.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 242

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

243

such universal upheaval, they would undoubtedly lose their nobility (nobilitas) did they not have you as their yardstick (index).’41 Like Pliny before him, Sidonius maintained that his patria had produced a creative elite to which he had contributed substantially as an author and as the centre of a literary circle. Namatius, admiral of Euric’s fleet, and owner of an estate at Saintes, filled his off-duty hours with literature, building work, and hunting on the Île d’Oléron.42 Sidonius sent him Varro’s Libri logistorici and Eusebius’ Chronicle to help him refine both his philosophical and Christian lifestyle and his literary manner – adding the sardonic rider that he should read them during his hours on watch.43 Fl. Synesius Gennadius Paulus, an ex-prefect of Rome and vir illustris, and Heronius, delegate to the imperial court: high-ranking officials all, when their day’s work was done would try their hand at composing poetry.44 Bordeaux and Arles were famous for their collegium poetarum.45 Horace’s self-image as the immortal poet reappears in humorous multiple projection when Sidonius likens all of Gaul to a ‘choir of singing swans’ whose members he reviews one by one for the benefit of his readers.46 The standard of excellence for the entire cultured elite is the grammarian and rhetor Johannes, who, as late as 478, has a first-rate knowledge of bilingual (that is, Greek and Latin) culture.47 Sidonius prophesies (Ep. 8.2.2) that in the territory under Visigothic occupation Johannes’ literary ability (litterae) will earn him immortal glory ‘as a second Demosthenes’ and ‘second Cicero’ in the eyes of contemporaries and posterity, and that he will be honoured with statues.48 None comes close to him except Consentius’ supremely cultivated father, the author of two works on grammar, and the son-in-law of the usurper Jovinus of Narbonne. Versed in such disparate artes as philosophy, mathematics, poetry, and rhetoric, Consentius’ father combines Roman sternness with Attic elegance – rigorque / Romanus fuit Attico in lepore (Carm. 23.99–100), and in Sidonius’ judgement outshines every poet and prose stylist since the Silver Age.49 Proculus, a poet from Liguria, and only on the fringes of the circle, is even described as rivalling Vergil.50 The intellectual pursuits of women, by contrast, seem to have been limited to the reading of edifying religious literature.51 Only Sidonius’ cousin Eulalia ventured further. Where Pliny’s wife 41

42 43

44

45

46

47 48 49 50 51

Ruric. Ep. 1.3 (an indirect reaction to Sidon. Ep. 8.2.2): utique in tanta rerum confusione amitterent nobilitatem, si indicem non haberent. See Mathisen (2001a) 102–3. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.10–13. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.18, with Anderson (1965) 2.432–3, n. 2: Varronem logistoricum . . . et Eusebium chronographum misi, quorum si ad te lima pervenerit, si quid inter excubiales curas . . . vacabis, ‘I send you the logistorian Varro and the chronographer Eusebius; if this refining tool reaches you, if you have got some spare time while keeping watch’. Probably the second Book of Eusebius’ Chronicle translated by Jerome, but see Cameron (2011) 437. E.g., 1.9.7 (Heronius) Clius tuae hexametris, ‘the hexameters of your Clio’ (see Wolff (2012c)); 1.9.1 (Paulus praefectorius, identified by Mathisen in this volume, ch. 2, ‘Prosopography’, with the urban prefect before 467–8 (PLRE 2, 855 (Fl. Synesius Gennadius Paulus 36)), contra Loyen (1970) 2.214 n. 35, who thinks of the Paulus who was twice PVR in 438 and 443/50 (PLRE 2, 854 (Fl. Paulus 31)) propositionibus aenigmata, sententiis schemata, versibus commata . . . facit, ‘he creates subtleties in his propositions, figures in his utterings, phrasing in his verses’. The president of the poetical society in Bordeaux was Anthedius, who excelled in artes liberales (Sidon. Carm. 22 ep. 2). On the collegium poetarum in Arles (Ep. 9.13.5), see Condorelli (2013b), and on a similar society dedicated to philosophy and Platonist learning in Ep. 4.11.1 (collegium . . . conplatonicorum), see Brittain (2001) 239–45. On Sidonius’ catalogue of swans (Carm. 40 (Ep. 9.15.1) 15–34) and the productivity of his literary friends, see Mratschek (2017) 316–19; on their political agon Schwitter (2020). PLRE 2, 601 (Ioannes 30), and Kaufmann (1995) 315, no. 56. Kaufmann (1995) 233–4 considers Demosthenes and Cicero to be cultural and political role models. Sidon. Carm. 23.97–169. See Stroheker (1948) 161–2, no. 95. Carm. 40 (Ep. 9.15.1) 44–9 (Proculus). See Stevens (1933) 14–5. Which filled the bookcases of Prusianum (Ep. 2.9.4): sic tamen quod qui inter matronarum cathedras codices erant, stilus his religiosus inveniebatur, ‘[the arrangement was] such that the manuscripts near the ladies’ seats were of a devotional type’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 243

13/02/20 4:00 PM

244

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

had listened to his recitations from behind a discreetly hung curtain, Eulalia even intimidated her father-in-law, Magnus of Narbonne, thereby earning herself from her amused uncle the oxymoronic epithet of ‘Athenian Minerva’.52 Sidonius portrayed a society that could compete in terms of social and cultural accomplishments with the aristocrats of the past. Defining his own position, he said: ‘I feel deep respect for the ancients without on that account holding the achievements and merits of my contemporaries in low esteem.’ There is an echo here of Sidonius’ emulation of high cultural role models from the age of Trajan, giving new life to Verginius Rufus and Vestricius Spurinna, members of Pliny’s circle.53 Sidonius supplied his political friends with a line of distinguished forebears against whom they might measure themselves. Tacitus is given an unexpected new role as ancestor of the eloquent praetorian prefect Polemius.54 Leo of Narbonne, consiliarius at the court of the Visigothic king, who had by that time built up a reputation as orator, poet, philosopher, and lawyer, 55 turns out to be descended from the rhetor Fronto.56 Both Leo and Polemius leave Tacitus in their wake and reduce such poets as Ausonius to impotent envy.57

4 Powers of Persuasion: Literature as Argument Discourse on the high culture of the past, with learned allusions to Pliny’s circle and contemporaries, and to the Augustan Golden Age, served a twofold purpose. On the one hand, reflecting Sidonius’ sense of competitiveness (aemulatio), it displayed the literary learning of the author and his allies in the culture war; on the other, it also proved in practice to be an

52

53

54

55

56

57

Perhaps an allusion to her sister-in-law ‘Attica’, see Sidon. Carm. 24.95–8 hic saepe Eulaliae meae legeris [sc. libelle], / cuius Cecropiae pares Minervae / mores et rigidi senes et ipse / quondam purpureus socer timebant, ‘here you [i.e. book of mine] will often be read to my [cousin] Eulalia, of whose character, worthy of Athenian Minerva, strict greybeards and even her husband’s father in the days when he wore the purple used to stand in awe’. On family ties, see Mathisen (2003b) 65–6 and 71 (stemma). Cf. Plin. Ep. 4.19.3. Sidon. Ep. 3.8.1 Veneror antiquos, non tamen ita, uti qui aequaevorum meorum virtutes aut merita postponam. Cf. Plin. Ep. 6.21.1 Sum ex iis qui mirer antiquos, non tamen, ut quidam, temporum nostrorum ingenia despicio, ‘I am an admirer of the ancients but not, like some people, so as to despise the talents of our own times’; Tac. Dial. 41.5 nunc . . . bono saeculi sui quisque citra obtrectationem alterius utatur, ‘now let everybody enjoy the good of his own times without looking down on someone else’s’. See Gibson and Morello (2012), ch. 4: ‘Corellius Rufus, Verginius Rufus and the Limits of Exemplarity’, 126–35. Sidon. Ep. 4.14.1 Gaius (instead of Publius) Tacitus unus e maioribus tuis, Ulpianorum temporum consularis, ‘Tacitus, one of your ancestors, a man of consular rank from the times of the Ulpian dynasty’. He was as eloquent as his ancestor: an allusion to Tacitus’ funeral oration for Verginius Rufus in the year 97 (Plin. Ep. 2.1.1). Cf. the praise for Tacitus in Sidon. Carm. 2.192 (qua pompa Tacitus numquam sine laude loquendus, ‘the majesty of Tacitus, a name never to be uttered without praise’) and 23.153–4 (et qui pro ingenio fluente nulli, / Corneli Tacite, es tacendus ori, ‘you, Cornelius Tacitus, whom nobody should leave unmentioned because of your eloquence’). Sidon. Ep. 8.3.3 illos carminum modos . . . perorandi illud quoque celeberrimum flumen . . . conclamatissimas declamationes . . . foedus . . . sub legibus, ‘those poetic rhythms . . . also that famous flow of oratory . . . much-acclaimed declamations . . . the treaty . . . by laws [concerning barbarians]’; 8.3.5 virum . . . plurimis similem tui, ‘a man [i.e. the philosopher Apollonius] who was in many respects like you [i.e. Leo]’. Sidon. Ep. 8.3.3 suspende perorandi illud quoque celeberrimum flumen, quod non solum gentilicium sed domesticum tibi quodque in tuum pectus per succiduas aetates ab atavo Frontone transfunditur, ‘suspend too that renowned flow of oratory which belongs not only to your clan but to your family, and which flowing on through successive generations from your own ancestor Fronto now discharges itself into your breast’. Sidon. Ep. 4.22.2; 4.14.2 (on Leo and Polemius) with Amherdt (2001) 345–6: nam tuorum peritiae comparatus non solum Cornelios oratores sed Ausonios quoque poetas vincere potes, ‘for if comparison is made between your skill and that of your ancestors you will win the palm not only from prose writers like Tacitus but from poets like Ausonius’. See Stevens (1933) 14–15.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 244

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

245

effective instrument for moulding opinion, in particular for influencing prominent members of the new political ruling class, which was made up of high-ranking imperial officials, advisers to the Visigothic king, and young senators. With a mastery such as Sidonius possessed of the codes by which, in accordance with the rhetorical guidelines of Demetrios, letters might lay bare the writer’s affective life and his character traits like a ‘mirror of the soul’, he was perfectly placed to deploy these codes to manipulate his correspondents.58 Depending on whether he chose to imitate his predecessors or to take a new line of his own, Sidonius would be offering his contemporaries either an identification model or guidelines to help them cope with current problems. So he was able to instil expectations of both in his audience, of profitable and challenging as well as entertaining reading.59 In the difficult period for Roman power, when Clermont alone, in all Aquitanica I, was still defying the Visigoths, Sidonius felt painfully bereft of the support (beneficia) he had received from Polemius, the last praetorian prefect of Gaul.60 When Polemius broke the rules of late antique communication with his long silence in 472,61 Sidonius wrapped his censure in a discourse on friendship derived from an anecdote of the Trajanic period (Ulpianorum temporum). In his letter (Ep. 4.14.1), the bishop reproduced almost word for word the speech attributed in Tacitus’ Histories (5.26.2) to the rebel leader Iulius Civilis, who stayed true to his friendship with Vespasian even during the Batavian war, in which the two fought on opposite sides.62 The reproof over the breach of code was the more painful for having arisen in a friendship between two correspondents of equal social ranking (collegae) – that is, between the praetorian prefect and the former prefect of Rome.63 Using a Vergilian quotation, Sidonius alludes to the respect formerly accorded to his position (nomenque decusque) and reminds his reader of the conflict between Palamedes and the wily Odysseus, who had tried to evade participating in the war.64 But it is the Palamedes model that Sidonius expects Polemius to follow in future, human solidarity in the form of deeds (humanus in factis).65 The letter’s epigrammatic ending is 58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

Sidon. Ep. 7.18.2 minime ignarus, quod ita mens pateat in libro velut vultus in speculo, ‘well aware that one’s thoughts are exposed in a letter collection like a face in a mirror’. On the epistolary topos, cf. Demetr. De eloc. 227 εἰκὼν τῆς ψυχῆς, ‘mirror of the soul’, and Paul. Nol. Ep. 13.2 with Mratschek (2002) 416: sermo enim viri mentis est speculum, ‘for a man’s letters are a mirror of his mind’; also Thraede (1970) 23–4, 157, and Zelzer (1995) 542. See also Gibson in this volume, ch. 11. On benefit (docere) and pleasure (delectare), his double intention of literature, see Sidon. Ep. 8.10.1 Esse tibi usui pariter et cordi litteras granditer gaudeo, ‘I am very glad that literature is both useful and congenial to you.’ On aristocratic competition see Schwitter (2020) Sidon. Ep. 4.14.1 (to Polemius, PPO Galliarum 471/2) biennium prope clauditur, quod te praefectum praetorio Galliarum non nova vestra dignatione sed nostro affectu adhuc vetere gaudemus, qui, si Romanarum rerum sineret adversitas, aegre toleraremus, nisi singulae personae, non dicam provinciae, variis per te beneficiis amplificarentur, ‘for almost two whole years I have rejoiced to see you praetorian prefect of Gaul – not because of your new rank but because of our old friendship; and if the unpropitious state of Rome’s fortunes gave scope for such things, I should be distressed if each individual, let alone each province, were not enriched by various favours from your hands.’ Sidon. Ep. 4.14.2: Polemius was avarus in verbis, ‘stingy with his words’. On the rules observed in correspondence and friendship (Symm. Ep. 7.129), see this volume, ch. 5, sect. 3. Sidon. Ep. 4.14.1 cum Vespasiano mihi vetus amicitia; et, dum privatus esset, amici vocabamur, ‘I have a long-standing friendship with Vespasian, and while he was an ordinary citizen we were called friends.’ Cf. Tac. Hist. 5.26.2 erga Vespasianum vetus mihi observantia, ‘I have a long-standing relationship with Vespasian.’ Sidon. Ep. 4.14.4 proinde si futura magni pensitas, scribe clerico, si praesentia, scribe collegae, ‘accordingly, if you attach importance to the future life, write to your cleric; if you value things present, write to your colleague’. Verg. Aen. 2.89–90 (said by a comes of Palamedes) et nos aliquod nomenque decusque / gessimus, ‘we, too, bore some name and renown’. Cf. Apollod. Epit. 3.7; Philostr. Her. 11.2, Schol. Lykophr. 815. See Hunger (1959) 299, 277 s.v. Palamedes and Odysseus. Sidon. Ep. 4.14.2 qualiter futurus fueris humanus in factis, qui perduras avarus in verbis, ‘[I should like you to tell me] how you would have been liberal with your deeds, when you are so persistently stingy with your words.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 245

13/02/20 4:00 PM

246

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

an appeal: on taking up office, one should never discard old friends for new, as this is to treat them like flowers, things that please only while still fresh.66 It was Leo, the vir spectabilis, adviser to the Visigothic king at his court in Toulouse, whose intercession secured the release of Sidonius from exile in Livia in late 476. Two letters illustrate how he reacted to this. On being advised by his patron to switch from epistolography to the sublime style of historical writing, Sidonius simply turned the tables on him, with a nod to the past (antiquitus), by slipping modestly into the role of Pliny’s pupil and extolling Leo as Tacitus redivivus (Ep. 4.22.2): namque et antiquitus, cum Gaius Cornelius Gaio Secundo paria suasisset, ipse postmodum quod iniunxit arripuit, idque ab exemplo nunc melius aggredieris, quia et Plinio ut discipulus assurgo et tu vetusto genere narrandi iure Cornelium antevenis. For we know that in ancient times Gaius Cornelius (Tacitus) once gave similar advice to Gaius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), only to take that delegated task later upon himself; and were you to emulate your respected predecessor by so doing, you would discharge it better than I. For I see myself merely as a pupil of Pliny: but in your mastery of the archaic historical style you excel Cornelius (Tacitus). As a justification for his recusatio, Sidonius quoted modica gratia, maxuma offensa to refer Leo to Pliny’s declaration (Ep. 5.8.12) that historical writing about the past is fruitless, while writing about the present ‘earns little gratitude and causes grave offence’.67 This rebuff to Leo, delivered under the semblance of praise, is rounded off with a barbed pun on the name of Tacitus, imagining him transported to the present age to judge the writings of his epigone for himself. But there is an ambiguous and ironic note to this praise, placing Euric’s reign on a par with Domitian’s, if we recall that Pliny was responding to Tacitus’ reference in the proem to his Histories to that former period of enforced silence:68 qui saeculo nostro si revivisceret teque qualis in litteris et quantus habere conspicaretur, modo verius Tacitus esset. were he alive today to see what kind of an author you are and the great literary prestige that you enjoy, he would now more truly become a Tacitus - a man reduced to silence. 66

67

68

Sidon. Ep. 4.14.4 et hanc in te ipse virtutem . . . qua sodales vetustos numquam pro consequentum novitate fastidas. porro autem videbere sic amicis uti quasi floribus, tamdiu gratis, donec recentibus, ‘[cherish] this virtue in yourself which will keep you from ever scorning old comrades for the novelty of later ones: otherwise you will seem to treat your friends like flowers, which are pleasing just as long as they are fresh’. Sidon. Ep. 4.22.5 quia . . . praeterita infructuose, praesentia semiplane, turpiter falsa periculose vera dicuntur, est enim huiusmodi thema, in quo bonorum si facias mentionem, modica gratia paratur, si notabilium maxuma offensa, ‘because the account of things past is profitless, that of things present is only half complete; and while it is shameful to utter falsehoods, it is dangerous to tell the truth; for it is an undertaking in which any reference to the good earns little gratitude, and any allusion to the infamous causes grave offence’. Cf. Plin. Ep. 8.14.5 dicere quod velles periculosum, quod nolles miserum esset, ‘as saying what one wished was dangerous, and what one did not wish pitiable’; 5.8.12 vetera et scripta aliis? parata inquisitio . . . intacta et nova? graves offensae, levis gratia, ‘history written by others? The material is there . . . Recent times which no one has handled? Serious offence and small thanks’. Plin. Ep. 8.14.5 (above) is a response to Tac. Hist. 1.1.4 rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet, ‘because of the rare good fortune of an age in which we may feel what we wish and may say what we feel’. Cf. Agr. 2.3, and see Whitton (2010) 126–7 on the complex intertextual web. For similar wordplay on Tacitus’ name and the Histories as the ‘temporarily silenced work’ in Plin. Ep. 9.27.1–2, cf. Gibson (2015) 201–2 and Whitton (2013) 67.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 246

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

247

For the sake of this barb, we forgive Sidonius for taking some historical licence: it was in fact Titinius Capito who put the question to Pliny; Tacitus merely asked him for an authentic account of his uncle’s death in the eruption of Vesuvius.69 Leo, for his part, was an even more voracious reader than the educated empress Iulia Domna, universally referred to by her contemporaries as ‘Iulia the philosopher’.70 Philostratus had made her the dedicatee of his Life of Apollonios of Tyana. Sidonius expressed his gratitude to Leo by accompanying his compliment with a transcription of Philostratus that he, Sidonius, had personally revised:71 the finest author of our ancestors’ time (maiorum temporum) meets the only reader worthy of him in my generation (par saeculo meo . . . lector).72 In the biography’s recitation, Leo followed in the footsteps of Apollonios in a quest for wisdom which took him to the end of the earth to meet the gymnosophists of India.73 Sidonius’ shift of genre, however, and his sending Leo the manuscript of Philostratus were a skilful diplomatic ploy to avoid celebrating the conqueror Euric in historical writing.74 Even in a letter written in a time when he had just been ordained bishop (8.10),75 Sidonius in oratory, like Pliny before him, looked up to Cicero as the unattainable standard of excellence.76 Like all Christians writers he was adept in the ‘rhetoric of paradox’.77 By emphasising the unsuitability of his eloquence as a topic of discussion among friends, he drew attention to the exceptional praise (ingentes praeconiorum titulos) he had received from Ruricius, the senator and later bishop of Limoges.78 He also cited three classical exempla as evidence that hopeless cases had ultimately enabled the very finest of orators – Cicero, Fronto, and Pliny – to achieve their breakthrough (Ep. 8.10.3): Marcus Tullius in actionibus ceteris ceteros, pro Aulo Cluentio ipse se vicit. Marcus Fronto cum reliquis orationibus emineret, in Pelopem se sibi praetulit. Gaius Plinius pro Attia Viriola plus gloriae de centumvirali suggestu domum rettulit, quam cum Marco Ulpio incomparabili principi comparabilem panegyricum dixit.

69

70 71

72 73

74 75 76

77 78

Plin. Ep. 5.8.1 (to Titinius Capito) Suades, ut historiam scribam, et non suades solus; multi hoc me saepe monuerunt, ‘You suggest that I should write history, and you are not the only one to do so: many people have repeatedly given me the same advice.’ Plin. Ep. 6.16 and 20 were to provide material for Tacitus’ Histories (6.16.1): Petis, ut tibi avunculi mei exitum scribam, quo verius tradere posteris posse, ‘You ask me to describe my uncle’s death so that you can leave an accurate account of it to posterity’; 6.20.20 haec nequaquam historia digna non scripturus leges, ‘this is not important enough for history, and you will read it without using it’. See Wolff (2012b) 44–5, Mratschek (2008) 370–1, and Ep. 9.14.7 on Sidonius’ ignorance of history, annotated by Cameron (2011) 524–5. Philostr. Vit. soph. 2.30.1 φιλόσοφος . . . ᾿Ioύλια. Sidon. Ep. 8.3.1 quam, dum parere festino, celeriter eiecit in tumultarium exemplar turbida et praeceps et Opica translatio, ‘in my haste to obey your wish, I hurriedly flung it [i.e. the Life of Apollonios] into a haphazard copy, making a wild, precipitate, barbarian transcription’. This was a transcription in Greek rather than a Latin translation; see Cameron (2011) 546–54, Stevens (1933) 162, and Stirling (2005) 146, in opposition to PCBE 4, 1789 (Sidonius) (‘traduction’); on this point, cf. Paschoud’s (2012) 367–9 more nuanced position and the discussion in van Waarden (2010) 9, n. 15. For different views see in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 3, point 5, and Prchlik (2007). Sidon. Ep. 8.3.6. Sidon. Ep. 8.3.4 si cum Tyaneo nostro nunc ad Caucasum Indumque, nunc ad Aethiopum gymnosophistas Indorumque bracmanas totus lectioni vacans et ipse quodammodo peregrinere, ‘if you travel, so to say, with our man of Tyana, now to the Caucasus or the Indus, now to the gymnosophists of Aethiopia and the Brahmins of India, totally immersed in reading’. As Harries (1996) 42–3 shows, ‘Sidonius sheltered behind Pliny’. Dated to 470 by Mathisen (1999a) 114–15, published c. 478/9, see Kelly in this volume, sect. 5.1. On the aemulatio of Cicero, see Vict. Ars rhet. 26–7; on Cicero as inimitable literary icon (e.g. Plin. Ep. 1.5.12; Sidon. Ep. 1.1.2), see Sogno (2014). See also Hernández Lobato in this volume, ch. 22. On this concept and phenomenon, see Cameron (1991) 178–88; also Mratschek (2002) 423–4 with examples. Sidon. Ep. 8.10.1 Ingentes praeconiorum titulos moribus applicas, ‘you apply to my character great screeds of eulogy’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 247

13/02/20 4:00 PM

248

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

Marcus Tullius, while in other pleadings he surpassed all other speakers, in his defence of Aulus Cluentius surpassed himself; Marcus Fronto won distinction by his other orations, but excelled himself in his speech against Pelops; Gaius Plinius, after his speech for Attia Viriola, came away from the centumviral tribunal with more glory than when he delivered a panegyric that was matched against the matchless emperor Trajan. Cicero pleaded a case against A. Cluentius Habitus in 74 BCE, and eight years later successfully defended him, having satisfied the judges with regard to his own change of role.79 Fronto, the most successful professor of rhetoric under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, surpassed himself in his declamation on a fictitious mythological tale, and in Late Antiquity was regarded as the one orator who could be mentioned alongside Cicero.80 Comparison of the inimitable ‘incomparability’ of the model emperor with Pliny’s unsung forensic speech for Attia Viriola (Ep. 6.33.2) favoured the latter over his imperial panegyric to Trajan.81 Pliny himself (Ep. 6.33.11) had rated the plea – in an allusion to Demosthenes’ oration – as his own ‘On the Crown’. To put it plainly: Ruricius could congratulate himself on having praised Sidonius, for by doing so he had ensured his own success as a rhetor. The patterns of behaviour portrayed in the high culture of the ages of Trajan and Augustus might either fuel a discourse of excessive self-presentation or one of critical introspection in Sidonius’ social circles. Projected from past into present, they were diagnosed and rendered useful for the future.82

5 The Aesthetics of Visualisation and Aristocratic Identity: Avitacum The stage that Sidonius constructs for these elites in his letters and poetic recitations is generated by his references to their opulent villas and libraries. Despite protracted scholarly controversy over whether Sidonius’ metaphorically charged villa descriptions are fictive or describe real western European villa architecture, one possible approach to resolving the issue has remained unexplored. Recently, Balmelle, Percival, Dark, and others have argued that Sidonius accurately described real places.83 But as a villa also constituted a focus for elite display, rural production, and culture, it is quite possible that the villas conjured up in Sidonius’ descriptions were two things at once: typical residences of the late Roman rural elite with their complexes of elegant baths and granaries like Pontius Leontius’ Burgus,84 defining the ‘archaeological structure’, but 79 80

81

82

83

84

Cic. Cluent. 164–6, 169. See Fuhrmann (1989) 76–7. Pan. 8[5].14.2 Fronto, Romanae eloquentiae non secundum sed alterum decus, ‘Fronto, not the second but the other glory of Roman eloquence’. See Nixon and Saylor Rodgers (1994) 133, Rees (2012b) 7, 31, 33, and Nixon (2012) 223–4. Here Sidonius subtly alludes to the principle that is fundamental to Pliny’s panegyric, that there is no praise without comparison (Pan. 53.1): alioquin nihil non parum grate sine comparatione laudatur, ‘every praise without comparison is insufficient in the first place’. On Attia Viriola’s case before the centumviri, see Gibson (2015) 203 and Shelton (2013) 232–3. Eight centuries before, Thucydides (1.22) had identified the ability to infer the correct ‘prognosis’ for the future from a ‘diagnosis’ of the past as the key quality in a writer and in a politician. Cf. Thuc. 1.138 (Themistocles as ‘best calculator of what the future holds’). See Luce (1997) 113–18 and Grethlein (2013) 29–52. On the gap between text and archaeology and the shift from luxury residences to practical purposes, see Percival (1997), Harries (1994) 10, 131–2, Hutchings (2009) 66–7; on the positivist perspective: Percival (1992), Balmelle (2001), Dark (2005). See the overview in Hanaghan (2014) 147, nn. 4–5, and Bailey (2016) 68. Sidon. Carm. 22.128 splendentes . . . per propugnacula thermae, ‘the splendid baths below the battlements’; 180 thermibus hiemalibus, ‘winter baths’, 187 horrea . . . opaca, ’shaded granaries’. See Balmelle (2001) 38, and 144–5 on the architectural details.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 248

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

249

also – and here they vied with their literary role models – social spaces used for the self-staging of the Gallo-Roman aristocracy, so that the classicist ideals of the past and the enjoyment of Golden Age literature might be given new life.85 In the world of the Roman elites, no marker of identity is more revealing than the villas privately owned by Sidonius’ relatives and literary friends. As in Pliny’s letters, the villas relate to each other, standing proxy for their owners; literary taste was close to contemporary taste in art, as mirrored in the villas’ collections of mythological sculptures.86 Sidonius (Ep. 8.4.1) conjured up a timeless enclave of the house where the erudition and good taste of the owner could be gently cultivated in a circle of like-minded friends: he wrote that a house was ‘not so much your own property as that of your friends. It feeds your guests with feasts and you with guests; moreover, its layout charms the eye of the beholder.’87 Echoes of Cicero’s Tusculanum and Pliny’s country residences point to the villa as a ‘poetic place’: it was hard to decide which was more assiduously cultivated, the owner’s land or his intellect – domini plus sit cultum rus an ingenium.88 Sidonius’ letters and invitations circulated between his current location and the country estates in and around Nîmes – Prusianum, Vorocingus, Trevidon, and Cottion; also Tres Villae outside Narbonne, Decaniacum, south of Limoges, and Taionnacus, near Autun. Many of the letters were written long before the letter collection as such came into being: composed in compliance with epistolary theory, according to which current political topics were taboo,89 they shine out with the serene glow of the intact intellectual and social world of the landowners of Classical Antiquity. However, with only two exceptions – the fortress-like Burgus on the Garonne near Bordeaux and Octavianum on the coast at Narbonne – all the owners of the houses named were Sidonius’ own relations.90 Sidonius’ own Avitacum, a paradise of idyllic peace on the banks of Lac d’Aydat, twelve miles south of Clermont, which he acquired when he married the daughter of the later emperor 85

86 87

88

89

90

Cf. Cic. Off. 3, praef. 1 ita duae res . . . illum acuebant, otium et solitudo, ‘thus, two things stimulated him [i.e. Scipio Africanus]: leisure and isolation’, 4 nos autem . . . ad hanc scribendi operam omne studium curamque convertimus, ‘I, for my part, apply all possible energy and care to this activity of writing.’ On this see Woolf (1998) 164, n. 2. Henderson (2004) 67, 71. On furnishings and decor, see Stirling (2005) 141; on juxtaposed baths Hanaghan (2020). Sidon. Ep. 8.4.1 (villa of Consentius, alluding to Cic. Off. 1.139) Umquamne nos dei nutu, domine maior, una videbit ille ager tuus Octavianus, nec tuus tantum quantum amicorum? qui . . . hospites epulis, te pascit hospitibus, praeter haec oculis intuentum situ decorus, ‘My honoured lord, will that property of yours Octavianum ever, by God’s grace, see us united? It is indeed not so much your own property as that of your friends. It feeds your guests with feasts and you with guests; moreover, its layout charms the eye of the beholder.’ See Elsner (1998) 44 and Mratschek (2019). Sidon. Ep. 8.4.1 with verbal reminiscence of Cicero’s famous comparison of land (ager) and mind (animus); see Tusc. 2.13 cultura animi philosophia est, ‘philosophy is the cultivation of the soul’. Thematically, see Pliny’s paean to ‘inspiring otium’ (Ep. 1.9.5 on his Laurentinum): verum secretumque μουσεῖον, ‘a veritable hidden Mouseion’. See Whitton (2013) 220–1; Ep. 5.6.45–6 (on the Tusci estate) altius ibi otium et pinguius et securius . . . nam studiis animum, venatu corpus exerceo, ‘peace is more profound there, fuller and more untroubled . . . for I train my mind with work and my body with hunting’. See Mratschek (2018a). Julius Victor takes his lead from Cicero’s definition (Fam. 2.4.1) of epistularum genera duo: unum familiare et iocosum, alterum severum et grave, ‘two kinds of letter: the one familiar and funny, the other official and serious’. On writing about politics: ut neque ea, quae sentio, audeam neque ea, quae non sentio, velim scribere, ‘so that I do not venture to write what I really think nor feel like writing what I do not think’. See Zelzer (1995) 541–51. The villa owners had various family connections to Sidonius. Vorocingus: Apollinaris, cousin; Prusianum, Trevidos: Tonantius Ferreolus, great-grandson of Fl. Afranius Syagrius of Lyon, married to Papianilla and related to Sidonius through her, and also to Syagrius; Cottion, Cuticiacum: Avitus, cousin; Tres Villae: Thaumastus, cousin and brother of Apollinaris; Decaniacum: Ruricius of Limoges, related to Sidonius’ and Avitus’ families through his wife Hiberia; Taionnacus: Syagrius, great-grandson of Fl. Afranius Syagrius and related to Tonantius Ferreolus. The villas belonging to non-relatives are Burgus: Pontius Leontius, vir inlustris; ‘ager Octavianus’: Consentius the Younger, poet, friend of the emperors Valentinian III and Avitus. On their localisation, cf. Loyen (1956) 62–4.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 249

13/02/20 4:00 PM

250

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

Avitus, conveys a sense of unreality (Ep. 2.2).91 This feeling is enhanced by the resonance of the names of the addressee and the sender concerned, Domitius and his host, (Sidonius) Apollinaris, which echo those of the Domitius Apollinaris to whom Pliny wrote his famous villa letter (5.6).92 The author enjoyed playing this intellectual game of ‘literary interactions’. Sidonius produces a two-layered ‘literary topography’,93 for over the whole L-shaped villa with its three bathrooms, one in the form of an apse, its swimming pool, weaving room and dining room, and its portico with lake view – the typical features of a late Roman rural elite residence94 – he casts a loosewoven net of classical allusion.95 Raphael Schwitter has rightly described this linking of intertexts as an ‘intertextual jigsaw’ for his recipient and wider readership to solve.96 Sidonius’ minutely detailed portrait of the late Roman villa that he loved most drew inspiration from not one, but three villas owned by the younger Pliny: Tusci, Laurentinum, and a third called ‘Tragedy’, perched high above Lake Como. The author’s imaginative recall flits effortlessly from one to the other, gleaning allusions for his text wherever they are prompted by this or that feature of the layout and architecture of his own Avitacum.97 Pliny conducts Domitius on a virtual tour of his airy hillside villa; Sidonius urges his own Domitius to flee the pestilence-ridden and oppressive summer heat of the city for a spell in the country. Literary allusions are used to generate foreboding and to urge the prospective visitor to avoid delay:98 the sight of the grammarian Domitius and his pupils, their faces stricken with the ‘mortal pallor’ of heat and dread (discipulis . . . pallentibus), evokes the image of Martial’s patron Domitius Apollinaris fleeing the same mortal pallor on the faces of the crowd (pallida turba) in Domitian’s Rome and seeking refuge in the countryside.99 91

92

93 94

95

96 97

98

99

Harries (1994) 10 has characterised Sidonius’ villa descriptions as ‘seriously open to question’, Percival (1997) 281 as ‘having little or no basis of reality’, Dewar (2014) 94, 104, as an ‘enactment of a precious continuity’ and a ‘paradise’; the opposite view is taken by Balmelle (2001) 156, 178, 200, 299 and others (n. 83) who link them to the archaeological evidence. On the localisation of Avitacum 20 km southwest of Clermont (modern Aydat), see Harries (1994) 10 and Stevens (1933) appendix B ‘Avitacum’ 185–95. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.3 (to Domitius) Avitaci sumus; nomen hoc praedio, quod, quia uxorium, patrio mihi dulcius, ‘we are at Avitacum; this is the name of the estate, which is dearer to me than my paternal property, because it is my wife’s’. Sidonius preferred it to his townhouse in Lyon. A different view is taken in Loyen (1943) 217 n. 9. Cf. Plin. Ep. 5.6.3 (to Domitius Apollinaris): accipe temperiem caeli, regionis situm, villae amoenitatem, ‘let me tell you about the climate, the countryside, and the lovely situation of my house’. On the wordplay around the name, see Harries (1994) 10, and, in greater detail, Gibson (2013b) 349, Mratschek (2008) 373–4, and (2018a) 222. Schwitter (2015) 206. Percival (1997) 281, Balmelle (2001) 178, Dark (2005) 336–7, Uytterhoeven (2007) 59. To wait for Sidonius’ villa to be excavated (Stevens (1933) 186) is probably a forlorn hope. A point already made by Harries (1994) 10. See also Hanaghan’s (2014) complete lexical list of allusions (150–205) and Dewar (2014) 93–4. Schwitter (2015) 207, 146. On intertextuality with Plin. Ep. 5.6 (Tusci) and 2.17 (Laurentinum), see Harries (1994) 10, 131, Whitton (2013) 36, Hanaghan (2014) e.g. 147, Visser (2014) 27, Schwitter (2015) 206. Connections with the Lake Como villas have received little attention: for the comparison with Baiae and its hilltop location (cothurnatus) in Sidon. Carm. 18.1–4 (Avitacum) and Plin. Ep. 9.7 (Tragoedia), see Furbetta (2013b) 245–51; cf. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.3 (mons . . . arduus) and Plin. Ep. 5.6.13 (ex monte prospexeris); the sight of the anglers (Sidon. Ep. 2.2.12; Plin. Ep. 9.7.4); the rocky stretch of river where it enters the Lac d’Aydat (Sidon. Ep. 2.2.17) and of the spring flowing into Lake Como (Plin. Ep. 4.30.2). Sidon. Ep. 2.2.20 veniendi celeritas, ‘a speedy arrival’. The coalescing of an imagined over-long description of the villa (ne relegentem te autumnus inveniat, ‘lest the autumn should find you still reading’) with the villa itself or with a real visit to it is an echo of Pliny (Ep. 5.6.4–40). See Mratschek (2018a) and my conclusion below (sect. 7). Mart. 10.12.9–10 et venies albis non cognoscendus amicis / livebitque tuis pallida turba genis, ‘and you will come back unrecognisable to your whey-faced friends; the pallid throng will envy your cheeks’. See Mratschek (2018a). Sidonius here refers not to the summer retreat of some random Licinianus (Mart. 1.49, thus in Hanaghan (2014) 156–7), but to that of Pliny’s (Ep. 5.6) and Martial’s homonymous addressee Domitius Apollinaris.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 250

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

251

Beyond the vestibule the beholder (inspector) sees a spacious covered passage extending inwards. Good pupil of Pliny that he was, Sidonius calls this the cryptoporticus.100 Situated on the east side of the complex, the gallery commands a view over the sea-like waves of the lake (pelagi mobilis campus) reminiscent of the maritime vista from Pliny’s Laurentine villa – and in the reader’s imagination it summons up a ‘Baiae’ in Gaul.101 From the piscina, likewise on the east side, bathers revel in the sight: ‘Though the body merely swims within the pool, the viewer’s eyes, inebriated with delight, swim over the expanse of our lake.’102 Set in its idyllic landscape among shade-giving hills, surrounded by water, and blessed with a temperate climate, Sidonius’ Avitacum is, like Pliny’s Tusci, both a summer residence and an embodiment of the classical locus amoenus: the vale of Tempe.103 But there is no precedent in Pliny for the change of perspective when Sidonius turns from the villa to the surrounding countryside and from the visualisation of space to the evocation of sound. Where Pliny brings the pleasing colours of his bucolic scenery to the reader’s eye with his ‘bejewelled wild-flower meadows’ (florida et gemmea prata) and the rustic setting,104 Sidonius goes further by generating audiovisual effects: from morning until far into the night the choir of cicadas, frogs, and nightingales alternately fills the air in harmony with the shepherds’ pipes played in the style of the Vergilian Tityrus.105 The outdoor swimming pool is fed by a mountain stream, its waters issuing with a deafening roar from six lion-headed pipes.106 Descriptions in classical texts of the opulent lifestyle of the fifth-century landowning class have been challenged as implausible. But Avitacum had been passed down through generations of the Aviti. The younger Pliny had inherited the Tuscan villa from his uncle, and Sidonius had similarly received his Avitacum from his father-in-law, as part of his bride’s dowry.107 The snow-white walls of the frigidarium and the absence of richly coloured frescoes were not signs of diminishing prosperity,108 but, given that time future is contained in time past, stemmed from the 100

101

102

103

104

105 106

107 108

Sidon. Ep. 2.2.10–11. Cf. Plin. Ep. 2.17.17, 19, 20, and 5.6.28. The words diaeta, ‘living room’, and cryptoporticus, ‘arcade’, are borrowed from Pliny, as indicated by Harries (1994) 186, and subsequently Visser (2014) 35–6 and Hanaghan (2014) 178–80. On the visualisation, see Sidon. Ep. 2.2.16 vestigio inspectoris, ‘the footstep of the onlooker’. On the view and the Lac d’Aydat: Sidon. Ep. 2.2.10 ab ortu lacum porticus intuetur, ‘in the east a portico overlooks the lake’; 2.2.16 pelagi mobilis campus, ‘the moving plain of open water’; Carm. 18.8 aequora . . . nostri . . . lacus, ‘the waters of our lake’; 18.12 quisquis ades, Baias tu facis hic animo, ‘whoever you are, visitor, you can create a Baiae here in your fancy’. Cf. Plin. Ep. 2.17.5 a fronte quasi tria maria prospectat, ‘it seems to look out on three seas’; 2.17.20 cubiculum autem valvis cryptoporticum, fenestra prospicit mare, ‘there is also a room which has folding doors opening onto the arcade and a window looking out on the sea’. Sidon. Carm. 19.3–4 et licet hoc solo mergatis membra liquore, / per stagnum nostrum lumina vestra natant. Quint. 11.3.76 (oculi . . . natantes et quadam voluptate suffusi, ‘the eyes swimming and covered as it were with passion’) uses natare to mean ‘inebriated with pleasure’. So I prefer Loyen (1960) 1.129 here to Anderson (1936) 1.257 n. 5. On the location of the swimming pool, see Ep. 2.2.8 piscina forinsecus . . . ab oriente connectitur, ‘externally, a swimming pool is attached on the east side’; on the portico, 2.2.10. E.g. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.2 (clementissimo recessu); cf. Plin. Ep. 5.6.4 (mira clementia). See Mratschek (2018a) also on what follows. Plin. Ep. 5.6.11. Statius’ Silvae are described as gemmea prata (‘bejewelled meadows’) by Sidonius (Carm. 9.229); cf. Newlands (2002) 202–3, (2013) 75, and Roberts (1989) on the ‘jewelled style’. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.14. In detail, Loyen (1943) 57 and Hanaghan (2014) 189. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.9 strepitus caduci fluminis, ‘the roar of the falling stream’, captured onomatopoeically in Carm. 18.5–6 garrula Gauranis plus murmurat unda fluentis, ‘the chattering water babbles more busily than the streams that flow from Gaurus’. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.3. On the inheritance of Pliny the Younger, see Gibson and Morello (2012) 202–3, 223–4. Thus Harries (1994) 132, Percival (1997) 286; cf. Ward-Perkins (2005) 104; a different view is taken by Dark (2005) 335 and Fowden (2004) 59–60; cf. Etruscus’ deluxe bathhouse (Mart. 6.42; Stat. Silv. 1.5).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 251

13/02/20 4:00 PM

252

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

(future) bishop’s decision to deny his surroundings the naked beauty of painted bodies in pagan mythological or erotic scenes. This was consistent with his definition of the frigidarium as a basilica and the swimming pool as a baptistery – in brief, with a ‘godly prospect’.109 He compensated for this lack of paintings with an innocuous verse inscription of his own composition, a kind of ‘anti-ekphrasis’ of missing pictures within the ekphrasis, and also with the help of the superabundance of light enclosed within the room (lux inclusa), which (the intratextual link suggests) gave one the impression of ‘being more than naked’.110 The Aquitanian aristocrat Paulinus had referred to the resplendent buildings of his monastery at Nola as his ‘hut’, and Sidonius modestly follows suit for his villa (tuguria and mapalia).111 Marked – as in Pliny – by the rhetorical device of praeteritio, the catalogues of the missing frescoes (2.2.6) and of the foreign marbles not used in the construction (2.2.7) demonstrate Sidonius’ strict avoidance of any display of over-luxurious living, and indeed set an example of elegant restraint in the description of his property.112 Yet he cannot resist mentioning that the middle pilasters of the passageway from the ‘hot room’ to the swimming pool are of porphyry, the purplish decorative stone greatly admired in Late Antiquity, and usually the prerogative of emperors.113 Is he perhaps seeking to remind readers of the status of the emperor Eparchius Avitus, the villa’s previous owner, in the same way as he uses the 109

110

111 112

113

Sidon. Ep. 2.2.5–6 interior parietum facies solo levigati caementi candore contenta est. non hic per nudam pictorum corporum pulchritudinem turpis prostat historia, quae sicut ornat artem, devenustat artificem, ‘the inner face of the walls is content with the plain whiteness of polished concrete. Here no disgraceful tale is exposed by the nude beauty of painted figures, for though such a tale may be a glory to art it dishonours the artist’; 2.2.8 huic basilicae appendix piscina forinsecus seu, si graecari mavis, baptisterium ab oriente connectitur, ‘attached to this basilica [hall] is an external appendage on the east side, a piscina [swimming pool], or, if you prefer the Greek word, a baptisterium’; 2.2.7 nihil illis paginis impressum reperietur quod non vidisse sit sanctius, ‘there will not be found traced on those spaces anything which it would be more proper not to look at’. The term ‘baptisterium’, an allusion to Pliny’s bath descriptions (Ep. 2.17.11, 5.6.25), became established in Sidonius’ time in the Christian sense of ‘baptismal font’; see TLL 2, 1719.72–20.23, s.v. baptisterium. On the verse inscription, see Sidon. Ep. 2.2.8 quia eos nec relegisse desiderio, nec perlegisse fastidio, ‘although they inspire no longing to read them again, they can be read through without boredom’. On the anti-ekphrasis Ep. 2.2.6, see Hanaghan (2014) 165, on the light effect 2.2.4 (cf. Plin. Ep. 2.17.7) intra conclave succensum solidus dies et haec abundantia lucis inclusae ut verecundos quosque compellat aliquid se plus putare quam nudos, ‘within the heated chamber there is full day and such an abundance of enclosed light as forces all modest persons to feel themselves something more than naked’. Note the intratextuality; on the context, Visser (2014) 34 and Schwitter (2014) 174. Sidon. Ep. 2.2.7, cf. Paul. Nol. Ep. 29.13 (tugurium . . . nostrum, ‘my hut’); see Mratschek (2002) 550–1. Cf. Plin. Ep. 2.17.4 atrium frugi nec tamen sordidum, ‘a hall, unpretentious but not without dignity’. On Pliny’s anxiety to avoid ostentation, as an offence against social norms and good taste, see Hoffer (1999) 29–44 and Lefèvre (2009b) 233; cf. Whitton (2013) 220: ‘He constructs his own Romanitas of moderation between luxury and asceticism.’ Sidon. Ep. 2.2.8 nec pilae sunt mediae sed columnae, quas architecti peritiores aedificiorum purpuras nuncupavere, ‘the middle supports are not pillars but columns, of the kind that high-class architects have called “purples”’. Loyen (1960) 1.17 relates this to Luc. 10.116 purpureus . . . lapis, ‘purple stone’. The ‘Ethiopian stone’ mentioned in the catalogue of marble varieties (2.2.7) and in the description of the steps to Roma’s throne is not porphyry but lapis Syenites, a red granite from Aswan, a coarse rock, sprinkled with white quartz crystals and adjacent black inclusions (Carm. 5.34–6); see Anderson (1936) 1.422 n. 2, 62 n. 2, and, in greater detail, Marchei in Borghini (1989) 122, cf. 226–7 fig. 74 (red granite) and 274 fig. 116 (porphyry). Delbrueck (1932) xxi, 29 n. 94, is incorrect. Porphyry is otherwise only mentioned in the context of the rich Aquitanian Pontii, where it is used as wall cladding in thermal baths at Pontius Leontius (Sidon. Carm. 22.141, see Delhey ad loc.: purpura is a metonym for saxa) and when describing the altar slab above the martyrs’ graves in the basilica at Fundi, which was founded by the ancestor of the Pontii, Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 32.17, v. 18 regia purpureo marmore crusta, ‘a royal slab of purple marble [covers the bones of holy men]’). In the tetrarchy and the Constantinian era porphyry was the stone of choice for imperial artworks and palaces, and later also for churches; see Elsner (1998) 62 fig. 29 and Delbrueck (1932) 11, 24–9, on porphyry as a royal prerogative.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 252

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

253

traditional Lac d’Aydat boat race to remind them of the Trojans’ boat games and the fictitious Roman ancestry of the Arverni?114 The ekphrasis of Sidonius’ Avitacum is not so much a naturalistic description of landscape or a reliable architectural plan of a late antique country estate as a discourse employing visual imagery from classical writers as a code decipherable only by the author, his learned neighbour Domitius, and his highly educated circle of readers.115 In this, the owner of Avitacum aligns himself with the otium litteratum of the younger Pliny.116 But he does not neglect to devise subtle performative strategies of differentiation designed to do himself justice in his changing roles as bishop, Roman citizen, heir to the emperor Avitus, and author of refined taste and discernment. The picture that Sidonius creates, purportedly of his favourite villa, is in reality a portrait of his cultural identity – an elegant construction providing an appropriate setting for its owner.

6 The Self-Staging of the Gallo-Roman Aristocracy: Media and Representation In contrast to Sidonius’ bathhouse, where the absence of images is presented as a new sign of Christian identity, the villa – a suitably imposing place for the aristocratic elites to meet, and at the same time the most intimate of the public spaces – would usually be full of pictures. The education of the elite classes included familiarisation with a fixed repertoire of imagery integrated in a complex network of learned allusions and artistic commentaries that remained impenetrable to the less educated.117 Like the Younger Pliny and Philostratus, Sidonius exploited the communicative scope offered by visual narration. Speaking pictures were not mere art for art’s sake. They provided a visual representation of the pagan past, demanded precise historical knowledge, and helped in the reconstruction of cultural and social identities. In an eleven-line ekphrasis, Sidonius (Carm. 22.158–68) presents the dramatic events of the Third Mithridatic War on a wall painting (pictura).118 The cycle of paintings portrays the incursion of Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus, into Roman-claimed Bithynia, which ended with the recall of Lucullus. Certain scenes have lodged in the memory of the observer: for instance, the sacrifice of a horse to Neptune carried out by Mithridates (22.158–62), and the siege of Cyzicus in winter 74/3 BCE, when a messenger from Lucullus showed great daring in swimming between the enemy navy’s ships to exhort the city’s inhabitants to continue their resistance.119 While visiting the Pontii Leontii at their villa in Burgus,120 Sidonius had seen the painting on the portico wall in the inner courtyard. The siting of the picture creates a link between 114

115

116

117 118

119

120

On the boat race, see Sidon. Ep. 2.2.19 with its allusion to Verg. Aen. 5.151–243; for detailed comment on this, see Hanaghan (2014) 199–201; on the origins of the Arverni, see Ep. 7.7.2, with a new interpretation in Mratschek (2013). Cf. Anderson (1936) 1.416: ‘the description does not supply adequate material for a plausible plan of the buildings’. On Apollinaris, see Sidon. Ep. 2.2.2, when he quotes Terence for his pupils, Eun. 107. Mratschek (2018a), also Visser (2014) 40–1: ‘a mirror of Sidonius’ values and the values of his ingroup’ and ‘a place of otium’. On παιδεία as a ‘code’ and its images, see Brown (1992) 42, Stirling (2005) 141, and Zanker (1995) 300. A wall painting rather than a mosaic, see Delhey (1993) 151 and Balmelle (2001) 144, as against Loyen (1960) 1.195 n. 20 and (1956) 88. Depicted in App. Mith. 70 (horse sacrifice), and Fron. Str. 1.13.6, Oros. Hist. 6.2.14, Flor. 1.40 (3.5).16 (Cyzicus); see Delhey (1993) 151–6, Balmelle (2001) 117, 144–6, 152, 203, and Stirling (2005) 77. Burgus (castle), Bourg-sur-Gironde near Bordeaux, was probably the villa Veregini of the descendants of Pontius Meropius Paulinus. See Mratschek (2002) 114–18.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 253

13/02/20 4:00 PM

254

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

history and the present. The historical painting is an instructive example of an attempt to generate identity out of the past: visual means are used, together with the homonymy of the villa owners’ family name, to construct a fictitious ancestral line reaching back to the republic and linking the origins of the Aquitanian Pontii to the kings of Pontus in Asia Minor.121 Even Dionysus, Sidonius’ nickname for Pontius Leontius by which the villa owner was known in their literary circle of Bordeaux, echoes the cognomen of Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysos, the central figure on the wall painting.122 The nickname was a humorous pun on one of Leontius’ real names, Meropius (from merum, ‘undiluted wine’), a name borne in earlier times by his ancestor Pontius Meropius Paulinus, Paulinus of Nola. An earthly epiphany of Dionysus or Bacchus, the lord of Bourges resided above the vineyards on the banks of the Garonne, and also above his cellar, famous for its Bordeaux wines.123 The encounter between the two ‘gods’, Bacchus/Leontius and Apollo/Sidonius,124 provides a narrative frame in prose for the poem, the foundation myth and poetic ekphrasis of Burgus. Celebrating Leontius as the god of wine and feasting, the poem invests Burgus with the aura of a mythical palace; it was intended as a gift for the owner, to be read at his symposia.125 It relates how Apollo, the god of poetry on his way from Hellas, encountered Bacchus/Dionysus, arriving from India in his tiger-drawn chariot,126 121

122

123 124

125

126

Sidon. Carm. 22.158–68, esp. 162–4 et occisis vivit pictura quadrigis. / Ponticus hinc rector numerosis Cyzicon armis / claudit, ‘the picture is alive from the teams that have been killed. On this side, the Pontic rule encloses Cyzicus with countless weapons.’ For a different view, see Delhey (1993) 151. E.g. Sidon. Carm. 22 ep. 2 (Dionysus), 5 (Bacchus). See Mathisen (1991b) 35–7. On the surname Dionysos of Mithridates VI Eupator, cf. Cic. Flacc. 60 Mithridatem dominum, illum patrem, illum conservatorem Asiae, illum Euhium, Nysium, Bacchum, Liberum nominabant, ‘they called Mithridates lord, called him father, called him Asia’s preserver, called him Euhius, Nysius, Bacchus, Liber’; on his being worshipped as ‘Mithridates Dionysus’ at the heroon of Delos in 102/1 BCE (IDelos 1562; OGIS 370), see McGing (1986) 90, n. 5, 96–7; on the association with Dionysus, as depicted on silver coins, (a) Obverse: portrait of the ruler, end of diadem resembling a lock of Dionysus; (b) Reverse: wreath of ivy and grapes (tetradrachm: BMC Pontus, 44, no. 4–5) or head of Dionysus the wreath (didrachm: SNG Great Britain 9 British Museum 1, no. 997), see Bendschus (2019) Catalogue nos PON15–16, also 53 and 55. On comparable self-staging in Hellenistic rulers, see Fuhrer (2011) 375–6. Sidon. Carm. 22.5 (love of wine), 279–80 (apotheca, ‘cellar’), 230 (laeta . . . vineta, ‘rich vineyards’). I would like to suggest a new solution to the scholarly debate over the identification of the two Phoebi in the prose preface (Sidon. Carm. 22 ep. 2): habes igitur hic Dionysum (i.e. Pontius Leontius) . . . , habes et Phoebum, quem tibi iure poetico inquilinum factum constat ex numine (i.e. Sidonius as ‘dweller in your house’), illum scilicet Phoebum Anthedii mei perfamiliarem, ‘here, then, you can find Dionysus, you can also find Phoebus, who, certainly, through a poet’s privilege, from a god has become an inmate of your house – that same Phoebus who is a great crony of my friend Anthedius’. The poetical society’s second Phoebus was probably Lampridius, who like Anthedius believed in astrology (Ep. 8.11.9) and was styled ‘the singing swan’ in allusion to the Horatian metaphor (8.11.3 canorus cygnus; Ep. 8.11.8 post Horatianos . . . cygnos); cf. Sidonius’ self-deprecation as ravus anser, ‘a honking goose’, in contrast to the Horatian metaphor of canorus cygnus (8.11.3; Ep. 9.2.2; Carm. 40 (Ep. 9.15.1) 19–49) and Sidonius’ self-presentation as ‘Apollo’ (Ep. 8.11.3). See Condorelli (2008) 152 and Mratschek (2017) 316–19; we must reject the interpretation offered by Anderson (1936) 1.194 n. 2, Delhey (1993) 48–9, and Loyen (1960) 1.193 n. 3 (where the two Phoebi are Pontius Leontius’ son Paulinus and an anonymous person). The postscriptum (Carm. 22 ep. 5) contains an author–reader dialogue: nec iniuria hoc . . . flagito (i.e. Sidonius), quandoquidem Baccho meo (i.e. Leontius) iudicium decemvirale passuro, ‘I do not ask this unlawfully, since for my Bacchus who is to undergo a trial at the Ten-Men court’. Sidon. Carm. 22 ep. 5 ecce, quotiens tibi libuerit pateris capacioribus hilarare convivium, misi quod inter scyphos et amystidas tuas legas, ‘look, I have sent you something to read amid your bumpers and toasts whenever you choose to cheer the feast with extra-large cups’. On the convivial atmosphere, see Schwitter (2015) 193–9. Sidon. Carm. 22 ep. 2 habes igitur hic Dionysum inter triumphi Indici oblectamenta marcentem, ‘here, then, you can find Dionysus bemused amid the delights of his Indian triumph’; 22.22–46 (visualisation). Cf. Eur. Bacch. 14–23 (travel and conquest), the famous Roman sarcophagus in Baltimore (Indian triumph, with elephants and tigers), and for a focus on India even as late as the fifth century, the Dionysiaka of Nonnos from Book 13 onwards. See Moraw (2011) 244–5 and Boardman (2014) chs. 3–4.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 254

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

255

and persuaded him that they should both settle in Aquitania, at the confluence of the Garonne and the Dordogne, and thus uphold continued Roman rule.127 Constructing new identities in a way which suggests a lineage going back to the Pontic kings and the gods themselves128 was part of a process of mythification in which the gens and the memoria of the aristocratic Pontii were revalued and upgraded, and obsolete pagan and historical lore was unobtrusively tailored to suit current trends.129 The villa’s furnishings and artworks created an atmosphere that spurred visitors to familiarise themselves with the identity and position of the owner – his view of the world, his social status and his ambitions. Tonantius Ferreolus, praetorian prefect of Gaul in 451, chose the name of ‘Prusianum’ for his villa near Nîmes in memory of the famous rhetor and philosopher Dio of Prusa, whom the emperor Trajan had honoured with an invitation to ride with him through the streets of Rome in the triumphal chariot.130 In country villas the library would serve as reception room for visitors and friends.131 It would be richly and artistically furnished to display the owner’s wealth and sophistication. Recitations bore witness to the continuity of social rituals and to the self-presentation of the Gallo-Roman aristocracy.132 Library walls were adorned with portraits (effigies) of classical orators and poets in mosaic or wax paint, accompanied by annotatory epigrams,133 to suggest continuity between the present custodians of learning and their predecessors. The goddess of wisdom, Minerva, might well be an appropriate patroness of one of these private scholarly libraries, as in the villa at 127

128

129 130

131

132

133

Sidon. Carm. 22.99–100 (speech of the Delian Apollo): cordi est si iungere gressum, / dicam qua pariter sedem tellure locemus, ‘if you feel like accompanying me, I shall tell in what land we should make our joint habitation’; 22.117–19 quem generis princeps Paulinus Pontius olim, / cum Latius patriae dominabitur, ambiet altis / moenibus, ‘some day, when his land will be Roman territory, Paulinus Pontius, the founder of the family, will surround this hill with walls’. The epic prophecy of the Roman right to rule, with its triple alliteration on ‘p’, recalls that of Phoebus in Delos for Aeneas (Aen. 3.97 hic domus Aeneae cunctis dominabitur oris / et nati natorum, ‘here, Aeneas’ house and his children’s children will rule all lands’). Mithridates VI, too, had assumed the role of protector (προστάτης) of Greek culture against the barbarians (Strab. 7.4.3). This practice of creating a fictitious lineage of royal and divine ancestors is reminiscent of Caesar’s claim to be descended from the Marcii Reges and Venus in the laudatio funebris for his aunt Iulia (Suet. Iul. 6.1). On the creative powers of memory, see Hose (2002). On Ferreolus’ Prusianum, see Sidon. Ep. 2.9.7 si Prusiani (sic fundus alter nuncupabatur), ‘if the Prusianum (that was the name of the other estate)’. Dio Chrys. 46.7 (country estates at Prusa) ἔστι μὴν γὰρ χωρία μοι καὶ πάντα ταῦτα ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ γῇ̣, ‘though I have a real estate, all in your territory too’. Cf. Philostr. Vit. soph. 1.7 (triumph). Dio of Prusa and Apollonius of Tyana were friends. Sidon. Ep. 2.9.4 (on Ferreolus’ library) vix quodcumque vestibulum intratum . . . ; huc libri adfatim in promptu (videre te crederes aut grammaticales pluteos aut Athenaei cuneos aut armaria exstructa bybliopolarum), ‘hardly had I entered one or the other vestibule . . . ; books in any number were ready to hand (you might have imagined yourself looking at the shelves of a professional scholar or at the tiers in the Athenaeum or at the towering cases of the booksellers)’. See Gerth (2013) 206–8 and Rossiter (1991) 200–1. Sidon. Ep. 8.4.2 (on the younger Consentius) igitur hic tu . . . citos iambos, elegos acutos ac rotundatos hendecasyllabos et cetera carmina musicos flores thymumque redolentia, nunc Narbonensibus cantitanda, nunc Biterrensibus, ambigendum celerius an pulchrius elucubrasti, ‘here then you produced (both rapidly and beautifully – one cannot tell which most) rapid iambics, pointed elegiacs and smooth hendecasyllables, and your other verses all fragrant with the Muses’ thyme and flowers, to be eagerly sung, now by the people of Narbonne, now by those of Béziers’. Rustic. Ep. ad Eucher. (CSEL 31, 199), early fifth-century: nam cum supra memoratae aedis ordinator ac dominus inter expressas lapillis aut ceris discoloribus formatasque effigies vel oratorum vel etiam poetarum specialia singulorum autotypis epigrammata subdidisset, ‘for as the designer and owner of the above-mentioned house had applied individual explanatory texts under each of the portraits of orators or also poets which were fashioned and made of little stones or various colours of wax’. See Wendel (1954) 252, 264–5, Zanker (1995) 296, 300, Vessey (2001) 278–97, and Stirling (2005) 79, 151.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 255

13/02/20 4:00 PM

256

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

Castelculier, near Agen.134 The catalogues of the Seven Sages in Sidonius (Carm. 2.156–65, 15.42–50) suggest not single portraits as in Pliny,135 but whole galleries of herms or busts of philosophers.136 This tallies with a relief discovered in the Chiragan villa southwest of Toulouse which shows Socrates before a herm of Dionysus, an allusion to the otium of philosophical pursuits.137 Ausonius and Augustine might be considered further possible mediators for Sidonius’ collections of philosophers.138 Images and literary testimonies show Socrates as Plato’s hero and a martyr in the eyes of Late Antiquity, and the Seven Sages, for their part, as prophets of the coming of Christ.139 In reality, the number of book collections mentioned by Sidonius says less about the educational attainment of their owners than about their concern for self-presentation. Gaul’s estate libraries served both as storage media supporting discourse with the past and as aristocratic status symbols.140 The selection made provides an insight into the thesauri bibliothecales,141 the cultural highlights of the library holdings which constituted the collective memory of Sidonius’ generation. The bookcases at Prusianum contained popular contemporary Christian writings side by side with pagan classics, Augustine and Prudentius rubbing shoulders with Varro and Horace.142 Ferreolus’ friend Claudianus Mamertus owned a triplex bibliotheca at Vienne, a library renowned for uniting Roman, Greek, and Christian literature, that is to say, all three strands of high culture.143 Private libraries were both a forum for communication and a store in which the knowledge gathered in the past was preserved for future generations.144 Unlike public libraries, they were the exclusive preserve of a specific social stratum, and provided the basis and the code for communication between its members: a survival strategy, after nobility no longer came from political office, for in Sidonius’ judgement it was literary

134

135

136

137

138

139 140 141 142

143

144

Stirling (2005) 67–8 fig. 33 and 79; cf. the Minerva in the library of the temple to Apollo (Plin. Nat. 7.210). On the humorous identification with Sidonius’ well-read cousin, the Minerva of her time, see my previous chapter, sect. 3. Pliny the Younger (Ep. 4.28.1) ordered portraits of Transpadane intellectuals, the biographer Cornelius Nepos and the Epicurean philosopher T. Catius, for a friend’s library. Stirling (2005) 79: ‘philosopher portraits’. Hebert (1988) 528–38: ‘cycles of philosopher images’ and sketches in the form of ‘picture-books’. Zanker (1995) 288–305, esp. 293: ‘widespread throughout the Roman Empire’. Engels (2010) 103–16: ‘statues, portrait herms, wall paintings and mosaics’. The finds in Gaul include e.g. a bust of Socrates near Toulouse, a conjectural portrait at Séviac, and the gallery of portraits of philosophers at Welschbillig, outside Trier; cf. the philosopher mosaic at Cologne (third century). See Stirling (2005) 69, 250, nn. 281–4; but cf. doubts expressed by her and Percival (1997) 279–92. Bergmann (1999) 69, plates 3–4, and Stirling (2005) 69. ‘Socrates and the Seven Sages are the most popular’, see Zanker (1995) 300; e.g. 290–1 fig. 167 (mosaic 362/3, Apameia: Socrates teaching the Sages); 301 fig. 174 (portrait c. 300, Ephesus). Aug. Civ. 8.2; 6; Auson. Ludus septem sapientium, see Snell (2014) 145–61; see also Luxorius’ Septem sapientium sententiae (Anth. 1.1.351 Riese). See Cameron (1970) 323–5. On their ‘religious aura’, see Snell (2014) 162–73 and Zanker (1995) 288–91, 302. E.g. Sidon. Ep. 2.9.4, 4.11.6, 8.2.2. Sidon. Ep. 8.4.1 (library of the younger Consentius). Sidon. Ep. 2.9.4 nam similis scientiae viri, hinc Augustinus, hinc Varro, hinc Horatius, hinc Prudentius lectitabantur, ‘for it was usual to read authors of similar mastery, an Augustine, a Varro, a Horace, a Prudentius’. See Eigler (2003) 117 and Gerth (2013) 206–8. Sidon. Carm. 30 (Ep. 4.11.6) 4–5 triplex bybliotheca quo magistro, / Romana, Attica, Christiana, fulsit, ‘under his teaching three literatures shone, Roman, Greek, and Christian’. See Vessey (2001) 286, Eigler (2003) 103–4, Mratschek (2008), Gerth (2013) 174–7, and Schmitzer (2015) 91. On the function of libraries as ‘external storage media’ for cultural memory, see Assmann (1999) 19–23 (‘externe Speichermedien’), 140–2 (‘Speichergedächtnis’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 256

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

257

education (litterae) alone that in the Gaul of his day remained a true mark of aristocracy (solum indicium nobilitatis).145

7 Conclusion: Artifex lector, the Artful Reader Sidonius Apollinaris, scion of the highest aristocracy and champion of letters, saw himself as part of ‘a world already senescent’ (mundus iam senescens).146 His god was an ‘artful god’ (artifex deus) who made men capable of attaining reason.147 Few, he wrote, were in a position to maintain ‘the excellence in the arts’ (virtutes artium) in public service and in literature with which the Ruler of all the ages had endowed his ancestors; few had the ability to create anything ‘remarkable or memorable’ (mirandum ac memorabile).148 Sidonius claimed to be one of these few. Before his letter collection was published, he could already point to success within his own exclusive circle: ‘My diction pleases my friends; with that I am content.’149 Sidonius’ constant self-reassurance as to his cultural and intellectual superiority over the ‘barbarians’ clearly reflects his efforts, by artistic and psychological means, to cope with the trauma inflicted by the military and political catastrophe of the year 476 and to formulate ways of living in the new kingdoms of western Europe.150 He used the retrospective invocation of an idealised cultural tradition to generate an alternative world to safeguard his independence and to provide refuge from the victorious Visigoths. His virtuosic blending of past (prisca saecula) and present (hoc tempus) enabled him to weave a variety of portraits and scenes into an artistically composed virtual autobiography for the benefit of later generations. The images used may themselves become period markers,151 may evoke utopian and mythically charged timelessness,152 or may trigger dynamic time experiences.153 It is not only the architecture and style of the younger Pliny’s epistolography that we find reflected in the process of reading and re-reading, but also the semiotic tension between Sidonius’ social milieu and that of his great predecessor.154

145 146 147

148

149

150 151 152 153

154

Sidon. Ep. 8.2.2. See Mathisen (2001a) 102–3, Mratschek (2002) 48, Näf (1995) 137, and Stirling (2005) 141. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.3 (cited below, n. 148). Sidon. Ep. 7.14.8 rationi, cuius assequendae substantiam nostram compotem deus artifex . . . fecit, ‘reason which God the creator has made our substance capable of attaining’. Sidon. Ep. 8.6.3 namque virtutes artium istarum saeculis potius priscis saeculorum rector ingenuit, quae per aetatem mundi iam senescentis . . . parum aliquid hoc tempore in quibuscumque, atque id in paucis, mirandum ac memorabile ostentant, ‘for the Ruler of the ages chose to implant the talents for such arts in bygone ages; but now, in an era when the world is growing old, they produce little that is remarkable or memorable in anyone, and even that only in a few’. The wording derives from Prud. Ham. praef. 17–18 (mundum . . . iam senescentem), the underlying meaning from Pliny, Ep. 8.12.1 (litterarum iam senescentium) and 6.21.1 (neque enim quasi lassa et effeta natura nihil laudabile parit, ‘it is not true that the world is too tired and exhausted to be able to produce anything worth praising’). Sidon. Ep. 8.16.5 (to Constantius) dictio mea, quod mihi sufficit, placet amicis. On coded communication in his ‘ingroup’, see rightly Schwitter (2015) 192, n. 275, 217–27 and 301, although one may have doubts about his concept of obscuritas. On the Visigothic empire, see Delaplace (2015) 170, 238–55, 302–3; on Sidonius’ resilience Mratschek (2020). E.g. the visualisation of Sigismer’s ‘wedding’ (Ep. 4.20) as a projection of the new era. E.g. Sidonius’ Avitacum, or the meaningful wall painting of the Pontii Leontii. E.g. public appearances of paradigmatic figures such as Fl. Astyrius, Theoderic II, Ricimer, Sigismer, and Chilperic II. Cf. Hanaghan (2019) on temporality from a narratological point of view. Compare Gibson’s (2012) 43–5 and (2015) persuasive approach to reading and re-reading Pliny’s collection, which – as with a volume of poems – not only brings out symmetries, but also reveals contrasts and a processgenerated semiotic tension between themes. Cf. also Gibson (2011, 2013a, 2013b) and in this volume, ch. 11, on Sidonius’ epistolography.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 257

13/02/20 4:00 PM

258

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

Common to both writers, as Chris Whitton suggests, is their ‘combination of artistry, wit and evasiveness’.155 Dense allusivity is an important generator of meaning, and both have attracted the attentive reading required to decipher it.156 ‘Imitation’ in this case, then, is much more than the typical practice of emulation both as ‘a goal in itself . . . and a way of adding colour to the narrative’,157 as it goes beyond the conscious act of ‘playful concealment’158 by providing the key to a deeper understanding and artistic appreciation of the work as a whole. By evoking hypotexts and images from literary tradition (nobilium sermonum purpurae), and opening up spaces of memory and counter-worlds that constitute meta-levels where the skills of pagan rhetoric blend with Christian identity discourses, Sidonius succeeds in transcending the conventions of the genre and showing his audience his personal vision of the world. Given the sustained tension in the letters between perception of the historical present and the ‘teleological design’ of the past, allusions to the classics and their imagery prove to be a means of elucidating both the world and his self in an age of political and social upheaval. In this analysis, Sidonius’ authorial achievement emerges in a new light.159 Sidonius’ intention, like Pliny’s before him, is that his audience should visualise the ‘aesthetics of existence’ as lived by the Gallo-Roman elites with their codes of behaviour and their sophisticated literary taste – the way of living that he himself stands for, the ‘good Roman’ aristocrat and intellectual who has internalised the classical literary tradition and reworks it in a protean variety of ways. This concept was developed by Foucault, in connection with the question of status-appropriate patterns of behaviour, for the specific case of the lifestyle of Antiquity, and centres on the individual’s capacity for exemplary selfdevelopment.160 What can be said about the aesthetic existence of the persona of an author who concealed himself in his writing behind such various and varying roles? Sidonius, the author of carefully elaborated poems and letters, informs his educated audience about the values by which he measures the social world of his epoch, and about how he defines his attitude to his model: he views that social world and its fragility with the eyes of Pliny the Younger. Where this emerges most clearly is in the visualisation of Sidonius’ summer residence, Avitacum. Not only do the architectural features of Pliny’s homes – his Tusci, his Laurentinum, and his Lake Como villas161 – reappear, but, as in Pliny’s model, the length of the letter coalesces with the reading, the villa with its description, the virtual tour of the villa with the real-life visit by Domitius, to form a unity. As a highlight and crowning pointe, and with ambivalent effect, Sidonius alludes to Pliny’s famous reflection on his lengthy ekphrasis of his Tuscan estate

155

156 157 158

159

160 161

As with Pliny, the curriculum vitae offered is selective: there are gaps in Sidonius’ biography and political career, in his change of role to bishop, his conversion and baptism, and with regard to the religious landscape of Clermont. For a comparison see Whitton (2013) 36. See van Waarden on Sidonius’ biography in this volume, ch. 1. On Pliny, see Whitton (2010) esp. 134–5. Visser (2014) 42. See the extremely thought-provoking book by Schwitter (2015) 206, along with Gualandri (1979) 94 and van Waarden (2010) 52. Schwitter’s appealing definition (203, 302–3) of ars as ‘technical virtuosity’ and ‘game’ that deliberately aimed for obscurity (obscuritas) does not go far enough; but see Schwitter (2020) on the literary contest of Sidonius’ friends. On the ‘obscuring effect’ of Sidonius’ high-wrought style, cf. Watson (1998) 181 and 197. As acutely recognised by Harries (1994). On the preponderantly negative critical assessment of Sidonius, see Mratschek (2008) 363, and, in closer detail, Schmitzer (2015) 74–6; for a new evaluation of the late antique language of art, see Formisano (2008), Hernández Lobato (2012a), and Schwitter (2015) 18–20 with reference to Roberts (1989). In his meticulous analysis of reception history, Wolff (2014c) 260 diagnoses a ‘Sidonian revival’. Foucault (2005) 904, no. 357, (1986) 84. Mratschek (2018a) 221–9; see above, sect. 5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 258

13/02/20 4:00 PM

CREATING CULTURE AND PRESENTING THE SELF IN SIDONIUS

259

(Ep. 2.2.20; cf. Plin. Ep. 5.6.44): quapropter bonus arbiter et artifex lector non paginam, quae spatia describit, sed villam, quae spatiosa describitur, grandem pronuntiabunt, ‘thus the arbiter of taste and the artful reader will declare, not the letter describing the spaces, but the villa described as spacious in it, to be great’.162 Exactly who is meant here is subtly left unsaid: it could be Domitius, Sidonius’ (and Pliny’s) addressee; or it could be Sidonius himself as a reader of Pliny. The key can be found in Pliny’s letter (Ep. 5.6.35) itself: conceived as a work of art, in which letter and architecture, visualisation and villa, fuse into one, it is signed with the initials of both the dominus and the artifex, of both the owner and the artist, Pliny himself.163 In dialogue with his model Pliny, Sidonius stylises himself so as to assume both roles – that of artifex lector and that of bonus arbiter, the artful reader of his letters, and the arbiter of good taste for his own epoch. Sidonius’ contemporaries endorsed his self-perception when they cast him in the role of the late fifth-century arbiter elegantiae, who was cautious when silent, and carried weight when he spoke.164 His final judgement on Pliny’s art and his own is that it is grandis – that is, both great and grand. In the multi-dimensional expansive space of art, all kinds of movement and rebirth – social, political, creative – seem possible.

8 Further Reading Sidonius’ letters have hitherto been used almost exclusively as a valuable source for the social and intellectual life of late antique Gaul.165 Aiming to break down the apparently static structures of culture and society in what was in fact an age of transition, and to capture the voice of an author who employed various strategies for persuading and manipulating his audience, based on the evocative power of intertextuality and memory,166 I chose to focus first (chapter 5) on the previously neglected dynamics of transformation, and second (this chapter) on a fresh reading of the social functions and the coded aesthetic of Sidonius’ epistolography. Through the poetics of allusion, the author’s project of self-construction reaches new heights as, in his reflections on his own writing, he reveals himself to his audience as an artful reader (artifex lector) of Pliny, and as he defines himself as an arbiter of taste (arbiter elegantiae) for the age in which he lived. Through recourse to classical tradition, and to literary exchanges with like-minded correspondents, he also plays his part in shaping a programme of revival for a new age and creating a world of his own, into which the Visigoths cannot penetrate. 162

163

164

165

166

Plin. Ep. 5.6.44 similiter nos, ut parva magnis, cum totam villam oculis tuis subicere conamur, si nihil inductum et quasi devium loquimur, non epistula, quae describit, sed villa, quae describitur, magna est. Cf. Ammianus (16.7.9) on the potential scrupulosus lector, the painstaking reader of the classics, in his audience: see Kelly (2008) 181. Plin. Ep. 5.6.35 (referring to the box tree) litteras interdum, quae modo nomen domini dicunt, modo artificis. For an interpretation, see Mratschek (2018a), with reference to Squire (2013) 370. Claud. Mam. Anim. praef. (in his dedication to Sidonius): Editionem libellorum mihi quos de animae statu condidi reticendi cautus et loquendi pensus arbiter imperasti, ‘You, a cautious arbiter when silent and carrying weight when you speak, commissioned me to put out the book I have written On the Nature of the Soul.’ Ennodius was a distant relative of Sidonius – hence his Sidonian ideal of an elocutio artifex, an elaborate style (Opusc. 6.11: MGH AA 7.313). Artifex, which appears eighteen times in his work, seems to be a favourite word of Ennodius’; cf. similar expressions such as artifex sermo, artifex facundia, artifex subtilitas, and artifex ingenium, Index 5 of Vogel (MGH AA 7.369). On their relationship, see Mathisen (1981a) 104 = (1991a) 22; on Ennodius’ quotation of Sidonius, see Schwitter (2015) 140 with reference to Gioanni (2006) cviii–cix, 154, and 303. E.g. Zelzer (1997) 348, and Fuhrmann (1994) 274–81: ‘The letter as mirror of contemporary history: Sidonius Apollinaris’. Hardie (2019) passim and Mratschek (2013, 2016, 2020). Misinterpretations often result from failure to contextualise, or from a literal reading of the text (Dill (1898, 2nd rev. edn 1899), Stevens (1933), Stroheker (1948), Kaufmann (1995), Liebs (1998)).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 259

13/02/20 4:00 PM

260

SIGRID MRATSCHEK

For an understanding of the history and social relations of the aristocratic elites who transmitted culture, the standard works by Harries, Mathisen, Gualandri, Eigler, and Roberts are indispensable – the first two for the historical perspective, the others for their literary and philological contribution.167 All five have researched Sidonius’ circle and oeuvre minutely, and in conjunction with Gibson’s comparative studies on epistolographical literature and new approaches to the aesthetics of Late Antiquity,168 they form a bridge connecting history, prosopography, and manuscript tradition to the soft skills that help to decode the rhetorical and visual culture of the educated elites in the late Roman Empire.

167

168

Besides Harries’ essential Sidonius biography, see further important works by Mathisen (2003a), Mathisen and Shanzer (2001, 2011), and Delaplace (2015); also Gualandri (1979), Eigler (2003), and Roberts (1989). Cf. the commentaries by Köhler on Book 1 of the letters (1995), Amherdt on Book 4 (2001), and van Waarden on Book 7 (2010, 2016a). On epistolography see Gibson in this volume, ch. 11, also Gibson (2013a), Gibson and Morrison (2007), Gibson and Morello (2012), and van Waarden and Kelly (2013). For an aesthetic approach, see Formisano (2008), Charlet (2008), Webb (2009), Elsner (2014), Schwitter (2015), Squire (2016), Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017), Hardie (2019), Mratschek (2017, 2020).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 260

13/02/20 4:00 PM

7 SIDONIUS AND RELIGION Lisa Kaaren Bailey

Cum precatu deum placas, eundem non modo amicis sed ignotis quoque concilias. cum scripturarum caelestium mysteria rimaris, quo te studiosius imbuis, eo doctrinam ceteris copiosius infundis. cum tuas opes in usus inopum prodigis, tibi quidem maxume, sed aliis quoque multis consultum facis. (Ep. 4.2.3) When you seek God’s mercy in prayer, you beseech His grace not only for your friends but also for those unknown to you. When you search the mysteries of the heavenly scriptures, the more diligently you steep yourself in them, the more plentifully do you shower instruction on others. When you lavish your wealth for the needs of the poor, you do indeed benefit yourself most of all, but others share the benefit.1

S

APOLLINARIS DID not usually emphasise religion in his self-presentation. He wanted those who read his collected poems and letters to think of him as a man of culture, learning, wit, power, and influence. This is also how most modern scholars have thought of him: the last gasp of aristocratic Romanitas in a Gaul increasingly beset by barbarians. Sidonius’ contemporaries and successors, however, sometimes presented him quite differently. The passage quoted above comes from the only letter in Sidonius’ collection which was written by someone other than himself: Ep. 4.2, from Claudianus Mamertus – a letter of complaint against Sidonius for various violations of friendship which emphasised, strikingly, his eminence as a religious figure. It referred to a number of activities which we might expect of a late antique bishop but which do not otherwise receive great emphasis in Sidonius’ writings: prayers of intercession, charity to the poor, scriptural study and exegesis. The letter from Claudianus might have been primarily included in the collection to explain an awkward episode, but it also gave Sidonius a chance to show another face to his audience: the conventionally virtuous and dutiful bishop. Claudianus’ picture is very similar to the portrait of Sidonius by Gregory of Tours. Gregory knew Sidonius’ letters and was impressed by his social and political status as a former prefect IDONIUS

Many thanks to the participants at the conference on ‘Sidonius Apollinaris: His Words and His World’, held in Edinburgh in November 2014, for their comments on my initial ideas and their very useful questions. Colleagues at the University of Auckland gave a number of suggestions on an early draft, Maxine Lewis helped me clarify my writing, and I benefited greatly from discussions with another student of Sidonius here, Daniel Knox. Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly have also been immensely helpful and supportive throughout and I am especially grateful to Joop for sharing his commentary on the ascetic letters, prior to publication. 1

I have used Anderson’s Latin edition and English translations of Sidonius. Translations from other authors are my own.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 261

13/02/20 4:00 PM

262

LISA KAAREN BAILEY

of Rome, a leading senator of Gaul, a son-in-law of the emperor Avitus, a vir secundum saeculi dignitatem nobilissimus, ‘a man of the greatest nobility according to the honours of this world’ (Hist. 2.21).2 However, what Gregory focused on after this introduction were Sidonius’ virtues and abilities as a bishop. When someone removed a liturgical book before a service, Sidonius was able to conduct the entire ritual from memory, giving the impression to all present that it must have been an angel speaking rather than a mere man. Gregory knew him as a writer of masses and a giver of charity, ‘a servant of the office of the Lord and living a holy life in this world’ (ad officium dominicum fuisset mancipatus et sanctam ageret in saeculo vitam), who suffered a rebellion by iniquitous priests but was saved by a miracle and foretold both his own death and the identity of his successor. This beatus sacerdos, as Gregory called him, subsequently appeared in a vision at the right hand of the Lord, summoning a sinful man to judgement, and confirming the obligation of obedience to bishops (Hist. 2.22–3). This is Sidonius as an almost mythical figure, with the reputation of a saint. Reconciling his religious role, let alone his personal beliefs, with the rest of Sidonius’ self-presentation in his corpus has proved a challenge to modern scholars. This was a man who carefully constructed his own projection to the world, and did so at a time when he was already ordained, yet he was also capable of expressing religious sentiments of ‘peculiar intensity’.3 Philip Rousseau, tackling Sidonius in his role as a bishop, described him as a poseur, and John Percival called him ‘one of the most elusive of Roman writers’, who ‘seems to take us into his confidence’, before he ‘retreats into style and convention’.4 It has proved enduringly difficult to parse such a man in religious terms. He has instead been placed within the broader phenomenon of Gallic aristocrats entering the episcopate in the fifth century, a development which is usually explained on pragmatic rather than religious grounds.5 Such men have been treated more as refugees than as spiritual leaders, seeking in the church the opportunities for power, influence, and leadership which the crumbling of the Roman state denied them. His episcopate mattered because it had an impact on his literary production and on his aristocratic lifestyle, but his religious beliefs and activities beyond this have been more problematic. In his commentary on Sidonius’ ascetic letters, however, Joop van Waarden argues for a more integrated approach, seeing Sidonius as part of a ‘new mentality’ and a ‘changing spiritual climate’ which extended to a wide range of ascetic expressions.6 This chapter explores the implications of such an approach for our view of Sidonius as a bishop, since his religious role and worldview come to us largely through that prism. It also moves the discussion away from the idea that when Sidonius played a particular role, this made him somehow insincere. His efforts indicate a man who took his role as bishop very seriously and was earnestly trying to find his way forward. Moreover, as van Waarden also points out, our view of Sidonius has been shaped in innumerable ways by the genres of his surviving works.7 Our record of Sidonius in part reflects his personal preferences and priorities, but also the vagaries of survival: Gregory of Tours wrote a book about Sidonius’ masses, but both Sidonius’ compositions and Gregory’s words on them have been lost.8 Sidonius may 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Quotations from Gregory of Tours are taken from MGH: Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 1.1. Rousseau (1976) 370. Rousseau (1976) 357, Percival (1997) 287. On Sidonius’ complex, contradictory, and elusive persona, see also van Waarden (2016a) 17–20. See, for example, Prinz (1969), Consolino (1979), Mathisen (1994). Van Waarden (2016a) 19–20. Van Waarden (2011a) 99. Gregory of Tours, Hist. 2.22; Harries (1994) 220.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 262

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS AND RELIGION

263

also have written the Life of Annianus, bishop of Orléans.9 We cannot recreate these vanished perspectives, but we can acknowledge that our view of Sidonius as carefully self-fashioned and elusive derives in part from him coming to us through genres which required especial artifice and distance. This chapter poses two key questions: what was the role of Sidonius in regard to religion, and what was the role of religion in Sidonius’ worldview? It begins with an overview of Sidonius’ position as bishop of Clermont: his activities and the opportunities available to him. The second section concerns his knowledge and use of Scripture. He would have been constantly engaged with the Scriptures as a bishop, but scholars have paid more attention to his classical than to his Christian learning. The third section explores his ideas about the religious elements of idealised virtue and considers what role these may have played in his pastoral care. Finally, the chapter examines Sidonius’ use of the language of sin in his writings and whether he himself operated as an intercessor for his flock. Despite the opacity of Sidonius’ personal views, religion played an important role in the face he presented to the world, and seems to have deeply imbued his interaction with others, especially in his capacity as a bishop.

1 Sidonius as a Bishop Sidonius’ silence on the circumstances of his consecration as bishop is conspicuous. Jill Harries sees it as deliberate, a product of the crisis he underwent after his defence of Arvandus.10 She suggests that he may have become a bishop under duress, but that it was nonetheless a profound experience for him, with ‘something of the intensity of a second conversion’.11 Sidonius was one of the most prominent Gallic aristocrats to become a bishop in this period, but he was not alone in making this move.12 Perhaps, therefore, it was not as surprising as Sidonius makes it seem, and his appropriate reluctance and sense of unworthiness were part of an established topos. Nonetheless, most scholars agree in seeing Sidonius as a conscientious bishop, who changed the nature of his engagement with the world and took up new responsibilities as part of the role.13 Françoise Prévot has explored the evidence for Sidonius’ pastoral care, arguing that he had ‘une vision réaliste et pragmatique de la vie chrétienne qui lui permit de remplir sa tâche épiscopale avec conscience et efficacité’, ‘a realistic and pragmatic vision of the Christian life which allowed him to fulfil his episcopal duties conscientiously and effectively’.14 Whatever the motives behind his ordination, the evidence suggests that Sidonius took the role seriously once he became bishop of Clermont. Although Sidonius said little about his own qualities as a cleric, his view of the role emerges in his accounts of the episcopal elections in Chalon-sur-Saône and Bourges. In the former case he complained of unsuitable candidates who were morally bankrupt, corrupt, or addicted to worldly pleasures. The man eventually chosen, by contrast, was a virum honestate humanitate mansuetudine insignem, ‘a man eminent for his virtue, his kindliness, and his gentleness’, a cleric of long standing who had proved his reliability and competence (Ep. 4.25.3–4). Sidonius described him as sanctus and his merits were both practical and spiritual. In the famous account 9 10 11 12 13 14

Van Waarden (2010) 9, (2016a) 69. Harries (1994) 12–15. Harries (1994) 172, 169. Heinzelmann (1976), Mathisen (1989, 1994). Harries (1994) 18; van Waarden (2011a); Prévot (1997a). Prévot (1997a) 227.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 263

13/02/20 4:00 PM

264

LISA KAAREN BAILEY

of the election at Bourges, meanwhile, Sidonius discoursed at length on the difficulty of finding a candidate with the right combination of skills and virtues to please the congregation. His eventual choice was a man with a foot in more than one camp: a man who could serve his community in both secular and spiritual terms (Ep. 7.9). Sidonius’ words about the election at Bourges have often been read as an indirect self-justification, a defence of his own value and contribution as a former government official who had become a bishop.15 Certainly he described the value of a socially engaged approach, and expressed concern that the responsibilities of a bishop would not mesh well with a life of monastic withdrawal (Ep. 7.9.9).16 Sidonius did not see pastoral care as incompatible with a spiritual life, but he was very aware of the need for a careful balance between them. Since Sidonius did not talk in any detail about his own pastoral responsibilities as bishop of Clermont, we need to reconstruct a portrait of him in action from tantalising glimpses and broader context. He would have had oversight of the liturgical celebrations in Clermont and beyond, saying masses and ensuring the observation of the divine office. By the fifth century this was already a well-developed liturgical programme, although the variable regional practices ensure that we cannot pin down the exact form of the services over which Sidonius would have presided.17 We do know, however, that he was engaged in liturgical composition, which indicates the importance he placed upon the regular ritual celebrations of the church.18 The physical spaces in which these rituals took place have largely escaped us, but Gregory of Tours describes as many as seventeen churches in Clermont by the sixth century. It seems likely that Sidonius would have presided over liturgical celebrations in these smaller churches as well as in the main cathedral. He may also have visited rural churches within his diocese, as we know other bishops did in this period.19 We can assume that Sidonius would have preached at some of these services, at least on important occasions and perhaps more frequently.20 Gallic church councils insisted that preaching happen at least every Sunday, and sermons were supposed to be delivered by bishops rather than lesser clergy, although priests and deacons did sometimes take this role.21 Sidonius made no mention of his own preaching, He did not circulate his sermons, as he circulated his letters, despite the fact that his contemporaries and acquaintances were copying and sharing theirs.22 However, his rhetorical training would have prepared him well for the task and his sermons may have reflected something of his well-developed conception of sin, his keen interest in community-building, and his good knowledge of the Scriptures. Clermont would have marked the regular calendar of festival days for important saints, but we do not know whether Sidonius would have promoted any local heroes to join these.23 Although he alludes to the presence and support of saints such as Martin of Tours and Julian of Brioude, our only extant evidence for the promotion of a holy figure is the indirect poem for Saturninus of Toulouse, and even this was the promise of a composition, rather than one in fact (Ep. 9.16.3). Rousseau wrote of him having a ‘trusting reverence for the tombs of saints 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Van Waarden (2011b) 559–60. See also Prévot (1997a) 227. Beck (1950), Hen (1995), Bailey (forthcoming). Gregory of Tours, Hist. 2.22; van Waarden (2011a) 99. Beck (1950) 266. Bailey (2010) 18. Bailey (2010) 18, 22. On the practice of circulating sermons see Bailey (2010) 20–4. Prévot (1997a) 227.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 264

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS AND RELIGION

265

and martyrs’, and Sidonius described his participation in the festival of St Justus in Lyon while he was still a layman (Ep. 5.17).24 The cult of the saints is not, however, prominent in his selfrepresentation as a bishop, at least in his letters.25 One liturgical celebration which we know he instigated, however, was the Rogations, and in his account of these we get a glimpse of Sidonius as a leader of a religious community. This three-day series of processions, prayers, fasts, and orchestrated communal penance had been initiated by Mamertus of Vienne in the 450s.26 In Ep. 7.1 to Mamertus, Sidonius described how he had brought them to Clermont as a comfort to a populace faced with the threat of the Goths, and hinted at the desired outcome when he talked of a citizenry fortified and united by purposeful action, orchestrated by their bishop. In Ep. 5.14, in which Sidonius invited his friend Aper to join him in Clermont for these observances, he described them in a little more detail, as occasions of prayer and fasting, psalmody and lamentation (Ep. 5.14.3): ad haec te festa cervicum humiliatarum et sternacium civium suspiriosa contubernia peto; et, si spiritalem animum tuum bene metior, modo citius venies, quando non ad epulas sed ad lacrimas evocaris. I beg your presence at this festival of humbly bowed heads, this fellowship of sighing suppliants; and if I am a true judge of your spiritual leanings you will come all the more promptly now that you are summoned not to a feast but to tears. This was an idealised image of the bishop’s pastoral role: uniting and fortifying a congregation divided and frightened, focusing their attention on their own sin and the interpretation of suffering as part of a divine plan. There are reasons to doubt that the Rogations worked so neatly.27 Sidonius’ pastoral vision, however, is clear. Late antique bishops also bore responsibility for some of the more mundane administration of their church and diocese. Sidonius would have overseen the clergy below him, who could have been a sizeable body by this point.28 In Ep. 5.1.2 we see Sidonius using one of his deacons as a letter carrier and taking the chance to exercise some patronage as well, requesting assistance for his cleric in a legal matter, a reminder of the duty of care which he owed to them.29 Sidonius would also have had oversight, whether formal or informal, of ascetics in Clermont and surrounding regions, a role which emerges in Ep. 7.17, where he endeavours to make sure that a monastery which has lost its abbot receives a rule and an experienced hand at the helm. We hear less in the letters about the bishop’s role in resolving legal disputes, managing church property, and administering charity, all important tasks evident in other sources.30 Charity to the poor, however, was a particular point of praise in Claudianus’ portrait of the bishop, and something which Sidonius paid attention to in his account of Patiens of Lyon.31 Sidonius also 24 25

26 27 28 29

30

31

Rousseau (1976) 371. He is interested in other bishops’ involvement in it, however. See, for example, Ep. 7.1.7 on Mamertus’ discovery of the body of Ferreolus and the head of Julianus. Nathan (1998). See Bailey (2016) 113–15. Godding (2001). Clerics quite often appear as letter carriers – see, for example, Ep. 4.12, 8.14, 9.2, 9.8, 9.9. See Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 11.2, in this volume. On the management of church property see Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 1.5–7. For a summary of the evidence on the bishop’s judicial role see Uhalde (2007). On the charitable obligations of the bishop see Brown (2012). Ep. 4.2.3, 6.12.1.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 265

13/02/20 4:00 PM

266

LISA KAAREN BAILEY

stood as advocate for his city in a moment of crisis, although he was not successful in protecting it from being ceded to the barbarians.32 In this case he was taking on a role as patron and protector of his people, one increasingly adopted by bishops as the secular administration of cities faded into the background. As a former imperial official, Sidonius was well suited to this task, and this undoubtedly made him an appealing candidate for the episcopate in Clermont. Sidonius was equipped by his education, career, and life-experience to perform many of the tasks expected of a late antique bishop.

2 Sidonius’ Knowledge and Use of Scripture Sidonius’ knowledge and use of the Bible has not received the same extended scholarly attention as his deployment of Greek and Roman mythologies. This is perhaps because biblical learning appears in his texts as a later development: ‘a Christian overlay’ on a classical education.33 As Harries has noted, Sidonius tended ‘to avoid direct scriptural quotation in favour of references and paraphrases’ – this enabled him to evoke Christian symbolism, but to recast it in his own terms, his own words, or his own metre.34 The most extensive example of this is his Eucharisticon to Faustus of Riez, in which he began by rejecting a pagan muse and calling instead upon the Spirit which had entered into the heart of Miriam, aided the hand of Judith, heartened Gideon, inspired king David, protected the youth in the fiery furnace, shielded Jonah, filled Elisha and Elijah, was born of a virgin, came to earth in a body, performed miracles, and effected the salvation of sinners. Further on in the poem, Sidonius used biblical imagery to describe his own fear at approaching Faustus’ church: nec secus intremui quam si me forte Rebeccae / Israel aut Samuel crinitus duceret Annae, ‘I trembled as if Israel were bringing me to Rebecca or long-haired Samuel to Hannah’ (Carm. 16.87–8). All of this amounted to a rapid-fire display of Sidonius’ knowledge of the Old and New Testaments, although his references were more evocative than accurate.35 This knowledge may have had its origins in his baptismal preparation or in the reading and discussion group which he described in Ep. 2.9.36 Even before he became a bishop, in other words, Sidonius was familiar with the Scriptures and comfortable with their imagery.37 As bishop of Clermont, moreover, he would have been constantly engaged with the Scriptures. He would have presided over regular readings in church and most likely used these as the jumping-off points for his sermons. It is possible he engaged in exegesis in his preaching, although this was not a feature of all sermons in this period, and he elsewhere refused to write works of biblical interpretation or to get involved in debates over it (Ep. 4.3, 4.17.3). As a bishop, he sent Ruricius copies of the Heptateuch and prophets which he had corrected with his own hand, while his letters contain frequent scriptural allusions and quotations (Ep. 5.15.1). His acquaintance with these texts was far from superficial, and his distance from the theological controversies of the time was also perfectly explicable given his desire to maintain friendships.38 In general, Sidonius appears to have regarded classical and Christian learning as two sides of the same coin, and he evinced no Jerome-like anxiety about their combination.39 In his 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Ep. 7.7. Harries (1994) 107. Harries (1994) 108–9. Santelia (2013) 55–6. Harries (1994) 105–6. Sidonius may have taken on the role of a deacon in this preparatory year. See Ep. 9.3.4. Prévot (1997a) 223. For Jerome’s anxiety see Ep. 22.30.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 266

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS AND RELIGION

267

praise of Claudianus Mamertus in Ep. 4.3, for example, Sidonius adduced multiple long lists of exemplary pagan comparisons, real, mythical, and even divine, all mixed together. This romp through Greek and Roman history and learning, however, was followed immediately by a list of parallels to Christian luminaries. This combination may have been particularly apposite in describing Claudianus Mamertus, whose ability in both Platonic philosophy and Christian theology was the theme of Sidonius’ epitaph for him in Ep. 4.11.40 However, Sidonius used a very similar conjunction of pagan then Christian exemplars in praising Patiens of Lyon, despite his briefly expressed anxiety that a religious man might be offended to be praised through analogies to the Eleusinian mysteries (Ep. 6.12.7). After comparing Patiens’ charitable distribution to Triptolemus, therefore, he offered up the analogy of Joseph and his provision against seven years of dearth (Ep. 6.12.6–7). Sidonius concluded that Faustus’ works represented the triumph of Christian over pagan philosophy, and used an image from Deuteronomy to describe the marriage of the bishop to Philosophy personified. However, he still displayed his knowledge of the conquered wisdom in a long list of the now bested Greek and Roman thinkers (Ep. 9.9.12–15). He worried that certain forms and some content were inappropriate for an ageing bishop. He did not want the fama poetae to stain the rigor clerici ( Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 55–6). But despite his awareness of potential disjunctions, Sidonius was generally trying to achieve a smooth combination – to present the classical and Christian elements of his education as aspects of a singular worldview. He would strive to keep the various touchstones of his life in place, set alongside one another, both before and after his election as bishop of Clermont.41

3 Religious Heroism In the latest instalment of the commentary on his letters, Joop van Waarden argues that Sidonius was very influenced by the ascetic currents flowing through Gaul in the late fifth century, especially those originating in Lérins.42 He sees Sidonius as adopting a civilised form of asceticism, which dovetailed nicely with certain aspects of the aristocratic lifestyle. We can see his praise for this lifestyle in his depictions of virtuous aristocratic laymen and women, such as the venerabilis matrona Eutropia, described as an exemplum – abstemious, kind, and charitable. Sidonius dwelt on her spiritual soul and ended by calling her sancta (Ep. 6.2.1–2). Frontina, meanwhile, was sanctior sanctis . . . virginibus . . . summae abstinentiae puella, summi rigoris, ac fide ingenti sic deum timens, ut ab hominibus metueretur, ‘holier than the holy virgins . . . a lady remarkable for the self-denial and austerity of her life, who in the immensity of her faith was so filled with the fear of God that she filled all men with awe’ (Ep. 4.21.4). Finally, there was Vettius, the ‘priest-like man’ (sacerdotalem virum), who read the sacred books, chanted psalms, and lived like a monk without adopting a habit or monastic community (Ep. 4.9). Ralph Mathisen has depicted this confluence as characteristic of the period and of a new aristocratic spirituality. ‘Laymen could act like monks, and monks like laymen. Monks could become bishops, and bishops could act like monks. And all were equally appropriate occupations for aristocrats.’43 The best-known example of this fluidity is Sidonius’ account of Maximus’ conversion to a religious life, where the 40 41 42 43

On Claudianus see also Ep. 5.2. See also Carm. 10, a poem for the marriage of two Christian friends, filled with classical pagan imagery and references. Van Waarden (2016a) 2–22. Mathisen (1994) 219.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 267

13/02/20 4:00 PM

268

LISA KAAREN BAILEY

exact nature of his commitment was less important or striking than the fact of his change (Ep. 4.24.3–4):44 quem noveram anterius corpore erectum gressu expeditum, voce liberum facie liberalem, multum ab antiquo dissimilis incessu. habitus viro, gradus pudor, color sermo religiosus . . . cum surgeremus, clam percontor adstantes, quod genus vitae de tribus arripuisset ordinibus, monachum ageret an clericum paenitentemve. The man who (as I had known him) had been erect in stature, brisk in step, bluff in voice, and beaming in countenance, now carried himself in anything but his old style: his dress, his step, his modest air, his colour and his talk, all had a religious suggestion . . . As we rose from the table, I quietly asked those standing near me which way of life from among the three orders he had suddenly adopted – was he monk or clergyman or penitent? Sidonius did not see Christian virtue as reserved to bishops or monks. Nonetheless, he could also present becoming a cleric as the logical expression of religious commitment, at least once a man reached the end of his life (Ep. 4.15.2). Episcopal office was, for Sidonius, the proper culmination of an ascetic-aristocratic lifestyle.45 Sidonius reserved his most heroic portraits of religious virtue, moreover, for clergy. He depicted their religious proficiency as essential to the maintenance of community in times of stress and dislocation. In each case, he praised a clerical exemplum for their exceptional and extraordinary virtue, which raised them above the standard of the normal, yet at the same time served to bind together those they encountered, through healing, succouring, encouragement, and provision. For example, when Constantius of Lyon arrived in Clermont, Sidonius emphasised that he reconciled the divided inhabitants and restored them to harmony through his saintly example (Ep. 3.2.1–2): deus bone, quod gaudium fuit laboriosis cum tu sanctum pedem semirutis moenibus intulisti! . . . cum inveneris civitatem non minus civica simultate quam barbarica incursione vacuatum, pacem omnibus suadens caritatem illis, illos patriae reddidisti. quibus tuo monitu non minus in unum consilium quam in unum oppidum revertentibus muri tibi debent plebem reductam, plebs reducta concordiam. Merciful God, what a joy it was to the harassed folk when you set your sacred foot within our half-demolished walls! . . . finding the city made desolate no less by civic dissension than by barbarian assault, you pressed reconciliation upon all, and so restored kind feeling to the people and the people to the service of their city. It was at your admonition that they returned not only to a united town but also to a united policy, and to you the walls owe the return of their people, to you the returned people their harmony. The impact of the religious activities of Patiens of Lyon, according to Sidonius, extended even more widely. This bishop, addressed as papa beatissime, was praised for supporting the needy usque in extimos terminos Galliarum caritatis indage porrecta, ‘with the net of your charity spread 44 45

See also Ep. 8.4. On Maximus see Mathisen (1994) 212, Waldron (1976) 18–19. Van Waarden (2016a) 23.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 268

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS AND RELIGION

269

to the uttermost bounds of Gaul’ (Ep. 6.12.1). Sidonius went on to note his communitybuilding and succouring efforts, achieved through unceasing prayer and expenditure, all required by the distress of the impoverished townspeople under his care (Ep. 6.12.3). Patiens built churches, impressed barbarian rulers, converted heretics, and sent grain to the hungry. He balanced being both humanus and abstemius, and Sidonius described him as bonus sacerdos, bonus pater, bonus annus, ‘a good priest, a good father, a good harvest’ (Ep. 6.12.9). In the case of Mamertus of Vienne, on the other hand, it was his liturgical innovation of the Rogations which served to comfort and bind the Christian community (Ep. 7.2). Mamertus’ intercession was both physical and spiritual: he beat back flames by the interposition of his body, and the punishment of God through the interposition of his prayers. In both ways, his sanctity acted to protect his congregation, and he was able to do so through his role as bishop. In other cases, the virtue of the Christian cleric consisted in his ability to cleanse sin through his own exemplary religiosity. For example, Sidonius presented Lupus of Troyes as primus omnium toto . . . orbe pontificum, ‘the first of all bishops everywhere in the world’. He was a model of conduct, a pillar of virtues and a fount of sweetness due to his sanctity (Ep. 6.1.3–4). Sidonius expounded at length on Lupus’ pastoral concern for the sinners in his congregation, and his efforts to bring them to salvation. He presented Faustus of Riez, meanwhile, as an ideal ascetic and bishop, a brilliant preacher, and a man of powerful prayer, who applied his monastic training to a pastoral context (Ep. 9.3.4): precum peritus insulanarum, quas de palaestra congregationis heremitidis et de senatu Lirinensium cellulanorum in urbem quoque, cuius ecclesiae sacra superinspicis, transtulisti. For you are versed in the orisons of the island brethren, and you have brought them from the training-ground of the hermit congregation and from the conclave of the monks of Lérins right to the city in which you control the religious life of the church. Principius of Soissons, according to Sidonius, was so well known for his saintliness that his reputation had spread across all of Gaul, as had his ability to bring sinners to penance. These examples were all clerical and therefore established Sidonius’ view of pastoral care and the role of the bishop in his community. It was an aristocratic ideal which did not necessarily reflect the interests and enthusiasms of his lay congregation.46 Nonetheless, this was a very active and engaged ideal of religious heroism. We have to imagine that he himself strove to emulate these clerical models and that he judged himself against these standards, even if he did not always live up to them.

4 Language of Sin In a number of his letters, however, Sidonius portrayed himself as profoundly uncomfortable with the spiritual side of his own pastoral responsibilities. He expressed this very strongly in the language of sin, which he particularly deployed when addressing bishops. The problem of sin was very much in the air in fifth-century Gaul. After Augustine, most theologians and perhaps also most clergy seem to have accepted that sin was an inevitable part of the human condition – the issue was how to grapple with it during the course of life in preparation for what would come after. Not everyone in Gaul agreed with Augustine that humanity stood 46

Bailey (2016).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 269

13/02/20 4:00 PM

270

LISA KAAREN BAILEY

under general condemnation due to original sin, or that human action could play no part in ensuring salvation: indeed, Sidonius’ correspondent Faustus of Riez was among those who sought to moderate what they saw as the bishop of Hippo’s extreme stance.47 Sidonius would therefore have been exposed to these ideas and to the controversies which they engendered. There is no evidence that he participated in them directly, but his letters demonstrate clearly how the language of sin had become part of the expected self-positioning for any Christian writer and thinker. Sidonius was no desert ascetic: he did not withdraw from the world, he did not engage in extensive fasts or self-mortification, he did not dress in rags or renounce all his property, he did not punish his body or despise society. Either despite or because of this, his letters are filled with a powerful sense of his own sinfulness. In Carm. 16.85 he wrote that he keenly felt his unworthiness, upon entering Faustus’ church in Riez, while in Ep. 1.5.9 he described falling to his knees at the thresholds of the apostolic churches in Rome. This rhetoric heightened once he had become a bishop. Rousseau speculates that ‘the consecration of Sidonius as a bishop may have been associated with, perhaps preceded by, a genuine change of heart’, and that Sidonius was very aware of the new obligations which went with his episcopal role.48 Sidonius may have deeply felt his own sinfulness, he may have recognised that he ought to feel his own sinfulness, or he may have been recalibrating his means of expression into something he felt was more appropriate to a bishop. Very probably all of these motives worked together. Whatever the explanation, he used the language of sin in numerous different ways to express himself and to shape how his readers saw him, and his letters show the penetration of ideas about sin beyond ascetic circles and into a broader Christian worldview. This language of sin was especially strong in Ep. 6.1, addressed to Lupus of Troyes, and probably written quite soon after Sidonius’ ordination.49 Sidonius deployed it at the start of the letter to elevate Lupus’ relative status and diminish his own: Lupus was pater patrum et episcopus episcoporum, ‘father of fathers and bishop of bishops’, condescending to Sidonius, who was putris et fetida reatu terra, ‘earth crumbling and fetid with guilt’ (Ep. 6.1.1). Due to his ‘unworthy life’, Sidonius professed to feel unable even to address the great man: he spoke like the leper before Christ, pleading to be cleansed of his sin (Ep. 6.1.2). Sections three and four of the letter then further established Lupus’ credentials: he was pre-eminent in his province, an alumnus of Lérins and veteran of long episcopal service, an exemplary figure of virtue. Nonetheless, he had not overlooked Sidonius, in his lowliness (Ep. 6.1.4): despicatissimi vermis ulcera digitis exhortationis contrectare non piguit; tibi avaritiae non fuit pascere monitis animam fragilitate ieiunam et de apotheca dilectionis altissimae sectandae nobis humilitatis propinare mensuram. [you] did not scorn to touch with the healing fingers of exhortation the sores of a most despicable worm; you did not grudge to feed with admonitions a soul starving through its weakness, and to lavish upon me from the store-house of your most deep affection a draught of the humility that I must needs follow. Sidonius drew the contrast between himself and Lupus in the strongest possible terms, using the language of sin as a means of separation. It became the basis for an almost ritualised selfabasement. 47 48 49

On Faustus’ views see, in particular, Smith (1990), Weaver (1996). Rousseau (1976) 371. Harries (1994) 170.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 270

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS AND RELIGION

271

This rendered in stark terms the situation Sidonius described in section five: that he, now a bishop himself, a man overcome with his own sin, must intercede for the sins of others (Ep. 6.1.5): sed ora, ut quandoque resipiscam, quantum meas deprimat oneris impositi massa cervices. facinorum continuatione miser eo necessitatis accessi, ut is pro peccato populi nunc orare compellar. But pray that sooner or later I may come to my senses and realise how my shoulders sag under the weight of the massive burden put upon me. By my never-ceasing iniquities I am brought to such a wretched pass that I am now forced to offer prayer for the sin of my people. This led Sidonius into a series of dramatic paradoxes: as a sick man he must heal others, as a deserter he must praise military science, as a glutton he must compel the abstemious. He also worked up to a studied self-condemnation (Ep. 6.1.5): indignissimus mortalium necesse habeo dicere quod facere detrecto, et ad mea ipse verba damnabilis, cum non impleam quae moneo, idem in me meam cotidie cogor dictare sententiam. I, the most unworthy of mortals, am under the necessity of preaching what I refuse to practise; I am condemned out of my own mouth, in failing to fulfil my own admonitions, and I am every day compelled to pronounce my verdict against myself. This was the lowest point, before the solution offered in section 6. Sin was central to the depiction of despair, it was what compelled action from Lupus. In the final part of the letter, therefore, Sidonius asked that Lupus stand as intercessor with God for Sidonius’ sins (Ep. 6.1.6). Such intercession in the form of prayer, Sidonius claimed, would save him from damnation, would bring rejoicing and would raise up his heart to its pardon and reward. Sidonius’ letter to Lupus has provoked a wide range of reactions from modern scholars. Rousseau described it as ‘unusually intense’ and Prévot commented on its exaggerated humility.50 Semple, in his notes on this letter in the Loeb translation, complained that the letter was ‘so hyperbolically overwritten, that I am sure Sidonius was more concerned with his style than with his sin’.51 While also observing a dramatic shift in tone, Harries was less condemnatory. This self-abasement – although perhaps exaggerated, because addressed to the stern ascetic, Lupus of Troyes, of whom Sidonius stood in extreme awe – is nonetheless far removed from the generally cheerful devotion of Sidonius the layman. Sidonius’ instinct would have been to express sentiments appropriate to his new role in the most vivid language possible. But was there more to this change than a shift in literary style?52 It is possible that Sidonius rather overdid it in this letter.53 Certainly he drew back from such dramatic rhetoric in later correspondence. However, his sense of sin cannot here be separated 50 51 52 53

Rousseau (1976) 370, Prévot (1997a) 228. Semple in Anderson (1965) 2.252–3. Harries (1994) 170. Suggested by Jill Harries in discussion at the Edinburgh conference, November 2014.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 271

13/02/20 4:00 PM

272

LISA KAAREN BAILEY

from his writing style. The exaggerated and obsequious approach to Lupus was part of Sidonius’ attempt to establish a relationship with the renowned ascetic on what he felt would be appropriate terms. To do so, he cast himself in the role of the sinner needing intercession, and his picture of this relationship dynamic reveals how conceptions of sin had penetrated a range of personal interactions. When Sidonius wrote about sin, he used very vivid language and imagery to create a highly emotional and weighted rhetoric, as witnessed by the letter to Lupus where he appeared as a leper, and a worm, covered in sores. To Basilius of Aix, he wrote that he needed long weeping to cleanse his guilty conscience, and he cast his uncleanness in strong terms, as stercora, ‘dung’ (Ep. 7.6.3). To Faustus of Riez, Sidonius bemoaned a soul laden with sin, recalling the transgressions of a guilty life (Ep. 9.3.4). In his Eucharisticon to Faustus, Sidonius likewise remarked that he felt his unworthiness at the doorstep of his church (Carm. 16.85). To Apollinaris, Sidonius complained that he had been struck down by a fever after becoming bishop of Clermont, utpote cui indignissimo tantae professionis pondus impactum est, qui miser, ante compulsus docere quam discere et ante praesumens bonum praedicare quam facere, ‘as might well happen to one on whose totally unworthy shoulders has been thrust the burden of such a high calling; and in my wretched plight, compelled to teach before learning, and presuming to teach goodness before doing it’ (Ep. 5.3.3). This was to some degree a conventional statement. We find, for example, very similar sentiments expressed by Ruricius when he became bishop of Limoges (Ep. 2.7). Conventionality, however, does not mean insincerity. This was the language which both men turned to in trying to describe a new and unfamiliar range of emotions and relationships.54 Sidonius’ self-positioning as a sinner could be stark. This was clearest when he linked the chaos and suffering of the world around him to his own particular sinfulness. The depredations caused by Euric, he informed Basilius, were no more than Sidonius himself deserved and were designed to scourge him – the barbarians here became God’s means for punishing and correcting Sidonius’ own personal sin (Ep. 7.6.5). In Ep. 7.10.2 to Graecus of Marseille, meanwhile, Sidonius implied that because of the sinfulness of himself and other members of the community, he had no right of complaint about the afflictions imposed by the Goths. This was especially significant, given that Graecus had been part of the group of bishops who had negotiated the handover of Clermont to Euric, a decision which Sidonius had railed against in Ep. 7.7 to Graecus, in close proximity to the other letter in the context of the collection. In Ep. 7.10 Sidonius took a different tack, and used his own sense of sin to do so. He stepped back from his anger at the outside forces which had brought the situation to pass and focused instead on the internal ones. He used the rhetoric of sin to indicate acceptance of the situation. The best way to address this sin, to achieve cleansing, in Sidonius’ letters, was to benefit from intercession by the experts. To Basilius, he expressed his hope that the excrement of his sins might be someday cleared away by the rake of the other man’s prayers (Ep. 7.6.3). To Faustus, Sidonius wrote that his soul desired the help of his ongoing and powerful prayers: his igitur, ut supra dixi, precatibus efficacissimis obtine, ut portio nostra sit dominus . . . inchoemusque ut a saeculi lucris, sic quoque a culpis peregrinari, ‘By these prayers, these most effective prayers, as I have already called them, I beg you to ensure that the Lord may be my portion, and that I . . . may begin to live a foreigner from sin as I am from worldly riches’ (Ep. 9.3.4).55 Faustus’

54

55

It may be that Sidonius was hereby attempting to enter into a new emotional community, and to master the appropriate vocabulary for doing so. On emotional communities in this period see Rosenwein (2006). This can be compared with Ruricius of Limoges making similar points in a letter to Faustus of Riez, Ep. 1.2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 272

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS AND RELIGION

273

prayers were particularly powerful, according to Sidonius, because of his training at Lérins, and his continuation of monastic practices while holding the episcopate. This was the basis for Faustus’ expertise in intercession. When writing to Principius, bishop of Soissons, Sidonius again emphasised Principius’ power to cleanse sin in others or to bring them through the necessary penitential stages through the goads of correction (Ep. 8.14.5). He praised, moreover, Principius’ ability to shame a sinner so that he tormented his obese body with frequent fasting (Ep. 8.14.5). Penitential action could therefore cleanse sin, but only under the guidance of a man with the training and experience to direct it. Ruricius of Limoges provides a useful contemporary parallel to Sidonius’ deployment of the language of sin and the ideal of intercession. Addressing Faustus of Riez in a letter of his own, Ruricius had likewise framed their encounter as one of confession and redemption (Ep. 1.2): habes ergo, pater optime, pastor egregie, me culpae meae spontaneum confessorem. habes et in discipuli errore quod corrigas, et in oviculae languore quod sanes. potestatisque et iudicii tui est, utrum velis ulceris mei putredinem ferri rigore rescindere an medicamentorum lenitate curare. You have me, therefore, best father, excellent pastor, as a spontaneous confessor of my guilt. You have both something you can correct, in the error of your disciple, and something you can cure, in the weakness of your little sheep. And it is in your power and judgement to decide whether to tear open with the severity of a sword the putrescence of my wound, or whether to cure it with the softness of your medicines.56 Ruricius positioned Faustus as a father and himself as the prodigal son, and asked him to recreate the faith of a parent, grant succour to a sinner, furnish remission, bestow intercession, and pray for pardon for Ruricius’ sins (Ep. 1.2). In another letter to Faustus, Ruricius expressed his hope that he could break the chains of Ruricius’ sins (Ep. 1.1). In this letter, Faustus was once again a physician, Ruricius the sick man seeking a cure from sin.57 These letters were written before Ruricius had become a bishop, but after he had begun a penitential undertaking. They reflect his sense of this change and his striving after a language in which to express it. Like Sidonius, Ruricius also articulated his sentiments of unworthiness after his ordination in terms of sin: in peccatore amittit dignitas dignitatem, cui honor indebitus oneri est potius quam honori . . . indignum me et penitus non merentem non adtollit res tanta sed deprimit, ‘rank loses rank in a sinner, for whom unearned honour is a burden rather than an honour . . . unworthy and completely undeserving, such a great thing does not elevate me but weighs me down’ (Ep. 2.7). A number of his other letters, moreover, dwell on issues of sin, confession, intercession, and repentance (Ep. 2.13, 2.15, 2.32). Both Ruricius and Sidonius, in other words, knew how to deploy the language of sin as part of their self-fashioning, especially in correspondence with clergy. However, they were themselves also imbued with these ideas. This personal and vivid concept of sin could have profoundly shaped the pastoral care which Sidonius offered to others in his capacity as bishop. Without his sermons, however, 56

57

Quotations from Ruricius of Limoges are taken from Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 64. In personal correspondence, Daniel Knox has pointed out that both Ruricius and Sidonius treated sin as something requiring correction in a manner akin to grammar, and that they deferred to the authority of experts in both matters. See also Ruricius of Limoges, Ep. 1.17, 2.9, 2.30.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 273

13/02/20 4:00 PM

274

LISA KAAREN BAILEY

this is difficult to judge. The closest we get comes from a letter of Ruricius of Limoges. Speaking light-heartedly of his own sin of copying a book without permission, Ruricius commented: praedicantibus vobis saepius audisse me recolo nullatenus ab iniquitatibus nos posse purgari, nisi fuerimus crimina nostra conscientia conpungente confessi, ‘I recall that I have often heard in preaching that we can in no way be cleansed of our sins unless we have confessed our crimes with a remorseful conscience’ (Ep. 1.8). It is unclear whether Ruricius is referring to Sidonius’ preaching here, but the letter does attest to a shared expectation that sermons would concern sin and confession.58 Elsewhere, Ruricius also asked Sidonius to stand as his intercessor, just as Sidonius had asked others to do: quia confido, quod intercessionibus vestris fieri possit agnus, qui vester meruerit esse discipulus, ‘because I have faith that by your intercessions it is possible for one who deserves to be your disciple to become a lamb’ (Ep. 1.9). Sermons from other preachers in fifth-century Gaul devoted considerable attention to the problem of sin and how to expiate it. The sermons in the Eusebius Gallicanus collection, for example, emphasise that Christians need to be their own most severe judges and pre-empt the final calculation of their sins through penitential actions in their lifetime. This strikes a rather different tone from Sidonius’ requests for intercession and assistance. Sermons in the Eusebian collection also, however, strongly emphasise communal responsibility for the mitigation of sin, as in the example of the Ninevites and the contemporary Rogations. Withdrawal from the communal efforts, the preachers argued, was tantamount to stealing from the community because it undermined the effectiveness of their penitential striving. Perhaps Sidonius’ sermons on the Rogations struck a similar tone. Certainly we know that he gave these sustained attention as a bishop, and his letters on these give us our nearest portrait to Sidonius as a bishop guiding communal penance. Sidonius claimed that these ceremonies in Clermont were in imitation of the activities of Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, and he gave an account of what Mamertus had achieved in imitation of the penance performed at Nineveh (Ep. 7.1.3). Mamertus’ response to suffering, or the threat of suffering, was to encourage his congregation to expiate the sin which had caused it: he proclaimed fasts, proscribed sins, prescribed supplications, and promised remedies, instructing the faithful that they could avert destruction with prayer (Ep. 7.1.5). The people of Clermont, Sidonius insisted, now followed this example (Ep. 7.1.6). Presumably all of this penitential activity at Clermont took place under Sidonius’ guidance and leadership as bishop, just as he claims it took place under Mamertus’ leadership in Vienne. Sidonius himself, however, was absent from the picture of Rogations at Clermont.59 In his letters, he did not, or could not, present himself as an expiator of sin. He did, however, strongly urge his correspondents to attend and participate. Sin was something which Sidonius grappled with uneasily on a personal level, perhaps unsure where he stood in the face of ongoing theological debate. As a pastor, however, he could turn confidently to communal models of dealing with sin, which placed him as bishop at the forefront of penitential endeavours. Sidonius’ use of this powerful rhetoric demonstrates the prevalence and penetration of ideas about sin and its role in the human condition beyond ascetic circles in fifth-century Gaul. It is another example of the way in which ascetic ideas had been incorporated into 58 59

Mathisen (1999a) 116 translates this as referring to Sidonius’ own preaching, which Ruricius has heard. Sidonius is also absent from Gregory of Tours’ account of Mamertus and the Rogations, which seems to have been based on the account of these by Avitus of Vienne, and from his account of the Rogations in Clermont, instituted by bishop Gallus (c. 489–553), Hist. 2.34, 4.5. On the Rogations see Nathan (1998) and Ristuccia (2018) 24–62.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 274

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS AND RELIGION

275

new forms of expression and new social situations.60 One gets the sense in his letters of a man finding his way forward through unfamiliar territory. He did not always get it quite right and he was unsure of how to articulate his own role. The transition into this ‘new mentality’ was not always smooth. Nonetheless, Sidonius found it appropriate to use sin as an explanation for suffering in very personal terms – an internalisation of the idea that the barbarians could be the scourge of God. He treated sin as a lens through which to view the world around him, but also as a rhetoric which could be deployed to modulate relationships with religious authority figures. The role of religion in shaping his worldview was profound. However, religion could also serve as a means of comfort. Even in his letter to Basilius (Ep. 7.6), which dramatically detailed the supposed collapse of the church in Gaul – the buildings crumbling, entrances blocked by briars, cattle grazing by the unused altars, congregations falling, the priesthood dying – even in this letter, Sidonius implied that the suffering was a martyrial test and that the good Christians would eventually triumph, in the next world if not in this one. We, he wrote, are Lazarus faced with the rich man, the Israelites faced with Pharaoh, the boys in the fiery furnace, Jeremiah lamenting destruction. All of these were examples where suffering would end and where justice would come. Sidonius’ sense of sin did not therefore trump his sense of hope, and this could have been a part of the pastoral comfort which he offered to his congregation. Sidonius gives us very little direct evidence for his role as bishop of Clermont. However, his letters provide a great deal of information about how he viewed the proper role of a bishop, his knowledge of Scripture, his ideal of religious virtue, and his deployment of the language of sin. All of this allows us to reconstruct a rough impression of Sidonius as a bishop, one which is concordant with the portraits provided by Claudianus Mamertus and Gregory of Tours. Sidonius has not normally been viewed as a religious figure, in the way that a number of his contemporaries and correspondents have been. His religion, however, was fundamental to his life, especially in later years, when he was compiling and circulating his letters and poems. The view of himself which Sidonius left to the world coalesced when he was a bishop, so understanding his episcopal role and his clerical self-awareness is central to understanding Sidonius and religion.

5 Further Reading Sidonius’ role as a bishop has been thoughtfully explored by Rousseau (1976), Prévot (1997a), and van Waarden (2011a, 2011b). It also receives sustained attention in the classic account by Harries (1994). For discussions of Sidonius’ relationship to ascetic movements in Gaul see Mathisen (1994) and van Waarden (2016a). For developments in monasticism and asceticism in Gaul in this period see Courtois (1957), Prinz (1969), Consolino (1979), Nürnberg (1988), and Leyser (1999). On the situation of Gallic clergy in general see Godding (2001), while Mathisen (1989) and Percival (1997) both explore, from different angles, the position of aristocrats as bishops in fifth-century Gaul. The provision of pastoral care by Gallic bishops has been discussed by Beck (1950) and, from the angle of preaching in particular, by Bailey (2010). On religious sentiments and movements among the Gallic laity see Waldron (1976) and Bailey (2016).

60

Van Waarden (2016a) 3–5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 275

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 276

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Part III Sidonius’ Work in its Literary Context

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 277

13/02/20 4:00 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 278

13/02/20 4:00 PM

8 SIDONIUS’ INTERTEXTUALITY Isabella Gualandri

1 Nihil non ab exemplo

I

final letter of his second collection (Ep. 8.16.5), addressed to Constantius of Lyon, Sidonius follows the usual modesty topos in declaring that his epistles lack spirit and eloquence, but that, on the positive side, there is nothing in them which is unclear or which departs from precedent (nihil . . . non absolutum, non ab exemplo). He thus acknowledges and underlines his dependence on tradition,1 while leaving room for a more personal contribution, in what I believe can be seen as a programmatic statement, one which is backed up, moreover, by the enormous amount of data (scattered over the indexes, commentaries, and studies of specific themes which have proliferated in recent decades) demonstrating how Sidonius’ entire opus is dense with elements recalling earlier authors: individual terms, word pairings, segments of verses and phrases, and the underlying structure of episodes. This data, one might add, has multiplied greatly due to the availability of various kinds of database,2 and if, on one hand, the ability to retrieve new information clarifies many points, on the other, it makes the next step more difficult: that is to say, analysing the meaning of this ever more intricate network of relationships with earlier texts.3 We are confronted, then, with an aspect of the ‘information overload’ which characterises our age in so many ways and which makes it a particularly challenging task to illustrate Sidonius’ intertextuality: there are numerous studies, which have moved from the simple identification of loci similes auctorum Sidonio anteriorum (to quote the title of E. Geisler’s still useful survey)4 to examining with ever greater critical N THE VALEDICTORY

I should like to express my warmest gratitude to Franca Ela Consolino, who read this text and made a number of invaluable suggestions, to Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden, valued and amiable editors, and to Paul Barnaby, the alert and accurate translator, all of whom saved me from inaccuracy and error. 1

2 3

4

See Bellès (1999) ad loc. I do not believe that Sidonius knew Callimachus, and accordingly rule out the possibility of seeing in this phrase an allusion to Callimachus’ ἀμάρτυρον οὐδὲν ἀείδω, in fr. 612 Pf.: for the meaning of the passage in Callimachus see Bulloch (1985) 55–6, who links it to Call. Hymn. 5.55–6, where the words of the poet (‘the story is not mine but told by others’) count as a disclaimer ‘that relieves the narrator of any supposed moral responsibility’. As Gibson (2002) 355–6 notes, an excessive accumulation of such data is sometimes found in commentaries. It is significant that at the international colloquium ‘Intertextualité et humanités numériques: approches, méthodes, tendances’ = ‘Intertextuality and Digital Humanities: Approaches, Methods, Trends’, held at the Fondation Hardt, Geneva, 14–15 February 2014, delegates stressed how the mass of data now available for so many authors creates serious doubt as to whether scholars can ever adequately interpret it and raises the spectre of an ‘interpretative collapse’. Delegates’ comments can be read on the blog at http://tesserae.caset.buffalo.edu/blog/category/workshop/. Published as an appendix in C. Lütjohann and F. Leo’s edition of Sidonius (Lütjohann (1887), to which all further citations of Geisler in this chapter refer; see also the list of additions in Fernández López (1994) 219–74. Geisler also makes use of material from earlier editions and studies. Although not all the analogies he traces are valid (Delhey (1993) 27–8, for example, underlines Geisler’s limitations by listing a series of equivalences which he suggests for Carm. 22 but which are, in fact, purely coincidental), his work has the advantage of offering an overall view and, in contrast to the various studies of the relationship between Sidonius and a particular author, also permits one to see at a glance how Sidonius’ modus operandi consists of constantly fusing together elements which derive from different models.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 279

13/02/20 4:00 PM

280

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

awareness the positions which Sidonius adopts towards earlier authors and the mechanisms he employs to absorb their modes of expression. To avoid losing our bearings in this great ocean of data, we must focus on a limited selection of examples, which, given the sheer extent of the phenomenon, will inevitably be too drastic a reduction. I am aware that I thereby risk taking a superficial view and overlooking interesting elements. I shall proceed in the following order. After some preliminary observations on the concepts of intertextuality and allusion (section 2), I shall briefly consider Sidonius’ literary knowledge and argue that it is appropriate to discuss his verse and prose together from an intertextual viewpoint (sections 3–4), leaving aside certain features of his panegyrics and letters which will be discussed separately. I shall then examine (section 5) the most typical mechanisms through which intertextuality operates in Sidonius, before turning to some peculiar aspects of his panegyrics (section 6) and letters (section 7). A brief conclusion (section 8) will note the techniques and practices of reading and learning texts most likely to have influenced Sidonius when he made the transition from ‘reader’ to ‘author’.

2 Preliminary Observations: A Question of Terminology I confess to experiencing a degree of discomfort when faced with the semantic slippage between the terms ‘intertextuality’ and ‘allusion’ in scholars of Sidonius (but also more broadly). Although each term has a separate history, today they tend to be used interchangeably, with a preference for the latter.5 As is well established, though, ‘intertextuality’ originally meant the appearance in every literary text of elements which link it to earlier texts, creating a network of relations which highlight the text rather than its author, and do not necessarily imply any authorial intentionality.6 The concept of ‘allusion’, on the other hand, rests precisely on the author’s intention – at least for those of us who learned from Giorgio Pasquali7 – and refers to those reminiscences of an earlier text which an author deliberately inserts exactly so that they may be recognised, because recognising them enriches the new text by bringing to bear upon it the whole complex of meanings present in the text alluded to. In the past, scholars split into camps of ‘intertextualists’ and ‘allusionists’. Personally, as I have explained elsewhere,8 I am with those who believe that room must be left for the author’s intentions and subjectivity.9 5

6 7

8 9

For a detailed survey of the historical development of this question, see Citroni (2011) 583, which also covers the terminology successively used by scholars (such as ‘Anspielung’, ‘integration’, ‘reference’); see also Pelttari (2014) 116–26. If anything, shifting the emphasis onto the reader (but I shall return to this question later). Pasquali (1942) = (1968) 168. Moreover the meaning of ‘allusione’ in Italian is strictly connected to the concept of intentionality; see, for example, the entries in Battaglia (1961) 337, 341, for ‘alludere’ (‘accennare in modo indiretto e coperto o soltanto discreto a persone o cose o fatti che non s’intende indicare apertamente’, ‘to refer in an indirect and covert manner, or simply in a discreet way, to people, things, or facts that one does not mean to indicate openly’) and ‘allusione’. Gualandri (2013) 114. I concur here with Hinds (1998) 47–51, but also with G.B. Conte, who, having introduced the question of intertextuality into classical studies in the 1970s, has recently acknowledged that he overlooked ‘l’innegabile carica di soggettività intenzionale che l’arte allusiva, a differenza di altre forme di imitazione, trascina con sé’ (‘the undeniable charge of subjective intentionality which allusive art, unlike other forms of imitation, intrinsically bears’); see Conte (2014) 80. Years before, moreover, in Conte (1994) xix and 135–7, he had specified that one can speak of intentionality in close-knit literary circles such as the Neoteric and Alexandrian schools, and, from Loyen (1943) onwards, there has been constant discussion of Sidonius’ ‘Alexandrianism’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 280

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

281

I shall therefore employ ‘intertextuality’ as a broader term simply indicating that there is a relationship between a text and an earlier text,10 which may be either unconscious on the author’s part (determined by pure involuntary memory),11 or conscious and deliberate; in the latter case, I shall conform to current usage by speaking of ‘allusion’. It might, in fact, prove useful in this context to observe the distinction suggested by Pelttari between ‘referential’ allusions (that is, allusions in Pasquali’s sense) which attain meaning precisely from the texts which they evoke (and which I shall try, wherever possible, to identify) and allusions which, while clearly constituting intentional reminiscences, are not enriched by the hypotext.12 It is not always easy to establish whether a reminiscence in Sidonius is deliberate or a question of unconscious memory.13 If the context does not provide further clues, and we are dealing with expressive elements so pervasive in the literary tradition as not to belong exclusively to any one author, then we might hypothesise that it is a simple involuntary memory of a commonplace, of a conventional building block, excluding all allusion.14 There are also many cases where an element that can be traced to a great model has been reused in various ways by intervening writers, meaning that we can only say that Sidonius positions himself in what Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 161 calls a ‘poetic genealogy’. The loss of so much Latin literature, moreover, makes it impossible to recognise many allusions but also means that, in the absence of other terms of reference, we can place too much importance on what are simply casual resemblances (as Kelly (2008) 173 has noted). This is a risk that we run in particular when there is only one previous instance of the word or phrase in question, unless the context itself suggests that Sidonius is reusing something which he perceives as a pure expressive unit, completely detached from the meaning that it had in its original context, and is valued only for its combination of words or prosodic structure. This is the case, in my view, with mortua membra in Carm. 16.45, which occurs in a passage recalling that Christ came among us ut mortua membra / lecto, sandapila, tumulo consurgere possint, ‘so that dead bodies might be able to rise from bed, bier and tomb’. Before Sidonius, this expression is only attested in Martial 13.34.15 But it must be pointed out that there it refers to the male sexual organ, which is mortuus in so far as it is impotent (Martial is discussing the aphrodisiacal powers of the onion). I suspect, therefore, that, given Sidonius’ excellent knowledge of 10

11

12

13

14

15

See in this context Conte and Barchiesi (1989) 87, who define ‘intertextuality’ as a ‘termine omnicomprensivo’ (‘all-embracing term’), and Kelly (2008) 166 and 173, where the term ‘intertextuality’ is defined as broader than ‘allusion’ and covering a wider range of situations, and is seen as particularly useful in cases where it is difficult to establish where there is a deliberate allusion. On the involuntary recollection of texts so familiar as to appear one’s own property, as opposed to the deliberate quest for and use of material by other authors, see Petrarch’s splendid first-hand testimony in Fam. 22.2.12–14, cited by Hernández Lobato (2014c) 49. Pelttari (2014) 116–31. But there remain scholars, like Kaufmann (2017), who prefer to use terms like ‘allusions’, ‘parallels’, ‘correspondences’, and ‘references’ interchangeably without implying anything about authorial intentionality. Given the sheer variability of the overall picture, one can easily understand the position adopted by Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 133, who approaches the subject from another angle entirely, concentrating on how memory operates in Sidonius and refraining from turning intertextuality into ‘a question of faith’. Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 161–3 has recently discussed this problem with regard to Sidonius and Horace. In this context, see also the perceptive words of warning in Ravenna (2004) 320 and Wolff (2015a) 81. In these cases, databases prove particularly useful. They can demonstrate, for example, that the echoes of Claudian detected by Jeep (1879) lvii–lxxvi are not, in fact, exclusive to Claudian’s work. Kelly (2008) 170 rightly observes that the identification of allusion is most plausible where ‘the alluding author is known from other allusions to have read the text supposedly alluded to’, although, obviously, this is not a completely decisive factor in itself. As noted in Santelia (2012) 34 and 111.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 281

13/02/20 4:00 PM

282

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

Martial, the words simply came to mind without any specific recollection of their sense in the original. Otherwise, he might have judged it inappropriate to use them when speaking of Christ’s miracles, especially immediately after a possible echo of Prudentius (Carm. 16.44 mutis laxare loquelam, ‘loosen the speech of the mute’).16 Wolff (2015a) 86 has made a similar suggestion about an obscene line in Martial (1.90.7 inter se geminos audes committere cunnos, ‘you dare to make two cunts clash with each other’), of which, as Weyman has observed, there is a trace in Avitus’ biblical epic (Carm. 4.499 inter se tumidos gaudet committere fluctus, ‘revels in making the impetuous waves clash with each other’).17 As regards deliberate allusion in Pasquali’s sense, although we can obviously never be entirely sure of anyone’s intentions, we can assume it occurs whenever an author is referring to texts which are well known to his public and which they are thus capable of recognising. This, of course, underlines the importance of reconstructing the cultural knowledge of both the author and the readers whom he is addressing. We must take into account, then, the specific characteristics of Sidonius’ public: the Gallo-Roman elite of his time, an exclusive milieu where learned friends exchanged letters and poems, which might, in itself, form the ideal backdrop for this type of allusivity18 (although, for the panegyrics of Avitus and Anthemius, which were recited in Rome, we must bear in mind, conversely, what Sidonius thought about the cultural knowledge and expectations of senatorial circles in the capital). We must not forget, though, that not every member of Sidonius’ public, however learned, would have found him easy to follow.19 We know that after Sidonius’ death, Ruricius of Limoges (whose epistolary style Sidonius praises in Ep. 8.10.1) wrote to his son Apollinaris after receiving one of Sidonius’ works, frankly avowing that he did not understand it: cuius lectio sicut mihi antiquum restaurat affectum, ita prae obscuritate dictorum non accendit ingenium20 16

17

18 19

20

Again noted by Santelia (2012) 111. Unless Sidonius is thinking of the poem De evangelio, falsely attributed to Hilary of Poitiers, the only other case where the phrase appears, in a passage (105–7) where, following Matthew 9.6 (surge, tolle lectum tuum, et vade in domum tuam, ‘get up, pick up your bed, and go home’), a paralytic is healed, rising up completely cured and carrying his own bed (namque iacebat homo, pallenti marcidus ore, / cui inerat morbis corpus compage solutum / viventisque animae dudum iam mortua membra, ‘for a man was lying there, enfeebled, his face pale, whose body had been loosened from its joints by his illness, and whose limbs were already long dead though his soul was still alive’, where mortua membra, ‘dead limbs’, is in counterpoint to viventis animae, ‘living soul’). If that were the case, then Sidonius would also be echoing the gospel text with lecto. But the dating of the poem is uncertain (and merits further investigation): it might, conversely, draw on Sidonius itself. Charlet (1985) 633 dates it no earlier than the fifth century, since it imitates Prudentius. See Weyman (1926) 161. Referring to his commentary on Ep. 7.16.2 (van Waarden (2016a) 192–3), Joop van Waarden has suggested to me an analogy with the possibly risqué use of cucullus, echoing Juvenal (6.118 and 8.144–5); he reminds me too that Gerbrandy (2013) e.g. 70 underlines Sidonius’ inappropriate use of myth. See n. 10 above. See Gualandri (1979) 85, where I discussed how Sidonius seems to ‘voler sfidare gli amici - i destinatari più naturali di questi prodotti - ad una sorta di gara’ (‘want to challenge his friends – the most natural audience for these works – to a sort of competition’) to see who could recognise the allusions. And I am sure that it cannot have been easy to recognise many of the intertextual elements which databases permit us to detect today. As Kelly (2008) 179 remarks after citing an unquestionable allusion in Ammianus: ‘if as certain an allusion as that above went unrecognised or at any rate unremarked through three centuries of modern scholarship, was it likely to have impacted on many or any of Ammianus’ original readers or hearers?’ ‘On the one hand, reading him rekindles my old fondness, but, on the other, it does not quite fire up my intellect because of the obscure wording’ (Ep. 2.26.3). Centuries later, he is echoed in Petrarch’s Fam. 1.1.2; see Condorelli (2004b) 598, Hernández Lobato (2014c) 44, and Hernández Lobato in this volume, ch. 22. Although obscuritas could sometimes be viewed positively, as Schwitter (2015) has convincingly argued, I do not believe that, in this context, Ruricius intended his remarks as a compliment (as, conversely, does Schwitter, ibid., 16, n. 30).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 282

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

283

(going on to invite Apollinaris in §4 to be the interpreter of his father’s eloquence, paterni interpres eloquii).21 What is more, we must also bear in mind the different modes of communication: oral and written. For example, the structure of the opening lines of Carm. 13, where, comparing Majorian and Hercules, Sidonius presents a complicated list of the latter’s labours and does not mention the emperor himself until v. 15, would have been comprehensible to the reader of the written text, but must have been hard to grasp when, as intended, the poem was recited in public. While the more than sesquipedal opening word Amphitryoniaden, ‘son of Amphitryo’,22 is a ‘signal’ immediately permitting the listener to identify Hercules as the first term of comparison, the expression Tirynthius alter, ‘a second Tirynthian’, pinpointing Majorian as the second term, only appears after an excessive gap.23 To take another case, the two ‘mottoes’ – to use Pasquali’s terminology – which Onorato (2014) 72 traces in the Panegyric of Anthemius, would probably have been hard to recognise during the actual recitation of the poem. (These involve a double allusion to Claudian’s De Bello Gildonico, where the goddess Roma addresses the Council of the Gods just as in Sidonius she addresses Aurora. In Claudian, Roma begins her speech with advenio (Gild. 31), and in Sidonius with venio (Carm. 2.440), while in both cases the term querelae, ‘complaints’, is used to characterise the speech: Carm. 2.478, at the conclusion; Gild. 27, at the start.) The same could be said of the opening lines of the Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia (Carm. 11), which are probably inspired by Statius but which evolve in a puzzlingly elaborate manner.24 In all events, however, it is difficult to distinguish between allusion and other forms of intertextuality, and our hypotheses can never be objectively proven. This leads to the risk of over-interpreting, as, in my view, sometimes occurs with Sidonius scholars who tend, I feel, to see any connection with a hypotext as deliberately allusive in a ‘Pasqualian’, or in Pelttari’s term a ‘referential’, sense. Yet for Consolino (1974) 453, conversely, Sidonius’ textual echoes possess a ‘grado assai basso di allusività’ (‘a very low degree of allusivity’), and I too have referred to their ‘scarsa allusività’ (‘scant allusivity’), precisely because of the sometimes excessive number of reminiscences of the poetic tradition, which, continually intertwining and overlapping to a bewildering degree, make it difficult to isolate and emphasise individual source texts.25 Rijser (2013) 89 goes even further, speaking of ‘a coarse intertextuality of Sidonius, with his tendency simply to “quote” and hardly to integrate, vary, or enter into dialogue with his hypotext’. 21

22

23

24

25

Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 156–7 notes two subtle allusions to Horace’s Carm. 1.17.17–18 in Sidonius’ Ep. 2.2.2 and 8.12.5 respectively, underlining how the first, while not immediately evident, significantly occurs in a letter sent to a grammarian who would have been capable of recognising it. Speaking of the Epithalamium for Polemius and Araneola (Carm. 15), Ravenna (1990) 18 remarks: ‘Forse non tutto ciò che nel carme si legge veniva colto immediatamente’ (‘Perhaps not everything that appears in the poem was understood immediately’). For Rijser (2013) 90, Sidonius’ audience would not have been able to grasp many of his allusions but would have understood how such difficult texts served to illustrate the poet’s high level of literary culture. ‘Un comienzo tam rocambolesco’ (‘such an extravagant opening’), as Hernández Lobato (2012a) 181 observes. The epithet, which is first attested in Catullus Carm. 68.112, appears at the start of a verse twenty-eight times before Sidonius. See Hernández Lobato (2007) 65, (2012a) 181. On this incipit, rich in echoes of Martial, see also Canobbio (2013) 372–5, with reference to the preceding bibliography. Filosini (2014a) 97–110 provides an overview of all the interpretations suggested by scholars (to which we must now add Schwitter (2015) 175–9). Gualandri (1979) 104. Hernández Lobato (2012a) 540 argues against this stance with particular reference to Carm. 16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 283

13/02/20 4:00 PM

284

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

3 Sidonius’ Literary Knowledge Sidonius’ literary knowledge and his ‘library’ have been the subject of much scholarly attention beginning with Loyen (1943) and followed, in particular, by Piacente (2003), Squillante (2009a), and, with a focus on the circulation of books in Gaul, Santelia (2005a). Broadly speaking, scholars have drawn on two different types of textual evidence: explicit, where Sidonius specifically mentions a particular author, and implicit, where traces of an author can be detected in Sidonius’ work. The latter must be regarded as the more reliable,26 as the many names cited by Sidonius do not necessarily indicate a direct knowledge of their writings.27 A case in point here would be Ep. 4.3.5 and 4.3.7, where Sidonius praises Claudianus Mamertus for both his philosophical and literary qualities, comparing his style to a long list of Greek and Latin writers, both pagan and Christian, each of whom is precisely characterised. What might seem a long list of useful information about Sidonius’ readings is, in fact, as Amherdt (2001) 114–15 notes, mostly comprised of commonplaces, learned at school (possibly from manuals, as Courcelle (1969) 256 suggests) or gleaned from other authors (such as Jerome), thus revealing little about Sidonius’ own literary knowledge. One might also consider the programmatic Carm. 9 where, in a sort of lengthy recusatio, Sidonius enumerates all the subjects he does not intend to write about, listing both Greek and Latin poets from the past, and contemporary writers, some of whom are unknown to us.28 In many cases he is clearly talking about authors whose work he knows well, and who exert an important influence on his own writings. There can be no doubt about Statius, whom, addressing the dedicatee of the poem, Magnus Felix, at 9.226, Sidonius affectionately calls Papinius tuus meusque, and whom he also specifically cites as Papinius noster in his remarks at the close of Carm. 22, where he mentions the subjects of some of his Silvae.29 Nor can there be any argument about the mordax sine fine Martialis (9.268: ‘ceaselessly caustic Martialis’) so frequently evoked by Sidonius:30 but it would be unwise to presume that the same is true of all the authors whom he cites, unless we can detect positive echoes of their writings in his work. In many cases, though, as I have already noted, such echoes will be imperceptible to us, as so many works have been 26

27

28

29

30

Although, as Bouffartigue (1992) 318 points out, commenting on Ammianus 25.4.3 which mentions the emperor Julian’s fondess for Bacchylides, of which there is no sign in any of his own works, while direct traces of a writer’s work prove that he has been read, their absence does not necessarily prove that he has not been read: ‘Il se confirme donc, si besoin en était, que le silence ne prouve rien’ (‘Further confirmation, if any were needed, that silence proves nothing’.) The same is true of Ammianus, as Kelly (2008) 162 observes. As Mratschek (this volume, ch. 6. sect. 6, p. 256) remarks, ‘the number of book collections mentioned by Sidonius says less about the educational attainment of their owners than about their concern for self-presentation’. For the ‘Neoteric’ aspects of the prologue to Carm. 9 where the influence of Catullus is filtered through Martial, see Consolino (1974) 423–36, Santelia (1999a), Condorelli (2008) 81-116. See also the comprehensive treatment of Carm. 9 in Hernández Lobato (2012a) 404–49, for whom, in terms of both structure and content, the poem boldly reworks (and attempts to outdo) Mart. 8.76 (pp. 430–2); and Consolino in this volume, ch. 10, sect. 4. See also the reading of 9.274–301 in Gillett (2012) 271–7, which highlights the mention of Claudian, of an anonymous writer, of an unknown ‘Quintianus’, and of Merobaudes. For the influence of Statius on Sidonius, I shall cite only Bitschofsky (1881) and Taisne (2014) 283–94, but he is a pervasive presence in Sidonius’ verse: ‘el modelo más presente e imitado’ (‘the most present and most imitated model’) in the words of Hernández Lobato (2012a) 542; see Consolino in this volume, ch. 10, passim, and particularly sect. 8, who explains Sidonius’ Carm. 22 as a silva. See also Onorato (2016b), who, comparing some features of Sidonius’ Carm. 11 (Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia) with its model (Statius Silv. 1.2), highlights Sidonian varietas and fondness for ekphrasis.. For Sidonius’ debt to Martial, constantly stressed by critics, see, in particular, Franzoi (2008), Canobbio (2013), Wolff (2014b), and Consolino in this volume, ch. 10.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 284

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

285

lost,31 giving rise to insoluble puzzles. For example, the poets Gaetulicus, Marsus, and Pedo, mentioned in 9.259–60,32 are also cited (alongside Catullus) by Martial in the preface to his first book of epigrams as models for the ‘licentious outspokenness’, the lasciva verborum veritas, of his own verse. Did Sidonius actually know their work or did he just copy their names from this passage?33 There is certainly nothing very convincing about the list of Greek poets in 9.211-16, which bundles together Hesiod, Pindar, Menander,34 Archilochus, Stesichorus, and Sappho.35 As for the Latin authors whose influence on Sidonius’ work has been detected, the range is extensive. Loyen (1943) 26–30 presents an essential overview, which has been gradually broadened by subsequent scholars. (A useful overall picture can be gleaned from the index to Condorelli (2008), besides, obviously, from Geisler.) The principal poets are Catullus, Vergil, Horace, Ovid, Lucan, Persius, Martial, Statius, Juvenal, Ausonius, Claudian, and Prudentius; but traces have also been perceived of Plautus, Terence, the Elegies of Lygdamus, Tibullus, Propertius, Seneca, Petronius, Manilius, Silius Italicus, Paulinus of Nola, Rutilius Namatianus, Merobaudes, the Ilias Latina, and the Priapea, together with metricians like Terentianus Maurus and Marius Victorinus.36 The main prose-writers are 31

32

33

34

35

36

Prominent amongst the lost texts owned by Sidonius are Varro’s Logistorici, on which see Piacente (1998, 2003). On the other hand, unlike Flammini (2009) 229, I really do not believe that the literary panorama surveyed in Carm. 9 gives us an idea ‘delle dimensioni della biblioteca posseduta da Sidonio e delle sue letture preferite’ (‘of the dimensions of the library owned by Sidonius and of his favourite readings’). Piacente (2003) 127 takes a more cautious view, noting that a fair portion of the works mentioned by Sidonius were probably available in the Gallic libraries of his day. On the contrasting approaches to this question, see Santelia (2008) 43 and 56. Gaetulicus’ lover Caesennia is also mentioned (Ep. 2.10.6) in a rather scholastically flavoured list of women who inspired or even collaborated with their man. ‘Ripresi direttamente da Marziale’ (‘taken directly from Martial’) in the view of Piacente (2003) 125. For Schmidt (2000) 110–11, Martial is also the source for the names of Lucilius, Turnus, Memor, and even Ennius (9.265–6). Mastandrea (2008) 95, conversely, suggests a possible (although, in my view, very faint) direct echo of Ennius in Carm. 7.363. Less probable in my view is the echo detected in Carm. 4.11 by Mastandrea (2008) 85 n. 6. Menander is the only name on the list for whom we have further evidence via the contentious passage in Ep. 4.12.1–2 where Sidonius depicts himself accompanying his son in tackling Terence’s Hecyra and Menander’s Epitrepontes; on which see Amherdt (2001) 307. On the much-debated question of the degree of Sidonius’ competence in Greek, see Loyen (1943) 26–30, who credits him with only a basic knowledge of the language. A more generous view is taken by Courcelle (1969) 251–62; see also Gualandri (1979) 143–63 and Kaufmann (1995) 45 n. 32. One might also have doubts about the allusion to Anacreon in Carm. 36, one of the poems in Ep. 9.13 (in an opening which would thus qualify as a ‘motto’ in Pasquali’s sense), posited by Condorelli (2008) 222, who has subsequently made the more tentative suggestion in (2013a) 122–3 that Sidonius might have had access to grammatical or metrical repertories featuring examples taken from the Greek lyrical tradition. Also questionable is the case of Bacchylides (fr. 21 Maehler) whose stamp Santelia (2010b) 176 detects in Carm. 17, where I, conversely, in Gualandri (1993) 204–6, stressed the influence of Martial, although Hanaghan (2015) 164 appears to back Santelia’s thesis. To be sure, as I noted above (see n. 26), Bacchylides was well known to the emperor Julian, but Julian had a deep knowledge of Greek culture in no way comparable with that possessed by Sidonius over a century later. See also Consolino in this volume, p. 370, n. 142. In some cases here I am drawing on studies which look in greater depth at the influence of individual poets, who may already have been signalled in the lists provided by Geisler and by Loyen (1943), or which supply fresh data. For example, a trace of the Elegies of Lygdamus has been detected in the pairing largam salutem which appears in the dedication to Felix at the head of Carm. 9 and which, as Santelia (1998) 230, n. 3, notes (following a suggestion by L. Gamberale), is only previously attested in Lygdamus’ First Elegy, a poem which also serves a prefatory and programmatic purpose: see Condorelli (2008) 84. Colton (2000) lists examples from Vergil, Horace, Ovid, Ausonius, and Rutilius; for Vergil see also Courcelle (1985), Veremans (1991), Jolivet (2014); for Horace, see Schuster (1905, 1906, repr. 1908), Flammini (2009), Bruzzone (2011), and Stoehr-Monjou (2013); for Propertius, see Formicola (2009); for Ovid, see Montuschi (2001), Bruzzone (2014), and Filosini (2014a) 42–6, (2014b); for Persius, see Mascoli (2012), and Pisano (2014); for Juvenal, see Highet (1954) 301 n. 23 and Gualandri (1979) 159–61; for Silius Italicus, see Brolli

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 285

13/02/20 4:00 PM

286

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

Pliny the Younger and Symmachus,37 but Sallust, Cicero, Livy, Suetonius, Justin, Fronto, Apuleius, and Gellius are also important. To these we can add Vitruvius, who, as Cam (2003) has shown, marks Sidonius both thematically (descriptions of villas and building) and formally. As regards Christian literature, the importance of the Bible, which Loyen (1943) 35 saw as essentially ‘un recueil d’histoires merveilleuses’, ‘a collection of marvellous stories’, has been underlined in recent studies – Harries (1994) 107–15, Prévot (1997a), Daly (2000), Amherdt (2001, 2014), Santelia (2012), Brocca (2014) – which have mainly focused on Carm. 16 (Eucharisticon to Faustus of Riez),38 and have also revealed the influence of patristic exegesis (Lactantius, Ambrose, Origen as translated by Rufinus, and Chromatius of Aquileia) and Sidonius’ knowledge of Athanasius’ Life of Antony (in translation), of Jerome’s Vita Hilarionis, Vita Pauli, and Chronicon, and of Rufinus’ Historia Monachorum.39 As far as contemporary texts are concerned, besides Claudianus Mamertus’ De statu animae, whose influence has been stressed by Courcelle (1970) and further discussed by van Waarden (2016a) 105–18, particularly important are the works of the Lerinian school, such as the Vita sancti Honorati by Hilarius of Arles, In depositione sancti Honorati episcopi by Faustus of Riez,40 and Eucherius’ Laus eremi. Pricoco (2014) 78–9, 101–2, has detected precise echoes of the latter both in Carm. 16 – in the list of the abbots of Lérins who preceded Faustus (vv. 110–15) and in the description of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (vv. 7–10) – and in Ep. 7.6.2 where, as in Eucherius, the Visigoth king Euric is a wolf in the fold modelled on Vergil’s Aen. 9.59–60.41

4 Analogies between the Intertextuality of the Poems and the Letters Although, as we shall see, some distinctions must be drawn between the two genres,42 there is now a scholarly consensus that,43 from an intertextual perspective, Sidonius’ letters and poems should be treated together, both because they display the same mechanisms (and, moreoever,

37

38

39 40

41 42

43

(2004), Montone (2011b), Mratschek (2013) 260–4; for Plautus and Terence, see Köhler (1995) 271 and 307, and for Terence alone, see Castagna (2004); for the comic origins of various archaisms, see Gualandri (1979) 166–71; for Gellius, see Gualandri (1979) ch. V; for Fronto and Apuleius, see Monni (1999), and for Fronto alone, see Fernández López (1994) 249; for the Ilias Latina, see Condorelli (2008) 75–6; for the Priapea, see Santelia (1999a) 351; for Claudian, see Kelly (2013b) and Filosini (2014a, 2014b); for the metricists, see Condorelli (2004a); for an echo of Orientius’ Commonitorium, see Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 215. But this list must not be seen as complete. The influence of both writers is analysed in the commented editions of individual books of Sidonius’ letters: Köhler (1995) for Book 1, Amherdt (2001) for Book 4, van Waarden (2010, 2016a) for Book 7, Giulietti (2014) for part of Book 5, Giannotti (2016) for Book 3. For traces of biblical language in Sidonius, see also Gualandri (1979) 116–24, and van Waarden (2010, 2016a). For the significance of Carm. 16 as a Christian poetic manifesto, see Hernández Lobato (2012a) 531–5. See also Hernández Lobato (2014a). See also Courcelle (1969). Köhler (1995) 23 argues that the canon of models presented by Claudianus Mamertus in his letter to the rhetor Sapaudus is also valid for Sidonius. See van Waarden (2010) 287–8. Furbetta (2013a) 275, however, oversimplifies when she states that intertextuality primarily serves a political function in the panegyrics, while in the carmina minora it is a matter of erudition and creative skill (although, in fact, some of these also have a political meaning). Clearly, though, the models and hypotexts vary in the two cases. For that reason, I will dedicate separate sections to the panegyrics and letters, as I explained at the beginning. Amherdt (2001) 60, 228; Brolli (2013) 97; Kelly (2013b) 190; Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 137, 169.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 286

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

287

in the Late Antique period, there is lexically much less of a difference between prose and poetry) and because Sidonius inserts verse compositions into the prose of his letters, mingling the poetic and the epistolary, and breaking down the traditional separation of genres.44 As an example of this ‘crossover’, I cited in an earlier study45 echoes in both Sidonius’ prose and poetry of the same ‘fragment’ of Ovid Met. 1.572–3 describing a waterfall in the river Peneus, which sends spray swirling up into the air which then rains down onto the treetops over a wide area: summisque aspergine silvis / impluit et sonitu plus quam vicina fatigat. This is present in Sidonius’ Carm. 22.131–2, a passage rich in variations,46 which depicts the baths of the Burgus of Pontius Leontius on the banks of the Dordogne, when the swollen and wind-buffeted river ipsisque aspergine tectis / impluit ac tollit nautas et saepe iocoso / ludit naufragio, ‘[a torrent] rains down spray onto the very roofs, lifts up men in boats, and often mocks them with a sportive shipwreck’; and also in Ep. 2.2.16 when, battered by the South Wind, Lake Aydat immane turgescit, ita ut arborum comis quae margini insistunt superiectae asperginis fragor impluat, ‘forms stupendous waves, so that the breaking of the overcast spray rains down on the foliage of the trees which stand on the bank’.47 Moreover, as Geisler points out, the image of the iocosum naufragium recurs later in the same letter (2.2.19), where, describing boat-races, Sidonius speaks of iucunda ludentum naufragia, ‘jolly wrecks of ships [which collide] at the sports’.48 Perhaps, as far as Sidonius’ intertextuality is concerned, the most significant difference between prose and poetry lies precisely in the greater freedom offered by the former. It certainly has nothing to do with prose being harder to memorise, as has often been thought, for the practice of learning even prose texts by heart has been usefully underlined by Ilaria Marchesi (2008) 245 in connection with Pliny the Younger.49 There is further confirmation of this in Sidonius himself, in Ep. 9.7.1, where, having come across a copy of the declamationes of St Remigius, he hurries not only to transcribe them, but also to memorise them on the spot: ‘I and others with literary tastes who were present were obviously eager to read 44

45 46 47

48

49

On the importation into poetry of modes typical of the epistolary genre and the influence of the dedicatory epistles in Statius’ Silvae, see Consolino (1974) 429, (2013) 234, and also ch. 10 in this volume. Hernández Lobato (2010c) 99–102 and (2012a) 404, 408, deals with similars questions, stressing how Sidonius seems to wish to establish a continuum between his poetic and epistolary works, carrying themes and registers from his letters over into the more flexible genre of occasional poetry; see also Wolff (2014b) 207 and this volume, ch. 12; Schwitter (2015) 275 (for Ep. 8.9). Gualandri (1979) 87–8. See Delhey (1993) 117–34. Note how, in the latter instance, the greater creative freedom that prose offers compared to poetry permits Sidonius to create a synaesthetic audiovisual image (fragor / impluat, where fragor recalls Ovid’s sonitus). See Gualandri (1979) 87 for further analysis. One might also cite Ep. 4.3.9, where, in a comparison, Sidonius evokes a high-spirited horse champing at the bit inter tesqua vel confraga, ‘amid wilds and rough country’, using the rare and archaic tesqua, a term which also occurs in Carm. 5.90–1 where Sidonius portrays a wild boar which alta / . . . prope tesqua iacet, ‘lies low on the edge of the wilds’, as well as in Carm. 16.91, where, in a loud echo of Horace Ep. 1.14.19, it depicts the desolate and fiery expanse of the Syrtes: flammatae Syrtes et inhospita tesqua, ‘the burnt Syrtes and unwelcoming wilds’ (see Gualandri (1979) 172). For tesqua and confraga cf. also Lucan 6.126–7 confraga . . . dumeta, ‘rough thickets’; 6.41 nemorosaque tesqua, ‘wooded wilds’. Marchesi cites, for example, a passage (Ep. 6.33.11) where Pliny specifically invites his correspondent to read his oration Pro Attia Viriola (echoed by Sidonius in Ep. 8.3) and to compare it with the others which he knows by heart (tu facillime iudicabis, qui tam memoriter tenes omnes, ut conferre cum hac dum hanc sola