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 solam legis possis, ‘you will easily judge: you know all my speeches so well by heart that you can make the comparison with this one by reading it alone’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 287

13/02/20 4:00 PM

288

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

the books, and we set ourselves without delay to transcribe the whole, besides memorising a great many passages.’50 As regards poetry, from its historical beginnings it has been characterised by elements which are closely associated with memory – we need think only of Homeric formularity – and in Graeco-Roman schools the memorisation of poetic works preceded that of prose, as we can see from Quintilian 11.2.39–41, which states that, as verse is easier to learn than prose, and rhythmic prose easier than non-rhythmic prose, one should teach children ‘poetical passages first, then from oratory, and finally less rhythmical and less ordinary ones, for instance from jurisprudence’.51 This greater memorability of poetry can lead to certain consequences such as encouraging a somewhat mechanical approach to composition (of which the cento is the ultimate expression)52 where the poet pieces together fragments of verse which emerge from memory: a phenomenon which the digital tools now available to us has rendered all the more evident.53

5 The Mechanisms of Intertextuality In the preface to his Saturnalia, Macrobius states that he has taken various subjects from the many books he has read, reproducing them precisely as they were in the original (Praef. 4), then presents a series of comparisons to show how this in no way undermines the unity of his work. The most famous analogy (inspired by Seneca Ep. 84.2–10 but with a hint too of Horace Carm. 4.3.27–32) is with bees who collect pollen from different flowers, but blend it together to create a single flavour (Praef. 5). He goes on to cite perfumists who create a unique scent by mixing together many individual essences (§8) and a choir of a thousand voices which sing together in perfect harmony (Praef. 9).54 Macrobius’ observations come to mind when confronted with Sidonius’ approach to composition. Although his work is dense with reminiscences of the past, scholars have unanimously acknowledged the originality of the end product, both in his poetry, which ‘does not directly echo the language of any one poet in particular’ so that ‘it retains only a vague stylistic flavour of the original context’,55 and in his 50

51

52 53

54 55

Curae mihi e vestigio fuit hisque qui student, cum merito lecturiremus, plurima tenere [sc. memoria], cuncta transcribere. Moreover, Augustine in De natura et origine animae 4.7.9 cites the extraordinary memory of his friend Simplicius, who was capable of reciting Vergil’s verses backwards, starting from any point of his work, and of doing the same with the Orations of Cicero, which he knew by heart. For the Greek world, see Xen. Symp. 3.5, where a father forces his son to memorise all of Homer, or Athenaeus, Deipn. 10.457e, which describes society games where one guest recites a verse and the others recite the following lines turn by turn, or where each guest has to recite a verse with a given number of syllables. Note also how Petrarch in the letter cited above (Fam. 22.2.11) lists both poets and prose-writers among the authors whose works come automatically to his memory, citing Ennius and Plautus, on one hand, and Martianus Capella and Apuleius, on the other. Poetica prius, tum oratorum, novissime etiam solutiora numeris et magis ab usu dicendi remota, qualia sunt iuris consultorum. Similarly in the fourth century, in his Ars rhet. 3.14, Fortunatianus observes quem ad modum hanc [sc. memoriam] exercebimus? primo poematibus, dehinc orationibus, novissime operibus durioribus, qualia scripta sunt iuris, ‘how shall we exercise the memory? First with poems, next with speeches, lastly with harder works, such as legal writings’; cited in Ziolkowski (1998) 161. For the strategy of fragmentation and appropriation peculiar to the cento, see Hernández Lobato (2012a) 265. An example in Sidonius, cited by Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 221, would be the redeployment of different parts of a golden line in Carm. 7.602 fulva volubilibus duxerunt saecula pensis, ‘they drew out yellow ages with their whirling spindles’; Carm. 15.201 fulvaque concordes iunxerunt fila sorores, ‘the Sisters with one accord united the yellow threads’; Carm. 5.369 aurea concordes traxerunt fila sorores, ‘the Sisters with one accord spun golden threads’. On these passages, see Goldlust (2009), (2010) 67–86, Vogt-Spira (2009). ‘Non rimanda direttamente all’ambito linguistico di nessun poeta particolare . . . Dal contesto originario viene solo una vaga indicazione di livello stilistico’: Consolino (1974) 452. Consolino subsequently specifies that ‘la produzione epicizzante avrà un lessico influenzato soprattutto da Virgilio, mentre le nugae risentiranno piuttosto di Catullo e Marziale’ (‘his epic verse will employ a lexicon which is primarily influenced by Vergil, while his nugae are indebted rather to Catullus and Martial’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 288

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

289

prose, where affinities with earlier authors, however frequent, are seldom specific, so that even if it is steeped in tradition, ‘it is a mature tradition which has lost much of its individual elements and has become an amalgam of stylistic and conceptual prima materia which is moulded by the author to suit the occasion’.56 It is clearly possible to isolate the constituent parts of such a complex product just as it is possible to analyse the distinct ingredients of a perfume; indeed it is necessary to do so if we wish to investigate the individual elements of Sidonius’ intertextuality; but when we focus on single components, we run the risk, as it were, of missing the overall ‘aroma’ of Sidonius’ work. Moreover, in recent years scholars have become increasingly aware that, given Sidonius’ modus operandi, the study of intertextuality in his works must go beyond analysing verbal echoes of other authors to consider his redeployment of themes and formal structures. Such, for example, is the opinion of Kelly (2013b) 190, when considering the panegyrics in connection with Claudian,57 and Jolivet (2014) 112 regarding the Panegyric of Avitus. Similarly Hernández Lobato (2014a) 410 speaks of Statius serving as a ‘global model’ in Carm. 16, while Taisne (2014) and Wolff (2014b) both stress thematic analogies when discussing Sidonius in relation to Statius and Martial respectively. Filosini (2014a) 42–4 too notes how the Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia not only shows the influence of Statius and Claudian but draws on the Phaethon story in Ovid Met. 1.747–2.366 for its narrative scheme. She adds that ‘the tendency towards the accumulation and cross-pollination of various models’, typical of Sidonius’s style, ‘applies not only at the level of individual descriptive passages, but also to the overall structure of the poem’.58 Likewise, Montuschi (2001) 180 stresses the pervasive influence of Ovid on the structuring of Sidonius’ work, and Bruzzone (2014) 308, commenting on Carm. 6, again in connection with Ovid, insists that it would be reductive to limit our research to (often fairly tenuous) linguistic echoes, and that instead we should also keep in view the ‘omologia di contesti’ (‘contextual affinities’). Analysing Sidonius’ compositional techniques, particularly in his poetry, scholars have highlighted the recurrence of certain mechanisms, defining them in terms either of their function or of their formal characteristics: direct quotation; echoes of a particular passage in an earlier author, which can also be evoked via a single significant term, and which may serve to suggest situational analogies or to provide a counterpoint; the bringing together (in a single context) of elements from different places in the same model, or from different models; the diffusion of elements from the same source across a variety of contexts; and so on. These are categories which are specifically mentioned, for example, by Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 137, when discussing Sidonius and Horace, but are also often implicitly applied to the analysis of Sidonius’ works. For the letters, van Waarden (2010) 53–5 simplifies the picture by focusing on formal characteristics, and distinguishing between ‘quotations’, ‘references/paraphrases’, ‘classic references’, and ‘verbal spolia’.59 Delhey (1993) also employs formal criteria, as we shall see later. 56 57

58

59

Van Waarden (2010) 52. Kelly (2008) 177 had previously made a similar point about Ammianus, speaking of his debt to Tacitus in terms of a ‘larger-scale intertextuality’. ‘La tendenza all’accumulo e alla contaminatio di svariati modelli agisce non solo a livello di singoli quadri descrittivi, ma anche sull’organizzazione generale del componimento.’ Kelly (2008) 198–214 also employs functional categories in his study of Ammianus Marcellinus, listing types of allusion under the following headings: ‘Opposites’, ‘Divided Allusion’, ‘Punning Alterations’, ‘Alterations of Context’, ‘Glossing’, ‘Window Allusion’, ‘Exemplary’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 289

13/02/20 4:00 PM

290

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

The typology described above is substantially similar to that established in studies of the poets of the Augustan period.60 I am thinking particularly here of Thomas (1986) 175 on Vergil’s Georgics, who, preferring the term ‘reference’ to ‘intertextuality’, proposes the categories of ‘casual reference’, ‘single reference’, ‘self-reference’, ‘correction’ (and the related ‘window reference’61), ‘apparent reference’, and ‘multiple reference’ or ‘conflation’; and of Wills (1998) 283–5 (on Vergil and the Coma Berenices), who, employing a similar terminology, distinguishes between ‘single references’, ‘cross references’, ‘combined references’, and ‘double references’, with an added category of what he calls ‘divided allusions’, referring to cases where two separate passages in a given author each contain an element from the same model. From another perspective, Wills (1996) has also sought to bring out the allusive function that can be served by minute linguistic similarities (in sound, prosodic structure, word order, position in the verse, etc.). I shall broadly employ similar categories, stressing, nonetheless, that, given Sidonius’ modus operandi, they constantly overlap and it thus becomes difficult to treat them separately.62

5.1 Quotations To illustrate this difficulty, I shall begin with some direct borrowings – genuine quotations – appearing at the beginning of two poems63 which are particularly significant in that they serve a broadly introductory (Carm. 3, Ad libellum) or specifically prefatory function (Carm. 4: preface to the Panegyric of Majorian) and, as a result, are especially evocative of literary precedents. By bringing to mind the position of a famous model – in this case, Vergil – they illuminate Sidonius’ own position and serve, in places, as a declaration of his poetical credo. They underline the tension between an image of the Augustan age and of its tradition, in which Sidonius would ideally like to place himself, and the constraints imposed by contemporary reality, which he skilfully seeks to play down by stressing their positive aspects.64 In the well-known opening verses of Carm. 3, Sidonius presents himself as standing in the same position to his patron (Petrus, Majorian’s magister epistularum) as Vergil did to Maecenas, and quotes from the Georgics (Carm. 3.1 Quid faceret laetas segetes, ‘What made the cornfields joyous’: a very slight reworking of Georg. 1.1). Similarly, at the beginning of Carm. 4, Sidonius compares his relationship to Majorian with Vergil’s and Horace’s relationship to Octavian, and echoes the opening line of the Eclogues in 4.1 Tityrus ut quondam patulae sub tegmine fagi, ‘Like Tityrus once under the canopy of a spreading beech’.65 But there are further nods to Vergil 60

61

62 63 64

65

And I should like to underline the element of continuity here. Moreover, passages from a late antique author like Macrobius referring to Vergil’s writing procedures are also used to discuss intertextuality in the classics; see, for example, Hinds (1998) 23–5. I shall consider the specifically late antique aspects of intertextuality further on in this chapter. Which ‘consists of the very close adaption of a model, noticeably interrupted in order to allow reference back to the source of the model’. I shall discuss this kind of reference later on in connection with Sidonius’ panegyrics. Kelly (2008) 191 highlights the same problem with Ammianus. For quotations in the letters, see below. Conte (1986) 77 notes that, in general, ‘the opening . . . signals . . . the relation between a specific composition and its literary genre, as in the first verse of the Aeneid’. Only slightly altered at the end of the Georgics (4.566) Tityre, te patulae cecini sub tegmine fagi, as Gavin Kelly points out to me. On these and the following texts see Consolino (1974) 436–44, Gualandri (1993) 200–2, Santelia (2002b) 245–54, Franzoi (2008) 321–5; cf. the analysis by Condorelli (2008) 29–48, Canobbio (2013) 367–9, Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 138–40.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 290

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

291

in the mention of the rustica Musa in Carm. 4.6 (cf. Ecl. 3.84), in the allusion to the Aeneid in Carm. 3.4 (hinc, Maro, post audes arma virumque loqui, ‘thereafter, Maro, you dare to speak of “arms and the man”’), and in the metaphor of the poet sailing the famae pelagus, the ‘sea of reputation’, in 3.6 which mirrors Georg. 2.40–1. Vergil’s First Eclogue also serves as a ‘frame of reference’ for the verse homage to Euric in Ep. 8.9 (Carm. 34), where, in a further piece of autobiographical self-projection, Sidonius presents himself as Vergil’s Meliboeus, stripped of his own lands, standing before his friend Lampridius/Tityrus, and where v. 57 (nam non invideo magisque miror, ‘for I feel no envy but rather wonder’) constitutes a ‘hendecasyllabic translation’ of Ecl. 1.11 (non equidem invideo; miror magis).66 The evident quotation at the beginning of the poem, then, is soon enriched by other elements inspired by the same model, mingled, however, with borrowings from other authors, such as the echo of Martial which has been detected in Carm. 3.8 and which produces a certain lowering of the tone. Here the image of the ronchisonus rhinoceros, a ‘rhinoceros with snorting snout’, describing the attitude of a malevolent critic (nec nos ronchisono rhinocerote notat, referring to Petrus) is suggested by Martial 1.3.5–6 maiores nusquam rhonchi: iuvenesque senesque / et pueri nasum rhinocerotis habent (which is also echoed in Carm. 9.342–3 (si) rugato . . . labello / narem rhinoceroticam minetur).67 Another example would be the opening of Carm. 8, where Sidonius recalls the kinship of Priscus Valerianus with the Emperor, Prisce, decus semper nostrum, cui principe Avito / cognatum sociat purpura celsa genus, and where there are obvious echoes of Horace Carm. 1.1.1 Maecenas atavis edite regibus / o et praesidium et dulce decus meum, both in decus meum/ nostrum and in the emphasis on the addressee’s royal connections.68 Similarly, the dedication to Consentius in Carm. 23.2 (Consenti columen decusque morum) formally mirrors the reference to Maecenas in Horace Carm. 2.17 mearum / grande decus columenque rerum,69 which Sidonius also echoes later in the same poem at 23.178–9 haec per stemmata te satis potentem, / morum culmine sed potentiorem, and 23.70–1 (referring to Theoderic II) decus Getarum, / Romanae columen salusque gentis, as well as in Ep. 8.5.1 amicitiae columen, Fortunalis, Hibericarum decus inlustre regionum,70 where Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 156 speaks of ‘a game of self-imitation’. The opening line proper of Carm. 9 (9.4 dic, dic quod peto, Magne, dic, amabo, ‘come tell me, tell me what I want to know, tell me, Magnus, please’) derives conceptually from Catullus

66

67

68

69

70

See Condorelli (2008) 210 Fo (1999) 31–5, Overwien (2009b) 108–11, and Consolino in this volume, ch. 10, sect. 2.2. ‘But he never censures me with the snorting snout of a rhinoceros’; ‘nowhere else are snorts bigger [than in Rome]: adults, elderly people, and youngsters have the nose of a rhinoceros’; ‘if he purses his lips and threatens me with the contemptuous nose of a rhinoceros’. See Consolino (1974) 452. Further traces of Martial have been detected in in Carm. 4 by Franzoi (2008) and Canobbio (2013). In Carm. 3.5, moreover, the use of at to introduce the comparison between Vergil’s bonds with Maecenas and Sidonius’ own with Petrus points to a further hypotext in Statius Silv. 4.2.1; see Consolino (1974) 436–7. ‘Priscus, my unceasing pride, whose race is by right of kinship linked with the majestic purple, now that Avitus is emperor’; ‘Maecenas, descended from kings, my support and sweet glory’. For further traces of Horace and Vergil in this poem, see Gualandri (1993) 201, Santelia (2002b) 245–9, Condorelli (2008) 26. Here, as Consolino observes in this volume (ch. 10, sect. 2.1, p. 343), the substitution of mearum rerum with morum ‘removes [the character] from the limited sphere of an interpersonal relationship, like that between Horace and Maecenas, to highlight the absolute value of his qualities’. ‘Consentius, support and glory of morals’ (Sidon. Carm. 23.2); ‘great glory and support of my position’ (Hor. Carm. 2.17.3–4); ‘mighty as you are through this lineage, and yet mightier by your lofty morals’ (Sidon. Carm. 23.178–9); ‘glory of the Goths, pillar and salvation of the Roman race’ (23.70–1); ‘Fortunalis, pillar of friendship, bright glory of Spanish lands’ (Ep. 8.5.1).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 291

13/02/20 4:00 PM

292

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

(see Catullus 1.1 Cui dono lepidum novum libellum, ‘To whom do I gift this cool new book?’) but filtered through Martial (Carm. 8.76.1).71 In the passages cited above, then, we see how, beginning from an apparently simple situation – a direct quotation with an allusive function – we find ourselves at the centre of an intricate web of threads leading back to a variety of sources. In a single context, Sidonius may be reworking elements from different texts by the same model: in Carm. 3, Vergil’s Georgics and the Aeneid; in Carm. 4, his First and Third Eclogue and the Georgics again. Alternatively, references to a single source text may occur at widely distanced points of Sidonius’ production: Vergil’s First Eclogue in Carm. 4.1 and in the verse homage to Euric, Carm. 34 (Ep. 8.9.5) 57; Horace’s Carm. 2.17 in Sidonius’ Carm. 23.2, 23.70–1, and Ep. 8.5.1. Finally, we may find different authors (such as Martial and Statius) mingled together or overlapping. Even this small selection of examples shows, then, how difficult it is to separate out the different mechanisms and influences at work.

5.2 The Reuse of Individual Terms and Synonymous Variations Besides ‘quotations’ of the type considered above, there are also numerous verbal echoes of snatches or segments of verse which surface from Sidonius’ memory and which are incorporated into his own writings either unchanged or with slight adaptations. Many are to be found in Geisler’s list, although it is by no means exhaustive. A systematic framework for analysing these from a purely formal perspective is offered by Delhey (1993) 29, who distinguishes between verbatim reproduction and different types of variation: of word order; of word form; or where one term is substituted by another.72 There are cases where only a few elements appear unchanged (for example, the clausula), but the others are varied in such a way that individual terms maintain a precise structural correspondence with the verse which serves as a model, as, for example, in Carm. 22.226 nec exesum supplebunt marmora tofum, ‘no marble will take the place of the weather-worn tufa’, which reworks Juvenal 3.20 nec ingenuum violarent marmora tofum, ‘and (if) marble did not mar the original tufa’. A textual reference may be evoked, then, by a small number of words, and sometimes by a single term.73 This depends on memory mechanisms noted as early as Quintilian (11.2.18), who describes how a memory can be triggered ‘from the suggestion of a single word’, unius admonitione verbi.74 For example, in Carm. 13.21–2, where Sidonius presents himself as a suppliant begging Majorian to lift an exorbitant tax and awaiting his decision (has supplex famulus preces dicavit / responsum opperiens pium ac salubre, ‘this petition your suppliant servant has 71

72

73

74

Consolino (1974) 424–6 and Condorelli (2008) 84–9 both underline how frequently provenance is indirect, with Martial acting as a middleman between Catullus and Sidonius, and as we shall see later, Claudian mediating between Vergil and the Sidonius of the panegyrics (Consolino (1974) 452); see also Consolino, ch. 10, sect. 4, in this volume. To list just a small number of examples: Carm. 23.512 dormitantibus otiosiorem and Mart. 11.1.10 turbam non habet otiosiorem, ‘idler than men in a doze’, ‘there isn’t an idler crowd’; Carm. 28 (Ep. 3.12.5) 11 exemploque aliis periculoso and Mart. 1.27.4 exemplo nimium periculoso, ‘a perilous precedent for others’, ‘an exceedingly perilous precedent’; Carm. 22.33 dulce natant oculi and Claud. Carm. min. 25.41 dulce micant oculi, ‘his eyes swim/glint charmingly’; Carm. 22.44 post terga revinxit and Verg. Aen. 2.57 post terga revinctum, ‘bound [by the hands] behind his back’; Carm. 22.173 messis acervo and Stat. Ach. 2.70 messis acervos, ‘a harvest for the stack’, ‘stacks of harvest’; but one could easily continue. On Sidonius’ attention to the single word as ‘una unidad estética per se, intrínsecamente valiosa y significativa’ (‘an aesthetic unit in itself, intrinsically valuable and meaningful’), see Hernández Lobato (2012a) 381. See also Onorato (2016c). For the ‘verbal memory’ of Sidonius, see Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 154–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 292

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

293

offered, waiting for a kind and life-giving response’), the word responsum is the key term evoking, with a clear allusive intent in this case, Vergil’s Ecl. 1.44 hic mihi responsum primus dedit ille petenti, ‘here he first gave a response to my request’, where Tityrus assumes a similar position vis-à-vis his protector Octavian.75 Likewise, in Carm. 33 (embedded in Ep. 7.17.2) Sidonius evokes the peregrinatio of St Abraham, who like his namesake, the biblical patriarch, moves from east to west, and, leaving behind the great cities, comes at last to his final destination, Clermont, choosing to live in a modest corner of the earth (angulus iste placet, ‘this little corner suits you’, 21). Besides the poem’s Christian elements, we might perhaps detect here an echo of the march of Hercules celebrated in Propertius 4.9, where the hero moves in the opposite direction, coming from the west with the oxen of Geryon and stopping in Italy, where he exclaims (65–6) angulus hic mundi nunc me mea fata trahentem / accipit, ‘finally, this corner of the world accepts me bearing my destiny’. So, in a generally analogous context, a single word, angulus, serves as a clue permitting us to suspect a direct relationship between the two texts.76 A clue might also be provided by a rare term, like multicavus, ‘many-holed, heavily pitted’, in Carm. 22.220–2 iam divide sedem / cessurus mihi fonte meo, quem monte fluentem / umbrat multicavus spatioso circite fornix, ‘now agree upon a division of haunts: you shall leave to me my spring, which flows from the mountain, shadowed by an arched covering of ample circuit, heavily pitted’, where Apollo, inviting Dionysus to divide up between them the castlegrounds of Pontius Leontius, reserves for himself a spring shaded by an arch or a grotto. This evokes Ovid. Met. 8.562–3 pumice multicavo nec levibus atria tofis / structa subit, ‘he enters the atrium built of heavily pitted pumice and far from smooth tufa’, which describes Theseus entering the dwelling of the river god Achelous, in other words, a similarly aquatic context.77 Another example here might be the rare metaphor in Ep. 9.16.3, where Sidonius announces that he is sending Firminus a poetical gift in the form of Mytilenaei oppidi vernulas, ‘humble natives of the town of Mytilene’, and, in describing the strophes of his poem as humble (and, as Mytilenaei oppidi indicates, Sapphic), calls to mind Martial 5.58.4, where the libelli sent to Quintianus are also termed vernulae.78 The source text is sometimes transformed via the use of synonyms and/or variations, a mechanism which can make it hard to identify. In most cases, though, the model is recognisable, even from very small clues. For example, in Carm. 1.24, the words parvula tura, ‘small incense’, which turn the poem for Anthemius into a sort of votive offering, are inspired by vilia tura, ‘cheap incense’, in Propertius 2.10.24.79 A more complex case is Phoebus’ exhortation to Thalia in Carm. 35 (Ep. 8.11.4) 4–6, sparsam stringe comam virente vitta / et rugas tibi syrmatis profundi / succingant hederae expeditiores, ‘bind your flowing hair with verdant fillet, and let ivy-bonds gird up the folds of your sweeping robe to a shape more expeditious’, which, as Geisler notes, reworks Statius Silv. 2.7.9–11 laetae purpureas novate vittas, / crinem comite, candidamque vestem / perfundant

75 76

77 78

79

See Santelia (2005b) 196. As I have argued in Gualandri (1993) 209–12, whereas Geisler, conversely, sees echoes of Horace’s Carm. 2.6.13 and Ep. 1.14.21–23; see also Prévot (1997a) 225–6 and Condorelli (2013a) 273–6. Moreover, the influence of Ausonius on the list of cities mentioned in this poem has been persuasively argued by van Waarden (2016a) 224–5; as for Propertius’ influence on Sidonius, see Formicola (2009). In this volume, see Consolino, ch. 10, sect. 6.2.4. See Delhey (1993) 29. See Condorelli (2008) 228. Moreover, even when referencing the Scriptures, Sidonius shows his ability to evoke a text with a rapid allusion or with a single word, as is underlined by Santelia (2012) 92–3, 96–7 (see also Harries (1994) 113–15). See Consolino (1974) 455–6, which analyses the difference between the two contexts, and Gualandri (1993) 198–9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 293

13/02/20 4:00 PM

294

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

hederae recentiores, ‘joyfully renew your purple fillets, comb your hair, let fresher ivy-bonds envelop your white attire’. Here vitta and hederae are the only terms which remain unchanged, while the rest is transformed via synonyms or variations: crinem comite/stringe comam; candidam vestem/rugas syrmati profundi; perfundant/succingant; recentiores/expeditiores. Compare also Carm. 7.297–8 solitis defessa ruinis / Gallia, ‘Gaul . . . worn out by accustomed calamities’, with Claudian III Hon. 124 et Phaethonteas solitae deflere ruinas, ‘and accustomed to bewail Phaethon’s calamity’, referring to the Heliades: here no element is exactly the same, and the analogy primarily rests on the repetition of sounds.80 An even subtler mechanism is detected by Ravenna (2004) 322, who identifies echoes of Horace’s last ode (Carm. 4.15) in the framework and some individual details of the final letter in Sidonius’ Book 9, suggesting, in particular, that Sidonius’ closing word sonabunt, ‘will sound’ (which serves almost as a sphragis), corresponds to and offers a variation upon canemus, ‘we will sing’, at the end of Horace’s poem.81 Perhaps what Fo (1982a) 5 says about allusive techniques in Merobaudes is also true of Sidonius. Proceeding from a particular textual model, Merobaudes introduces variations which take him a long way from his source text while ‘nonetheless retaining some small distinctive feature of it, so that the resemblance remains –- at times more so, at times less – discernible’.82 Also helpful here are Filosini’s comments on Carm. 11.87–8, where, in a list of mythical heroes who undertook difficult challenges to conquer a woman, Sidonius evokes a passage in Ovid’s Heroides, proceeding via ‘brief phrases . . . which call for the collaboration and test the knowledge of the learned reader’.83

5.3 Glossographical Tendencies Sometimes when adapting or reworking a model, Sidonius clearly displays his lexicographical or glossographical tendencies,84 and a number of passages reveal an, as it were, exegetical approach to the source text. For example, in Carm. 2.405–35 Sidonius portrays the goddess Roma on her way to Aurora’s palace, beginning thus: liquidam transvecta per aethram / nascentis petiit tepidos Hyperionis ortus, ‘riding through the clear bright air, she sought the warm risingplace of the nascent Hyperion’. Montuschi (2001) 162–4 detects a trace here of Ovid Met. 1.778–9, which portrays Phaethon journeying to the home of the sun god: Aethiopasque suos positosque sub ignibus Indos / sidereis transit patriosque adit impiger ortus, ‘he passes by his Aethiopians and by the Indians who live under the scorching sun, and energetically moves towards his father’s rising-place’. Alongside deliberately parallel elements (the positioning of petiit/transit) and exact echoes (ortus as a clausula), Montuschi underlines the ‘gloss’ whereby Sidonius substitutes the name of the god (Hyperionis) for the adjective patrios, which works for Phaethon, child of the sun, but not for the goddess Roma in his own poem. Similarly, in Carm. 23.454 Pindaricum . . . cygnum, ‘the Pindaric swan’, where Sidonius is referring to Horace, StoehrMonjou (2013) 141–2 detects an ‘impoverished echo’ or ‘gloss’ of the expression Dircaeum . . . cycnum in Horace’s own Carm. 4.2.25.85

80 81

82

83 84 85

Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 212. For more on traces of Horace in this poem, see Egelhaaf-Gaiser (2010), but the overall structure is influenced by Prudentius, as noted by Gualandri (1979) 4–6 and Condorelli (2008) 238. ‘Tuttavia lasciando pur sempre trasparire qualche piccolo tratto peculiare di esso, di modo che l’evocazione continua a restare - ora più, ora meno nettamente - percepibile.’ See also Bruzzone (1999) 214. Filosini (2014a) 198: ‘brevi sintagmi che . . . stimolano la collaborazione e le conoscenze del lettore dotto’. On which, see Gualandri (1979) 94, 100–1. For other cases, see Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 142, 144, 151.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 294

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

295

At the beginning of Carm. 16.2, Sidonius declares that he will not imitate the invocations with which pagan poets usually start their poems, and, amongst other topoi, mentions the spring Hippocrene, which he describes with the periphrase laticem simulatum fontis equini, ‘the feigned water of the horse’s spring’. Besides an echo of Vergil Aen. 4.512 latices simulatos fontis Averni, ‘the feigned waters of lake Avernus’, Condorelli (2008) 146 notes here a ‘learned gloss’ (‘chiosa erudita’) on the less refined fons caballinus, ‘nag’s spring’, in Persius 1.1; while Hernández Lobato defines the relationship between Vergil and Sidonius as the passage ‘from a poetics of representation to a poetics of simulation’.86 A more complex mechanism is at play in Carm. 24.46–7, where a fish (a pike?) is described as limosum et solido sapore pressum / piscem, ‘a fish that haunts the mud, loaded with solid savouriness’, and Santelia (2002a) 98 notes that this expression seems to ‘presuppose’, and, in a sense, to extrapolate from Ausonius Mos. 122–4, where the pike is described as living in waters clouded by mud and reeds and as only being served in the humblest taverns due to its unpleasant smell (obscuras ulva caenoque lacunas / obsidet. Hic nullos mensarum lectus ad usus / fervet fumosis olido nidore popinis). An analogous technique, but in relation to the scholastic tradition, has been detected by Privitera (1993) 141–2, when comparing the description of the fabrics woven by Araneola in Sidonius’ Carm. 15 and Arachne in Ovid’s Met. 6. Privitera focuses on the lists of Jupiter’s amorous feats which appear in both passages (Ov. Met. 6.103–14; Sidon. Carm. 15.175), and finds in one detail evidence of a ‘lettura-studio’ (‘study-reading’) of Ovid which draws on the battery of scholia, glosses, and marginalia that accompanied classical texts, and which we must take into account when examining Sidonius’ writing processes. Similarly, Rijser (2013) 90–1 notes that Sidonius ‘incorporates into his poetic text what Servius presents as commentary’, and speaks of a ‘poetics of inclusion’ which flaunts its use of scholia. A revealing example, here, is the description of the temple to Venus built by Vulcan in Carm. 11.16–17 (fulmenque relinquens / hic ferrugineus fumavit saepe Pyragmon, ‘Pyragmon, abandoning the thunderbolt, raised his smoke in this place often’), where Sidonius follows Aen. 8.425 in mentioning the cyclops Pyragmon but adds a detail – fulmenque relinquens – which shows that he has in mind Servius’ commentary on the passage. Servius, in fact, notes that Pyragmon numquam a calenti incude discedit, ‘never leaves his hot anvil’, so that his involvement in building the palace for Venus is all the more extraordinary, as it takes him away from his designated task of forging Jupiter’s thunderbolts. Montone (2011b) 126 also speaks of a ‘glossographical intent’ (‘intento glossografico’), which ‘aims to convey to the reader all the echoes of tradition’ (‘ambisce a render conto al lettore di tutti gli echi della tradizione’), when discussing the brief passage in Carm. 7.361–8 where, following the death of Aëtius, the Goths wish to destroy Rome and are compared to a pack of hungry wolves. Montone reviews and expands upon the sources indicated by Geisler, and, after analysing the complex mesh of hypotexts drawn from different passages in Vergil, Statius, Lucan, and Silius Italicus, concludes that Sidonius simultaneously has in mind Vergil himself and the various ‘rewritings’ of his work. Sometimes, on the other hand, the relationship is inverted, and it is the model text which enables us to grasp Sidonius’ full meaning. For example, in Carm. 9.23, Sidonius lists Babylon among the distant lands that he will not sing of in his poem, nec coctam Babylona personabo, ‘I shall not trumpet forth . . . baked Babylon’: a somewhat cryptic phrase which Condorelli (2008) 100 compares with Martial 9.75.2–3 (a very different context) nec latere cocto, quo

86

Hernández Lobato (2012a) 562–72, (2014b) 412: ‘de una poética de la representación a una poética de la simulación’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 295

13/02/20 4:00 PM

296

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

Samiramis longam / Babylona cinxit, ‘not with baked bricks, with which Semiramis encircled great Babylon’, observing that ‘Martial’s text functions like an explanatory gloss’ (‘il luogo marzialiano funziona come una glossa esplicativa’). Likewise, Kelly (2013b) 178, commenting on the characterization of the goddess Roma in the panegyrics, stresses how the model, in this case Claudian, can elucidate Sidonius’ own text.

5.4 Amplification of Models There are many cases where Sidonius amplifies and expands upon stimuli presented by the poetic tradition, indulging in the sheer pleasure of describing or listing (Hernández Lobato (2012a) 350, 366, speaks of an aesthetic of amplification and of detail). If, for example, it is sufficient for Statius to evoke Orpheus in Silv. 3.1.17 through the image of the Getica lyra alone, then, Sidonius, proclaiming his inferiority to Orpheus in Carm. 23.181–94, feels the need to describe in detail all the places where the poet dwelled and the prodigious effects that his music had on nature, disturbing it so profoundly that mountains moved and rivers ceased to flow.87 In Sidonius’ description of Aurora’s palace in Carm. 2.407–35, the brief reference in his Ovidian source to the atria of the goddess being ‘full of roses’, plena rosarum (Met. 2.113–14), is transformed into a long list of names of flowers (412–16): halant rura rosis, indiscriptosque per agros fragrat odor; violam, cytisum, serpylla, ligustrum, lilia, narcissos, casiam, colocasia, caltas, costum, malobathrum, myrrhas, opobalsama, tura parturiunt campi. The countryside is fragrant with roses, and throughout those unowned and undivided fields a sweet aroma breathes. Violets, clover, thyme, privet, lilies, narcissus, casia, culcas, marigold, costum, malobathrum, myrrh, balm, frankincense, are born from the fields. And Montuschi (2001) 167 notes how Sidonius also mixes in elements from Ovid’s descriptions of the palaces of the sun god (Met. 2.1-18) and Somnus (Met. 11.592–615). Vergil briefly alludes to the impossibity of yoking a griffin to a chariot in an adynaton in Ecl. 8.27; but Claudian (VI Hon. 30–1), conversely, depicts the fabulous beast harnessed to Apollo’s chariot and guided by his reins: at si Phoebus adest et frenis grypha iugalem / Riphaeo tripodas repetens detorsit ab axe, ‘but if Phoebus is present and, seeking once more his tripods, with his reins turns back his griffin team from the Riphaean pole’. In this case too, Sidonius, drawing inspiration from Claudian’s verses, delights in adding further details to the scene: nunc ades, o Paean, lauro cui gryphas obuncos / docta lupata ligant, quotiens per frondea lora / flectis penniferos hederis bicoloribus armos (Carm. 2.307–9; ‘now be present, Paean Apollo, whose hook-beaked griffins the well-schooled curb constrains with its bond of laurel, whenever you wield your leafy reins and guide their winged shoulders with double-hued ivy’).88 But descriptive amplification is particularly intense when it comes to precious materials, such as those used to build real or fantastic buildings. The description of the palace that Vulcan builds for Venus in Carm. 11.17–28 (inspired by the palace depicted in Claudian’s 87 88

See Taisne (2014) 290. See Condorelli (2008) 72.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 296

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

297

Epithalamium for Honorius and Maria, but also by the sun god’s palace in Ovid) consists essentially of a long list of marbles and stones complete with details of their colours and geographic provenance: hic lapis est de quinque locis dans quinque colores Aethiops, Phrygius, Parius, Poenus, Lacedaemon, purpureus, viridis, maculosus, eburnus et albus. postes chrysolithi fulvus diffulgurat ardor; myrrhina, sardonyches, amethystus Hiberus, iaspis Indus, Chalcidicus, Scythicus, beryllus, achates attollunt duplices argenti cardine valvas, per quas inclusi lucem vomit umbra smaragdi, limina crassus onyx crustat propterque hyacinthi caerula concordem iaciunt in stagna colorem. Here is stone from five regions, giving forth five hues, Ethiopian, Phrygian, Parian, Punic, Spartan – purple, green, mottled, ivory, white. The yellow glow of topaz flashes through the doorpost; fluorspar, sardonyx, Caucasian amethyst, Indian jasper, Chalcidian and Scythian stones, beryl and agate, form the double doors that rise upon silver pivots, and through these doors the shadowy recess beyond pours out the sheen of the emeralds that are within. Onyx thickly encrusts the threshold, and hard by the blue colour of amethyst casts upon the lagoon a harmonious hue. Clearly, Sidonius is amplifying and minutely developing a theme which Claudian proposes in a similar context, albeit in a much sparer form (Nupt. 87–91): Lemnius haec etiam gemmis extruxit et auro admiscens artem pretio trabibusque smaragdi supposuit caesas hyacinthi rupe columnas. beryllo paries et iaspide lubrica surgunt limina despectusque solo calcatur achates. The Lemnian built this too of gems and gold, adding art to preciousness: he made columns cut from rock of hyacinth support beams of emerald; the walls are covered with beryl and the polished doors with jaspar; the floor of agate is disdainfully trodden. Yet there are significant precedents in Statius, too, for example in the verses devoted to the villa of Pollius Felix at Sorrento (Silv. 2.2.85–94), and, especially, considering the thematic analogy, in the Epithalamium for Stella and Violentilla, where Statius describes the rare marbles, of different colours, which distinguish the bride’s house (Silv. 1.2.148–53), verses in which, unlike Claudian (who is depicting the palace of a goddess), he also mentions the provenance of these materials: Hic Libycus Phrygiusque silex, hic dura Laconum saxa virent, hic flexus onyx et concolor alto vena mari rupesque nitent, quis purpura saepe Oebalis et Tyrii moderator livet aeni. pendent innumeris fastigia nixa columnis, robora Dalmatico lucent satiata metallo.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 297

13/02/20 4:00 PM

298

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

Here is rock of Libya and Phrygia, here is the hard green Laconian stone, here gleam winding onyx, the vein which has the colour of the deep sea, and the rock that is often envied by Oebalian purple and by the mixer in a Tyrian kettle. The ceilings rest poised on innumerable columns, the beams shining saturated with Dalmatian metal.89 In another description of a building, the baths of the Burgus of Pontius Leontius (Carm. 22.136–41), the list of precious marbles from Phrygia and Numidia, Paros and Carystos, differs from Sidonius’ model (the baths of Claudius Etruscus in Statius, Silv. 1.5.34–9) in that they are only mentioned so that Sidonius, using one of his favourite techniques, can stress how inferior they are to the materials actually used in the Burgus (which, moreover, are not specifically identified).90 These stones are not themselves present in the Burgus at all.91

5.5 Contrast with a Model But Sidonius can also use a model text to set up a contrast, sometimes only departing from it in small details. Thus, in Carm. 15.147–8, it is Minerva who unsuccessfully challenges Araneola to a weaving match, whereas in Sidonius’ model, the contest between Arachne and Minerva in Ovid Met. 6.24–145, the challenge comes from Arachne. In Ovid, too, the victorious Arachne falls victim to Minerva’s ire, while in Sidonius, Minerva, although defeated (evicta recedens, 148), accepts the outcome with a smile (subrisit Pallas, 185).92 In the description of Venus’ marine entourage in Carm. 11.34–46, where, as in Claudian’s Epithalamium for Honorius and Maria (Carm. 10), Venus is borne aloft by Triton and accompanied by various marine deities, Sidonius replaces Claudian’s image of a reluctant Cymothoë pursued in vain by Triton (135–9) with a compliant Galatea (37–41) who even teasingly pinches the sea god as he carries Venus, a prelude to more intimate caresses (see Filosini (2014a) 143). In Vergil’s account of the last night of Troy, in Aen. 2.355–9, Aeneas recalls how he confronted the Greeks, haud dubiam in mortem, ‘[going out] to certain death’, together with his comrades lupi ceu / raptores atra in nebula, quos improba ventris / exegit caecos rabies, ‘like preying wolves in a dark mist, who are driven blindly onwards by their belly’s indomitable frenzy’. Where Vergil, though, uses this comparison to portray the desperate defenders of the city, Sidonius adopts it for the Vandals who attacked Rome in 455 (Carm. 7.363–8), depicting them as driven into a frenzy by the scent of the lambs who will be their prey. There is also, however, a trace of gospel imagery here – the sheep among wolves in Matthew 10.16 – or of the Church Fathers’ tendency to describe heretics (such as the Arian Vandals) as wolves;93 the image of the heretic as a wolf is developed in Sidonius, Ep. 7.6.2.94 In Ep. 1.6.4, Sidonius vividly describes how in retirement military veterans come back to work the land in quorum manibus effetis enses robiginosi sero ligone mutantur, ‘in whose toil-worn hands rusted swords are finally exchanged for the mattock’, an expression which, as Köhler (1995) 225 notes, sets up a contrast with Vergil Georg. 1.508, where, at the outbreak of war, 89

90 91 92 93 94

For more on this question, see Filosini (2014a) 94–7, 113–24, which examines the intricate web of reminiscences evoked in Sidonius’ verses here, and also points to possible echoes of Prudentius’ description of the temple of the soul in Psych. 851–61. See Kaufmann (2017) 154–5. See Delhey (1993) 25. See Ravenna (1990) 82 and Rosati (2003), and Consolino’s ch. 10 in this volume. See Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 227. See the exhaustive commentary by van Waarden (2010) 287–91.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 298

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

299

peasants abandon the soil and curvae rigidum falces conflantur in ensem, ‘curved scythes are melted down into straight swords’. Again, though, Sidonius also evokes Scripture, as his use of the term ligones seems to echo Vulg. Joel 3.10 concidite aratra vestra in gladios et ligones vestras in lanceas, ‘beat your ploughshares into swords and your mattocks into spears’, which, moreover, is conceptually closer to the Vergilian hypotext (whereas Sidonius himself is nearer in spirit to Micah 4.3 et concident gladios suos in vomeres, ‘and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares’).95 Hernández Lobato (2012a) 371 sees a more complex case of ‘apropriación inversiva’ in the epistle at the end of Carm. 22 (§6) where Sidonius quotes purpurei panni from Horace’s Ars 14–16, but rather than giving these words the negative sense that they have in the original context, he uses them to define his own ‘poetics of detail’, where the multiplex et varium challenges the classic ideal of simplex et unum.96

5.6 Two Less Common Mechanisms I shall conclude this section by looking at two particularly significant cases. The description of the physical and intellectual education of Anthemius in Carm. 2.134–92 is modelled on Claudian (III Hon. 22–8). The elements deriving from Claudian are listed by Schindler (2009) 202. Just as the infant Honorius shows a precocious martial spirit in displaying no fear of his father’s weapons, the young Anthemius clambers up his father’s armour and succeeds in kissing him through an opening in his helmet: (137) livida laxatis intrabat ad oscula cristis, ‘he would find an entrance for his livid kisses through the half-open visor’. Schindler also points here to Claudian’s Stil. 1.120–1, where Stilicho is so absorbed in his military duties that he rarely leaves the camp to visit his family, and when he does, will not stop to kiss his son Eucherius, even through his helmet: nec stetit Eucherii dum carperet oscula saltem / per galeam. But I would also stress how Sidonius – besides inverting the image by having the child kiss the father rather than vice versa – goes beyond Claudian to show that he has recognised Claudian’s own model. This is clearly Aen. 12.433–4, where Aeneas, after being wounded, puts on his armour to return to battle and kisses Ascanius through the visor of his helmet: Ascanium fusis circum complectitur armis / summaque per galeam delibans oscula fatur . . . . This is a small detail, perhaps, but it constitutes an elegant example of ‘window allusion’. And behind Vergil himself, of course, there is the episode in Homer’s Il. 6.466–75 (which Sidonius might have read in Ilias Latina 566–9) where Hector takes off his helmet to kiss his son, who is frightened of his father’s weapons. So the genealogy of the image is as follows: the hero taking his helmet off in Homer; leaving it on and kissing his son through it in Vergil; not even stopping to kiss his son through it in Claudian; the son himself, who is unafraid of his father’s weapons, taking the initiative and kissing his father through the helmet in Sidonius. Another example, involving lexical similarities this time, is presented by Ep. 1.6.3.97 Here Sidonius exhorts a friend who is dallying in the countryside to come to Rome and quit an environment where he lives inter busequas rusticanos subulcosque ronchantes, ‘amongst bumpkin cowmen and snorting swineherds’. A model for this phrase has been traced in Apuleius Apol. 10, which describes someone being ultra Virgilianos upiliones et busequas rusticanus, ‘boorish 95

96

97

On similar lines, when Merobaudes describes how Enyo is diminished by long years of peace in Pan. 2.68, he depicts sword-points losing their sharpness. (I owe this reference to Franca Ela Consolino.) For a discussion of Sidonius’ reading of this passage in Horace and of Ps.-Acro’s commentary on it, see Condorelli (2015) 493–4, Schwitter (2015) 145. Now see also Pelttari (2016) 27–8, 69, and Mratschek (2017) 322. See Gualandri (1979) 89.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 299

13/02/20 4:00 PM

300

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

beyond Vergil’s shepherds and cowmen’, an allusion to Verg. Ecl. 10.19 venit et upilio, tardi venere subulci, ‘the shepherd also came, there came the slow swineherds’. Sidonius shows that he knows the Vergilian reference by substituting Apuleius’ upiliones with Vergil’s subulci, thus creating a ‘window allusion’98 (which is further enriched by the echo of Martial in ronchantes).99 Equally interesting is the mechanism at work in Carm. 2.327–8, where the ageing and decrepit Oenotria (Italy) sends the goddess Roma to beg the radiant Aurora for an emperor capable of defending her (that is, Anthemius). This passage is a reversal of Claudian Eutr. 2.526–30 where an Aurora who has lost all her brilliance travels to all-powerful Italy, kneels before Stilicho, and implores his aid.100 The relationship with Claudian seems to be underlined by Sidonius himself, when his Roma tells Aurora (Carm. 2.478–9) that if she could have Anthemius as an emperor, it would be possible to ‘lay old complaints to rest’, veteres sopire querelas, where veteres has been persuasively seen as an allusion to Aurora’s own tearful petitions in Claudian.101 Sidonius’ Roma, then, identifies with Claudian’s Roma, constituting, as Kelly (2013b) 189 remarks, what Hinds has called ‘an intertextual signpost’, underlining ‘a tension between narrative realism and intertextual continuity’.102 But Claudian’s Roma had herself identified with Vergil’s Roma, evoking (Gild. 17–25) the promises made to her by Jupiter in Aen. 1.257–95 and the assurance of an imperium sine fine (279).

6 Intertextuality in the Panegyrics The kind of ‘structural’ intertextuality to which I alluded in section 5 above is found, in particular, in Sidonius’ ‘public’ compositions: the epithalamia (which are in the Statius–Claudian tradition) and, above all, in the three imperial panegyrics recited before the Roman senate to celebrate the consulships of Avitus in 456 (Carm. 7) and Anthemius in 468 (Carm. 2),103 or in Lyon to mark the visit of Majorian in 458 (Carm. 5), all of which were written in the years following the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455. A trait shared by all three is the conspicuous presence of Claudian’s panegyrics as a model text. Highly familiar to a Roman senatorial audience, these function as an implicit frame of ideological and political reference, and serve to ensure a sense of continuity with the past, both the most recent, to which they bear witness, and the more distant, which they insistently evoke.104 Sidonius, in fact, redeploys some of Claudian’s most fundamental themes, adapting them to the present historical situation via skilful variations.105 An example would be the use of allegorical figures and personifications, 98 99

100 101

102

103 104

105

For more on window allusion, see above. Apuleius too employs the phrase Vergilianus upilio seu busequa in Flor. 3; and in Met. 8.1 we find equisones opilionesque, etiam busequas. In Gualandri (1979) 89, n. 46, I noted that, in coining the neologism busequa, Apuleius may reveal that he is using a Vergil text which has the variant bubulci instead of subulci. See Bonjour (1982). See the passages quoted by Kelly (2013b) 189, particularly Gild. 28–127, where Onorato (2014) 72 identifies precise analogies. Hinds (1998) 5. The example quoted by Hinds, drawing on Conte (1986), is Ov. Fast. 3.471–6, where Ariadne recalls being abandoned by Theseus with the same words of lament as she uses in Catullus Carm. 64, 130–5, 143–4. The most complex; see Watson (1998) 186. For Sidonius’ panegyrics see Stoehr-Monjou’s ch. 9 in this volume. On the historical exempla that abound in Sidonius, often in the wake of Claudian, see Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 226–7, Tommasi (2015); on the political scope of intertextuality, particularly in reference to Vergilian hypotexts, see Jolivet (2014) 114. For the panegyrics of Avitus and Anthemius, see the analysis in Schindler (2009) 181–215, which indicates how and when Sidonius departs from Claudian, and traces the influence of other authors; for the Panegyric of Anthemius, see also Montone (2012a); for the Panegyric of Avitus, see Furbetta (2014b); see also Tommasi (2015) on all three panegyrics.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 300

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

301

especially the goddess Roma, who is present to varying degrees in all three of the panegyrics,106 and whose depiction also owes much to the visual arts.107 In Carm. 7.17–38, Roma, bedraggled and worn down by age, following the sack of her city by the Vandals from Africa, appears before a picturesque assembly of the gods summoned by Jupiter and begs for assistance and a new emperor (Avitus) to make her young again. In Carm. 5.13–32 she appears instead as a Roma bellatrix seated on a throne to receive the homage of her provinces. These include a careworn Africa who complains that Rome has not defended her and asks for an emperor capable of freeing her from the Vandal yoke (that is, Majorian). A more complex situation is presented in Carm. 2, where the suffering Oenotria (Italy) asks the Tiber (318–31) to persuade Roma to petition Aurora for a new emperor (the Greek Anthemius). Roma travels to Aurora’s palace,108 and in a long speech (439–515) she asks Aurora to give her Anthemius as a ruler in exchange for all the lands that Roma has conquered and handed over to the eastern empire. If we might detect a distant archetype for these episodes in Aen. 1.227–53 (where Venus approaches Jupiter to express her fears over Aeneas’ fate) or in the more elaborate assembly of the gods in Aen. 10.1-117,109 then Claudian nonetheless remains the dominant model. Kelly (2013b) 178 and 190 notes, in fact, how they are built around variations on themes from Claudian, either embellishing or simplifying the source material. To cite just a few of the many possible examples: the white-haired Roma of Carm. 7 is the same figure as appears before Jupiter and the other gods in Claudian Gild. 17–25, where she also complains about danger from Africa, that is, Gildo’s revolt in Mauretania; in Carm. 5 the Roma bellatrix resembles the one in Olybr. 87–95; the description of Roma’s shield (Carm. 5.21–30; but also abridged in Carm. 2.395–6) may ultimately descend from Aeneas’ shield in Aen. 8.630–4 but is more immediately inspired by Olybr. 96–9; in Carm. 5.53–62 Africa appears before Rome displaying much the same traits as in Gild. 134–9;110 the image of the Tiber in Carm. 5.25–30 resembles the same river in Olybr. 214–25 and the Eridanus in VI Hon. 162–8;111 the procession of provinces in Carm. 5.41–53 is indebted to Stil. 2.227–62,112 even if the list of products that they bring to Roma has been seen as an amplified aemulatio of Vergil’s Georg. 1.57–9;113 finally, the divine assembly in Carm. 7.38–45 is a reworking in list form of the assembly in Rapt. 3.1-17, and the river gods take their places according to rules of etiquette which recall 3.14–16 in the same model.114 In each case there are numerous elements which present variations on the model text, embellish it, or, as always with Sidonius, draw on numerous other sources of inspiration quite distinct from Claudian. In the depiction of the ageing Roma in the Panegyric of Avitus, echoes have been detected of Lucan 1.187–8, where Roma appears before Caesar, after the crossing of the Rubicon, turrigero canos effundens vertice crines / caesarie lacerata, ‘her grey hair hung from her turreted head, its tresses torn’.115 But in Sidonius (Carm. 7.595–8) the ageing 106 107 108

109 110 111 112 113 114

115

See Bonjour (1982), Watson (1996), Kelly (2013b) 179–84, Consolino (2014). Consolino (2014). Roma’s clothes, arms, and shield are presented in 2.391–404, and her sandals are described in unusual detail in 2.401–4; see Watson (1996) and Consolino (2014). See Furbetta (2013a) 277. Though, for other models, see Montone (2013a) 8. See Consolino (2014) 157. See Bonjour (1982). Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 225. See Kelly (2013b) 183–4; and for the hierarchical structure of the assembly, which may mirror late antique bureaucracy, see Watson (1996), Tommasi (2015) 80 n. 46. See Kelly (2013b) 181, and further comments in Consolino (2014) 151–2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 301

13/02/20 4:00 PM

302

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

Roma will rejuvenate under an ageing emperor like Avitus, who is similar to Trajan (116–18), under whose reign, according to Florus, praef. 8, the empire, which because of the idleness of the emperors (inertia Caesarum) had grown old, recovered its youth.116 By way of contrast, scholars have stressed the images of rebirth at the beginning of the panegyric (5–7), for just as stars set only to rise again in even greater splendour, so will Rome: quae sicut mersa nitescunt, / adversis sic Roma micat, cui fixus ab ortu / ordo fuit crevisse malis, ‘as [stars] sink only to shine forth once more, so Rome flashes forth out of her calamities, since from her very beginning it has been her destiny to grow greater by misfortunes’.117 As has long been noted (as early, in fact, as Savaron in 1599), Rutilius Namatianus addresses Roma with very similar words after the sack of the city by the Visigoths in 410, comparing her destiny to that of the stars: 1.122–4 exemplo caeli ditia damna subis. / astrorum flammae renovant occasibus ortus; / lunam finiri cernis, ut incipiat, ‘you undergo enriching losses in the fashion of the heavens. The stars’ fires rise anew from their settings; you see the moon ended so that it can begin’; 1.139–40 illud te reparat, quod cetera regna resolvit: / ordo renascendi est crescere posse malis, ‘what undoes other kingdoms restores you: the beginning of rebirth is to be able to grow from misfortunes’:118 a concept which reappears in Sidonius’ Carm. 5.63–4 tua nempe putantur / surgere fata malis et celsior esse ruina, ‘for it is believed that your fortunes are exalted by misfortunes and that a fall makes you rise all the higher’. The similarity of context – a comparison with the celestial cycle119 – would seem to confirm the debt to Rutilius here, which has been rejected in the past.120 Further evidence of Rutilius’ influence may also, however, be detected in Sidonius’ Carm. 7.10–11 iam necte bifrontes, / anceps Iane, comas duplicique accingere lauro, ‘now bind your hair at both brows, two-headed Janus, and gird it with two laurel crowns’, where Janus is exhorted to wreathe his brow with laurel precisely as Roma is in Rutilius 1.115–16 erige crinales lauros seniumque sacrati / verticis in virides Roma recinge comas, ‘raise up the laurels in your hair, o Rome, and again bind the old age of your hallowed head into verdant locks’.121 In all three panegyrics, a lengthy section (with skilful variations in structure) is devoted to the biography of the laudandus, highlighting his merits in different spheres and his precocious qualities in accordance with the rhetorical convention of epainos. Here too we may detect the influence of Claudian. For example, the miraculous omens that accompany Anthemius’ birth and foretoken a golden age (Carm. 2.105–11) recall those marking the birth of Serena in Claudian’s Carm. min. 30 (Laus Ser.).70–82,122 and, in both cases, they are introduced by the formula te nascente ferunt, ‘at your birth, it is said’, a phrase which is found in no other text. In Carm. 2.75–9 Anthemius’ father Procopius is sent to negotiate with the Persians, who are astonished

116 117 118 119

120

121

122

Brocca (2004) 285. See also Tommasi (2014) 192. Ordo might be some sort of reminiscence (or gloss) of Vergil Ecl. 4 magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo. We must not forget that Avitus himself is compared to the sun in the invocation of Apollo which opens the panegyric (where Phoebus illuminates the sky, but Avitus lights up the earth), in an echo perhaps of the invocation of the sun in Claudian’s Olybr. 1–5 (see Furbetta (2013a) 282); Tommasi (2015) 79–81 notes other analogies. Schuster (1908) 15 prioritised Horace’s Carm. 4.4.65, where Hannibal underlines Rome’s ability to rise again when defeated: merses profundo, pulchrior evenit. In Schuster’s view, moreover, Sidonius fuses the allusion to Horace with an echo of Claudian Stil. 1.286 maior in adversis micuit, noted by Geisler. See Brocca (2004) 287–90 and (1999) 7–11, who defends the manuscripts’ reading recinge (that is, iterum cinge), against Heinsius’ emendation refinge (‘reshape’). See also, as a possible model, Claudian VI Hon. 641 (Ianus) ore coronatus gemino, ‘Janus, with crowns on his twin faces’, as Gavin Kelly points out to me. As noted by Geisler, but see also Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 220.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 302

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

303

to find extreme youth paired with diplomatic skill, mirroring what happens when Stilicho is sent to negotiate peace with Persia in Claudian’s Stil. 1.51–7.123 But in this instance, there is also an echo of Merobaudes celebrating Aëtius in Pan. 2.132–40124 and recalling how, as a boy, the future generalissimo was given as hostage to the Visigoths and won their admiration through his precocious talents.125 The link with Claudian here is perhaps confirmed by a shared trait in the description of the barbarian king (already noted by Geisler) where Sidonius’ gemmantem pateram rex ipse retentans, ‘the king himself holding a jewelled bowl’ (Carm. 2.87), closely echoes rex ipse micantem / inclinat dextra pateram in Stil. 1.61–2 (where, in both cases, the context is a religious ceremony to seal peace: ‘the king himself tilts the gleaming bowl in his right hand’). There is a more distant analogy with Merobaudes Pan. 2.134–5 rex ipse verendum / miratus pueri decus, ‘the king himself, admiring the boy’s impressive appearance’, where, moreover, the expression rex ipse, in itself fairly common, appears in the same, less usual, position at the beginning of the verse. There is, however, a more significant parallel126 between Merobaudes Pan. 2.98–9, where the speaker wishes that the war effort were personally conducted by a prince capable of reviving the ancient triumphs of Rome (non proelia mandet / sed gerat et priscis instauret fata triumphis, ‘let him not order, but wage fights, and bring ancient triumphs to life again’) and Sidonius Carm. 2.383–4 where Oenotria asks Father Tiber for someone veterum qui more parentum / non mandet sed bella gerat, ‘who in the manner of the ancients does not order wars but wage them’. Finally, in Merobaudes Pan. 2.121–4 Aëtius spends his childhood in a frozen, icebound world and it is on snow that he first learns to reptare, a verb frequently used when describing the childhood of heroes and princes (such as Achilles in Statius Achill. 1.476–9): ut vix prona novis erexit gressibus ora / primaque reptatis nivibus vestigia fixit, / mox iaculum petiere manus lusitque gelatis / imbribus.127 Sidonius presents a similar scene in his account of Avitus’ education (Carm. 7.171–3 lactantia primum / membra dedit nivibus, glaciemque inrumpere plantis / iussit et attritas parvum ridere pruinas,128 where Geisler perceives an echo of Vergil’s description of the education of the Rutuli in Aen. 9.603–4, a passage which also informs Sidonius’ Carm. 2.34–46, where he praises the strength of the Thracian people, cives Martis, who, from a tender age, are subjected to a rigorous education (36–7 excipit hic natos glacies et matris ab alvo / artus infantum molles nix civica durat129). Moreover, in Carm. 5.532–4, a Scythian soldier expresses astonishment that Majorian is even more capable of withstanding icy temperatures than he is.130 Conflicts between Rome and Africa inevitably invite comparisons with the Punic Wars. This theme is already proposed in Claudian Stil. praef. 3.21–4, where Stilicho is praised as a new Scipio (in reference to the former’s victory in the Gildonic War), and in the Bellum Geticum 138–44, where Alaric, invading Italy, is likened to a second Hannibal.131 Subsequently, Sidonius 123 124 125

126 127

128

129

130 131

The same is true of Avitus, whom Sidonius (Carm. 7.219–25) portrays at the Visigoth court in Toulouse. See Fo (1982a) 8–9, Bruzzone (1999) 214–16. The passages are linked by being set on foreign ground, above and beyond the more generic motif of the puer senex which is also found, for example, in Carm. 2.208–9 (Montone (2012a) 113). Already noted by Vollmer: see Bruzzone (1999) 177. ‘Scarcely had he learned to stand upright and left his first tottering footprints in the snow, his hands sought a missle and he played with frozen rain.’ See Bruzzone (1999) 199, Parkes (2005) 73, Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 72–3, who offers a lucid overview of the various themes. ‘First he laid the suckling’s limbs in the snow; he compelled him while a little child to break the ice with his feet and to laugh at the frost as he trod it down.’ See Clover (1971) 56 n. 142. ‘Here children are born into a world of ice, and their native snow hardens the soft limbs of infants even from the mother’s womb.’ See Gualandri (2001) 333 n. 49; other echoes are noted in Montone (2012a). See Condorelli (2008) 58. See Dewar (1994), Brolli (2004) 302–3.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 303

13/02/20 4:00 PM

304

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

presents Majorian (Carm. 5.102–3) as a tertius Africanus in his struggle against the Vandals, which is also portrayed as a fourth Punic War in Carm. 7.444.132 Equally inevitable is the evocation of Dido’s curse and the prophecy of an avenger in Aen. 4.625–9, which becomes the aition of every conflict between Africa and Rome. This theme is adumbrated in the proem to Silius Italicus’ Punica133 and is further developed in Sidonius’ Carm. 5, where Africa asks Roma for an emperor to defend her, weaving, at the beginning and end of her speech, a web of allusive references to the opening of the Aeneid (as noted by Geisler) which frame future events in terms of the opposition between Africa and Italy: see Carm. 5.100–4, which speaks of a prince venturum excidio Libyae, ‘who will come to lay Libya waste’, an explicit quotation from Aen. 1.22–3 hinc populum late regem belloque superbum / venturum excidio Libyae, ‘from here a people, ruling far and wide and proud in war, would come to lay Libya waste’; Carm. 5.347–9 where Africa implores ultorem mihi redde precor, ne dimicet ultra / Carthago Italiam contra, ‘I beg you, give me [this man] to be my avenger, so that Carthage may cease to war against Italy’, echoing both Aen. 1.12–13 urbs antiqua fuit (Tyrii tenuere coloni) / Karthago, Italiam contra and Dido’s words in Aen. 4.625–9 exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor . . . litora litoribus contraria, fluctibus undas / imprecor.134 Traces of Silius Italicus, generally rare in Sidonius,135 have been detected by Brolli (2004) 304–6 in the description of Majorian’s winter crossing of the Alps in Carm. 5.510–52, where, alongside many traits common to the panegyric tradition (from Pliny the Younger through the Panegyrici Latini to Claudian), she detects the influence of Silius’ depiction of Hannibal’s famous march in 3.477–556, 630–46, which Sidonius echoes in a few phrases. Silius’ influence is mingled here with echoes of Petronius (who similarly described Caesar’s crossing of the Alps), and the picture is further complicated by traces of Claudian (Get. 319–63, where Stilicho crosses the Alps136), Prudentius, Statius, and Martial.137 Reminiscences of Silius are mostly concentrated in Majorian’s speech to his troops, who are daunted by the difficulty of the task ahead. At several points, the speech evokes details of Hannibal’s trek (for example, see Silius 3.518–20 for Carm. 5.540–2) or directly echoes Hannibal’s own speeches (compare Carm. 5.543–7 and Silius 17.317–19, where, before the battle of Zama, Hannibal reminds his troops of the difficulties that they overcame on the Alps) with some precise verbal correspondences (such as the clausula agmina voce in Carm. 5.549 which occurs in Sil. 7.530 and 17.124, but is otherwise found in no other poet;138 as Montone (2012a) notes, another expression which is unique to the two poets is geminas Alpes, ‘both Alps’, which figures in both Silius 2.333 and Carm. 5.594).

7 Mechanisms of Intertextuality in the Letters There are a fair number of direct quotations in Sidonius’ letters,139 even if he generally prefers to paraphrase or otherwise rework the original.140 In various places we encounter verses or 132 133 134

135

136 137 138 139 140

On the evolution of this motif, see Álvarez Jimenez (2011), Montone (2012a, 2013a). See Brolli (2004) 300–1, following von Albrecht (1964). ‘There once was an ancient city, inhabited by Tyrian colonists, Carthage, over against Italy’; ‘may an avenger arise from my bones . . . coast against coast, I beg, waves against seas’. Note how Sidonius places venturum excidio Libyae and Carthago Italiam contra in exactly the same verse position. On the limited diffusion of his work, see van Waarden (2010) 350–1; see below for the letters; Geisler notes few parallels, some of which are generic (but Filosini (2014a) 176 detects the contamination of two expressions used by Silius). See Dewar (1994) 352. See Brolli (2004) 307–8. See Brolli (2004) 310. On Sidonius’ letters see Gibson’s ch. 11 in this volume and Mratschek (2017). See Harries (1994) 108, 113, van Waarden (2010) 52–5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 304

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

305

phrases reproduced word for word, sometimes with the name of the author cited, as with Vergil in Ep. 1.5.5, 4.11.6, 4.24.1, 5.17.7.141 Likewise in Ep. 4.15.3 Tullianum illud introduces a quotation from Cicero, while in Ep. 4.14.1, we find a phrase from Tacitus, whose name (Gaius Tacitus) appears at the very beginning of the letter, where he is identified as an ancestor of the addressee Polemius.142 Sallust is mentioned in Ep. 5.3.2, in connection with Catil. 20.4, and he is also recalled in Ep. 9.9.2. Horace is the Calaber ille of Ep. 1.11.1, which quotes from his Sat. 2.1.82–3, and Juvenal is the satiricus of Ep. 8.16.1 and Ep. 8.9.1 (which quote from Sat. 1.5–6 and Sat. 7.62 respectively). A somewhat vaguer reference is provided by ille in 1.11.7, which echoes Lucan 5.322–3, and perhaps its very vagueness is an indication of the poet’s fame, if so slight a hint is judged sufficient to evoke him. Moreover, two particularly significant lines of Lucan (1.427–8) are paraphrased in Ep. 7.7.2, without his name being mentioned, while a phrase from Terence Ad. 413 is cited anonymously as being proverbial. In Ep. 8.10.1, a pithy phrase is attributed to Symmachus (Symmachianum illud: ut vera laus ornat, ita falsa castigat, ‘the dictum of Symmachus: “As true praise is an honour, so false praise is a rebuke”’) which is otherwise unknown to us. As far as Christian texts are concerned, one might point to the two quotations from the gospel of Luke in Ep. 6.1.2: the phrase exi a me quia peccator sum, domine, ‘depart from me, for I am a sinful man, o Lord’, from Luke 5.8 (introduced with quod dixit domino tuus ille collega, ‘in the words addressed to our Lord by that colleague of yours’, as it is spoken by St Peter, a ‘colleague’ of Sidonius’ addressee Bishop Lupus of Troyes), followed shortly afterwards by si vis, potes me mundare, ‘if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean’, from Luke 5.12. Luke (11.5) also appears anonymously in Ep. 4.2.4 iuxta formam evangelii largitoris, quod non das amico esurienti dabis improbo pulsanti, ‘you are modelling yourself on the bountiful giver in the gospel, and you will give the importunate knocker at your door what you will not give to a hungry friend’. If we take a closer look at echoes of older authors in the letters, then we find, as I noted above, that they are numerous but not always specific.143 Pliny is an exemplary case here. Although Sidonius often cites him as an epistolary model together with Symmachus (Ep. 1.1.1), his influence is visible less in the language of the letters (which owes more to Apuleius and Fronto, as well as more archaic sources such as Plautus and Terence144) than in terms of literary genre, that is, in the overall structure of the letter collections and in the choice and arrangement of themes.145 As such, it has been suggested146 that echoes of Pliny and Symmachus may be due less to memory processes than to a posteriori editorial interventions on Sidonius’ part as he revised his letters for publication (Ep. 1.1.1 retractatis exemplaribus enucleatisque) and reworked them to bring them closer to his preferred models: a hypothesis that is probably based on the conviction that prose is less memorable than verse, which, as we have seen, has been challenged by recent studies on Pliny himself. 141

142 143 144 145

146

In some places, phrases from Vergil are inserted without mention of the author’s name. Examples include Ep. 4.4.10 pauci quos aequus amavit (Aen. 6.129), ‘a few, whom just [Jupiter]/the just man loved’; Ep. 8.6.2 si parva magnis componere licet, ‘if we may compare small things to great’ (Georg. 4.176, Ecl. 1.23: not word for word, but with a proverbial value); Ep. 7.18.1 a te principium, tibi desinet (Ecl. 8.11 a te principium, tibi desinam, ‘from you I made my start, with you I/the work shall end’), addressed to Constantius of Lyon, the recipient of the first and last letters of the first collection. As Gavin Kelly points out to me, desinet is an ancient variant in the text of Vergil. Amherdt (2001) 342. Van Waarden (2010) 52. See van Waarden (2010) 54–5. Köhler (1995) 25; Gibson (2013b) 336 speaks of an ‘architectural engagement with Pliny’. On the subject matter of the letters, see the list in Loyen (1943) 126 n. 59, Bellès (1997) 19–24; Gibson, ch. 11 in this volume. Stevens (1933) 61.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 305

13/02/20 4:00 PM

306

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

Precise correspondences can nonetheless be traced. For Pliny and Symmachus, for example, there are particularly striking examples at the beginning (and sometimes the end) of letters where Sidonius’ incipit (or explicit) echoes his model, making his dependence on it altogether evident.147 The most significant instance is the opening letter of the first collection (Books 1–7),148 where Sidonius (Ep. 1.1.1) reminds his correspondent, Constantius of Lyon, that it would be presumptuous to think of emulating Quintus Symmachus’ rounded style (rotunditatem) and Gaius Plinius’ ripe artistry (disciplinam maturitatemque), but is, in fact, reworking and amplifying Pliny the Younger’s introductory letter to Septicius Clarus, using very similar expressions, as already noted by Geisler.149 The very first words Diu praecipis . . . ut, si quae mihi litterae paulo politiores varia occasione fluxerunt . . . uno volumine includam, ‘You have long been requesting me to include all the letters making any little claim to taste that have flowed from my pen in a single book’, correspond to Plin. Ep. 1.1.1 frequenter hortatus es, ut epistulas, si quas paulo curatius scripsissem, colligerem publicaremque, ‘you have often urged me to collect and publish any letters of mine which were composed with some care’ (tr. Radice). The similarity in structure and word placement is evident but, as Köhler (1995) 99 observes, each of Pliny’s words is substituted with a synonym (which warns us that traces of an author can be well camouflaged). We might add that, in a coming together of influences,150 fluxerunt recalls the dedicatory letter of the first book of Statius’ Silvae (an hos libellos, qui mihi subito calore et quadam festinandi voluptate fluxerunt . . . congregatos ipse dimitterem151), a text to which we shall return later. The first lines of Pliny’s collection are again recalled in a sort of ring composition (underlined by the opening quotation from Vergil’s Ecl. 8.11 A te principium, tibi desinet, ‘With you it began, for you it will end’) at the beginning of the last letter, Ep. 7.18.1, also addressed to Constantius of Lyon, where Sidonius claims that he has gathered together letters quae . . . in manus pauca venerunt, ‘[of which] only a small number came to hand’, and hactenus incustodita, ‘which so far had not been carefully kept’, just as Pliny in Ep. 1.1.1–2 writes of collegi [sc. epistulas] . . . ut quaeque in manus venerat, ‘I have now made a collection . . . as they came to my hand’, and refers to those quae adhuc neglectae iacent, ‘which have hitherto been put away and forgotten’.152 This is an interesting example of ‘divided allusion’ (see above). We repeatedly find similar, though not necessarily verbatim, echoes at the beginning of letters (largely noted by Geisler), which in some cases seem intended to set the overall tone of the letter and to draw the reader’s attention to thematic analogies with Pliny, although at times these can be quite generic:153 for, example, the contrast between present and past in Sidon. Ep. 3.8.1 (on the political situation) Veneror antiquos, non tamen ita ut qui aequaevorum meorum virtutes aut merita postponam, and Plin. Ep. 6.21.1 (on more literary subjects) Sum ex iis qui mirer antiquos, non tamen (ut quidam) temporum nostrorum ingenia despicio154 (to which Sidonius adds

147 148 149

150 151

152 153 154

For a typology of opening sentences, see van Waarden (2010) 46–8; Wolff, ch. 12 in this volume. On the assembly of the collection, see Loyen (1970) 2.x, xlvi-xlix; Bellès (1997) 8–11. See the analysis in Gibson (2013b) 334–5; see also Gibson’s remarks in this volume, ch. 11, sect. 2, p. 387: ‘for all the formidable interpretative problems posed by this passage, it is clear that at its heart lies a canon of Latin epistolary works and writers, into which Sidonius is now seeking entry, with due modesty’. Köhler (1995) 103; Condorelli (2008) 195. ‘Whether I should myself collect and send these pieces which I produced in the heat of the moment and with a certain pleasure in speed’. This use of calor is echoed in Sidonius’ Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 42 primo iuvenis calore. See Gibson (2013b) 335. See the examples listed by Gibson (2013b) 347–54. ‘I am one of those that marvels at the ancients, but I do not (like some) look down on literary talents of my own generation.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 306

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

307

traditional historical examples and themes from Livy155). Likewise, Ep. 4.11.1 announces the death of Claudianus Mamertus with the words Angit me nimis damnum saeculi mei, just as Plin. Ep. 7.19.1 brings news of the serious illness of a noblewoman with Angit me Fanniae valetudo.156 There is a more tenuous verbal analogy between the opening words of Ep. 2.9.1 (Quaeris cur ipse iampridem Nemausium profectus vestra serum ob adventum desideria producam) and Plin. Ep. 2.17.1 (Miraris cur me Laurentinum vel (si ita mavis) Laurens meum tanto opere delectet);157 but there is a close thematic link, as Sidonius proceeds to give a detailed description of the villas of his friends Ferreolus and Apollinaris, just as Pliny does with his own beloved Laurentinum. There is no contextual connection, conversely, between Ep. 2.2.1 (Ruri me esse causaris, cum mihi potius queri suppetat te nunc in urbe retineri) and Symm. Ep. 8.18 (In agro me esse miraris. at ego iustius stupeo ad communem te patriam spreto ruris otio reverti).158 The openings of both Sidonius’ Ep. 6.12.1 (Aliquis aliquem, ego illum praecipue puto suo vivere bono, qui vivit alieno) and Pliny’s Ep. 9.3.1 (Alius aliud: ego beatissimum existimo qui bonae mansuraeque famae praesumptioni perfruitur) introduce a series of moral observations.159 In Ep. 8.2.1, Sidonius addresses Johannes, the teacher fighting for the survival of Latin letters in Gaul, with the words quarum quodammodo iam sepultarum suscitator fautor assertor concelebraris in a similar style to Plin. 8.12.1, where Titinius Capito is described as ipsarum denique litterarum senescentium reductor ac reformator.160 Further analogies may be traced at the beginning of letters on the theme of friendship: for example, between Ep. 5.10.1 (Si quid omnino Pragmatius illustris, hoc inter reliquas animi virtutes optime facit, quod amore studiorum te singulariter amat) and Plin. Ep. 4.15.1 (Si quid omnino, hoc certe iudicio facio, quod Asinium Rufum singulariter amo);161 or between Ep. 5.9.1 In meo aere duco si and Symm. Ep. 3.14 In aere meo duco, quod (and 3.43.1 Fortunae tuae gaudia in meo aere duco).162 There is a purely verbal correlation (without any contextual parallel) between Ep. 5.13.1 Seronatum Tolosa nosti redire? si nondum, et credo quod nondum, vel per haec disce and Plin. Ep. 8.8.1 Vidistine aliquando Clitumni fontem? si nondum (et puto nondum) . . . vide.163 The same is true of Ep. 9.3.1 Servat consuetudinem suam and Symm. Ep. 9.15.1 Consuetudinem meam 155 156

157

158

159

160

161

162 163

See Giannotti (2016) 190–1. ‘I am pained at the loss which my generation has sustained’; ‘I am pained by Fannia’s illness.’ See also Sidon. Ep. 1.7.1 Angit me casus Arvandi, ‘I am pained by Arvandus’ fall.’ ‘You ask me why, having started long ago for Nemausus, I am causing you so long a disappointment by my tardiness in arriving’; ‘You wonder why my Laurentine place, or Laurentian, if you like that better, gives me such pleasure.’ For description of villas in Pliny and Sidonius, see Mratschek in this volume, ch. 5, sect. 2. ‘You grumble at my staying in the country, whereas I have better reason to complain of your being detained in town’; ‘You wonder about my being on my estate. Rather am I astonished at your returning to our common home town while rejecting the leisure of country life.’ ‘Opinions differ, but I think that he most truly lives for his own good who lives for the good of others’; ‘Different folk have different views: I think that the most fortunate man is the one who enjoys the expectation of a good and lasting reputation.’ Whitton (2018) 139 n. 5 notes that Sidonius probably had a manuscript of Pliny in the branch of the tradition that reads alius alium. ‘For you are acclaimed as [literature’s] reviver, promoter, and champion when it lay more or less buried’; ‘the restorer and reformer of literature itself in its decline’. See Mratschek in this volume, ch. 6, sect. 1, p. 238. ‘If among the character traits which distinguish the illustrious Pragmatius anything stands out as specially praiseworthy, it is that his love of letters inspires him with a unique love of you’; ‘If anything is proof that I do not lack judgment, it must be my special affection for Asinius Rufus’ (tr. Radice). ‘I consider it an asset . . . that’; ‘I consider it an asset that’;‘I consider as an asset the delight at your good fortune.’ ‘Do you know that Seronatus is on his way back from Toulouse? If you don’t yet know (and I suppose you don’t), then know it hereby’; ‘Have you ever seen the spring of Clitumnus? If you haven’t yet (and I think you haven’t) . . . see it’. Geisler adds the opening line of Plin. Ep. 4.11 Audistine Valerium Licinianum in Sicilia profiteri? nondum te puto audisse: est enim recens nuntius, ‘Have you heard that Valerius Licinianus is teaching in Sicily? I rather think you won’t have heard: the news is recent.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 307

13/02/20 4:00 PM

308

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

servo.164 Another class of analogy relates to courtesy formulae or epistolary etiquette. Compare, for example, Ep. 6.6.1, which laments a suspension in the exchange of letters and express the fear ne vester affectus . . . duceret ut gladius impolitus de curae raritate robiginem, and Symm. Ep. 7.55 obsolescere . . . silentii robigine animorum foedus existimas.165 See also Ep. 9.10.1 reddidit tibi epistulas meas quem mihi tuas offerre par fuerat and Symm. Ep. 2.32.1 reddet tibi litteras meas qui tuas mihi debuit exhibere;166 Ep. 9.12.1 venit in nostras a te profecta pagina manus and Symm. Ep. 1.23.1 in manus meas pagina recens a te profecta pervenit;167 Ep. 8.13.1 multa in te genera virtutum . . . munere superno congesta gaudemus and Symm. Ep. 3.74.1 multa in te virtutum natura congessit.168 Conversely, the opening words of Ep. 7.3.1 Diu multumque deliberavi are modelled on the dedicatory letter in the first book of Statius’ Silvae, which begins Diu multumque dubitavi.169 An echo of this phrase has also been detected in Ep. 1.1.1, confirming Sidonius’ dependence on this model. The allusion suggests, as van Waarden (2010) 200 argues, a parallel between the situations of Statius and Sidonius, with the former dedicating a collection of poems to another poet, Arruntius Stella, and the latter sending a volume of liturgical texts to a brother bishop who is also actively engaged in diffusing such material. Moreover, the conclusion of another dedicatory letter, in the second book of the Silvae (haec qualiacumque sunt . . . si tibi non displicuerint, a te publicum accipiant; si minus, ad me revertantur) seems to be mirrored at the end of Ep. 5.17.11 (which accompanies some verses written on request): si placet, edentes fovete; si displicet, delentes ignoscitote.170 Others passages, which are worth examining in closer detail, reveal a complex patchwork of reminiscences. Some of the most interesting occur in the letters that Sidonius writes as a bishop describing how the Auvergne stands up to the Visigoth threat and drawing parallels with other struggles celebrated in the epic tradition. We encounter yet another significant incipit in Ep. 3.2.1 addressed to Constantius of Lyon, who, despite his advanced age and the dangers of the road, has come to the besieged city of Clermont to comfort the people with his presence: Salutat populus Arvernus, cuius parva tuguria magnus hospes implesti, ‘The community of the Arverni greet you, the mighty guest, who have filled their humble cottages with your presence.’ The reference (noted by Geisler) is to Pliny’s Panegyric of Trajan, 15.4, where the poet foresees that, amongst all the hardships endured by the emperor, posterity will recall quod denique tectum magnus hospes impleveris, ‘which roof you, mighty guest, filled with your presence’, which suggests that Sidonius is implicitly comparing Constantius and Trajan.171 There is a further echo, however, of a passage in Claudian’s Get. 356–63 (perhaps also inspired by 164 165

166

167

168

169 170

171

‘. . . sticks to its usual practice’; ‘I stick to my usual practice.’ ‘That your affection . . . like an unburnished sword, should gather rust from insufficient care’; ‘You believe that our hearts’ bond declines due to the rust of silence.’ ‘My letter has been delivered to you by the messenger who ought rightly to have brought me one from you’; ‘My letter will be delivered to you by the messenger who should have brought me one from you.’ ‘There has come into my hands a letter sent from you’; ‘There has come into my hands a letter sent recently from you.’ ‘I rejoice that, by heaven’s grace, there are combined in you virtues of many kinds’; ‘Nature has combined many virtues in you.’ For Sidonius and Symmachus, see Condorelli (2015) 499–507; Gibson in this volume, ch. 11, sect. 3, p. 391, remarks that ‘it is clear that Sidonius’ correspondence does become more Symmachan, in some respects, as it approaches its first ending in Book 7’. ‘I considered long and seriously’; ‘I hesitated long and seriously.’ ‘However this may be . . . if you’re not dissatisfied with it, let it gain an audience through your offices; if not so, return it to me’; ‘If satisfied with it, publish and support it, if dissatisfied, destroy and forgive it.’ See Giannotti (2016) 123–4.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 308

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

309

Pliny) describing Stilicho’s arduous winter trek through Noricum, his crossing of the Alps, and his brief halts in poor hovels where stat pallidus hospite magno / pastor et ignoto praeclarum nomine vultum / rustica sordenti genetrix ostendit alumno, ‘the shepherd stands pale at his mighty guest, and the rustic mother points out to her squalid infant the glorious face whose name she does not know’.172 This is reinforced in the following section, where, in a highly elaborate style, Sidonius describes the difficulties faced by Constantius on his journey (Ep. 3.2.3) and seems to have in mind Claudian Get. 321–48.173 The overall effect, then, is to give Sidonius’ account a heroic flavour. Similarly, Sidonius brings an epic solemnity, again drawing on Claudian,174 to the description in Ep. 3.3.3–6 of a feat performed by his brother-in-law Ecdicius.175 Ecdicius pierces through the Visigoth blockade to reach Clermont beneath the anguished gaze of its citizens, who first watch him approach from the heights of the city’s half-destroyed walls, then welcome him with a great display of joy. The tension suffered by the besieged populace, which finally melts at the arrival of a saviour, closely mirrors the reaction of the Milanese after Stilicho breaks through the Visigoth blockade of the Adda and reaches the city in Claudian’s Get. 450–68 (which itself partly draws on Aen. 8.592–3, 12.131).176 Shades of Lucan have been detected in the dramatic tones of two other letters on the dangers facing Clermont: Ep. 7.1 on the Rogation ceremonies which, following the example of his addressee Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, Sidonius introduced in 472/3 under the threat of a new Visigoth siege, and Ep. 7.3 on the plight of its citizens handed over to the barbarians along with the rest of the Auvergne by the treaty of 475. In Ep. 7.1 the Visigoths’ ominous advance towards the defenceless city reworks and verbally echoes Caesar’s march on Rome as related in Lucan 1.220–66, reminding the reader of its tragic conclusion.177 Lucan describes the distress suffered by the people of Rimini, the first city to be overrun following Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, as they complain of being (1.250–1) praeda furentum / primaque castra, ‘the booty and the first encampment of these madmen’, just as in Sidonius’ Ep. 7.1.1 the Arvernians lament that huic semper irruptioni nos miseri Arverni ianua sumus, ‘we luckless Arvernians are always the gateway to such incursions’. As Caesar approaches Rome in Lucan 1.484–98, the people flee the city, terrified by a number of ill omens (described in 522–82 and, in particular, 559–60) which they attempt to forestall in a series of purification ceremonies (1.584–638). Following the same pattern in Ep. 7.1.3,178 Sidonius recalls that when Mamertus introduced the rogationes in Vienne, the town per cuiusque modi prodigiorum terriculamenta179 vacuabatur, ‘was being emptied of its people by alarms caused by all kinds of prodigies’. Lucan’s propitiatory rites find an equivalent in the prayers and ceremonies of the Christian faith, inspired by Jonah’s prophecies of Nineveh’s ruin and the penitence which these arouse in its people (ad nova celer veterum Ninivitarum exempla decurristi, ‘you promptly resorted to a version of the historic procedure at Nineveh’, 7.1.3). Besides the biblical source (Jonah 1.2), van Waarden (2010) 102 points to the account of the same episode in Prudentius Cath. 7.81-195, particularly vv. 176 and 143–5. With even greater complexity, the flames that miraculously retreat before 172 173 174 175 176

177 178 179

See Gualandri (1979) 36. This theme distantly recalls Aeneas visiting Evander’s humble abode in Aen. 8.359–69. See Gualandri (1979) 36. See Gualandri (1979) 37–8. See Giannotti (2016) 133–49. There is also a further echo of Pliny’s Panegyric of Trajan: cf. Ep. 3.3.3 quod difficile sit posteritas creditura (‘what future generations will hardly believe’) and Plin. Pan. 9 credentne posteri? (‘will future generations believe it?’). Gualandri (1979) 40–7, van Waarden (2010) 75–7. Perhaps also thinking of the portents accompanying Alaric’s descent on Italy in Claud. Get. 240–57. An interesting Apuleian neologism, Apol. 64.7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 309

13/02/20 4:00 PM

310

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

Mamertus (Ep. 7.1.4) are unexpectedly likened to Vergil’s Camilla (Aen. 11.653–4), who, although obliged to admit defeat, continues to shoot arrows while retreating.180 The influence of Ambrose Paenit. 2.5 and 2.8 has been detected a little further on (7.1.5), where Mamertus warns the populace that the fire aqua potius oculorum quam fluminum posse restingui, ‘could be quenched rather by the water of tears than by that of rivers’.181 Finally, a gospel echo has been perceived in 7.1.6, where, upon hearing of the marvellous example set by Vienne, the people of Clermont vestigia tam sacrosanctae informationis amplectitur, ‘eagerly follow the lead of your hallowed instruction’. Here the complex passage from the proper sense of amplecti to a figurative sense recalls the sinful woman in Luke 7.37–8 who bathes Christ’s feet with her tears (et osculabatur pedes eius), dries them with her hair, and anoints them with myrrh.182 There are also traces of Lucan in two elements of Ep. 7.7.183 First, there is a direct quotation of Lucan 1.427 in 7.7.2 where Sidonius recalls that the Arvernians ‘dared once to call themselves “brothers to Latium” and counted themselves “a people sprung from Trojan blood”’ (audebant se quondam fratres Latio dicere et sanguine ab Iliaco populos computare). Second, the description in 7.7.3 of the hunger suffered by the people of Clermont during the siege is a refined reworking of the passage in Lucan 6.109–17, where he depicts Caesar’s famished soldiers as they lay besieged in their camp at Dyrrachium (an analogy suggested by Savaron but omitted by Geisler). But, as van Waarden (2010) 350–1 has noted, there are also surprising conceptual and formal analogies between Sidonius’ passionate account of recent events, showing the Arvernians’ courage and their refusal to surrender to the barbarians, and the passage in Silius Italicus 11.173–82 where, seeking to persuade the citizens of Capua not to surrender to Hannibal and to remain faithful to Rome, Decius reels off the exploits with which the Romans have distinguished themselves.184 The resemblance is made stylistically evident by the use in both cases of the anaphoric structure hi sunt qui . . . hi sunt qui . . . illi . . . . But Lucan also provides the model for an entirely different kind of episode: the description of the sumptuous banquet prepared by the tyrant Dionysius, which Damocles must attend with a sword hanging over his head (Ep. 2.13.6). Sidonius’ starting point here is the description of the banquet at Cleopatra’s palace in Lucan 10.155–68.185 Although Sidonius’ exposition of the theme of luxury clearly belongs to a moralistic tradition and probably draws on scholastic examples (see the use made of these in Claudian Ruf. 1.204–16), there are nonetheless clear verbal analogies with Lucan (cf. Sidon. Ep. 2.13.6 and Luc. 10.122–5; Sidon. Ep. 2.13.7 and Luc. 10.159–67). A completely different function is served by the dense mesh of literary and learned reminiscences in Ep. 1.5 which describes Sidonius’ journey from Lyon to Rome in the autumn of 467.186 Such referentiality is, in fact, pre-announced at the beginning of the letter, where Sidonius reminds his addressee that he has asked him to write about what he has encountered and about whatever myth, poetry, or history has made famous, that is, rivers, cities, mountains, or ancient battlegrounds. He has been invited, then, to re-experience in loco everything

180 181 182 183 184 185 186

See van Waarden (2010) 108, with supplementary remarks at (2016a) 354–5 (ad pp. 104–9). See Prévot (1997a) 227. See van Waarden (2010) 117–18. See Gualandri (1979) 40–3, van Waarden (2010) 347. See also Mratschek (2013) 258–9 and in this volume, ch. 6, sect. 2, p. 239. Gualandri (1979) 72–4. See Gualandri (1979) 49–55, Köhler (1995) 183–215, Fo (1991) 65–6; Eigler (1997), Piacente (2005), Soler (2005) 340–8, Wolff (2012c), Fournier and Stoehr Monjou (2014, 2015), Hanaghan (2017c). Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou above all emphasise the cultural, spiritual, and political valency of the space described.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 310

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

311

that he has learned at school about the geography and history of Italy. The opening words of his account egresso mihi Rhodanusiae nostrae moenibus, ‘when I passed the gates of our native Rhône town’ (Ep. 1.5.2),187 immediately evoke the incipit of Horace’s journey to Brundisium in Sat. 1.5 egressum magna me excepit Aricia Roma, ‘after leaving great Rome Aricia welcomed me’.188 Sidonius’ debt to Horace is then confirmed by analogies between various episodes in their journeys (such as the description of the unhealthy waters of Ravenna in Ep. 1.5.6, and in Ep. 1.5.8 the fever and thirst that the traveller endures mirror those in Horace Sat. 1.5.7, 1.5.30, 1.5.49189), even if their itineraries do not coincide and Rome is Sidonius’ destination, whereas for Horace it is the starting point. Horace provides the general concept, then, which is enriched by numerous echoes of other poets. Having crossed the Alps and entered the Po Valley, Sidonius encounters a series of rivers (§4 ulvosum Lambrum, caerulum Adduam, velocem Athesim, pigrum Mincium, ‘the sedgy Lambrus, the blue Addua, the swift Athesis, and the sluggish Mincius’)190 which are described in terms reminiscent of Claudian (cf. Claud. VI Hon. 194–7); but immediately afterwards (§4), when describing their banks (quorum [sc. fluminum] ripae torique passim quernis acernisque nemoribus vestiebantur, ‘their banks and knolls were everywhere clad with groves of oak and maple’), Sidonius evokes the famous passage in Plin. Ep. 8.8.4 on the sources of the Clitumnus (ripae fraxino multa, multa populo vestiuntur, ‘the banks are densely clad with ash trees and poplars’), enhanced by a borrowing from Vergil (Aen. 6.674 riparum toros, ‘the knolls of their banks’). Vergil is then directly evoked when Sidonius comes to Cremona in 1.5.5: Cremonam adveni, cuius est olim Tityro Mantuano largum suspirata proximitas, ‘I came to Cremona, whose proximity caused Mantuan Tityrus to sigh profusely in days of old’, which clearly alludes to Ecl. 9.27 Mantua vae miserae nimium vicina Cremonae, ‘Mantua, alas, too near to wretched Cremona’. Köhler (1995) 197 detects the influence of Servius’ commentary ad loc. and of Martial 8.55.7–8 iugera perdiderat miserae vicina Cremonae / flebat et abductas Tityrus aeger oves, ‘Sickly Tityrus had lost his acres near to wretched Cremona and was weeping for his stolen sheep.’ Ravenna is described in parodoxical terms: it is surrounded and criss-crossed by canals, but its water is undrinkable, so that in medio undarum sitiebamus, ‘we were thirsty though surrounded by water’ (1.5.6), where Köhler (1995) 201 notes an echo of Martial Epigr. 3.56 and 57, to which we shall return later. The influence of Lucan can be seen in the mention of the Rubicon (1.5.7), which gives the etymology of its name and recalls its former role as a boundary between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy: Sidonius Ep. 1.5.7 qui originem nomini de glarearum colore puniceo mutuabatur, quique olim Gallis Cisalpinis Italisque veteribus terminus erat, ‘the name is derived from the red tint of its gravel. This used to be the dividing line between Cisalpine Gaul and the old Italy.’ This seems to gloss Lucan 1.214–16: puniceus Rubicon . . . / . . . Gallica certus / limes ab Ausoniis disterminat arva colonis, ‘red Rubicon, 187

188

189 190

In Ep. 1.5.1, there are a number of rare terms or expressions which are reminiscent of Pliny: cf. Sidonius gaudeo te quid agam cupere cognoscere, ‘I am delighted that you long to learn how I am doing’, and Plin. Ep. 6.20.1 ais te . . . cupere cognoscere, quos ego . . . casus pertulerim, ‘you say you long to learn what hazards I faced’; monstrabilis with the sense of insignis, ‘conspicuous’, is only otherwise found in Plin. Ep. 6.21.3; for voluptuosus, see Plin. Ep. 3.19.2; for sinisteritas, see Plin. Ep. 6.17.3 and 9.5.2. According to Hertz (1882) 17, it is no coincidence that both letters occupy the fifth position in the first book; but something has been lost in the text in Ep. 1.4 and, as Gavin Kelly points out to me, it is far from certain that the end of 1.4 comes from the same letter as the first two sentences of it. See also Kelly’s ch. 3 in this volume, n. 11. See Soler (2005) 345–7. Sidonius claims to have briefly viewed all of these, travelling upstream wherever necessary. This would be possible in the case of the Lambrus (modern Lambro), Addua (Adda), and Mincius (Mincio), which run into the river Po, but not in the case of the Athesis (Adige), which flows directly into the Adriatic (Piacente (2005) 103). This detail therefore confirms the ‘literary’ character of the account.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 311

13/02/20 4:00 PM

312

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

a fixed boundary which divides the land of Gaul from the Ausonian farmers’. The next stretch of Sidonius’ itinerary, from Ravenna to Rome along the Via Flaminia, is the same route followed by the emperor Honorius in late 403 and described by Claudian in his Panegyric on the Sixth Consulship of Honorius, 494–522, leading to some parallels in the places listed at Gualandri (1979) 52 n. 58. Sidonius makes particular mention of Fanum, of the river Metaurus (and, with an echo of Horace Carm. 2.1.33–6, of the battle fought there and the ensuing slaughter of the Carthaginians), the Clitumnus (whose icy waters recall the famous description in Plin. Ep. 8.8.5), the Fucinus (whose water is vitrea as in Verg. Aen. 7.759),191 the Anio, the Fabaris, and the Nar. Horace meets Pliny in the description of the climate which provokes sickness and fever in Sidonius (§8). On the one hand, the hot blast of the Calaber Atabulus recalls Horace’s Sat. 1.5.77; on the other, the miasmas of the pestilens regio Tuscorum (the Maremma) echo Plin. Ep. 5.6.2 (sane gravis et pestilens ora Tuscorum, ‘to be sure the Tuscans’ shore is oppressive and pestilent’). Both are mentioned with little regard for geographical accuracy. The journey ends on a more personal note, turning it into a pilgrimage, at the gates of Rome (§9) where Sidonius prostrates himself before the tombs of the Apostles at the basilicas of St Peter and St Paul Outside the Walls, and is cured of his illness.192 A very different tone is struck in the brief description (§10) of the city celebrating the marriage of the patrician Ricimer with the daughter of the emperor Anthemius per omnia theatra macella, praetoria fora, templa gymnasia, ‘in every theatre, marketplace, camp, lawcourt, church, and playground’, a model for which has been convincingly traced in Plautus Amph. 1011-13.193 Just as with the poems, a single word is sometimes enough to evoke an earlier text.194 Particularly interesting are unusual terms derived from the comic tradition, although it is not always easy to establish whether these imply a direct knowledge of the original or are mediated via lexicons or archaising writers (especially Apuleius, who particularly appealed to Sidonius’ glossographical taste195). An example here would be the wry account of the trick played by the callidus Amantius in Ep. 7.2 when he plays on Sidonius’ ignorance in order to extract a letter of recommendation.196 Skilfully concealing his precarious financial situation, Amantius, an ecclesiastical lector but also a trader on the Clermont–Marseille route, succeeds in marrying the daughter of a rich widow and carrying home both the bride and the dowry before his new mother-in-law uncovers the deception. The Apuleian hypotext identified by van Waarden (2010) 135 (the story of Thrasyllus in Met. 8.1.14) is confirmed by Sidonius’ own words in Ep. 7.2.9 when he likens the episode to a Milesian fabula (just as Apuleius did with his own narrative in Met. 1.1), or to a Greek comedy (see van Waarden (2010) 134; and Sidonius 191

192

193 194 195 196

In Sid. Ep. 1.5.8 the transmitted reading of the MSS is vitrea Fucini (scil. fluenta), defended by Gualandri (1979) 54–5 n. 66 and accepted by Bellès (1997) 166, against Velini, an emendation of Mommsen’s accepted by other editors and defended by Wolff (2012c) 8. See Fo (1991) 65, Eigler (1997) 175–6, Soler (2005) 347–8, Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2015) 281; against Wolff (2012c). According to Augustine (Serm. 61.25–6 Dolbeau), this form of devotion had also become habitual for emperors when they celebrated their adventus to Rome; but on imperial visits see now Kelly (2016a). See Köhler (1995) 211. See Wolff’s ch. 12 in this volume on vocabulary and style. See Gualandri (1979) 100. Ep. 7.2.1 ignorantiae siquidem meae callidus viator imposuit, ‘since a wily traveller imposed upon my ignorance’, which recalls Martial 3.57.1 on a duplicitous landlord: callidus imposuit nuper mihi copo Ravennae: / cum peterem mixtum, vendidit ille merum, ‘a wily landlord lately took advantage of me at Ravenna: whereas I asked for mixed wine, he sold it undiluted’, as there is so little drinking water in Ravenna that it costs more than wine, even though the city – as mentioned above – is in the middle of a network of canals. See van Waarden (2010) 143, 154–85, for the whole episode.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 312

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

313

explicitly alludes to comedy via the reference (§2) to comici sales). Added weight is thus given to terms derived from Plautus or Terence197 such as emungere (‘to trick’), convasare (‘to pack up’), praestigiator, ‘a con man’; the phrase (§7) uxorem petit, impetrat, ducit (‘he sought, won, and married a girl’, found in Plaut. Cas. 52–7 and 106–10198), or the noun nugigerulus (‘peddler’),199 used of Amantius in Ep. 7.7.1. In other episodes, too, the situation induces Sidonius to employ words evoking the tradition of comedy, like pauxillulum (‘a little’) and compotrix (‘boozy’), when depicting drunken servants in Ep. 2.9.8;200 or propudiosissima (‘shameless’), abligurrire (‘to waste’), sumptuositas (‘extravagance’) when speaking, in Ep. 9.6.1–2, of a young man indulging in an expensive passion for a slave-girl, a domestica Charybdis.201 Individual words can also evoke biblical texts, albeit in a different manner. As has been noted,202 Sidonius generally avoids direct scriptural quotations, preferring paraphrases or single expressions or ‘catchwords’. For example, as van Waarden (2010) 300 notes, when contrasting the rich man and poor Lazarus in Ep. 7.6.4 ut dives hic purpura byssoque veletur et Lazarus hic ulceribus et paupertate feriatur, Sidonius borrows some words from Luke 16.19 homo quidam erat dives, qui induebatur purpura et bysso, and 16.20 mendicus nomine Lazarus . . . ulceribus plenus.203 In Ep. 7.1.3 the reference to the ‘example set by the ancient people of Niniveh’ (veterum Ninivitarum exempla) is enough to transform Vienne into a new Niniveh, and Bishop Mamertus into a new Jonah.204 When Arvandus is described arriving safely in Rome in Ep. 1.7.3 after navigating the stormy coasts of Tuscany, tamquam sibi elementa famularentur (‘as though the elements were submissive to him’), it has been suggested205 that Sidonius’ choice of verb evokes the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus 14.15–30, but mediated via Rufinus’ translation of Origen (Orig. In Exod. 5.5 iubetur Moyses virga percutere mare, ut ingredienti populo Dei dehiscat ac voluntati divinae elementorum famulentur obsequia, ‘. . . and the elements were submissive to the divine will’), with the implied comparison with Moses perhaps underlining Arvandus’ arrogance.

8 Concluding Remarks: An artifex lector 206 Glenn Most (1999) xiii aptly observes that ‘poets are readers before they are writers’ while Gian Biagio Conte (2014) 76 notes that ‘i modi di lettura di un’epoca sono anche impliciti nei loro modi di scrittura’ (‘a period’s ways of reading are also implicit in its ways of writing’). Both, in different ways, warn us not to separate the author from the reader. Thus, when Sidonius appeals to the understanding of the artifex lector when apologizing for the length of his description of the villa of Avitacum in Ep. 2.2.20,207 or when, in Ep. 5.2.1, he uses the adjective vigilax to 197 198 199 200 201

202 203

204 205 206 207

See Gualandri (1979) 1689. See van Waarden (2010) 177–8. See van Waarden (2010) 342. See Gualandri (1979) 168–9. Gualandri (1979) 166–7; see also ibid. 172 n. 98 for other words which have a comic flavour, to which one might add others noted in the various commentaries. Harries (1994) 108, 113, van Waarden (2010) 53, 104. ‘For the rich man here to be clothed in purple and fine linen and for Lazarus here to be struck with sores and poverty’; ‘There was once a rich man, who dressed in purple and the finest linen’; ‘a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores’. See van Waarden (2010) 102–4. For other examples of biblical reminiscences, see ibid. 53. Köhler (1995) 238. This is the motif used by Sigrid Mratschek in ch. 6 of this volume. However, she develops it in a different direction. Mratschek in this volume (ch. 6, sect. 7, pp. 258–9) remarks that Ep. 2.2.20 bonus arbiter et artifex lector echoes Pliny Ep. 5.6.44, defining Sidonius himself as an artful reader of Pliny.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 313

13/02/20 4:00 PM

314

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

describe the ideal reader of Claudianus Mamertus’ De statu animae,208 we might suspect that he is revealing something about himself as a reader.209 And if vigilax stresses the attention and care that one must devote to a text, then artifex also seems to imply the element of creativity which is involved in interpretation and which makes the reader a collaborator of the author. The more complex and obscure the language of the text, the greater the need for such collaboration, which can reach a point where the reader is almost in competition with the author.210 It is no coincidence, then, that Sidonius makes repeated references to the reader, as in Ep. 4.3.4, 7.18.2 (where Constantius is a lector delicatissimus), 8.2.3, 8.3.6, 8.16.2.211 He also directly appeals to the reader in Carm. 9.15, warning him of the rocky road ahead, and addresses him again at the end (in a sort of ring composition), declaring that he does not fear turgida contumeliosi / lectoris . . . ora, ‘the pompous mouthing of an abusive reader’ (339–40).212 The theme of readerly collaboration, which Pelttari (2014) has recently seen as key to a general understanding of late antique intertextuality,213 is already present in the earliest classical tradition. Theophrastus expressly states that the author must solicit it (in Ps.-Demetr. Eloc. 222, quoted by Nünlist (2009) 166). Longinus says much the same in On the Sublime 7.2,214 where one of the characteristics of the sublime is precisely to ‘make us feel as if the things we hear were produced by ourselves’. Plutarch makes similar remarks on a number of occasions215 while Quintilian (8.2.21), having criticised the widespread opinion that only what needs interpreting is elegant and refined, nonetheless acknowledges that ‘some audiences also enjoy these things, because they delight in their own cleverness when they understand them, and rejoice as if they had not so much heard them as thought of them for themselves’.216 But what is particularly significant is the prominence of this theme in the exegetic tradition. The scholia on Homer place details that the poet leaves unsaid or implicit – and which must thus be supplied by the reader – in the category of κατὰ τὸ σιωπόμενον.217 The 208

209

210

211

212

213

214 215 216

217

Using an expression which is probably derived from Claudianus Mamertus himself (Anim. 3.11, p. 173, 11 Engelbrecht vigilacem vigilantemque simul quaero lectorem, ‘I require a reader who is both watchful and wakeful’), as Giulietti (2014) observes ad loc. while noting other instances where Claudianus Mamertus refers to the reader. Similarly, speaking of Carm. 36 (Ep. 9.13.2) 5–9, Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 145 notes that: ‘Sidonius suggests an aesthetic of Horatian lyric, founded on metrical variety, which elevates the poems. But he also explains his own work.’ See Schwitter (2015) 22, 206, who also perceptively analyses (148–55) the very concept of artifex. Ennodius speaks of elocutio artifex; see Gioanni (2006) cvii. Whereas in Carm. 30.22 at tu, quisque doles, amice lector, ‘but you, whoever you are who grieve, friendly reader’ (in Ep. 4.11.6: on the death of Claudianus Mamertus), the appeal to the reader is more reminiscent of the invocation of the passer-by in a funeral epigram (Amherdt (2001) 300). See Condorelli (2008) 90–1. On appeals to the reader, which originate with Ovid but are then imitated by many writers, see Citroni (1995) 440, and 465 n. 8 for the numerous examples in Martial; see also Apuleius Met. prol.: lector intende; laetaberis, ‘pay attention, reader, and you will enjoy it’; but also 9.30.1 sed forsitan lector scrupulosus reprehendens narratum meum sic argumentaberis, ‘but perhaps if you are a painstaking reader you’ll argue in criticism of my narrative’; 10.2.4 lector optime; 11.23.5 studiose lector. Kelly (2008) 181 quotes Amm. 16.7.9, which expresses the hope that a scrupulosus lector antiquitatum may be found among his readers, with an allusion to the above passage in Apuleius. See ch. 4 in particular; Pelttari especially focuses on Ausonius, Claudian, and Prudentius. Kaufmann (2017) 20 too opts for a ‘reader-oriented perspective on intertextuality’. Russell (1964) 84. Konstan (2004). Auditoribus etiam nonnullis grata sunt haec, quae cum intellexerunt acumine suo delectantur, et gaudent non quasi audierint ea sed quasi invenerint (tr. Russell). See Nannini (1986) 63. Literally ‘according to the unexpressed’. See Nünlist (2009) 157–73.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 314

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ INTERTEXTUALITY

315

same approach is adopted in Servius’ commentary on Vergil218 and is also visible in Tiberius Claudius Donatus’ Interpretationes Vergilianae.219 Similarly, Philostratus, in Imagines 1.5, teaches his addressee, a boy of about ten, to look at pictorial works and see what hasn’t been painted.220 It is worth taking a closer look at the passage in Glenn Most quoted above: Poets are readers before they are writers and learn in schools to read with the aid of commentaries. Hence it should not be surprising that learned poets reflect not only the great poets that have influenced them, but also the tradition of scholarly commentary upon those poets: so e.g. Apollonius Rhodius, Vergil, Nonnus, Milton. But their own poems can in certain cases profitably be understood as poetic commentaries on the works of their models. Most’s remarks perfectly fit Sidonius, whose reworking of the classics reveals the influence of the reading mechanisms typically taught in late antique schools (and Rijser (2013) has drawn interesting parallels between the approaches of Sidonius and Servius). We have long been aware, moreover, of the uniform character of late imperial schooling designed to educate the many civil servants necessary for an increasingly bureaucratic administrative system,221 and which played a considerable role in creating a literary taste which, for simplicity’s sake, we might call ‘late’. As such, if the modes of intertextuality which I have charted in Sidonius are not intrinsically dissimilar to those found in Augustan poets, then it is the culture underpinning Sidonius and his contemporaries which determines and accentuates their distinctive character. Without wishing to establish a mechanical cause-and-effect relationship, I shall briefly highlight here the aspects of ‘scholastic’ teaching – gleaned from commentaries, scholia, and grammatical or rhetorical treatises – which are most relevant, in my view, to an understanding of Sidonius’ development as a ‘reader’ of the classics and, by extension, as an ‘author’ in his own right. I especially wish to stress the importance of one aspect of the category of κατὰ τὸ σιωπόμενον, which does not present the text being studied as a model to be followed (in compositions which are not rooted in the individual details of the original) but instead exhorts the reader to ‘see’ and fill in what is not said, a procedure that he will learn to follow when he becomes a writer in his turn. This may explain Sidonius’ tendency to embellish and ‘complete’ his model, as in the previously examined cases of Orpheus, the griffin, and the lists of marbles and flowers. This is a skill, moreover, which is praised by Macrobius whenever Vergil turns a ‘small germ’ (breve semen) in Homer into a plena descriptio, comparing, for example, the descriptions of the chariot races in Aen. 5.144–7 with Od. 13.81–3 (Sat. 5.11.21), and a bubbling cauldron in Aen. 7.462–6 with Il. 21.362–5 (Sat. 5.11.23).222 And if, on the one hand, Macrobius attributes the success of Vergil’s imitatio of Homer to the addition of new details,223 then, on the other, it reveals much about his period’s taste that, for Macrobius, Vergil falls short of his model whenever he amalgamates or suppresses descriptive details.224

218 219 220 221 222

223

224

See the passages in Nünlist (2009) 169. See Gualandri (1995) 153. See Elsner (1995) 26. For Vergil, see, for example, Barchiesi (1980) 10, 31–2. Hernández Lobato (2012a) 311. One effect of which is the proliferation of compendiums, manuals, and encyclopaedias. See Vogt-Spira (2009) 276. See Angelucci (1984) for a useful typology of the elements analysed by Macrobius when comparing Vergil with his models. Other relevant passages are noted in Angelucci (1984) 108. Vogt-Spira (2009) 273 perceptively notes that Macrobius’ analysis of Vergil’s handling of his models produces ‘un répertoire de règles et de formes de l’imitation, qui par son étendue et sa subtilité n’a pas son semblable dans l’Antiquité latine’ (‘a repertory of rules and forms of imitation which is unequalled in range and subtlety throughout Latin Antiquity’) . See the examples from Sat. 5.10–13, 15–19, in Angelucci (1984).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 315

13/02/20 4:00 PM

316

ISABELLA GUALANDRI

This kind of ‘conceptual’ embellishment also involves other elements such as erudite addenda, which in Sidonius can be a clear indication of his reading of particular scholia or commentaries (see above). At the same time, however, it permits the author/reader Sidonius to display his mastery of a rich lexicon and justifies his love of accumulating or listing words, thus putting to use the learning mechanisms and techniques of textual exegesis that he acquired at school, where students were presented with lists of words organised by theme,225 or were assigned exercises where words had to be substituted with a synonym.226 And moving from the general to the particular, following the order oratio verba syllabae,227 attention was then directed to individual words and to how syllable sounds combined in the structure of a phrase.228 The overall picture that emerges is one of fragmentation, which is also visible in other areas, such as the memorisation of texts, where Quintilian’s advice (11.2.27) is to break them up into sections; or to the study of metrics, where grammarians tend to isolate verse segments and to extract, for instance, ‘examples of aeolic pentameter, dactylic tetrameter, or priapean’ from Vergilian hexameters which have been ‘amputated’ in this way.229 There is, then, a tendency to pinpoint and to isolate individual details, which, once absorbed and turned into a poetic principle, ultimately results in the splintering and recombination of models in Sidonius’ incredible kaleidoscope of texts, ‘a peacock painted in words’ (in dictis depictus pavo), as Alain of Lille so aptly puts it.230

9 Further Reading Mario Citroni (2011) provides a survey of the historical development of the question of ‘allusion’ and ‘intertextuality’, and of the discussion on intentionality. Conte and Barchiesi (1989), Kelly (2008) 161–221, and Pelttari (2014) 116–31 are illuminating examples of how these distinctions work. Translated from the Italian by Paul Barnaby

225

226

227

228

229

230

Cribiore (2001) 173. The specific examples cited by Cribiore are drawn from a Greek context but are valid for late antique schooling in general. Cribiore (2001) 207; and, on synonyms, see Quint. 10.1.7. For synonyms in Sidonius, see above; Macrobius also makes some important remarks on Vergil’s reworking of Homer, where he changes just a few terms or, sometimes, a single word: see Angelucci (1984) 94–6. As the grammarian ‘Sergius’ (fifth century?) notes: cum oratio omnis solvatur in verba, verba denuo solvantur in syllabas, rursum syllabae solvantur in litteras, ‘since a whole speech can be broken down into words, words again broken down into syllables, syllables yet further broken down into letters’ (GLK 4.475.7). For the importance of this element in ancient grammarians see Ahl (1985) 35–40, who quotes Quint. 1.1.30; on exercises in dividing words into syllables, see Cribiore (2001) 173–4. See also Wills (1998), quoted above. De Nonno (1990) 620 and n. 72: ‘esempi di pentametro eolico, tetrametro dattilico, priapeo’. De Nonno speaks of ‘versi virgiliani e oraziani come corpora vilia da sottoporre a ripetute e stravolgenti integrazioni e sostituzioni di parole, al fine di documentare i passaggi richiesti dalla teoria’ (‘verses from Vergil and Horace treated as experimental objects, submitted to repeated and substantial insertion and substitution of words in order to make them underpin the steps required by theory’). Anticlaudianus 3.242. For the aesthetic implications of this, see Hernández Lobato (2012a), ch. 6 (‘El imperio de la parte: fragmentos y detalles en el discurso estético tardoantiguo’), 307 ‘la palabra fragmentada’, 311 ‘la cultura fragmentada’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 316

13/02/20 4:00 PM

9 SIDONIUS’ PANEGYRICS Annick Stoehr-Monjou

T

HE HERO OF J.K. Huysmans’s À Rebours of 1884 is partial to so-called ‘decadent’ Latin literature.1 Des Esseintes notably appreciates not only Sidonius’ correspondence but also his political poems for a feature that is usually an object of criticism: their rhetorical artifices and precious style:

Volontiers il relisait les panégyriques où cet évêque invoque, à l’appui de ses vaniteuses louanges, les déités du paganisme,2 et malgré tout, il se sentait un faible pour les affectations et les sous-entendus de ces poésies fabriquées par un ingénieux mécanicien qui soigne sa machine, huile ses rouages, en invente, au besoin, de compliqués et d’inutiles.3 The image of the poeta doctus, modernised through the extended metaphor of the mechanic, emphasises Huysmans’s interest in Sidonius’ art,4 which plays with innuendo and uses mythology to epideictic ends. This reading, however, remains a superficial one, failing to take into account the generic context that can give meaning to the ‘cogs of this machinery’, which are in no way pointless. Panegyrical speeches were originally pronounced at a religious festival (paneguris), as for instance Isocrates’ Panegyric attests. There also existed prose encomia such as funeral orations, and poetic forms of praise such as Pindar’s and Simonides’ epinician odes, and later on Theocritus’ Idyll 17 celebrating Ptolemy. In Rome, epideictic literature at first focused on the dead (often of high status), with the laudatio funebris, and then on the assumption of high office;5 yet from the beginning of the empire, praise literature also existed in other forms. Excluding the frequent instances of praise contained within a larger work,6 examples of autonomous encomia include I would like to thank Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden for their patience and useful suggestions. 1

2 3

4

5

6

Huysmans was inspired by various scholarly works, notably Ebert (1883); see the critical edition of À rebours by Fumaroli (1996) 399 n. 41. For other sources, see Céard (1978). In a slightly provocative short cut, the pagan deities are linked to the office of bishop which Sidonius did not yet hold. ‘He was fond of rereading the panegyrics in which that Bishop invokes, in support of his self-satisfied encomia, the deities of the pagan world, and, in spite of everything, he had to admit to a weakness for the affectations and innuendos of these poems, constructed by an ingenious mechanic who takes good care of his machine, keeping its working parts well oiled, and who if required can devise new ones which are both complicated and useless’ (Huysmans (1977) 119–20, tr. (1998) 30). Huysmans understands Sidonius better than Gibbon (1776–88), vol. 3, ch. 36, 368: ‘The poet, if we may degrade that sacred name, exaggerates the merit of a sovereign and a father’ (on the Panegyric on Avitus: my emphasis). For Gibbon, see in this volume van Waarden’s ch. 23, sect. 3.2. According to Rees (2012b) 7 with n. 30, in this case panegyric speeches are conventional; he mentions Ov. Pont. 4.4.25-42; Sen. Nat. 4a praef. 13; Plin. Ep. 3.13.2. On this see Rees (2012b) 4-7, from Cicero to Seneca.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 317

13/02/20 4:00 PM

318

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

the Panegyricus Messallae, composed in 31 BCE by an unknown author following the honorand’s consulate, the Laus Pisonis, and Lucan’s poem Laudes Neronis or In Neronem which won him a crown at the Neronia of 60 CE.7 The development of the rhetoric of praise and ceremonies involved a growing personalisation of power and a greater focus on the individual. Interwoven with the so-called Second Sophistic, rhetoric experienced an unprecedented growth in the deliberative and judicial spheres. The encomium not only entered the curriculum of progymnasmata taught in schools, but became a recognised, autonomous genre, precisely at the time when occasions for such speeches multiplied, both in the public sphere, in celebration of the emperor (on the occasion of his consulate, his birthday, the quinquennalia . . .) and in the private sphere.8 Besides Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Menander Rhetor is an essential figure, for he provides us with the epideictic topics and classifies the types of encomia according to the circumstances in which they were pronounced, with the speech on the emperor (basilikos logos) at the top of the hierarchy.9 Two Latin authors had a profound impact on panegyric: Pliny the Younger and Claudian. In 100 CE, Pliny the Younger thanked Trajan for appointing him consul with a gratiarum actio in the senate.10 His awareness of the implications of the context in which he spoke is displayed in his statement that he addressed the senate in a ‘manner befitting the place and occasion’.11 By his own acknowledgement, he then rewrote the speech, turning it into a model for a mirror of princes destined for Trajan’s successors.12 Having given a reading of it to his friends over three days, he was led to develop and enrich its contents in ways which remain unspecified.13 Pliny thus paved the way for a transformation of the brief gratiarum actio into a long ceremonial speech. The praise of Trajan as optimus princeps became a model for the panegyric genre, to the extent that it opens the collection of twelve Panegyrici Latini otherwise composed by Gallic orators of the late third and fourth centuries.14 Sidonius appears to have been the first to use the term panegyric for what is commonly known as the Panegyric on Trajan.15 At the end of the fourth and start of the fifth century, Claudian composed multiple verse panegyrics, often introduced by an allegorical preface in another metre.16 In these, rhetoric and epic are fused, thereby creating a new genre which lasted into the sixth century: the epic – that is, narrative and mythological – panegyric,17 which is no longer a thanksgiving speech as in

7

8 9 10

11 12 13 14

15

16 17

On panegyrical poetry from the republic to Domitian, see Ehimba (1974) and Rees (2012b) 8-13, who adds to this list some of Statius’ Silvae. See Pernot (1993) 94. Pernot (1993) 77; see 67–71 on rhetorical treatises in the imperial period. Speeches thanking the consul, which were widespread in the republican period, apparently became compulsory under Augustus, see Pernot (1993) 108–9. Plin. Ep. 3.18.1. Plin. Ep. 3.18.1–2. On the mirror of princes, see Hadot (1972). See Plin. Ep. 3.18.4 and 11. On orality in this speech, see Fantham (2012). It even got separated from Pliny’s works, and was preserved through this intermediary (a few sections, though, are preserved in a palimpsest found by Angelo Mai). Radice (2012) 78; Sidon. Ep. 8.10.3 Gaius Plinius . . . Marco Ulpio incomparabili principi comparabilem panegyricum dixit, ‘Gaius Plinius . . . delivered a panegyric that measured up to the matchless emperor Marcus Ulpius.’ We may add that the word panegyricus belongs rather to the late grammarians, since the poets (including Sidonius, see below n. 47) preferred the term laus or laudatio. Thus, Porphyrio uses the title Panegyricus Augusti to refer to a poem by Varius celebrating Augustus, of which we possess two verses quoted by Horace (Ep. 1.16.27-9) and mentioned (Carm. 1.6.1-4) as laudes Augusti. On prefaces in late Latin panegyrics, see the synthesis of Zarini (2008). See the synthesis of Schindler (2009).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 318

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

319

Pliny. Sidonius’ panegyrics on Avitus (456) and Anthemius (468) are in the same vein as those offered to Stilicho and Honorius. Sidonius’ panegyrics are thus firmly embedded in the double tradition of Pliny and Claudian. Although the latter’s (major) influence is more evident,18 the former’s should not be neglected either, particularly given the fact that Sidonius claimed to be Pliny’s disciple in letter-writing.19 Sidonius imitates the Panegyric on Trajan several times in the Panegyric on Avitus,20 although the influence of this model fades in the other two panegyrics, in all likelihood for personal reasons (Carm. 5 and 2, the panegyrics of Majorian and Anthemius, answer to duty more than to affection) as well as ideological ones.21 Like Pliny (Ep. 3.18), Sidonius evokes in a letter the composition of one of his panegyrics (Ep. 1.9), that on Anthemius. Sidonius was also influenced by other late prose panegyrics, themselves in the Plinian tradition: the other eleven panegyrics in the Panegyrici Latini collection, with which Sidonius shares a regional Gallic identity combined with deep loyalty to Rome (and indeed his second panegyric was given for an emperor’s adventus22 into a provincial city, Majorian in Lyon);23 those of Symmachus, another model for Sidonius’ correspondence (Ep. 1.1.1);24 Ausonius’ Gratiarum actio to the emperor Gratian for his consulate in 379; and finally, the panegyrics composed by Merobaudes,25 of which two partially survive, celebrating the general Aëtius, one in prose (c. 439) and one in verse (446).26 Finally, all these late panegyrics, in prose or in verse, were embedded in the ‘liturgy’ of a sumptuous imperial ceremony:27 they formed part of a recitatio which determined their immediate reception as well as the way in which we read them. A certain amount of obvious information did not need to be communicated to the audience, a fact which easily explains the interpretative difficulties facing the reader, who does not have access to all the information and cannot grasp what may have been left unsaid.28 The oral context and the audience’s rhetorical and literary education justify the following hermeneutic principle: to consider every element, however small or topical, as significant. Nothing is left to chance, but each word is carefully weighed, insofar as the audience does not pay attention to everything, but each listener rather hears and remembers different elements. It is only through proper consideration 18 19

20

21 22

23

24

25 26

27 28

See, among others, Bruzzone (2004, 2014), Kelly (2013b). See Sidon. Ep. 4.22.2 ego Plinio ut discipulus assurgo, ‘I rise for Pliny as his disciple’; cf. Ep. 1.1.1. On Pliny in Late Antiquity, see Mratschek (2008) 363–5, Gibson (2013b), Mratschek in this volume, ch. 6. Tally according to Geisler’s loci similes in Lütjohann (1887): Carm. 7.112: Paneg. 10; Carm. 7.250: Paneg. 85; Carm. 5.318–9: Paneg. 14; Carm. 5.560–1: Paneg. 67; Carm. 5.567: Paneg. 88. Carm. 6.35 is also a certain reminiscence of Paneg. 21.1; see sect. 1.2, n. 51. See sect. 3.3. On adventus, see MacCormack (1972) and Dufraigne (1994). MacCormack (1972) 742 notes that Sidonius did not describe the adventus of Avitus, whom he accompanied to Rome, or those of the other two emperors. She concludes that Sidonius did not attend this ceremony, which had disappeared in the West. Sidonius also does not insist on the place (the palace) where the recitatio took place, contrary to conventions; see MacCormack (1976) 42–3. The entrance of Avitus and Theoderic II into Toulouse (Carm. 7.430–6) has been read as an adventus; see Sivan (1989a). On these eleven panegyrics, see Rees (2012b) 13-41, Mynors (2012), Pichon (2012). See Brolli (2013) 97–9 for an example of influence. See Rees (2012b) 7 on Fronto’s fragmentary panegyrics, and those composed by Symmachus on Gratian (368/9) and Valentinian I (the one for his quinquennalia, 368/9, the other 1 January 370). See Bruzzone (2004) 139–40, Ploton-Nicollet (2016). Sidonius admired Merobaudes (Carm. 9.296–301). We should not forget lost panegyrics: Sidonius mentions the encomium of Aëtius by Quintianus and that of the emperor by Merobaudes (Carm. 9.289–301). See Gillett (2012) 273–6. MacCormack (1981), Gillett (2012) 281–3. Brolli (2004) 99–100.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 319

13/02/20 4:00 PM

320

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

of intertextuality,29 of Sidonius’ poetic technique,30 and of his aesthetics,31 without being held back by our prejudices concerning his ‘preciosity’,32 that we can understand these panegyrics, particularly since Sidonius was much appreciated by the (restricted) elite to which he spoke.33 What was Sidonius trying to achieve with these panegyrics, caught in a tension between their generic and political contexts?34 I would like to show that Sidonius engages in a delicate exercise of ‘political communication’35 between imperial power and the audience in an attempt to generate consensus36 about the emperor, about shared values, and about the fate of Rome by the way he plays on the generic context of panegyric. We shall analyse it in its various dimensions, as an occasional work of epideictic oratory embedded in a recitatio (section 1), as an epic and mythological poem (section 2), and finally, as a political message addressing both immediate events and the future of the empire through the use of historical exempla (section 3).

1 The Panegyric as an Occasional Epideictic Work Delivered in a Recitatio As occasional works, panegyrics were embedded in specific, varied situations, especially given the marked political and military instability of the western empire in the fifth century: Sidonius praised three different rulers in twelve years.

1.1 Context of the Recitatio Heinz Hofmann has shed light on the context of delivery, which is characterised by the relationship between recipient, audience, occasion, and speaker.37 Table 9.1 shows what the audience of each panegyric knew. The panegyrist, who presents himself as the mouthpiece of both political power and the audience (to varying degrees, according to his own relationship with the present parties38) also plays a role comparable to that of a teacher.39 Sidonius was, in terms of personal affection, increasingly distant from the emperors whom he celebrated: he was Avitus’ son-in-law, claimed to be bound to Majorian by gratitude (following hatred?), and did not know Anthemius. He 29 30

31 32 33

34 35 36 37

38

39

On this central question, see Gualandri, ch. 8 in this volume. For instance, at Carm. 7.79-82, the composition of the catalogue in reported verses (see below, n. 33) allows for a historical interpretation; see Arnaud (1991) on Carm. 7.79–82. See Condorelli (2008), Hernández Lobato (2012a), and Onorato (2016a). This reading was imposed by Loyen (1943). He became a stylistic model in the Middle Ages – see Faral (1946) 573–7 on the theories of ‘determination’ (see Carm. 5.42–50) and ‘reported verses’ (cf. 7.80–2) – and then in the Renaissance: see Galand-Hallyn (2009), Charlet (2014), and Hernández Lobato (2014c). See MacCormack (1976) 29: ‘panegyric . . . is intelligible only as a function of a total situation’. Sabbah (1984) 370. Hofmann (1988) 131–2 and Consolino (2011a). Hofmann (1988) 119, 130. For dating the panegyrics and for the panegyrics as a collection, see in this volume Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 2. I follow Sabbah (1984) 378 on ascending and descending communication. Gillett (2012) 281 seems to me to offer a more reductive vision, distinguishing between prose panegyrics in which the orator speaks to the honorand, and epic panegyric: ‘the panegyrist speaks for the honorand to the audience.’ Sabbah (1984) 380. I avoid the problematic notion of ‘propaganda’ brought into play by Alan Cameron (1970), and the reductive idea of the ‘propagandist panegyrist’ as understood by Perrelli (1999).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 320

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

321

Table 9.1 The panegyrics and their audience Carm.

Occasion for the recitatio

Date and place

Addressee of the encomium

6–7

Consulate of Avitus

January 456, Gallo-Roman Rome aristocrat; Sidonius’ father-in-law, acclaimed emperor by the Gauls following his predecessor’s death, supported by Theoderic II

Roman senate, highranking statesmen, retinue from Gaul and Gothic attendants

4–5

Adventus of Majorian

December 458, Lyon

Gauls/inhabitants of Lyon, Majorian’s retinue (three comites mentioned)

1–2

Second consulate of Anthemius

January 468, Constantinopolitan Rome aristocrat, nominee of the eastern emperor Leo

Uncertain origin, military background; overthrew Avitus and came to Lyon, which had been subdued following its rebellion

Audience (addressed or mentioned)

Roman senate, highranking statesmen, Ricimer, retinue from the eastern court

conveys the ruler’s political vision as well as voicing the audience’s expectations, the latter being the more delicate task. In all three poems, however, the two groups are united in the face of the Vandal threat, perhaps most urgently in Avitus’ case, shortly after the sack of Rome in May/ June 455. The difference in the place of recitatio, which is of course linked to the context of each poem, is also relevant to the origins of each emperor. Sidonius seeks to reassure the Roman senate of the legitimacy and Romanitas40 of two emperors with origins elsewhere: Avitus was imposed in a coup by the Gallo-Roman elite supported by the Visigoths, a fact that may have engendered some concern at Rome,41 and Anthemius was appointed by the emperor Leo in Constantinople. By mentioning their consulate from the exordium (Carm. 7.7-9, 2.1-8), Sidonius is able to weave them into Roman history. Majorian, who was seeking to reestablish contacts with the recently defeated Gallo-Roman aristocracy, chose the panegyrist who would be the most capable of capturing local attention: the son-in-law of Avitus, whom he had overthrown.42 Sidonius is thus in a delicate position. He waits for the peroration to mention the emperor’s adventus into Lyon. In the exordium, he says that Majorian is a consul

40

41

42

Watson (1998) 191–2 about Romanitas for Theoderic II and Anthemius. As Avitus depends (at least partially) on a barbarian and Anthemius on the eastern court, the question arises what they are up to: their opinions and interests could well be different from those of the Italian aristocracy. Sidonius will show that Avitus is not subjected to the Visigoths, see Consolino (2011a) 322–9. The exemplum of Fabricius contributes to this aim; see Stoehr-Monjou (2014). On his policy of reconciliation, see Mathisen (1979a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 321

13/02/20 4:00 PM

322

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

(5.2, 6)43 and the conqueror of Europe (5.8–12),44 in an implicit (but to his audience, clear) reminder not only of his victory over Lyon, but also of the promise of a victory against the Vandals,45 who are mentioned in the peroration (5.582-6, 600-4). The Panegyric on Majorian is distinct from the two panegyrics on Avitus and Anthemius.46

1.2 The Allegorical Prefaces, a First Key to Interpreting the Panegyrics Sidonius introduces each panegyric with a bipartite preface in elegiac couplets, which allows the audience to hear the transition to the encomium in hexameters. In the first part, derived from the prolalia, a pleasant story captures the audience’s attention and curiosity. The second part provides the allegorical explanation of the story, draws the analogy with the context in which the poem is delivered, and announces the eulogy of the emperor.47 In the preface to the Panegyric on Avitus, Orpheus celebrates the birth of Pallas (Carm. 6.1-28) and then sings of his mother Calliope, thereby delighting the Muses (29–32). Like Claudian before him,48 Sidonius draws a parallel between himself and Orpheus, since both are singing a eulogy (laus, Carm. 6.6, 31, 33); yet he acknowledges his inferiority to the bard par excellence, whereas Avitus is said to surpass Calliope, the first among the Muses.49 Orpheus celebrates his mother, and Sidonius sings of Avitus as father of the people (Carm. 6.35 publicus . . . pater). The word pater discreetly reminds the audience that Avitus is Sidonius’ father-in-law, making the panegyric an act of pietas, as in the case of Orpheus and Calliope (Carm. 6.31–2).50 This title – albeit conventional – also creates a parallel with Trajan, whom Pliny the Younger had called pater patriae.51 Finally, the poem’s actual audience is symbolised by the Muses, who rise to applaud Orpheus (Carm. 6.31). The same enthusiastic, unanimous response recurs in the assembly of the gods (7.599–600) following Jupiter’s lengthy presentation of Avitus. The motif of celebration and applause thus symbolises the consensus surrounding Avitus: the preface also has a performative dimension which is confirmed by the ending of the panegyric52 and Carm. 8.9–10 (plaudente senatu / ad nostrum . . . sophos, ‘with the senate applauding . . . to the huzzas for me’). Similarly, the preface to the Panegyric on Anthemius narrates the festival held in honour of Jupiter’s accession following his defeat of the Giants, which is celebrated by the gods and demigods (Carm. 1.1–22). It represents the eulogy of Anthemius by several high-ranking figures, 43

44 45

46 47

48

49 50 51 52

It may be worth mentioning that in contrast to Avitus, who was not recognised by Martian (Mathisen (1981c) 140–2), Majorian was recognised by the emperor Leo (Carm. 5.3–4), either formally or implicitly; see Stein (1959) 374–5 on this controversial point. A topical association; see MacCormack (1972) 741. This is a very shrewd political move vis-à-vis the Gauls: they ‘could find in the war against the Vandals an act of continuity with [Avitus’] political programme’; see Montone (2013a) 6. Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 230. The word laus recurs five times in the prefaces (Carm. 6.5 (twice), 31, 33; Carm. 4.14) besides Carm. 1.6 laudavit; in Carm. 1, the object of praise is Jupiter. See Claud. Rapt. praef. On the presence of Claudian in the encomiastic poems, see Consolino in this volume, ch. 10, sect. 2. The fact that Avitus is princeps reinforces the analogy with the first of the Muses. Condorelli (2008) 20, Furbetta (2011) 161–2. See Plin. Paneg. 21.1, 21.3, 42.3, 57.5, 84.6. On the emperor as father and protector, see Mause (1994) 228. Kelly (2013b) 183: ‘perhaps the applause of the gods . . . (600–601) reminded the senate to give their own applause – and even to see themselves as a divine concilium’. See also Bruzzone (2011) 19–20.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 322

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

323

among whom Sidonius appears as the most modest,53 just like Chiron, with whom he identifies himself (23–30).54 The centaur’s gesticulations playfully signal Sidonius’ increased maturity and consciousness of the implications of his art as a panegyrist in 468. Jupiter is praised for his victory against chaos and prefigures Anthemius. This accumulation of praise is not a marker of irony on the poet’s part; rather, it responds to the instructions of Basilius, Sidonius’ patronus at Rome,55 and exalts epideictic poetry, thereby compensating for his lack of familiarity with Anthemius. The preface is the clearest example of a dramatisation of the performance context and ritual of recitatio. The novelty of the young god Jupiter (1.1–2)56 announces the startling accession of an emperor who has arrived from the East, in a leitmotif which recurs in the final verse to prophesy Anthemius’ victory against Geiseric and create a ring composition (2.548) with the preface. Gods and demigods symbolise the colourful but hierarchised audience of Sidonius’ panegyric, and perhaps the people outside. Jupiter is acclaimed by all (1.4 par . . . sophos), anticipating the consensus surrounding Anthemius in the peroration: the people await the emperor in the Forum of Trajan, and there are general celebrations in Rome (2.544–6). The preface to the Panegyric on Majorian is conspicuous by the absence of an audience and of a festive tone. In this way, Sidonius discreetly avoids offending the audience in Lyon, which has recently been ‘pacified’ by the emperor, while seeking to justify his own submission. The allegorical narrative, moreover, is historical. Sidonius recalls the mercy shown by Octavian to Vergil (regarding the latter’s confiscated property) and Horace (after the battle of Philippi). Having become the inspiration for their poetry, Octavian was immortalised (Carm. 4.1-10). In the same way, Majorian vanquished Sidonius and pardoned him;57 to thank him, Sidonius subjects himself and puts forth his panegyric as an offering (Carm. 4.11-18). He also puns on the name of Majorian, greater than Octavian (Carm. 4.17 Caesare maior).58 Sidonius presents himself only as Majorian’s mouthpiece, and as an emblematic example of the ruler’s policy of reconciliation following his crushing defeat of Avitus. He also suggests the hope of a stable reign similar to Augustus’ after the civil wars. In the three prefaces, Sidonius holds up a flattering mirror to the emperor and, to a lesser extent, to the audience – while also commenting on his own art. The prefaces also legitimise the ruler as saviour and father of the people (Avitus), merciful victor (Majorian), and providential leader and guarantor of order following chaos (Anthemius). Having thus been prepared to listen to the encomium, the audience listens for up to an hour to the recitatio (Carm. 7: 602 lines; Carm. 5: 603 lines; Carm. 2: 548 lines) in a ceremony that may last for a couple of hours. The exordium and the peroration are privileged places in which to display the reality of this 53 54

55

56

57 58

This passage is echoed in the peroration: Carm. 2.538 modos tenues, ‘my humble measures’. On this identification, see Alexandre (2009b) 60; Wolff (2009) 36 compares these lines to another preface on Chiron’s neighing (Carm. 14.26–30) and suggests a pun on the Greek comparative cheiro¯n, ‘worse’. To say that Victor surpasses him and will always be his magister (1.25–8) – a word which also means ‘tamer’ – may be a playful reference to the centaur. Ep. 1.9.6 votivum . . . carminantem, ‘singing some expression of good wishes’. Basilius advised Sidonius to write a poem celebrating the accession of Anthemius to help advance his mission in Rome. On this letter, see Köhler (1995) 265–82, esp. 274–5, and Condorelli (2008) 59–65, with 62–3 on carminantem. The interpretation of Desbrosses (2015) 210–11 seems to me mistaken: she distinguishes Jupiter (1.1 iuvenem Iovem) from the deus novus (1.2), whom she takes to be the Christian God; yet the two expressions oppose Jupiter, a young god whose accession is recent, to Saturn. Certavere (1.3) does not have polemical undertones, but designates the general spirit of emulation surrounding the celebration of Jupiter. The audience understands the implicit reference to the battle of Placentia. Wolff (2009) 35. Sidonius has used the same comparison (materia maior) at 6.36, but adapts it here to the name of the princeps.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 323

13/02/20 4:00 PM

324

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

celebration at the imperial court, and the complexity of the relations between Sidonius the panegyrist (on the first level of discourse), the emperor, and the audience.

1.3 The Panegyrist and the Emperor during the Recitatio In panegyric, in contrast to other genres, the emperor is both the content of the text and its recipient.59 Thus, he is evoked not only in the expected epideictic topoi, but also in the panegyrist’s gestures, the mentions of his name, and direct addresses, which constitute a binding element, a ‘figure de communion’.60

1.3.1 Epideictic Topoi The panegyrist draws from the topics of the basilikos logos, which were well known to and expected by a learned audience:61 the section on genos (native country or city,62 and ancestors and parents)63 reassures the audience by anchoring the emperor in history and the aristocratic order; genesis recalls the omens or dreams which accompanied the hero’s birth, a mark of divine election;64 phusis (physical and moral qualities) also includes paideia (childhood and adolescence).65 Epite¯deumata (the young man’s chosen lifestyle, career, and habits)66 mark the transition to adulthood. They announce the ruler’s excellence, which is then revealed in the most important part, the praxeis, through which the emperor’s virtues (aretai) emerge.67 It is these aretai which will enable him to fulfil his mission successfully. Finally, tuche¯ (the gifts of fortune throughout one’s life, or felicitas) offers hope for the future. Further, the panegyrist signals the important points which he wants the audience to remember, either through a recapitulation (Carm. 2.193–4: Anthemius’ studies, his ancestors, his character) or through an explicit announcement: Avitus’ childhood (Carm. 7.162–3), his battles and treaties (7.214), Majorian’s military exploits (5.371), a war fought by Anthemius (2.236). These topics display 59

60 61

62 63

64

65

66 67

Formisano (2008) 588. For Mause (1994) 100, Sidonius does not praise the emperor Avitus, he praises how he became emperor (‘nicht den Kaiser Avitus sondern seinen Weg zum höchsten Amt’). See Sabbah (1984) 384–5. Pernot (1993) 153–78; on the correspondence between this scheme and Sidonius’ texts, see Bellès (1989) 154, Schindler (2009) 182–215, Guipponi-Gineste (2010b) 42–5 and esp. 47–52. Sidonius distinguishes between topothesia and topographia; see Jolivet (2015) 161–3. Carm. 7.139–63, 5.107–25, 2.30–98. The gens Avita was well known and important in Gaul, but was this the case in Rome? Therefore Sidonius elegantly glosses over Avitus’ ancestors by punning on his name: Avite, / nobilitas tu solus avos (7.161–2, ‘you alone ennoble your forefathers, Avitus’), thereby taking up a topos created by Pliny (Paneg. 89.2); see Mause (1994) 72: ‘namentlich nicht bekannt’ (‘not known by name’). To this is added an etymological play on the paronomasia avus/avis from Vergil; see Jolivet (2014) 118–23. Sidonius mentions Majorian’s and Anthemius’ grandfathers (5.107–15, 2.94–8), because they bore the same names as their grandsons; the audience, upon hearing the grandfather’s name, is encouraged to attribute his qualities to his grandson; see Mause (1994). The amplification of Anthemius’ birth (Carm. 2.102–33; see Onorato (2016a) 66–85) contrasts with the briefer mention in the case of Avitus (7.165-70), whereas Majorian’s brilliant destiny was announced by the forbidden magical rites of Aëtius’ wife. The topos of divine election (Mause (1994) 75) appears for Avitus and Anthemius. Sidonius specifically mentions the Latin culture of non-Italian emperors (7.174–7, 2.182–92; see Onorato (2016a) 44–7) in order to reassure the Roman senate as to their Romanitas. Onorato (2016a) 16–48 analyses the ways in which Sidonius subtly divides and amplifies the paideia motif at 7.171–206, 5.148–97, and 2.138–92 according to a principle which he calls ‘tecnica diairetica’. Carm. 5.164–206, 5.148-97, 2.99–192. Carm. 7.207–440, 5.198–327, 370–552, 2.198–306.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 324

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

325

the four essential virtues of the princeps: courage (fortitudo), justice (iustitia), temperance (temperantia, continentia), intelligence and a judicious mind (prudentia).68 These topics express not only what the emperor says about himself and his power, but also what others expect from him: ‘le panégyriste appelle le souverain à ressembler à la statue idéale qu’il sculpte devant lui’.69 In this way, the panegyrist is able to give the impression to each party that he is speaking to them, when he is in fact addressing both. The eulogy of Constantinople (2.30–67) which introduces Anthemius’ virtue of fortitudo70 also counters the Roman senate’s potential prejudices concerning oriental mollitia – Anthemius’ detractors nicknamed him Graeculus.71 Certain elements recur as leitmotifs for the three emperors, as striking ‘key words’ intended to persuade the audience. Sidonius draws the portrait of an ideal ruler who did not inherit power, but received it through divine dispensation (7.153–4, 2.213–19, 314) or the action of Fortune (5.295–8).72 He accepted it out of a sense of duty and sacrifice, like the heroes of the republic.73 The ruler is (and must be) a warrior emperor, courageous and strong,74 but also wise;75 these are the qualities which make him capable of defeating the Vandals. He also represents the promise of a renovatio of imperial power.76

1.3.2 Designating, Naming, and Addressing the Emperor in the Recitatio During the recitatio, Sidonius is the object of careful attention. Deictic markers indicate the emperor to the audience, and one may imagine a theatrical gesture on the part of the speaker: publicus hic pater est (Carm. 6.35, ‘here we have the father of his people’), says Sidonius in the preface; hunc tibi Roma dedi (Carm. 7.585, ‘this man I have given to you, Roma’), he says solemnly behind the mask of Jupiter at the end of his presentation of Avitus to Rome; hic est, o proceres, petiit quem . . . vester amor, he says as panegyrist to those who requested Anthemius (Carm. 2.13, ‘this is the man, o Lords, whom your love longed for’; cf. 129 ast hunc, egregii proceres, ‘but him, illustrious Lords,’). In Majorian’s case, the deictic marks Sidonius’ recognition of the emperor’s benevolent look when he pardoned him (Carm. 5.599 hic tibi vultus erat, ‘this was your expression’), in an echo of the preface. The audience not only sees the emperor but also hears his name: thirteen times for Avitus, seven for Majorian, and three for Anthemius. Half these mentions are direct addresses in the

68 69

70

71 72

73

74

75

76

See Furbetta (2011) 154–7. Sabbah (1984) 379. The panegyric has a paraenetic (Pernot (1993) 710–24) and protreptic (Formisano (2008) 590–5) value, notably in the exempla. He suggests it through the Thracians’ rough education (2.35–55). Then Sidonius mentions Anthemius’ hair as having been under his helmet (2.99–100), in contrast to the topos of scented hair, symbol of luxury and mollitia in oriental people, as said by Iarbas against Aeneas (Aen. 4.216 crinemque madentem). See Ennodius, Vita Epifanii 54 (MGH AA 7, p. 91 Vogel). Sidonius no longer associates heredity (or marriage: Anthemius did not inherit power through his wife; see 2.216–19) and merit, as is still the case in the Panegyrici Latini; see Chianéa (1969) 368. On Sidonius’ hostility towards Valentinian III, the princeps puer who had found refuge in Ravenna and was unable to protect his fellow citizens, see Reydellet (1981) 55–8; on the decadence of imperial power, see Teillet (1984) 194–5 and Stoehr-Monjou (2009b). On the crucial link between princeps and war/victories, which goes back to the republican figure of the triumphant consul, see Mause (1994) 102–3 and 227–8. On the topos of the puer senex, see Carm. 2.75–7, 7.598, and above all 7.212–14, with a pun on the etymology of the Greek word for ‘ambassador’, one of the functions characterizing Avitus; see Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 104. Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 217–23 on the poetic expression.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 325

13/02/20 4:00 PM

326

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

vocative (six Avite and three Maioriane), except in the case of Anthemius, for metrical reasons. This shows well Sidonius’ attachment to his father-in-law; yet he never actually names Avitus in his own voice, delegating this task to Jupiter (7.161, 220, 308, 378) and, within the latter’s speech, to Aëtius (7.339) and Theoderic II (7.519). Majorian’s name is also heard by the audience, mostly on the lips of Africa (5.104, 112),77 who reports mentions of his name by Aëtius (5.280) and his wife (5.145, 182, 218); it is also once uttered by Roma (5.353). Sidonius mentions Anthemius’ father (2.94) and invokes the Muses (2.315), while Oenotria requests him from Aurora (2.479 Anthemium concede mihi). In this way, he seeks to impress the audience. Finally, Sidonius does not address Avitus by his title before the peroration, once he has been legitimised by the poem (Carm. 7.601 Auguste). In contrast, Anthemius is addressed by his official titles from the preface: Caesar (1.23), princeps (1.29, 2.25, 540), Auguste in the panegyric’s opening verse (2.1), and finally Pater patriae in the penultimate verse (2.547). Sidonius thus insists on Anthemius’ legitimacy and the support of the eastern empire. He also evokes him more vividly by addressing him when he narrates his childhood (2.99–105). Finally, the Panegyric on Majorian is in a separate category. The preface ends on the word domino (4.18), which can carry a negative connotation, after Caesar (4.17), but Majorian is not addressed directly. Then, in the poem’s exordium, Sidonius addresses him with verbs, a possessive adjective, and a second person singular pronoun (5.7–12). Further, he emphasises the motif of the warrior emperor by repeating the word victor (Carm. 5.9, 576, 586), which he had used at 4.12. In the peroration, Sidonius addresses Majorian and bestows upon him the title of triumphant victor (5.585 fuimus vestri . . . causa triumphi, ‘we were the cause of your triumph’) and princeps (5.57178 and 582). He gives the emperor a quasi-divine role: he is the empire’s only hope (574),79 brings peace and courage (578), and even the vanquished rejoice in his successes. The scope of Majorian’s clementia is thus broadened from Sidonius in the preface to encompass the defeated inhabitants of Lyon. Finally, Sidonius adroitly flatters Majorian by drawing on a speech delivered by the emperor on 11 January 458, in which he claims to have been elevated to the rank of princeps by the army and the senate.80 Sidonius signals the reminiscence by addressing Majorian as an emperor elected by the people, the senate, and the army in a well-crafted triad (5.387 plebs curia miles).

1.3.3 Addressing the Audience Directly The context of the recitatio, direct addresses (apostrophe) to sections of the audience, and also the narrative itself allow us to understand who was present in the audience.81 The panegyrist speaks in different ways to various groups or individuals, and one can draw a distinction between audience members to whom he expresses – and dramatises – his deference through direct address, and those to whom he speaks indirectly using the third person, out of either caution or deliberate marginalisation. In Rome, the audience was in theory composed of the 77 78

79 80 81

She mentions his maternal grandfather (whether fictitious or not). Carm. 5.571 placidissime princeps, ‘most amiable prince’. The idea is likely to be derived from Statius, who addresses the emperor (Silv. 3.3.167) as ductor placidissime in a context of clementia. The expression spes unica recurs in the same metrical position in an address to the Arvernian at 7.148. Harries (1994) 82. See contra Tommasi (2016) 180: ‘it is impossible to determine the precise audience of a panegyric speech’. On the audience, see Harrison (1983) 178–95, esp. 190–3 on Sidonius, where he analyses Carm. 8.9 (the people and the senate applaud Sidonius) and Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 21–8, and concludes that it is impossible to tell whether the audience of his panegyrics included the populace.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 326

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

327

emperor, the court, the senate, and high-ranking statesmen, with the three latter groups sometimes combined in the term proceres (1.24, 2.14, 129). In the Panegyric on Avitus, Sidonius addresses the senators using the traditional political term (7.8 patres). Yet Avitus is accompanied in Rome by both Gallo-Roman and Gothic dignitaries (proceres) who do not appear on this level of discourse, but are present in the narrative of events which brought the emperor to power (nobilitas 7.525; proceres 7.399, 530, 577; nobilium 7.575). From an ‘official’ perspective, as the mouthpiece of Avitus tasked with legitimising his title, Sidonius is thus able not only to flatter these dignitaries, but also to remind the audience of the support which the emperor enjoys, notably by mentioning the Gauls’ thunderous applause (7.585–6 Gallia campis / intonat Augustum plausu). Further, the divine concilium represents the Roman assembly, disparate but hierarchised, from the ruler and gods82 to heroes. In 468, Sidonius used proceres to designate the Roman senators before Anthemius; with Romula virtus and vester amor, he indicated who had begged Anthemius to take up supreme power (Carm. 2.13). Finally, as Sidonius thanked the emperor Leo for allowing Anthemius to come (Carm. 2.27 Auguste Leo), he may have been addressing the ruler’s eastern entourage. These elements also constitute a message addressed to Ricimer, who is mentioned in the exordium only in the third person. Sidonius reduces him to the status of consul and son-in-law,83 reminding him that Anthemius is the protector and saviour of the state, loved by all. In the Panegyric on Majorian, just before the peroration, the poet includes an ascending eulogy of three of his comites (which also constitutes implicit praise of their leader): the magister militum (5.553–7), the prefect of Gaul (558–63), and finally the magister epistularum (564–73) Petrus, the only one to be named.84 The local audience seems absent. In the exordium, it is initially replaced by the allegory of Europe exulting in Majorian’s victory (5.7–8 tuum . . . / exultans Europa sophos) and welcoming him gratefully.85 Sidonius does not dwell on Gaul’s place on the losing side, but he does not silence it either. In this way, he avoids offending either party. The Gallo-Romans are then represented by Lyon in the peroration, but Sidonius has fundamentally shifted the perspective. He recalls the defeat by presenting the city as a possession of the emperor (5.576 Lugdunumque tuam). Yet the joys of the exordium are replaced by an emphasis on the suffering accompanying the defeat (fracta 577, exhausta 581, capitur 582, populatibus igni 583, ipsa ruina 585). Further, Sidonius associates himself with his compatriots through a possessive adjective or a first person plural verb (nostrae de moenibus urbis, ‘from the walls of our city’, 572; concidimus, ‘we are ruined’, 584), thereby displaying his loyalty to them as well as his desire to serve as a Gallic intermediary with the regime, particularly with Petrus. Finally, the specific case of Sidonius is presented as heralding the destiny of Gaul as a whole. The praefatio celebrates the emperor’s mercy to him alone (in the first person singular), but this is expanded to include Lyon in the peroration. This ring composition underlines 82

83

84

85

The gods are in fact called caeli / proceres (7.119–20, ‘celestial Lords’). They rise like the Muses in the preface, who also represent the audience (6.31 assurexerunt; 7.120 assurgunt), and applaud at 7.599, plausere dei. Sidonius announces (2.543) that he will celebrate the emperor’s exploits at a later stage, during his son-in-law Ricimer’s second term as consul, or Anthemius’ third. Even though Ricimer is named five times (Carm. 2.352, 357, 360, 484, 502) by the gods, he is never addressed directly. See sect. 2.2.1 and Montone (2015) on Ricimer (non vidi). Carm. 3.5, 9.308; Ep. 9.13.4. The magister militum is Nepotianus, father of the later emperor Julius Nepos. The prefect of Gaul (458–9) is Magnus, consul in 460 and father of Araneola (Carm. 15.151), for whom Sidonius later wrote the Epithalamium of Polemius and Araneola. The verb recurs in the same metrical position at the beginning of a line in the peroration (Carm. 5.598, exultare libet), to express Sidonius’ joy at the mercy of the victorious Majorian.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 327

13/02/20 4:00 PM

328

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

the strong unity between the preface and the panegyric. At the end of the panegyric, when Sidonius dramatises the emperor’s turning his benevolent gaze towards the Gauls – a gesture which reminds him of Majorian’s expression when he pardoned him (Carm. 5.596–9) – he is speaking verses which have a performative value. His statement is also an appeal to Majorian, concerning whom Sidonius still harbours uncertainties.86 Thus, in the Panegyric on Majorian, Sidonius becomes the mouthpiece of both parties, and does not only remain the ruler’s official voice, as the absence of audience in the preface could suggest.

1.4 Conclusion Even if we cannot know what the audience really thought, the recitatio and the attempt to build a consensus probably had a measure of success,87 at least in terms of power politics:88 Sidonius received honours for each panegyric (a statue in the Forum of Trajan;89 entry into Majorian’s circle; the office of urban prefect and the concomitant title of vir illustris). The epicisation of the panegyric in the tradition of Claudian certainly contributed to this success.

2 Epic Panegyric The preface, the exordium, the peroration, the organisation of the text, and Sidonius’ own testimony concerning the Panegyric on Anthemius90 make it clear that he wrote three epic panegyrics.91 If one thinks of his predecessor Merobaudes, Sidonius could also have written in prose. Why did he choose verse?

2.1 Epicising the Panegyric It is clear that Sidonius chose to situate himself in the prestigious tradition of Claudian because of the latter’s stroke of genius: to blend epic and rhetoric. An encomium is easier to listen to when incorporated into a narrative; nowadays, communications experts advise politicians to tell a story. In Rome, poetry also excited greater pleasure.92 The inclusion of epic is representative of a concern to move the elite;93 in the hierarchy of genres, it allows panegyric to reach the sublime, which reflects well on the emperor.94 Thus, the epic verse brings ‘noblesse

86 87

88

89

90 91

92

93 94

For a nuanced treatment of Sidonius’ complex relationship with Majorian, see Furbetta (2015a) 136. Gillett (2012) 288: ‘The person of the panegyrist himself was the medium of the ongoing relationship between honorand and audience.’ The emperor would perhaps not have run the risk of rewarding the panegyrist if the poem had not been appreciated at least to some extent. Further, the fact that Sidonius was chosen by Anthemius twelve years after Avitus is a sign of the recognition which he enjoyed. Sidon. Carm. 8.7–10; Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 25–8. Claudian and Merobaudes were granted the same honour; see Gillett (2012) 285–6. Sidonius writes of a work celebrating the new consul’s accession (Ep. 1.9.6–7), not of an epic poem. In the debate between epic panegyric and panegyric epic – see Hofmann (1988), Zarini (2012) – which rather concerns Claudian’s works, Sidonius is not a problematic figure. Lucretius (1.933–50) chooses the honey of poetry to soothe the excessively bitter medicine of Epicurean teaching. The fact that Philosophy still uses poetry as a cure in Boethius (Cons. 3.1.1–2) shows that this is still a reality for the sixth-century elite. Biblical paraphrase constitutes an equivalent in the Christian context. Zarini (2012).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 328

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

329

épique, parfois même ferveur hymnique’ and allows the poet more latitude to distort reality, to present the princeps as a hero, and to reinforce the sense of cultural complicity with the audience around shared values, an indispensable task for Sidonius.95 The choice of epic therefore responds to literary, cultural, and political factors beyond Sidonius’ own passion for poetry.

2.2 Epic Writing Sidonius’ writing therefore remains subordinated to the epideictic project: to present the prince as a hero around whom a consensus can arise. The organisation of the narrative and speeches constitutes the first framework linking the panegyrics to epic.

2.2.1 Narrative and Speeches The narrative follows the chronology of the emperor’s life, and is repeatedly and deliberately interrupted.96 Avitus’ visit to the court of Theoderic I at Toulouse was delicate because it raised the question of the emperor’s loyalty. Therefore, Sidonius broke it up into two episodes: an initial account at Carm. 7.218–29, where we are not yet told that, following it, Avitus became the crown prince’s tutor, and the rest as part of the account of Avitus’ 455 embassy to the then king Theoderic II, where we learn of Theoderic I’s compliance with Avitus’ advice (7.471–84), and Theoderic II’s acknowledgement of how Avitus had educated him (7.495–8),97 so that it is only at the end that one realises that it was one long stay; yet by that point, the information has become acceptable to the audience because they have learned that Theoderic II had been Romanised.98 In addition, Sidonius engages in a stylisation of reality which is facilitated by the epic style. He distinguishes between two types of narrative: that delivered by himself as speaker in the first level of discourse – in the Vergilian tradition – and that involving a second level of discourse through myth.99 Deities such as Roma, Italy (called Oenotria), and Africa speak of the hero (the emperor), but never meet him. The two worlds are separate, in contrast with classical epic, for the deities are pure fictions. It is in the Panegyric on Avitus that Sidonius devotes the most space – almost the entire poem – to the mythological narrative (Carm. 7.17–598). This is a young poet’s bold appropriation of the Claudianic structure, taking it as far as it could possibly go by making the speech of Jupiter fill the whole poem. But it could also indicate caution or a reluctance to praise his father-in-law in person. Sidonius delegates the encomium to Jupiter (7.123–440) following Roma’s complaints. Jupiter also narrates the most recent events100 leading to Avitus’ proclamation as emperor (7.441–584), this being

95 96

97

98

99 100

Zarini (2012) 26–7: ‘epic nobility, sometimes even hymnic fervour’. Sidonius frames (5.378, 384) the lieutenant Burco’s victories (378–84) with allusions to Majorian in order to give the latter credit for them. Carm. 7.218-19: embassy of Avitus; 471-84: pacifying influence on Theoderic I; affection for his son, whom he tutored (495-8). Sidonius follows the topos of the virtuous barbarian and insists on the king’s friendship and submission; see Gualandri (2000) 107–18. On his portrait in Ep. 1.2, see Gualandri (1979) 67–72, Reydellet (1981) 68–77 (on his civilitas), and recently Furbetta (2015a) 137–41 on the political significance of the barbarian king’s positive presentation and the question of Sidonius’ own position. On this distinction, see Bonjour (1982). Current affairs take up the most space in the Panegyric on Avitus, with the events of 454–5: the succession of deaths (Aëtius, Valentinian III, Petronius Maximus) and the sack of Rome; see Carm. 7.357–75, 441-51.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 329

13/02/20 4:00 PM

330

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

the most problematic point.101 By assigning these speeches to Jupiter, Sidonius also creates an impression of objectivity.102 Finally, during the whole speech, Sidonius uses the vocative Roma and the pronouns te and tibi to remind the audience that Jupiter is addressing the goddess, and through her, the senators. Thus, the god concludes his speech by entrusting Avitus to Roma,103 juxtaposing man and goddess at the beginning of the line to express concord: hunc tibi Roma dedi (7.585, ‘to you I, Roma, have given this man’). In the Panegyric on Majorian, Roma welcomes the Concilium provinciarum (5.12–369), Africa implores Roma to save her from Geiseric (5.107–327), and Roma introduces her to Majorian (351–67). The Gauls in the audience104 are thus encouraged to recognise the new emperor, and made to shift their attention away from the own situation to the future of the empire, which is at risk because of the Vandals’ occupation of Africa. In contrast with the Panegyric on Avitus, however, the mythological fiction is interrupted just under halfway through the text. Majorian’s portrait is completed by Sidonius himself (5.374–572) after a second prooemium in the Vergilian tradition, where he presents himself as an epic poet inspired by Mars (5.370–4). Finally, in the Panegyric on Anthemius, Sidonius first praises Anthemius in person (2.30–306: genos, phusis, paideia, and praxeis) – significantly, he addresses the prince in the exordium instead of invoking a god or Muses, and then introduces the myth (which takes up less than half the poem) with invocations. This is followed by three tableaux, which lack the unity of place of Carm. 7 and 5: the mourning goddess Oenotria/Italy asks the Tiber for help (2.317–87); Tiber goes to see Roma (2.388–406); she requests Anthemius from Aurora (2.407–523), and the pact is sealed by Concord in an echo of the exordium celebrating the union of East and West. In this way, the text reflects the new state of affairs in the relations between East and West, and reminds the Romans that they need Anthemius. In all three poems, the organisation of the epic narrative displays a concern with varietas. The proportion of speeches in epic poetry increased with time, and rhetorical teaching naturally played a role in this development. Speeches notably enable better characterisation (ethopoiia). Our panegyrics all share one specific feature, the rarity of direct speeches for the emperorhero: two for Avitus,105 one for Majorian, none for Anthemius. Avitus’ first words are ‘arma / arma’ (7.260–1, ‘weapons, weapons’), following which he speaks in epic style to a warrior he is about to slay (7.280–4). Then, addressing the Visigothic senate, Avitus reminds Theoderic II (7.460–86) of the influence he had on his father by saving Narbonne; he mentions his filial piety and reminds him of the necessity of respecting treaties. Avitus thus displays a concern with fides, which could reassure the audience in Rome. Majorian, during the crossing of the Alps, replies to a disheartened soldier (5.540–9) by criticising his inertia and using rhetorical questions to say that he is not an animal-human hybrid, which emphasises his courage and endurance.106 101

102 103 104 105

106

Sidonius emphasises the power vacuum and the interregnum (7.450-52, 513-14, 557) and the election of Avitus by the pia turba senatus (7.572): the assembly of Beaucaire did not have the right to name an emperor; see Reydellet (1981) 68 with n. 75. Avitus’ panegyric is thus justified by Rome herself (Furbetta (2015a) 127). See Gualandri (1999) 59 n. 57, Bruzzone (2004) 136 n. 29. The Concilium provinciarum echoes the actual place of the recitatio in Lyon. They represent 5 per cent of lines, whereas the barbarians speak in 14 per cent of them, according to Hanaghan (2017a) 265. On this basis, it is of course exaggerated to claim that rhetorical talent is a defining feature of Avitus – see Gillett (2003) 98–9 – as is noted by Hanaghan (2017a) 265 n. 14, who concludes that the military dimension is more important. This reading is patchy: Sidonius explicitly says that Avitus combines the two facets of ambassador and military leader (see 7.214-15), which proves that he is the optimus princeps required by Rome (7.116). This is particularly important given the fact that diplomacy became detached ‘de la sphère militaire au cours du Ve siècle’ in favour of civilians; see Becker (2013) 224. Brolli (2013) 104–6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 330

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

331

The speeches by other characters also contribute to praising the emperor, even (or especially) when they are delivered by enemies. The Panegyric on Avitus contains five speeches either requesting something from Avitus or recognising his courage and nobility.107 There are three speeches on Majorian, all of very unequal length. Roma reports the words of Aëtius’ wife (5.143–274) and her husband’s reply (5.275–93). She appears in a negative aspect as a new Medea (5.132–9), and sees Majorian as a dangerous rival to be pushed aside (which provides an explanation for his retirement); yet she also announces his glorious destiny. One may, however, wonder whether her accusations of treachery and ambition (5.199–202), which are not contradicted by Aëtius, reflect Sidonius’ own opinion.108 Finally, during the crossing of the Alps, a solider complains of his leader’s endurance (5.520–38). In the Panegyric on Anthemius, speeches are the exclusive preserve of the gods. The considerable space devoted to divine prosopopeiae (Jupiter in Carm. 7, Roma in the three poems, Africa in Carm. 5, Oenotria and Aurora in Carm. 2) allows Sidonius to entrust an otherwise fragile message to respected powers. Not only do they contribute to portraying the emperor and legitimating him,109 they also make him omnipresent:110 Jupiter presents Avitus, Africa demands Majorian, and Avitus is requested by Roma. Thus, Oenotria praises Ricimer (Carm. 2.358–86), whom she presents as a great general, but she finishes by demanding a soldier emperor, showcasing Anthemius in a concluding golden line. Sidonius simultaneously avoids offending the general who overthrew Majorian111 and conveys a message from the imperial circle.112

2.2.2 Epic Style The introduction of the subject (here, praise of the emperor) related to an invocation, epic comparison, and the golden line are three epic features. The poet invokes Phoebus (7.1) and the Respublica, saved by Majorian (5.1). Sidonius announces his epic inspiration by telling his anxious Muse that Avitus protects him as he sets out for the high seas, a metaphor for epic (7.14).113 In a second, integrated prooemium, he invokes Mars (since Apollo is silent, in contrast to 7.1) to celebrate Majorian as a warring hero (5.372–3).114 Finally, Sidonius multiplies invocations in the second part of the Panegyric on Anthemius, which is placed under the authority of Apollo,115 and concludes with the cultural supremacy of Rome, invoking the Roman Muse, the Camena.116 The panegyrics mostly contain rhetorical comparisons, or synkriseis, which use the exempla of various mythological or historical heroes, often cited in catalogues. These comparisons, 107 108

109

110 111

112

113 114 115

116

Aëtius (7.339–46), Theoderic (214–29), Theoderic II (489–518), a Goth (416–30), a Gallic nobleman (530–71). See Rousseau (2000) 254–5; his reflection on the embedding of Pelagia’s speech in Africa’s is very true: it is a way for Sidonius ‘to voice his misgivings about the style and policy of the emperor’ (p. 251). See Alexandre (2009b) 57. Through the goddess Africa, Sidonius emphasises the fact that Majorian is the only bulwark against Geiseric; see Montone (2013a) 9. See Sabbah (1984) 381 on prosopopeia as ‘figure de la présence’ (enargeia). Consolino (2000) 191. See also Watson (1998) 175-98: Sidonius spares the strongman but the prerogatives remain with Anthemius. See sect. 1.3.3. Stevens (1933) 99–100: ‘listeners may have detected in several passages of the panegyric an implied disapproval of Ricimer’ (see Carm. 2.15–16 and 2.317–18). For Loyen (1942) 98, Sidonius was instructed to ‘prodiguer caresses et avertissements’ to Ricimer. Furbetta (2013a) 282. Sidonius also invokes the Muse of History, Clio, to praise Petrus (5.568). He introduces and concludes the narrative of Oenotria’s visit to the Tiber and Roma’s to Aurora with two long invocations, to Apollo and the Muses (Carm. 2.307-16) and then to Venustas (Carm. 2.524–36), before invoking the Roman Muse par excellence, Camena, in the peroration (2.537-9). See Condorelli (2008) 74–6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 331

13/02/20 4:00 PM

332

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

which are occasionally incorporated into topical epic scenes, sometimes contribute to bolstering epic amplification.117 Each element says something important about the emperor, who equals, and often surpasses, the greatest heroes. Achilles118 and Hercules119 are two central figures. I shall focus here on three epic comparisons in the purest Homeric tradition, which transport the reader into the animal world. Two of them emphasise the barbarity and dehumanisation of an enemy: the pillaging Goths are compared to plundering wolves – with a Christian nuance (7.363–8) –120 and the Vandals hide like a wild boar cornered by hunters (5.90–8).121 A third comparison identifies a group of warriors whose strength is renewed by Avitus and whom he spurs into action to a flock of birds surrounding the mythical king of the birds, the phoenix (7.348–56).122 Finally, the golden line, often located at a climactic point as in Claudian, contributes to the sublime by its perfection,123 particularly when it enhances an ekphrasis,124 or when it emphasises the concord or hope of a new golden age.125

2.2.3 Epic Machinery In addition, Sidonius makes use of certain topoi from the epic machinery. Most notable is the emphasis on war epic in certain choice passages illustrating the emperor’s exceptional virtus: Avitus’ duel with the Hun warrior (7.241–94) turns the Gallic warrior into a true epic hero;126 during the attack against the Salian Franks, Majorian is seized by a warlike furor (5.211–54);127 the crossing of the Alps, inspired by Silius Italicus (3.476–556),128 displays the emperor’s endurance and exemplarity (5.510–52). In his reports of this exploit and the battle of Serdica, won by Anthemius (2.269–87),129 the poet addresses the respective emperors several times, thereby emphasising the recitatio and somewhat attenuating the purely epic dimension. The hero, however, does not receive a weapon as does Achilles from Thetis or Aeneas from Venus; instead, Roma’s shield is described through the hypotext of Aeneas’ shield. There is a focus on the she-wolf with Romulus and Remus and an inversion of perspective: what is presented as a prophecy by Vergil is now thought of as a return to the past.130 The catalogues of warriors oscillate between enumeration and well-established epic motif: Attila’s invasion (7.319–28), the Visigothic army led by Avitus (7.348–56),131 the forces assembled 117 118 119 120

121 122

123

124 125 126

127 128 129 130 131

See Brolli (2014) 132. See Guipponi-Gineste (2010b) 50–3. Koster (1988) 294–99, Furbetta (2013a) 278–9; on Carm. 13, see Santelia (2005b). See Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 226–7 on the Vergilian intertext and the Christian dimension of the passage; Montone (2011b) mentions other hypotexts, but omits the anti-Arian reading. This comparison anticipates the praise of Majorian as a hunter (5.153–4). On the richness of this passage, see Jolivet (2014) 118–23. On the phoenix and its symbolic and political meaning, see Furbetta (2013a) 279, Tommasi (2016) 199. Carm. 7.147, 188, 294, 387, 410, 445, 5.307, 514, 603, 1.15, 2.372, 386, 443. Avitus’ duel culminates with a golden line (7.294). About the modern term ‘golden line’ or versus aureus for an ancient reality, see StoehrMonjou (2009b) 220 n. 68. Carm. 5.36, 2.326, 411, 425. Carm. 7.602, 5.369, 2.104, 196. See Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 220–3. Schindler (2009) 194–6; see Hanaghan (2017a) on his ira, which suggests auctoritas. This duel raises Avitus to the level of Achilles as avenger of Patroclus; see Stevens (1933) 37. On the Franks, see Gualandri (2001), Brolli (2014). Brolli (2004). Majorian’s control over hostile natural elements is prepared by 207–11, on frozen rivers. See Ploton-Nicollet (2014) on 2.269–71. Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 224–5, Consolino (2014) 155–6, 162–3. Jolivet (2014) 118–22.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 332

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

333

by Majorian (5.470–83). The scene in which Aëtius’ wife bursts into her husband’s room (5.140) to warn him against Majorian is an imaginative rewriting of the motif of apparitions in dreams.132 There are several scenes in which a deity or a human turns to another for help: Roma-Jupiter recalls Venus-Jupiter (Verg. Aen. 1.228–96), and Aëtius-Avitus (7.328–56) recalls Juno-Aeolus (Aen. 1.50–81).133 Finally, the concilium deorum is given greater space than in traditional epic. Sidonius plays with generic codes to exalt the emperor, and distorts epic material to suit the political message.

2.3 Myth Myth is a constant presence in all three panegyrics. Often criticised in the past,134 it has benefited from a reassessment and is now one of the most widely studied aspects of our corpus.135 Myth had formed part of rhetorical and literary education and of the epic panegyric tradition since Claudian, and thus became an essential ornament.136 It had aesthetic, cultural, and political value as a language that was immediately understood by the elite, and did not contradict Sidonius’ Christian faith.137 In panegyric, myth symbolises stability and a yearning for order in the contemporary chaos,138 for it transposes history outside the contingencies of everyday life, ‘in an ideal, immutable, and everlasting time’ which is also comforting.139 There is broad agreement among scholars that myth is used to filter reality not only without concealing everything,140 but also to ‘decode’ a cryptic political message.141 The allegories of Roma142 or Aurora are comparable to contemporary figurative representations of imperial ideology,143 and establish a ‘sign system’ across the poems.144 In addition, ekphrasis forms part of the art of persuasion,145 and in the case of recitatio, is effective both visually (enargeia) and aurally, for it monopolises the entire scope of the audience’s consciousness.146 132 133 134 135 136 137

138 139 140

141 142

143

144 145 146

Brolli (2013) 102. Jolivet (2014) 114–18. Loyen (1943) 114–19, Stevens (1933) 32; these names are noted by Schmitzer (2015) 74–5. Bruzzone (2013) and Furbetta (2013a) for a recent bibliography. Schindler (2015). A stimulating article challenges the common opinion according to which Sidonius ‘n’aurait jamais pris au sérieux l’antique croyance et n’en aurait fait qu’un usage littéraire’ or ‘identitaire’ (Desbrosses (2015) 214). I shall here put forward two counter-arguments, one detailed and the other more general. To consider that Jupiter’s reviving the world through his gaze (Carm. 7.17–19) recalls the creator God of Genesis 1.31 and 2.1–3 is inexact, for the latter created through speech (Deus dixit). The author rightly draws a connection between Sidonius’ renunciation of the poetry of nugae when he became a bishop and the canons circulating in Gaul at the time: some of them forbade bishops to read pagan or heretical books, except out of necessity (219). Once he became a bishop, Sidonius submitted to ecclesial discipline, which does not mean that he believed in the myths beforehand. Consolino (2011a). Bruzzone (2004) 131: ‘in un tempo ideale, immutabile ed eterno’. One can also speak of a dressing up of reality, of veiling through myth; see Gualandri (1979, 1998, 1999), Furbetta (2013a) 275–6, Bruzzone (2004) 131: the filter of myth does not conceal history. Myth moderates, actualises, and shapes: Gosserez (2009), Bonjour (1982): myth has a political, ‘mediating’ function. Furbetta (2013a) 281. Gualandri (1999) 59–60, Roberts (2001), Bruzzone (2004), Brocca (2004), Schindler (2009), Kelly (2013b) 180–2, Consolino (2014). See Kelly (2013b) 187–9, who rightly insists on the distinction between Aurora and Constantinople; see also Consolino (2014). See Bonjour (1982) 8–10 on Rome as exhausted and then bellatrix. Webb (2009) 131–65. Sabbah (1984) 387: ‘accapare tout le champ de leur conscience’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 333

13/02/20 4:00 PM

334

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

Sidonius subtly describes Aurora’s palace and the goddess herself with an Ovidian color (2.407–39)147 which contrasts with the Vergilian self-representation of Roma bellatrix (2.440– 77);148 this poetics allows him to express ‘the unavoidable translatio imperii in a manner acceptable to a western audience forced to accept an emperor who had come from Constantinople’,149 whilst also saying that Rome maintains its authority.150 The personification of Rome humiliated (7.45–9)151 of course masks the humiliation of the city sacked by Geiseric, whilst also alluding to it and imposing it on the audience, quite apart from the force of the Claudianic hypotext. Finally, myths also endow single poems and the corpus as a whole with their own coherence and meaning; thus for instance the figure of Apollo, who is central to Carm. 7, is absent for Majorian and returns for Anthemius.152

2.4 Conclusion Sidonius opted for epic panegyric not only out of love for Claudian and poetry, but also because it provided him with the cultural and symbolic language which would make his political message audible to all through the creation of a sense of belonging. Epic also gave him the freedom to turn the ruler into a quasi-divine hero, capable of maintaining the unity of the empire, to kindle hope for the renovatio imperii, and to bring forth a new golden age,153 even after the failure of Avitus and then Majorian. This cruel reality leads us to the topic of Sidonius’ relationship with contemporary events and history.

3 Contemporary Events, History, and Ideology through Historical Exempla Sidonius’ panegyrics convey a political message concerning the immediate present, the past, and the future, which it is possible to analyse through the medium of historical exempla. Sidonius’ exempla are often considered repetitive and sterile.154 But this is to misunderstand the 147

148 149

150

151

152

153 154

Jolivet (2015) 159–66 emphasises Sidonius’ rhetorical competence as displayed through topothesia and the influence of Ovid, which is also analysed by Montuschi (2001) 161–76. Jolivet (2015) 167–9. Jolivet (2015) 173: ‘l’inévitable translatio imperii de façon acceptable pour un auditoire occidental, contraint d’accepter un empereur venu de Constantinople’. Watson (1998) 187. On account of its restrictions (Reydellet (1981), 51), the description of the city has been interpreted as a discreet criticism of Anthemius’ ambition; see Alexandre (2009a) 343–4. Such a reading, however, fails to account for Ep. 1.9 and the fact that Sidonius combines different perspectives: he must ensure that Anthemius is accepted by the Romans, and therefore avoids offending them. This is certainly one of the most discussed passages of Sidonius! See Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 213–14, and above all Kelly (2013b) 179–82 and Consolino (2014) 149–51. Furbetta (2013a) 282–6, (2014b) 73–8. On Apollo’s silence concerning Majorian (5.372 Apolline muto), see also Alexandre (2009b) 56. I would add that this silence also draws attention to a gap: Apollo, Augustus’ god, though celebrated in the prefatory poem (Carm. 4), is silent in the second prooemium once Majorian is a warrior. This silence signifies that Sidonius’ inspiration is less elevated; in contrast with the second prooemium of Vergil (Aen. 7.37–45), to whom Sidonius compares himself in the preface, it suggests latent reticence; see Condorelli (2008) 53–7. See Mause (1994) 222–5 on the saeculum aureum; Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 220–1. Loyen (1943) 17–19 criticises Sidonius’ historical erudition, ‘which does not surpass the level of De viris’ (‘est de niveau du de Viris’), and for the longish overviews of Roman in history at Carm. 2.440–78 and 7.55–116 sarcastically remarks that ‘par bonheur . . . la “science” de Sidoine s’arrête vers la fin de Ier siècle’ (‘fortunately, Sidonius’ “learning” stops around the end of the first century’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 334

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

335

nature of exemplum.155 For the Rhetor ad Herennium, Cicero, and Quintilian,156 the exemplum, which falls under rhetoric of pathos, uses history as evidence in order to persuade the audience through the auctoritas of the past and the hero’s prestige.157 Already in Cicero, the exemplum is tied up with the glorification of the past and the Urbs. As shown by J.-M. David, the ancient exemplum verifies the norm and transmits civic values and the mos maiorum, with a considerable share of ideological reconstruction.158 The historical exemplum, as a rhetorical figure blended with ethics, therefore contributes to the constitution and transmission of the poems’ political message, and to the ideological meaning of the panegyric. Sidonius consciously uses exempla to prove that the glorious past can return,159 thereby bringing together past and present to suggest a future containing both.160 Thus the exemplum not only brings hope, it also spurs to action.161 In following this line of argument, I wish to show that the exemplum recalls the ‘sound bites’ (éléments de langage) which a politician’s staffers are told to repeat to the media, especially in crisis situations: it is chosen precisely because it is known by all162 and because it is a very swift means of transmitting or buttressing a political message; a simple allusion (even a name) is enough. The exemplum sheds light on the political communication between the speaker, those in power, and the audience; it acquires meaning during the recitatio, and creates networks of meaning across the poems, whether we analyse them in order of composition or of publication.

3.1 Criteria for the Inclusion of Exempla In his poetic corpus, Sidonius restricts the use of historical exempla to the poems which have an epideictic dimension: the panegyrics, the preface to the Panegyric on Majorian, Carm. 9 (recusatio of history), 23 (encomium of Narbonne), and 24 (propempticon for the book sent to his friends).163 The use of exempla relies on allusion, which in the case of a recitatio strengthens the connection between audience and recipient. Sidonius favours either the enumeration of several exempla (at least three) or the combination of two independent exempla, as if one exemplum called for another.164 There are a few isolated exempla, often in amplifications. In addition, Sidonius uses exempla in choice passages: catalogues, ekphraseis, preambles, addresses, and prosopopoeiae. He has a holistic vision of his exempla, and develops them across different poems according to specific criteria: some exempla occur only once, others in two panegyrics, and still others in all three. 155 156

157

158 159

160 161 162

163 164

See Berlioz and David (1980). The author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.5) distinguishes the literary exemplum aiming to explain and clarify (demonstrare) from the argumentative exemplum aimed to prove (4.57). That latter is the one Aristotle (Rhet. 1394a), Cicero (Orat. 169), and Quintilian (Inst. 5.11.1) recommend using in argumentation. Harrison (1983) 165–8 insists on Sidonius’ link to the past and Romanitas; cf. Portmann (1988) 101-15, Coudry and Späth (2001), Guillaumin (2013), Tommasi (2014). David (1980). It is in this sense that one should understand the invocation of Venustas at the end of the Panegyric on Anthemius (2.524–36), which contains a small catalogue of exempla. Watson (1998) 177–98. Guillaumin (2013). It expresses a common culture and transmits civic values and the mos maiorum; see David (1980). The question of sources would be a fruitful one, both in terms of Sidonius’ culture, and in terms of the ideological interpretation which he reflects and recreates. Keaveney (1995) on 2.453–79 shows that Sidonius is reliable. On soundbites (éléments de langage) see Polguère (2016). See Consolino in this volume, ch. 10. Brief mentions of an exemplum outside a list are rare in Sidonius’ verse, but commoner in his letters.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 335

13/02/20 4:00 PM

336

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

3.2 The Panegyric is Not a News Bulletin The panegyrist’s task is not to provide information, but to influence the listener. This shift in perspective is essential.165 The prosopopeia of Rome in the Panegyric on Avitus offers, in an extraordinary catalogue of exempla from Romulus to Trajan (7.51-118), a summary of the history of Rome and its illustrious heroes, with the exception of a few bad emperors. In this way, Roma expresses her feelings (fear and anger) and those of the Romans. The beginning of Jupiter’s reply (7.127–35) is a genuine captatio benevolentiae responding to current events. The god answers Roma’s laments one by one, using reason to rekindle her hope. He uses three exempla quoted by Roma, but from the opposite point of view. While she mourns her heroes Horatius Cocles (7.65), Camillus (68), and the victors of the three Punic Wars (72–3), he names their three main opponents: Porsenna (7.127–28),166 Brennus (128–9), and Hannibal (129–34), all of whom were on the verge of capturing Rome, but failed. Jupiter does not mention the heroes quoted by Roma, saving instead the name of her saviour Avitus until line 153. Quoting Brennus makes Avitus into a new Camillus. Whereas Roma mentions all three Punic Wars (7.72–3), Jupiter concentrates only on Hannibal, the exemplum which is most relevant to current events because of Geiseric. The passage is marked by epic exaggeration with the allusion to the Gigantomachy, an echo of the preface (6.15 trepidum . . . Tonantem, ‘the Thunderer alarmed’; 7.133–4 paventem . . . / Iovem, ‘Jupiter in terror’).167 As in Claudian, Sidonius endows the struggle against Geiseric, the new Hannibal, with a cosmic dimension; it necessitates an exceptional man, Avitus. The three exempla thus mutually reinforce each other, and serve as testimony that the past lives on:168 Roma must once again have hope. They also prepare Roma – and thus the Romans – to hear that Avitus is the man of the hour.

3.3 Silences, Reservations, Uncertainties Sidonius had access to a variety of devices (deliberate omissions, silences, a biased or distorted presentation of the facts) to deal with more or less delicate events, and the exemplum may contribute to this. Thus, Avitus’ visit to the Visigothic court at Toulouse is first compared to the embassy of Fabricius, who remained incorruptible before the barbarian king Pyrrhus (7.223–9).169 Sidonius can also establish a system of allusions, a coded language,170 in order not to ‘interrupt the communication with the emperor and the senate’.171 Thus, he is able through code words to withhold the name of Avitus before Majorian, who had overthrown him, and the Gallo-Roman elite, who had supported him.172 The fact that Sidonius never again mentions the exemplum of Fabricius is another striking illustration of this.173

165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173

Sabbah (1984) 380. Only one occurrence in prose panegyrics, Paneg. Lat. 9.18.2. Bruzzone (2014) 309–10. Jupiter introduces them with the conjunction si, ‘if it is true that’ (7.127, 128, 129) before telling Rome to stand up. Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 98–102. Fo (2002). Sabbah (1984) 384: ‘interrompre la communication . . . avec l’empereur et le Sénat’. Mathisen (1979b). This conveys both the force of the exemplum when applied to Avitus, and the poet’s refusal to tarnish it through comparison with others.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 336

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

337

Similarly, a comparison between the different exempla reveals without any possible doubt Sidonius’ caution or reservation concerning Majorian,174 who continued to arouse uncertainty.175 Six exempla are found in all three panegyrics: Camillus, Cincinnatus,176 Caesar, Trajan,177 and Rome’s enemies Pyrrhus178 and Hannibal; the latter prefigures Geiseric leading a fourth Punic War.179 At first glance, the republican exempla of Cincinnatus and Camillus express a senatorial and Rome-centric vision aimed at reassuring the Roman audience.180 In the Panegyric on Avitus, Camillus is mentioned three times as the city’s saviour by Roma, Jupiter, and a Gallic nobleman (7.68, 128-9, 561-4). After the sack of Rome in 455, this exemplum is a powerful statement that Avitus is Rome’s saviour, sent by Providence; he is the new Camillus, who vanquished the Senones and saved the city from abandonment. The parallel is given particular force by the fact that Sidonius diverges from the tradition on Camillus in which the motif of the second founder is minor and ephemeral.181 In the case of Cincinnatus, Sidonius adopts the traditional motif of the frugal peasant-consul called upon to save Rome when Avitus is sought out in his retirement to become magister militum (7.378–87). These two exempla therefore contribute to creating a consensus around the princeps. The situation is somewhat different in Carm. 5, where Cincinnatus (5.300–4) serves to justify Majorian’s disgrace:182 he relinquishes power to become a ploughman (5.293–300) and to complete his training not only as a soldier, but also as a civilian. Camillus is used to praise the military skills of the magister equitum Nepotianus (5.553–7). Sidonius therefore denies Majorian the analogy with Camillus, and inverts the traditional topos of the Cincinnatus exemplum in a paradox which would surely have struck the audience, and suggests his reservations concerning the princeps.183 At the end of Carm. 2, the poet mentions heroes who saved Rome after having been removed from power (2.524–35); in contrast to them, Anthemius is loved without being injured (2.535–6), which implicitly indicates that he will save Rome without first having to experience ingratitude. The first two heroes to be quoted together (2.526–9) are Camillus and Cincinnatus,184 who contribute to exalting Anthemius. As for the readers of the panegyrics in their published order, when they reach Avitus after Anthemius and Majorian, they understand how precious that emperor was, especially as he ploughs very 174

175

176 177 178

179

180 181 182 183

184

These are perceptible in various passages; see Rousseau (2000), Alexandre (2009a) 341–2, (2009b) 57. One should not see the entire Panegyric on Majorian as pervaded by figurative speech (Alexandre (2009a) 342); such a systematic reading fails to account for the complexities and ambiguities which are constitutive of the panegyric as a genre. See Rousseau (2000) 254: ‘the whole panegyric was built around an enduring fear that Majorian might still not wish to take a “civilian way”’. See also above, n. 86. Portmann (1988) 334 compares Claud. Gild. 111 and Sidon. Carm. 7.383 and 2.527. See Furbetta (2015a) 130–2. Camillus (Carm. 7.561–4, 5.557, 2.526–7); Cincinnatus (7.382–7, 5.300–4, 2.527–9); Caesar (7.150–2, 5.505–8, 2.120); Trajan (Carm. 7.114–15, 116–17, 5.317, 326, 561, 2.544 (his forum); Pyrrhus (Carm. 7.79–82, 226–9, 5.424–30, 2.467–8). I exclude Octavian-Augustus, mentioned for his victory at Actium (Carm. 7.92–5), his birth (Carm. 2.121–6), and his mercy (4.3–10), but in the preface rather than in the panegyric itself. Carm. 7.129–34, 552–6, 5.342–6, 2.300–4, 530–1, Poenus. See Gualandri (2000), Delattre (2014). The description of Geiseric (5.327-41) is intended to persuade the audience that he is not invincible; he occupies the audience’s mental space as a despicable being. Inglebert (1996). See Coudry (2001). And to explain his absence in the struggle against Attila in 451. This is especially the case since Camillus is an important figure for Sidonius’ models Pliny the Younger and Claudian; see Coudry (2001) 47–81, esp. 68, Plin. Paneg. 13.4, and Paneg. Lat. 2.14.2. The latter is absent from both Pliny’s Panegyricus and the other Panegyrici Latini.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 337

13/02/20 4:00 PM

338

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

fertile Arvernian land (7.381 pinguia, glaebam) while Majorian tends sterile soil (5.299 sterilis), a fact which recalls Adam’s divine punishment.185 The inclusion of the exemplum of Xerxes for Majorian and Anthemius is similarly revealing. Both emperors are explicitly compared to him (Carm. 5.451 nec tantae, ‘not so vast’; 2.509 non sic vel illum, ‘not so firmly even by him’). Sidonius exalts the fleet which Majorian is assembling against the Vandals; even the mythical fleets of Agamemnon, Xerxes, and Cleopatra at Actium (Carm. 5.448–61) were not as large. He includes the traditional element of Xerxes’ hubris, encapsulated in his attempt to control the sea by building a bridge (Carm. 5.453–4). The mention of the impious Xerxes between Agamemnon, who sacrificed his daughter so that his expedition could leave, and the barbarian Cleopatra, who was defeated by Octavian, introduces a dissonant note, particularly since it creates a parallel between the Roman Majorian and exempla exteriora. This idea is confirmed in the Panegyric on Anthemius. Sidonius includes several exempla concerning the East in homage to the new emperor’s eastern origins. The goddess Roma goes to Aurora to ask her for a hero capable of destroying the Vandal ships. The exemplum of Xerxes (2.509–10),186 which takes up the motif of hubris, is here combined with that of Lucullus, the conqueror of Mithridates, since the two are inferior to Anthemius. In this case, Xerxes’ hubris is not entirely negative: the situation is so critical that even the conqueror Xerxes could not have withstood Vandal assaults. By representing Roma’s plea for a hero surpassing Xerxes, Sidonius is able to exalt Anthemius as given by Providence. Each exemplum is thus chosen according to the eastern context, whether this involves the political (and naval) situation or the recipient.

3.4 History and Ideology:Two Exempla to Integrate Gaul Sidonius’ conception of history is ‘Latinocentric’, as defined by Inglebert, combining a focus on Rome the urbs (domination by the city with an exceptional history)187 with one on Rome the orbis (common citizenship).188 Sidonius appropriated the ideology of the ages of Rome,189 and that of Roma aeterna rejuvenated by the new emperor,190 precisely because the city had been weakened by the sack of 455. At the same time, however, he denounced a decline in its power191 and saw in Gaul, even on its knees,192 the possibility of a renewal. The exemplum of Trajan offers this hope for Avitus,193 for there are numerous similarities between them 185 186

187

188 189 190 191

192 193

At the time of the recitatio, Majorian had overthrown and quite possibly killed Avitus. Xerxes is not named, but he is signalled by the mention of the Persian rower (remige Medo) and the crossing of Mount Athos with a borrowing from Claudian (Ruf. 1.335–6). Rome’s history is told in the prosopopeiae of Rome and Italy, which narrate past victories and conquests (even in the East). These provide the template for the aspiration to similar successes against the Vandals. See Carm. 2.440–5: Rome ‘rappelle à Aurore [tout ce] que cette dernière lui doit’ in a catalogue of conquests which exemplifies chorographia as defined by Menander Rhetor 2.373.17; see Jolivet (2015) 169–70. See Inglebert (1996) on urbicentric, orbicentric, and Latinocentric vision. See Florus praef.; Carm. 7.70–1 mea redde / principia. Avitus rejuvenates Rome at 7.597–8. Paschoud (1967). See the condemnation of imperial power in the past (7.86–118) and in the present because of inertia (7.532–43, 5.356–63, 535–8); see Furbetta (2015a) 128–35, with 135–6 on the meaning of the ‘cut-and-paste’ of 7.104–18 at 5.320–7 for the figure of the two emperors compared to Trajan and Vespasian, discussed by Alexandre (2009a) 339–40. Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) 212–13. Inglebert (1996) 545.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 338

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ PANEGYRICS

339

(whether objective or borrowed from Pliny the Younger): their provincial origins (Trajan was the first non-Italian emperor), their mature age, their election by Jupiter (Paneg. 1.5; Carm. 7.153), their accession to power through a non-dynastic route,194 and also the facts that they were both good soldiers (Paneg. 14–15, 18), that they did not seek power (Paneg. 7.1; Carm. 7.520 maestus195), and that they will rejuvenate Rome following the inertia of other emperors (Florus, praef. 8; Carm. 7.597-8).196 Sidonius uses these similarities to prepare his introduction of Avitus. Roma ends her prosopopoeia by expressing hope for a prince such as Trajan (7.114–15) and stating that only Gaul can provide one (7.117–18).197 Jupiter replies by praising the Auvergne (7.139–44),198 addresses the Arvernian,199 and mentions Gergovia as evidence (7.150 testis esto) of Arvernian fortitudo and virtus (7.148–52). Only after this does the audience first hear Avitus’ name (7.153), at the end of the verse; he is associated with Trajan and Gergovia. Sidonius adopts an apparently Roman point of view on the battle of Gergovia, as the choice of names suggest: Caesar, the personification of his Fortuna, the miles. Yet he adroitly concludes with the Romans’ resistance, a euphemism for their defeat. Two key names are heard by the audience: Caesaris and, emphatic at the beginning of its line, Gergoviae. Sidonius addresses both the senators of Rome and his compatriots, and avoids offending either party – even though one imagines that this allusion would have aroused annoyance in one group and pride in the other. In this way, the panegyrist audaciously offers a reading of the event which is guided by the Arvernian point of view. Gergovia is a sign that the Arvernians have a necessary place in the Roman Empire six centuries later with Avitus; yet the allusion could also be read, as suggested by Ralph Mathisen, as a way of saying that the Visigoths, too, could also one day be integrated into the empire. Thus Sidonius rewrites Rome’s glorious history by weaving in the fate of Gaul, which is no longer vanquished but victorious, and linked to Rome.200 He actualises the exemplum of Trajan whilst audaciously attempting to create a new (and polemical) exemplum. Avitus represents the possibility of a new Trajan, a new optimus princeps.201 If one re-reads the panegyrics in their published order, one notes a concentration of exempla focused on the east, followed by a definite emphasis on Gaul as a land of renewal and a concentration of exemplary Roman figures for Avitus – Camillus, Cincinnatus, Fabricius, and Trajan. These constitute as many sound bites framing that emperor’s exceptional and unique character, and therefore the immense hope that was shattered by his death. 194 195 196 197 198

199

200

201

See Watson (1998) 193. See Green (2016). Brocca (2004). At Carm. 5.356, Roma refers to mea Gallia; see Mathisen (1979b) 202–3. Jupiter evokes a fertile, unique land elected by nature and superior to all others. Sidonius thus fuses Providence and the Golden Age. Immediately after this passage, Avitus’ name is quoted at the end of v. 153: he is the exemplary heir of this Arvernian fortitudo. Sidonius applies the same hemistich, inspired by Silius Italicus, to Majorian (Carm. 5.574). Roma’s weeping recalls Venus’ turning to Jupiter for help (Verg. Aen. 1.227–53); this in turn suggests a parallel between Aeneas and Avitus which is activated at the end of the poem by a reference to Aeneas and Evander in Pallantium (Verg. Aen. 8.51–4 and Carm. 7.436–40; see Jolivet (2014) 112–14); Romans and Arvernians have the same origin, as voiced by Jupiter (7.139 Latio sanguine); see Ep. 7.7.2: the Arvernians are brothers of Latium. On Trajan, see Zecchini (1993), Watson (1998) 193, Cracco Ruggini (2002) 366–73, Mratschek (2008) 365–7, Furbetta (2015a) 131–2, Hanaghan (2017a) 269 n. 36.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 339

13/02/20 4:00 PM

340

ANNICK STOEHR - MONJOU

3.5 Conclusion The panegyric appears in all its complexity. Functioning both as an encomium and as a mirror of princes, it reflects the programme of imperial power and the fears or aspirations of the audience, reassuring some and even threatening others. In this way, Sidonius subtly and pragmatically creates a space where ‘contradictory’202 interpretations can exist alongside one another, in order to persuade the present parties that they have a common future. He achieves this by exploiting the elements of the poems’ generic context (recitatio, epideictic topoi, epic writing, and exempla). The panegyric is a genre of consensus, from both a literary and a political point of view – in Sidonius, literary stability is like a mise en abyme of the aspiration for political stability. Through the rhetorical and poetic tradition still shared by the elite and ‘sound bites’ such as exempla and myth, Sidonius is able to speak to parties with diverging interests and to create (or attempt to create) a consensus around the new emperor and a set of common values – Romanitas, political concord, the hope for a renovatio – ‘to ensure the loyalty of the upper classes necessary for true stability’.203 Indeed, if one reads the panegyrics in the order in which Sidonius chose to publish them, they end with the promise of the return to a golden age (Carm. 7.602) with Avitus, in a wonderful golden line: fulva volubilibus duxerunt saecula pensis, ‘[the fates] have drawn out a golden age on their whirling spindles’. Literature has the final say against power.204

4 Further Reading A good introduction to late antique verse panegyric is Schindler (2009). Guy Sabbah (1984) studies how panegyrists adapted rhetoric to the needs of political communication and Andrew Gillett (2012) stresses the function of panegyrics in it. Sabine MacCormack (1981) describes the imperial ceremonies where panegyrics played their role. Franca Ela Consolino (2014) examines the links between the poetical allegory of Rome and the iconography of the goddess. Translated from the French by Alexandre Johnston

202 203 204

Formisano (2008) 589: ambiguity is constitutive of the panegyric. Harrison (1983) 202. Formisano (2008) 599.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 340

13/02/20 4:00 PM

10 SIDONIUS’ SHORTER POEMS Franca Ela Consolino

1 Introduction

S

APOLLINARIS ACHIEVED a feat unique in late antique poetry – indeed, in all Latin poetry: in describing the aims and distinguishing features of his collection of shorter poems, he contrived to spend more than three hundred lines specifying the subjects he would not broach, the poets he would not imitate, and the themes and literary genres he would not deal with. He thus reviewed the entire Greek and Latin poetical tradition without being tempted into revealing any of the topics or types of composition which he would take on.1 Such an evasive stance appears all the more significant in the context of a late antique literary landscape that was characterised by a high degree of experimentalism and a widespread tendency to blur the boundaries between genres. Nevertheless, Sidonius did compose a number of more or less lengthy and ambitious poems and, in doing so, had to come to grips with tradition. This chapter aims to examine Sidonius’ approach to literary genres, establishing whether and to what extent his poetry proves to be innovative, either by creating new literary forms or by offering original solutions within the canonised genres. I will discuss Carmina 3 and 8, the socalled Carmina minora 9–24, and the verses incorporated within his letters, detailed as follows:2 IDONIUS

•

Carmina 3 and 8 are two accompanying short poems transmitted with the three panegyrics (Carmina 2, 5, and 7) and their respective prefaces (Carmina 1, 4, and 6).3

The compositions that Mommsen called Carmina minora4 comprise poems 9–24. •

•

This collection opens with Carmen 9, an extended address to Sidonius’ friend Magnus Felix, composed in Phalaecian hendecasyllables; the same metre is used for the poem that closes the anthology, Carmen 24, a Propempticon ad libellum in 101 lines. Then there are the witty recusatio to the senator Catullinus (Carmen 12) and the eulogy of Sidonius’ friend Consentius (Carmen 23, in 512 lines), also written in hendecasyllables.

I should like to thank my friend and colleague Isabella Gualandri, a constant and valued interlocutor, for reading and discussing these pages with me. I am also very grateful to Paul Barnaby, who finalised the translation of my contribution, for helping to improve my text with his many very useful remarks. Thanks, too, to Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden for their valuable suggestions. 1 2 3

4

I refer, obviously, to the programmatic declaration in Carm. 9; see below sect. 4. My reference edition is Lütjohann (1887). Stoehr-Monjou (2009b) has recently proposed an interesting reading of Carm. 1–8, analysed as a group. See further her ch. 9 on the panegyrics in this volume. See also Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, sect. 2.1. In Lütjohann (1887) L.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 341

13/02/20 4:00 PM

342 • • • • •

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

In addition to these poems, there are two epithalamia (Carmina 11 and 15, in hexameters), with their respective prefaces (Carmina 10, in elegiacs, and 14, in hendecasyllables), five epigrams in elegiacs (Carmina 17–21), a semi-serious plea to the emperor Majorian (Carmen 13, in 20 elegiacs, followed by 20 hendecasyllables), the celebratory description of the castle (‘Burgus’) of Pontius Leontius (Carmen 22, in 235 hexameters), and, finally, the only poem on a Christian subject, the solemn thanksgiving to Faustus, the bishop of Riez (Carmen 16, in 128 hexameters).

There can be no definite answers to questions concerning the date and mode of publication of the Carmina minora,5 but it can be stated with reasonable certainty that Carmen 9 and Carmen 24 were composed in order to open and close the same edition of the collection, as demonstrated by the correspondences of metre, themes, and addressee between the two poems.6 It is not clear, on the other hand, whether poems 22 and 23 were incorporated into the Carmina minora dedicated by Sidonius to Magnus or whether they were added at a later stage; the manuscript tradition does not help us to settle this point.7 It is likely that there was a complete collection consisting of both the Carmina minora and Carmina 1–8, but it cannot be proved. Another seventeen poems, comprising a total of 558 verses, are contained in Sidonius’ letters. These poems belong to different types, employ a variety of metres, and – as the author himself underlines – were composed in the most diverse circumstances (including some written after his promotion to bishop). They consist of: • •

Carmen 25 in Ep. 1.11.14: a couplet, improvised at the request of the emperor Majorian; Carmen 26 in Ep. 2.8.3: an epitaph for the noble lady Philomathia (in fifteen Phalaecian hendecasyllables);

5

The possible editorial stages of the Carmina minora have been reconstructed in different ways by Loyen (1960) and Schetter (1992). For Loyen (1960) 1.xxxi–xxxv, there were three consecutive editions: the first – appearing in 461 or slightly later – consisted of Carm. 9–15 and 17–21; the second – published around 464/5 – also included Carm. 16 and 24; while the third and final edition of 469 was expanded to encompass Carm. 22 and 23. Schetter (1992) disputes this thesis with solid arguments and believes that there were only two editions. In his hypothesis, the first edition – appearing no earlier than 462 – would have included Carm. 9–21 and 24, while Carm. 22 and 23 would have been added to the final edition, which appeared before 472 (p. 363). The manuscript tradition neither confirms nor contradicts either of these two reconstructions. Indeed, as shown by Franz Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16, sect. 2, it presents no direct evidence for the existence of possible consecutive editions of the poems of Sidonius, nor does it provide firm grounds for positing separate traditions for the letters and poems or for believing that their joint presence in some manuscripts does not reflect Sidonius’ own choice. It should be remembered that in Sidonius’ times and milieu, the term ‘edition’ normally referred to a collection of texts released by the author himself to be disseminated within a restricted and selective circle of readers; see Santelia (2000). On dating individual poems and on the collection as a whole, see further in this volume Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 3. See Schetter (1992) 356–8, and subsequently Santelia (2002a) 43–6. According to the stemma proposed by Franz Dolveck (whom I should like to thank for giving me advance notice of the results of his research), they precede poem 24 in branch α of the tradition, but follow it in branch β. It is equally possible, then, that branch α presents the collection in its original order (and, thus, that the two poems were initially omitted from branch β for some reason, but subsequently added after what is currently poem 24), or that branch β reproduces the original layout and, therefore, that branch α ‘regularised’ the collection, incorporating poems 22 and 23 and closing it with a valedictory composition.

6 7

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 342

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

• • • • • • • • • •

• •

343

Carmen 27 in Ep. 2.10.4: a metrical inscription for the cathedral of Lyon (in thirty hendecasyllables); Carmen 28 in Ep. 3.12.5: an epitaph to be inscribed on Sidonius’ grandfather’s tomb (in twenty hendecasyllables); Carmen 29 in Ep. 4.8.5: an epigram to be engraved on a washbasin (in six elegiacs); Carmen 30 in Ep. 4.11.6: the epitaph for Claudianus Mamertus (in twenty-five hendecasyllables); Carmen 31 in Ep. 4.18.5: an inscription for the new church in Tours dedicated to St Martin (in twenty elegiacs); Carmen 32 in Ep. 5.17.10: the epigram on the towel of the senator Philomathius (four lines); Carmen 33 in Ep. 7.17.2: the funerary poem for the abbot Abraham (in fifteen elegiacs); Carmen 34 in Ep. 8.9.5: a poem in praise of Euric addressed to Lampridius (in fifty-nine hendecasyllables); Carmen 35 in Ep. 8.11.3: the commonitorium Thaliae (in fifty-four hendecasyllables); Carmina 36, 37, and 41, in Ep. 9.13.2, 9.13.5, and 9.16.3 respectively: three lyric poems, respectively in stichic lesser Asclepiadeans (twenty-eight lines), Anacreontics (one hundred and twenty lines), and Sapphic stanzas (eighty-four lines, the so-called ‘testament’ of Sidonius); Carmina 38 and 39 in Ep. 9.14.6: a couplet composed as an example of palindromic versus recurrentes; Carmen 40 in Ep. 9.15.1: a poem in iambic trimeters (fifty-five lines).8

In my analysis, I will group poems together on the basis of their literary genre, regardless of the collection in which they have been transmitted. I will deal more briefly with those compositions that are not distinguished by experimentation with new literary forms, by the problematic blurring of genre boundaries, or by an innovative handling of canonised literary genres.

2 Encomiastic Poems To this category belong the panegyrics for Anthemius, Majorian, and Avitus, which are analysed by Annick Stoehr-Monjou and Isabella Gualandri in this volume.9

2.1 Carmen 23,To Consentius Carmen 23, a long eulogy of Sidonius’ friend Consentius, also has a commendatory character. The poem begins with an apostrophe to the addressee and praises Consentius and his poetic talent, thus building a flattering portrait of a man presented as columen decusque morum (2, ‘pillar and glory of manners’). By modifying Hor. Carm. 2.17.3–4 mearum / grande decus columenque rerum, ‘the great glory and pillar of my affairs’,10 via the substitution of morum for mearum rerum, Sidonius removes Consentius from the limited sphere of an interpersonal relationship, like 8 9 10

For a survey of the poems contained in Sidonius’ Letters, see Mratschek (2017). See chs. 9 and 8 respectively. This reworking was first noted by Geisler (1887).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 343

13/02/20 4:00 PM

344

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

that between Horace and Maecenas, to highlight the absolute value of his qualities, which are reiterated in similar terms later in the poem (178–9: haec per stemmata te satis potentem / morum culmine sed potentiorem, ‘mighty as you are through this lineage, and yet mightier by your lofty manners’). The poem is a way of repaying a debt of kindness to Consentius, who prompted it by sending a poem of his own (1–31). Following this preamble, the author explicitly invokes the conventions of panegyricwriting and declares that the honorand’s native land should be praised before his parents (32–6: quid primum venerer colamque pro te? / ni fallor, patriam patremque iuxta; / qui quamquam sibi vindicare summum / possit iure locum, tamen necesse est / illam vincere, quae parit parentes, ‘what must I first reverence and worship on your account? If I am right your fatherland and next your father. He might indeed justly claim the first place for himself, yet she who bore your parents must win out’). Sidonius therefore opens by praising Narbonne, the native city of Consentius (37–96),11 then goes on to extol his father, renowned for his gift for philosophy, music, and literature (97–169), along with his equally worthy mother (170–7). Before celebrating Consentius himself, Sidonius claims that, even if he had been trained in song by Orpheus, Chiron, or Apollo, he would not be able to praise Consentius as he deserves (178–203). The treatise on epideictic speeches attributed to Menander recommends, for the basilikos logos and for panegyrics in general, an emphasis in the proem on the difficulty of adequately celebrating the honorand:12 this is exactly what we find in Carmen 23. Sidonius’ originality consists in moving the treatment of this theme from the beginning of the panegyric to the body of the poem itself, where it marks a transition from the section dedicated to its subject’s native land and parents to the section devoted to the honorand himself. This structural innovation is explained by the fact that the first thirty-one lines already provided an introduction to the poem. The section on Consentius begins with his education and training, immediately followed by his appointment to an important office which he performs selflessly and expertly (224–7). Particular attention is devoted to the diplomatic missions to the East on which the emperor had sent Consentius due to his proficiency in Greek (228–62). After attending to the duties (seria) of public life, Consentius would be present as an exacting connoisseur at the shows of the theatre, where his judgement was feared by the actors of any kind of performance (263–303). He would also participate in a chariot race, and Sidonius gives a vivid and detailed account of how his friend won it (304–427).13 At this point Sidonius interrupts the main encomiastic part of the poem, leaving the description of his experiences at the court of Avitus for another occasion (428–33). In the last part of the poem, instead of recalling the honorand’s most recent achievements (praxeis) according to panegyrical models, Sidonius evokes the pleasant days spent in Narbonne with Consentius and his friends (each of whom is briefly praised at 436–86) and the exquisite hospitality offered in his house (487–506). In a rather abrupt conclusion (507–12), Sidonius realises that he has spoken too long and quickly takes leave of Consentius. The poem is certainly an encomium, strictly adhering to the canonical structure of the genre by successively praising the honorand’s native city, his father and mother, his birth, his education, and his praxeis (here divided not between wartime and peacetime achievements,

11

12

13

On this section of the poem, see Santelia (2015) and Wolff (2012a) 119–23. For its political implications, see Harries (1994) 100–1. Men. Epid. 2.368.8–369.5 Russell and Wilson (1981). In the case of Sidonius, whose knowledge of Greek language and literature is highly debatable (see Amherdt (2001) 307 for a bibliographical guide; see also Gualandri (1979) 145–63), the comparison to Menander can give an idea of the kind of handbooks that circulated in Late Antiquity, independently of the specific texts that Sidonius might have studied. On Sidonius’ description of the chariot race and its relationship with Stat. Theb. 6.394–403, see Pavan (2005).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 344

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

345

but between political duties and activities carried out during otium). Although there is no section specifically reserved to Consentius’ epitedeumata (characteristic pursuits), the description of his learning as a youth and of his way of life in Narbonne can be placed under this head. The strictly encomiastic part occupies about four-fifths of the poem (32–433), and has a natural codicil in the praise of Consentius’ hospitality and lifestyle (436–506). The poem only covers the first part of Consentius’ career, leaving out more recent events;14 a brief tribute to his circle of friends and the warm recollection of his hospitality complete the portrayal of the honorand in an innovative way, depicting him as a worthy individual, surrounded by equally worthy figures. This conclusion which stresses the honorand’s private life is consistent with the unofficial nature of this encomium, which leads Sidonius to exploit the motif of withdrawal (secessus) in a country villa, enlivened by conversations with one’s friends, a common theme in GalloRoman letter-writing and one present in Sidonius’ own letters.15 The use of Phalaecian hendecasyllables rather than hexameters, which were customary in verse panegyrics,16 also signals a difference between public and private praise and gives the poem a more familiar and informal tone. Although less solemn than the hexameter, the hendecasyllable is not necessarily playful: in fact, Sidonius employs it in distinctly serious poems, such as Carm. 9 and 24 – the opening and closing poems of the Carmina minora, some of the epitaphs (Carm. 26, 28, and 30), and the inscription for a basilica in Lyon (Carm. 27).17 It is not only the precedents in Catullus and Martial which make the use of hendecasyllables in Carm. 23 seem particularly appropriate for a poetic exchange between learned friends. There is also a particular circumstance: Consentius had sent Sidonius a poetical gift of elegiacs and hendecasyllables.18 Sidonius declares that he has thereby incurred a debt and that the poem is a way of repaying his friend (29–31 usuram petimurque reddimusque; / nam quod carmine pro tuo rependo, / hoc centesima laudium tuarum est, ‘now I am asked for interest, and pay it; what I am now disbursing in consideration of your poem is one per cent of the praises due to you’). He thus opts to use one of the two metres employed by Consentius. This choice, which immediately distinguishes the long encomium of Consentius from the hexameter panegyrics of Avitus and Majorian,19 is designed to demonstrate to the learned friends who will read his poems that Sidonius is master of the epideictic genre in both its forms – the solemn imperial panegyric and the more intimate (but nonetheless stylistically demanding20) praise of a friend.

14

15

16 17

18

19

20

That is to say, the period between the imperial accession of Avitus in 455 and the composition of the poem, which is prior to 466: see Loyen (1960) 1.xxxv. As noted by Schwitter (2015) 194–7. The cultural context in which such exchanges took place is brilliantly described by La Penna (1995a). Even before Claudian, as demonstrated by the Panegyricus Messallae and the Laus Pisonis. For this reason, I believe that we should be wary of ascribing a nugatory connotation to the use of this metre where there are no clear contextual markers. Outside Sidonius’ poetry, we have a ‘serious’ use of the hendecasyllable in three canticles of a biblical epic (the Heptateuchos of Cyprianus Gallus), composed in Gaul a few decades before. Carm. 23.20–8 misisti mihi multiplex poema, / doctum, nobile, forte, delicatum. / ibant hexametri superbientes / et vestigia iuncta, sed minora / per quinos elegi pedes ferebant; / misisti et, triplicis metrum trochaei / spondeo comitante dactyloque, / dulces hendecasyllabos, tuumque / blando faenore Sollium ligasti, ‘you sent me a manifold poem, skilful, striking, powerful, exquisite. Hexameters marched in their pride, and elegiacs advanced beside them, but with lesser steps that covered only five feet. You sent also graceful hendecasyllables, where spondee and dactyl accompany three trochees, and you have put your Sollius in a charming debt.’ Recited on 1 January 456 and during December 458 respectively. Sidonius wrote Carm. 23 in the period of private retreat that followed the deposition and execution of Majorian; the Panegyric on Anthemius was yet to come. See Harries (1994) 100–1. A number of specific stylistic and terminological elements are discussed in Condorelli (2008) 165–72; the richness and lexical inventiveness of Carm. 23 are conveyed in Onorato (2016c).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 345

13/02/20 4:00 PM

346

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

Finally, although the encomiastic nature of the poem is beyond doubt, the apostrophe to Consentius in the second line is reminiscent of the opening of a letter, even if the distinctive features of the epistle – as we find them, for example, in Carmen 9 – are missing. In this respect, Sidonius pre-empts Venantius Fortunatus, the author of a significant number of encomiastic poems that are distinguished by an initial apostrophe to the addressee and which are hard to categorise, with certainty, as either encomiastic letters in verse or straightforward encomia.21

2.2 Carmen 34,To Lampridius It is more problematic to class Carmen 34 (in Ep. 8.9), which praises Euric, king of the Visigoths, as a panegyric. This poem, in fifty-nine hendecasyllables, was written in response to a request from Lampridius, who enjoyed the king’s favour, while Sidonius – still discredited – could not even obtain part of his mother-in-law’s inheritance.22 Sidonius therefore complies with the request, but remarks that nothing good can come from hardship and that the poem will not gain from being recited by the author himself, given that he is absent (4–5). Sidonius begins the poem by asking his friend why he is forcing him to sing (1-11). While Lampridius, like Vergil’s Tityrus, has regained possession of his lands and can therefore compose sweet-sounding melodies, Sidonius – having spent more than two months at the court of the king – has obtained only one meeting with a sovereign busy imposing his will on the world (12–20). Sidonius then describes the ways that Euric exerts his authority on the various conquered peoples (21–54). While all this is happening at the court, Sidonius is kept waiting in vain, and – while Lampridius is Tityrus – he is in the process of turning into Meliboeus (55–9). This biting observation closes the short poem in epigrammatic fashion. I believe that it would be mistaken to view this poem as a panegyric of Euric, and not just because of its brevity. Not only is it not written in hexameters (as would be de rigueur for the panegyric of a ruler), but the only truly encomiastic element is the central part of the poem (21–54), which is not structured like a basilikos logos and where praise of the king essentially consists in the depiction of the conquered peoples who pay homage to him and beseech his mercy. Rather than being an unsuccessful panegyric, which fails because it was composed with great reluctance,23 it is a poem that Sidonius hoped would reach Euric through the mediation of Lampridius,24 and would flatter the king by depicting the extent of his power. It is not a genuine panegyric, then, but rather a poem which exploits some of the conventions of the panegyric in an attempt to placate Euric’s wrath. 21

22 23

24

On the difficulty of distinguishing which of Venantius’ poems are of a definitely epistolary nature, see Roberts (2009) 245–6. Ep. 8.9.2. On Sidonius’ circumstances, see Stevens (1933) 163–7, Harries (1994) 240–2. See Kaufmann (1995) 136: ‘Ein gewisser Widerwille mag auch die Kürze des Poems begründen, das – im Vergleich zu seinen anderen Panegyrici – magere 59 Verse in Hendekasyllaben umfasst’ (‘Besides, the poem’s brevity, comprising a mere 59 verses in hendecasyllables – few in comparison with his other panegyrics – may be due to a certain grudge’). Henke (2007) 227 also speaks of ‘kurzer Panegyricus auf Eurich’ (‘a short panegyric on Euric’). Against the interpretation of this poem as a panegyric, see Gualandri (2000) 120–7, who takes into account the confidential tone of the letter in which the poem is placed and the use of hendecasyllables, and points out that the definition of Euric as dominus, a term suggesting the image of an emperor, betrays the awareness that now Rome needs Euric’s help against the barbarians coming from the north (p. 126); therefore, this poem, ‘far from being a “celebration” of Euric’s glory, rather seems to be the resigned, but bitter, awareness of the irrevocable disappearance of a whole world’ (‘lungi dall’essere una “celebrazione” della gloria di Eurico, sembra piuttosto la rassegnata, ma amara, presa di coscienza della scomparsa irrevocabile di tutto un mondo’ (p. 127)). As revealed by the allusion to Hor. Saec. 55–6 in v. 20, which establishes a parallel between Euric and Augustus: it is Lampridius’ task to decipher the allusion, then speak to the king on Sidonius’ behalf; cf. Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 147.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 346

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

347

As Alessandro Fo has convincingly shown, however, this attempt is somewhat ambivalent. For Fo, the implied identification of Lampridius with Tityrus and of Sidonius with Meliboeus can be read in two diametrically opposed ways at the same time: the poem ostensibly praises the king, but – for anyone who knows the Vergilian text – it would suggest that Euric is to be identified with the impius . . . miles, the barbarus who stripped Meliboeus of his lands (Ecl. 1.70–1): The long encomiastic passage on the conquered peoples who pay homage to Euric owes its appeal to the touches of barbarian ‘local colour’ which Sidonius applies throughout. A vein of sarcasm also reveals Sidonius’ perennial scorn for these uncouth tribes of invaders. He aims in this carmen for a grotesque effect, designed to highlight the boorishness of the barbarians. And the very choice of metre would seem to serve the same end, despite the many allusions to the bucolic tradition. Although it is employed by Sidonius on many and varied occasions, the Phalaecian hendecasyllable particularly lends itself to an epigrammatic approach.25 Moreover, this short poem presents structural analogies with Martial’s epigrammata longa, which are also distinguished by a digression in the middle.26 In fact, after opening with a recusatio, and leaving aside the excursus on Euric, the poem develops the comparison between Lampridius and Tityrus, on one hand, and Sidonius-Meliboeus, on the other, using the typical style and metre of the epigram; the epigrammatic tone is reinforced by its cutting closing line.27

3 Carmina 10, 11, 14, and 15: Epithalamia with Prefaces Carmina 11 and 15, for which there are commentaries by Filosini (2014a) and Ravenna (1990) respectively,28 are both epithalamia following in a tradition initiated by Statius and continued by Claudian. Carm. 15, composed for the wedding of Polemius and Araneola, nonetheless presents two significant variations on this tradition. First, it is the groom – and not the bride – who has to be persuaded; second, as a tribute to Polemius’ philosophical pursuits and with a refined antiphrastic allusion to the Ovidian myth evoked by Araneola’s name,29 it is Pallas Athena rather than Venus who acts as pronuba. These variations, which Sidonius himself highlights in the letter accompanying his verses, do not, however, create any doubt as to the genre to which the poem belongs; rather, it is precisely the comparison 25

26 27

28

29

Fo (2002) 173: ‘L’ampio brano encomiastico sui popoli che si sottomettono ad Eurico risulta in realtà piacevole per gli spunti ‘di colore’ barbarico che vi sono disseminati. Un certo andamento sarcastico lascia trapelare il disprezzo da Sidonio sempre ostentato per queste rozze popolazioni di invasori. Quello del carmen è anche un brano di grottesco teso a sottolineare la rozzezza dei barbari. E in questo senso sembrerebbe agire lo stesso metro scelto nonostante la fitta trama di rinvii al bucolico: l’endecasillabo falecio, che – per quanto assai sfruttato da Sidonio in varie e divergenti occasioni – è pur sempre suscettibile d’impiego secondo un ethos epigrammatico.’ Cf. Merli (2008) 319–20. Sidonius himself describes the poem as an epigramma (Ep. 8.9.3 epigrammatis flagitati, ‘the epigramma you ask for’) and here the term could mean either an epigram in the style of Martial, or a piece of light, unpretentious verse; see Consolino (2015) 77–8. For Carm. 11, see Filosini (2014a) and earlier studies cited in her bibliography; cf. also Santelia (2014). An interesting analysis of the opening section of the poem is offered by Schwitter (2015) 174–80. See also Onorato (2016b) for the poem’s relationship with Statius, and, for the late antique epithalamium in general, p. 79, nn. 3 and 4. For Carm. 15, see Ravenna (1990) and now Hernández Lobato (2015) 535–9, including further bibliographical references. See Rosati (2003).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 347

13/02/20 4:00 PM

348

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

with the model perfected by Statius and Claudian – and employed by Sidonius in his other epithalamium – that reveals the originality of this ‘philosophical epithalamium’, this ‘new and surprising form of nuptial poem’.30 From Claudian, Sidonius also derives (and systematises) the habit of inserting a verse preface before his panegyrics (Carm. 1, 4, and 6) and epithalamia (Carm. 10 and 14).31 In terms of metre, conversely, Sidonius departs from Claudian’s practice and, in the preface to the epithalamium of Polemius and Araneola (Carm. 14), substitutes the Phalaecian hendecasyllable for the elegiac couplet. This choice reflects his personal preference for this metre32 and, at the same time, is well suited to the non-conventional nature of this epithalamium; it does not, however, represent a complete break from tradition, given that Martial also employed hendecasyllables as an alternative to elegiacs in a number (albeit a minority) of his epigrams, and that, while Ausonius wrote eight of his twelve metrical prefaces in elegiacs, he also wrote one in hendecasyllables.33 Another departure from Claudian is the presence of a prose passage preceding the verse preface; yet here too, precedents can be traced in some of Martial’s prose prefaces,34 and in the double prefaces – in prose and in verse – that Ausonius places before his Bissula and Parentalia.

4 Carmen 9: A Dedicatory Epistle with a Programmatic Intent The collection of Carmina minora is opened and introduced by Carmen 9, a long poem consisting of 346 Phalaecian hendecasyllables, which can be divided into three sections. The first (1-18) is vaguely Neoteric in tone and concludes with an assertion of the originality of Sidonius’ poetry (16–18). The second, much lengthier (19–317), reviews all the subjects that the poet will not tackle (19–210), as well as providing a list of all the poets – Greek and Latin, ancient and contemporary – whom he will not imitate and with whom, consequently, he cannot be compared (211–317). In the third and final section (318–46), Sidonius looks back to the first, and employing the same language and themes, appeals to the judgement of Magnus Felix and his brother Probus.35 30 31

32 33 34

35

Hernández Lobato (2015) 522: ‘nueva y sorprendente modalidad de poema nupcial’. On Claudian’s prefaces, see Felgentreu (1999), Perrelli (1992). For a fine analysis of Sidonius’ prefaces in elegiacs to the three panegyrics and to the Epithalamium of Ruricius and Hiberia, see Gualandri (1993) 191–200, who brings out the wealth of literary allusions that they contain. On Carm. 1, which introduces the panegyric of Anthemius, see also Condorelli (2008) 66–9, and Hernández Lobato (2015) 116–17; on Carm. 4, which introduces the Panegyric of Majorian, see the detailed analysis in Condorelli (2008) 34–48; see also Hernández Lobato (2015) 214–17; on Carm. 6, the preface to the Panegyric of Avitus, see Furbetta (2011), Bruzzone (2014), and Condorelli (2008) 15–20. For an overview of metrical prefaces to Latin panegyrics in Late Antiquity, see Zarini (2008). For a commentary on Carm. 10, the preface to the Epithalamium of Ruricius and Hiberia, see Filosini (2014a) 71–92, and the earlier works listed in her bibliography; on Carm. 14, see Ravenna (1990) 43–52, and Condorelli (2008) 133–42. Ravenna (1990) 49. Praef. var. 4 Green, addressed to Pacatus Drepanius; see Felgentreu (1999) 56–7. That is to say, the prefaces to Books 1 (with the final part in verse), 2, 8, 9 (with, again, a closing section in verse), and 12. Hernández Lobato (2015) 522 n. 4 identifies both Martial and Statius as precedents. The reference to the latter, however, can only be valid for the preface to Silv. 5.1, because none of the other prose prefaces in the Silvae relates to a single composition, referring instead to all the poems contained in a book. On prose prefaces to late antique poetry, see the useful overview in Pavlovskis (1967). For a detailed analysis of the structure of the poem, see Santelia (1998) 230–9. See also Condorelli (2008) 81–116, Hernández Lobato (2012a) 404–49, which expands upon Hernández Lobato (2010c).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 348

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

349

The greeting that opens the poem identifies it as a letter (1–3): LARGAM SOLLIUS HANC APOLLINARIS FELICI DOMINO PIOQUE FRATRI DICIT SIDONIUS SUUS SALUTEM To Felix, his lord and loving brother, Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius hereby gives heartiest greeting. But this letter is also a dedication, which, in its double nature, recalls the dedicatory epistles (written, however, in prose) that Statius places before the first four books of the Silvae.36 Another point of contact between Sidonius and Statius is that both poets use epistles to introduce a collection of poems, all (Statius) or some (Sidonius) of which were originally composed for other dedicatees. On the other hand, they place the greeting itself in differing positions: while Statius keeps it brief and sets it before the letter itself, Sidonius incorporates it within the letter and stretches it over three lines, echoing the phrase larga salus, ‘hearty greeting’, from the first elegy of Lygdamus.37 Martial’s prefaces in prose and some of his books of epigrams are also written in epistolary form,38 but an even closer precedent is Ausonius, who introduces several of his poems with a letter either in prose or in verse, and sometimes both. Except for a few short pieces written by Catullus in hendecasyllables (which we cannot, however, be sure Sidonius knew to the same extent as we do), the metre normally employed for epistles is the hexameter, in the wake of Horace, or the elegiac couplet, following the authoritative example of Ovid. Nearer Sidonius’ own times, Ausonius breaks the monopoly of these two metres in his letter collection and introduces a wider variety of metres, including the Phalaecian hendecasyllable used in Ep. 13 Green, which is polymetric (82–104). After Catullus, hendecasyllables are used by Ausonius in the poem addressed to Pacatus Drepanius (Praefationes variae 4, in eighteen lines), which is explicitly modelled on the dedicatory poem in Catullus’ libellus.39 Sidonius’ own poem differs from these precedents in its unusual length, but this could be justified by its epistolary character. In the lines immediately following the greeting, Sidonius – clearly influenced by Martial and Ausonius, and directly or indirectly by Catullus – asks his friend why he wanted him to collect these trifling poems that he had circulated when he was young and reckless.40 At this 36

37 38 39

40

In Statius, though, the greeting formula is more schematic: Statius + the name of the addressee in the dative + salutem. This formula is mirrored in the closing vale in the prefaces to his third and fourth Books. Lygdam. 1.21; see Santelia (1998) 230 n. 3. Books 2, 8, and 12 are introduced by a prose letter which begins with a greeting formula. Auson. Praef. var. 4.1–6 ‘Cui dono lepidum novum libellum?’ / Veronensis ait poeta quondam / inventoque dedit statim Nepoti. / at nos illepidum rudem libellum, / burras quisquilias ineptiasque, / credemus gremio cui fovendum?, ‘“To whom do I give my charming new little book?”, the poet of Verona once said, and, immediately finding Nepos, presented it to him. But this charmless, awkward little book – junk, trash, and drivelling – to whose lap shall I commit it to be cherished?’ Unlike Catullus and Ausonius, Martial wrote several epigrams in hendecasyllables which identify the recipient of the liber without addressing him directly (Mart. 3.2, 8.72, 10.20 (19) and 104, 11.1). Carm. 9.4–13 Dic, dic quod peto, Magne, dic, amabo, / . . . / quid nugas temerarias amici, / sparsit quas tenerae iocus iuventae, / in formam redigi iubes libelli, / ingentem simul et repente fascem / conflari invidiae et perire chartam?, ‘Tell me, tell me what I want to know, Magnus, tell me, please . . . why do you demand that the thoughtless scribblings of your friend, broadcast in the frolicsome spirit of early youth, should be put into book form and thus a great bundle of enmity should suddenly be produced and paper wasted at the same time?’ For l. 4, cf. Mart. 8.76.1 Dic verum mihi, Marce, dic amabo, ‘Tell me the truth, Marcus, tell me, please’; for the interrogative form, cf. Cat. 1.1–2, later echoed by Auson. Praef. var. 4.1–6 (quoted at n. 39) and Mart. 3.2.1 (Cuius vis fieri, libelle, munus?, ‘Whose present do you want to be, little book?’); see Consolino (1974) 424–5, Hernández Lobato (2015) 422–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 349

13/02/20 4:00 PM

350

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

point, the author claims that he is striking out on a new path and that Felix will not find any passage in which his muse is treading old ways and following the ancient tracks of those who had preceded him (16–18): Non nos currimus aggerem vetustum nec quicquam invenies, ubi priorum antiquas terat orbitas Thalia. I am not speeding over the ancient road; you shall find here no place where my muse treads in the old ruts of my predecessors. The image reappears in the recommendation that Sidonius makes to his libellus as it prepares to set out on its journey (Carm. 24.5 antiquus tibi nec teratur agger, ‘you should not tread the old road’). This particular form of primus motif is not new in Latin poetry,41 nor is the expression terere orbitam, which had previously been used by Statius in a metapoetic context to convey the originality of Lucan’s poetry.42 Statius, however, only contrasts Lucan’s choice of civil war with three other topics that are dismissed as trite and best left to minor talents (53 carmen fortior exeres togatum, ‘you shall be bolder, unsheathing a song dressed in the toga’). Sidonius, conversely, writes a protracted recusatio listing all the themes he will not tackle and the poets he cannot be compared to (16–317). Thus, the long-drawn-out negative part, where Sidonius proves he can imitate the themes and language of the works and poets that he lists,43 takes up most of the composition, so that this exceptionally protracted paraleipsis becomes the real content of the poem. Some scholars have sought for evidence of Sidonius’ own poetics in this negative list. As Stefania Santelia argues: Having ruled out anything requiring a serious or sombre tone, the themes that Sidonius will develop in the nugae emerge from his long series of recusationes: having foresworn historical and mythological topics, having proscribed any subject connected to gods and sacred places of the pagan world, having, in short, rejected anything that other poets have celebrated, it is clear that one genre of poetry is left: that which deals with times, people, and places drawn from one’s direct experience. For Sidonius’ poetry is truly occasional verse: not only the Carmina minora, but also the panegyrics and the poems contained in the Letters.44

41

42

43

44

For this theme in the Latin tradition before Sidonius from Lucr. 1.926–7 = 4.1–2 onwards, see Condorelli (2008) 93–5. Silv. 2.7.48–53 nocturnas alii Phrygum ruinas / et tardi reduces vias Ulixis / et puppem temerariam Minervae / trita vatibus orbita sequantur: / tu carus Latio memorque gentis / carmen fortior exeres togatum, ‘Phrygia’s nighttime downfall, slow Ulysses’ return journeys, Minerva’s daring vessel – let others follow in the tracks trodden by bards; you, dear to Latium and mindful of your race, more boldly will unsheathe a poem that wears the toga’, as flagged by Geisler (1887); see also van Dam (1984) 475–7. Two cases that are symptomatic of the different ways in which Sidonius ‘evokes’ his models are his treatment of the Gigantomachy (ll. 76–81), which reworks and varies source texts in Statius and Claudian (see Condorelli (2008) 103–4), and his depiction of the youth of Achilles (ll. 130–45) in language reminiscent of Statius’ Achilleid (as analysed in Consolino (2013) 226–9). Santelia (1998) 252: ‘Rifiutato ogni tono serio e grave, i temi che saranno trattati nelle nugae emergono dalla lunghissima serie di recusationes: esclusi i temi storici e quelli mitologici, bandito ogni argomento connesso a divinità e luoghi sacri del mondo pagano e anche tutto ciò che gli altri poeti hanno cantato, è evidente che rimane quel genere

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 350

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

351

It is hard to disagree with the assertion that Sidonius writes his own type of occasional poetry, but to cite the negative list in Carmen 9 as evidence of this is another matter entirely. Indeed, Santelia’s thesis is contradicted by Sidonius himself, when he proclaims that he does not want to follow Martial and Ausonius, the poets most associated with everyday life, and when he distances himself from Statius’ Silvae, which are clearly examples of occasional poetry.45 It has also been suggested that the list signals a rejection of poetry as it has hitherto been practised, and exemplifies a new type of anthological poetry which is proposed in its place.46 Even if we accept, however, that Sidonius means to ring the death knell of traditional poetry, this thesis remains problematic as the list only establishes what Sidonius will not do, not what he will. Finally, I am not convinced that the lack of positive indications provided by Sidonius and the statement that his is a sterilis Camena means that we are justified in stating that Sidonius believed traditional poetry to be dead and that it was no longer possible to write poetry as it used to be written. Indeed, I do not believe that Sidonius takes any explicit stance on the describability of reality or feasibility of poetry that might support this argument, which Hernández Lobato proposes in his nonetheless original and stimulating study, linking it with Sidonius’ sense of a problematic present.47 Besides, with his systematic self-deprecation, Sidonius attributes literary merit to various poets of his own time and circle (302–17), thus acknowledging that literary talent still exists in his age. Therefore, I would simply note that Sidonius, having made a clean sweep of all past poetic experiences, does not propose any counterexample. The only clear indications he gives are the definition of his poetic collection as nugae and as libellus; as nugae: line 9 nugas temerarias amici, ‘your friend’s rash trifles’, which are the product of a youthful poetic iocus (10 sparsit quas tenerae iocus iuventae, ‘broadcast in the jesting of early youth’), which is also recalled at the poem’s conclusion (341 nostrae Terpsichores iocum, ‘the jesting of my Terpsichore’), and as libellus: line 11 in formam redigi iubes libelli, ‘you demand that it should be put into the form of a little book’.48 Sidonius’ use of these terms alerts the reader to the relatively non-serious nature of the collection, but in Sidonius nugae does not imply a specific literary form, as is demonstrated by the fact that he also applies it to texts in prose (Ep. 3.14.1, where he speaks of meas

45 46 47 48

di poesia legata a momenti, a personaggi, a luoghi propri dell’esperienza diretta dell’autare. E poesia d’occasione . . . è la poesia di Sidonio, non solo quella dei Carmina minora, ma anche quella dei Panegyrici e dei componimenti poetici contenuti nelle Epistulae.’ Prompted by Santelia’s suggestion here, Condorelli (2008) 110–12 cites ll. 9–13 and 321–8 as evidence that ‘attraverso il linguaggio, di ascendenza neoterica ed epigrammatica, il poeta insiste nel definire la poesia dei carmina minora come meramente occasionale e frutto di lusus, e, soprattutto, destinata a una cerchia ristretta, al di fuori della quale le nugae sono esposte all’invidia e al pericolo di divenire “carta straccia”’, ‘through his language, which draws on the Neoteric and epigrammatic traditions, Sidonius insistently defines the poetry of his carmina minora as the merely occasional product of lusus which, above all, is destined to a restricted circle of readers, outside of which his nugae run the risk of encountering envy or becoming “waste paper”’ (quoted from p. 112). Hernández Lobato (2010c) 109 has similar reservations vis-à-vis Santelia’s thesis. Formicola (2009). Hernández Lobato (2010c), subsequently reworked in (2012a) 404–49. The metaliterary use of libellus and nugae obviously goes back to Catullus Carm. 1 (libellus at l. 1 and l. 8; nugae at l. 4); it is Catullus too who in Carm. 50.4–6 depicts poetry as a iocus practised by a restricted circle of friends who share the same literary tastes and ideals (scribens versiculos uterque nostrum / ludebat numero modo hoc modo illoc / reddens mutua per iocum atque vinum, ‘each of us as we wrote our verses played now in this metre, now in that, answering each other, amid merriment and wine’). Sidonius uses the term in this sense, also attested in Martial and Ausonius, but without the obscene connotations which are present in Martial and are most likely implied by Auson. Epigr. 1.8 (ludat permissis sobria Musa iocis, ‘let the sober muse play at lawful jests’), on which see Kay (2001) ad loc.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 351

13/02/20 4:00 PM

352

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

nugas sive confectas opere prosario seu poetarum stilo cantilenosas, ‘my poor trifles, whether fashioned in prose or warbling in poetic style’). In his presentation of his poems, Sidonius is close to Pliny the Younger, the author of a series of nugae composed – like Carmen 9 – in hendecasyllables, as the title of Pliny’s collection indicated. In Ep. 4.14, Pliny presents his Hendecasyllabi to his friend Paternus, defining them as nugae (8 has nugas meas, ‘these trifles of mine’) collected in a libellus (10 de libello meo, ‘about my little book’) which are the product of lusus (1 lusus meos; 3 his iocamur, ludimus). If this letter inspired Carmen 9,49 then Sidonius, unlike Pliny, fails to ask the addressee whether he should publish the work or, indeed, write poetry at all. Instead, Sidonius places these questions at the end of Carmen 24, the ‘Send-Off to the Book’, Propempticon ad libellum – also written in hendecasyllables – that appears in counterpoint to the opening poem and ends with a vision of the book’s arrival at Felix’s house. Indeed, the future existence of the libellus depends on Felix and, in particular, on the judgement of his most learned brother Probus, as, if they condemn it, its dissemination will come to an end. No further clues are offered in the concluding part of the poem, where the author proclaims the sterility of his muse and describes the fate of his verses and the risks they run through images that look back to Catullus and Martial.50 Overall, this poem clearly breaks with tradition by way of its evasiveness, its length – unusual both for a dedication and for an opening poem – and, finally, the protracted recusatio which employs the device of praeteritio to evoke all past literature and at last, in mannerist fashion, transforms that praeteritio into the very subject of the poem.51 The sheer length of the recusatio is explained and justified, moreover, by a taste for lists which is not unique to Sidonius, as has been recently shown by Rijser (2013), who observes a similar tendency in Servius and compares his approach with Sidonius’ ‘inclusive’ practice.

5 Carmen 24: A Propempticon Carmen 24, which shares its metre and addressee with Carmen 9 and resembles it in its use of ring composition,52 describes the various stages of the journey that the libellus will make to reach the house of Felix and his brother Probus. This description of an itinerary accounts for the title propempticon with which the poem appears in part of the manuscript tradition and which, being a Greek term rarely used in Latin,53 is likely to go back to Sidonius himself. We can glean some idea of rhetorical precepts concerning the genre of the propempticon from Menander’s theoretical discussion of the propemptikos logos, which constitutes an important witness to late antique practice. In his treatise, Menander considers three types of propempticon: addressed to an inferior, to a peer, or to a superior, though in the last case, it is actually a form of disguised panegyric. Carm. 24 certainly corresponds to the first type – addressed by a superior to an inferior (for example, a master to his servant, or a teacher to his pupil) – which offers advice and instructions to the person who is setting out on a journey.54 Although the

49 50 51 52

53

54

I thank Isabella Gualandri for this suggestion. See Santelia (1998) 238 with n. 17. For this aspect of Carm. 9, see Consolino (1974), esp. 458–9. For formal correspondences and intertextual analogies between Carm. 9 and Carm. 24, see Santelia (2002a) 43–5, Condorelli (2008) 172–85, Hernández Lobato (2015) 724–7. Cf. propempticos, TLL 10.2, 1973.19–31. The neuter propempticon (scil. carmen) is found in Charisius Gramm., GLK 1.124.5 and 134.12, and also as the title of Stat. Silv. 3.2. Men. Epid. 2.395.5–12 Russell and Wilson (1981).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 352

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

353

example that Menander provides belongs to the second type (as it is addressed to a departing friend), what is important is that it also envisages an account of the journey and, if this is by land, a description of the places which the traveller will visit and where he will receive acclaim for his eloquence. Looking back over the Latin tradition, there are three propemptica among Horace’s works, but none of these really gives any information on the itinerary: in Carm. 1.3, he wishes his friend Vergil a happy journey, without even mentioning where he is going; he does the same for Galatea in 3.27, but warns her of the dangers she might encounter and gives a lengthy account of the story of Europa. Finally, Epod. 10 is a sort of inverted propempticon, as it wishes the very worst fortune upon Mevius, who is sailing towards an unspecified destination. Propertius 1.8a, on the other hand, contains at least a brief mention of the places that Cynthia may visit. Statius provides decidedly more detail on the route followed by Maecius Celer in the propempticon dedicated to him (Silv. 3.2), even though the dominant notes of the poem are displeasure at his departure and sorrow for his future absence. Chronologically closer to Sidonius is the Christian reinterpretation of the genre in the propempticon addressed by Paulinus of Nola to his friend Nicetas of Remesiana (Carm. 17).55 In no fewer than 340 lines in Sapphic stanzas, Paulinus charts the itinerary that will take him back to Dacia by land and by sea, thus listing all the places that will be touched, in passing, by his civilising presence. Sidonius breaks with the tradition of the propempticon, however, in making the traveller an object (however personified) and in employing this literary form in the context of the apostrophe to his libellus which is setting out on its journey with a specific purpose: to reach Magnus and Probus and obtain their approval (particularly the latter’s, Carm. 24.94 admitti faciet Probus probatum). Mario Citroni has provided perhaps the most penetrating analysis of this aspect of the poem in a thorough and stimulating discussion of authors’ addresses to their own work viewed as quasi-autonomous objects in their own right: The Propempticon ad libellum that closes Sidonius’ collection of Carmina minora is a genuine itinerarium for the book to follow in ten stages, visiting the author’s illustrious and learned friends en route: the conventional formula, derived from Ovid, is combined, as is usual, with elements from Horace (the book departing from the poet’s house) and Martial (especially the ‘recommendation’: cf. l. 15 hic si te probat, omnibus placebis and cf. l. 31 with Mart. 3.5.7–8); the conclusion, where Sidonius urges his book to make haste, recalls the conclusions to the proem to the Tristia and to Mart. 10.104. 56 Precisely because Carmen 24 brings to mind other texts that feature a poet’s apostrophe to his own work (whether a collection or a single composition), it is vital to establish how far Sidonius is inspired by these models or breaks away from them. The first significant precedent is Hor. Ep. 1.20, where the book is a puer determined to leave the house in which he grew up and put himself up for sale in Rome. Like Horace, Sidonius grants his collection of poetry an independent existence and pictures the liber departing from its home, but there are also significant 55

56

On Paulinus’ Christian adaptation of Menander’s model, see Kirstein (2000) 81–5, esp. p. 85. For the strong ties that Paulinus nonetheless retains with the classical tradition, see Vinchesi (1995) 304–10. Citroni (1986) 141: ‘Il Propempticon ad libellum che chiude la raccolta dei carmina di Sidonio, è un vero e proprio itinerarium che il libro seguirà in 10 tappe, recandosi presso illustri e dotti amici dell’autore: il formulario consueto, di derivazione ovidiana, si combina al solito con spunti oraziani (il libro che esce dalla casa del poeta) e marzialiani (spec. la “raccomandazione”: cfr. v. 15 hic si te probat, omnibus placebis e cfr. v. 31 con Mart. III 5, 7 s.); la chiusa, in cui si invita il libro ad affrettarsi, ricorda la chiusa del proemio dei Tristia e di Mart. X 104.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 353

13/02/20 4:00 PM

354

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

differences. First of all, Sidonius’ book does not abandon its author on its own initiative and it is setting out on a respectable task: greeting a number of people on the poet’s behalf, then completing its journey at the house of its final and principal addressee – Magnus Felix – to whom the first poem of the collection is also addressed. There are further divergences in the description of the stages into which the journey is divided (absent in Horace), in length (only twenty-eight lines in Horace, as compared to 101 in Sidonius), and in metre (hexameters in Horace, hendecasyllables in Sidonius). Much the same is true if we compare Carmen 24 to the address to the liber in Martial 1.3, an epigram which is influenced by Horace Ep. 1.20 and portrays the parvus liber as eager to leave the author’s house and start a new life in the tabernae of the Argiletum. Martial’s poem, however, is short (only twelve lines), in elegiacs, and originally placed at the beginning rather than the end of the collection.57 A text which presents significant analogies with Sidonius’ Carmen 24 is Ausonius’ Praef. var. 4, as Stefania Santelia has shown.58 In this case too, the poet urges his trepidae nugae to fly to Pacatus Drepanius, who will give them a kind welcome and preserve their good reputation by publishing only what he deems worthy. The metre, too, is the same, but the length is very different: there are eighteen verses to Ausonius’ poem, of which only the last six develop the same theme as Carmen 24, while, in the first twelve, conversely, Ausonius alludes to Catullus’ Carmen 1, wondering about the possible addressee for his ‘charmless, awkward little book’ (4 illepidum, rudem libellum) and identifying Pacatus as his Nepos. I do not believe, however, that two other poems by Ausonius signalled by Santelia – Ep. 9b and Ep. 19b – present meaningful analogies with Sidonius.59 The first is a composition in 105 iambic trimeters, placed before the copy of Titianus’ Apologi that Ausonius sends to Petronius Probus. The only feature that it has in common with Carmen 24 is its considerable length; in other respects, it is quite different: it is preceded by a letter in prose and is written in a different metre; it accompanies a libellus whose author is not the sender, and it does not describe the stages of the journey, focusing instead on Probus, whom Ausonius salutes and celebrates. A comparison with Ep. 19b is equally unconvincing, as it is preceded by a section in prose (Ep. 19a), is in iambic trimeters, and is not linked to any collection of poetry: the poem is merely tasked with greeting Paulinus, updating him on Ausonius’ projects, and returning swiftly (44 pervola). There is a closer affinity between Carmen 24 and the first elegy in the Tristia, which also accompanies a book on its way with the full consent of the author. The author provides useful advice for his book which is going to Rome and will conclude its journey in Ovid’s house, where it will join its fratres. The two texts share a metapoetic element: in Ovid, this is the book’s color, which reveals its author’s identity; in Sidonius, it is the new path along which the book will travel (5 antiquus tibi nec teratur agger, ‘do not tread the old road’). Even in this case, however, there are significant differences: Trist. 1.1 opens a collection, while Carmen 24 closes one; moreover, there are no details of the itinerary in Ovid’s elegy, although – at least as far as Rome is concerned – some appear in Trist. 3.1, where the book itself, having reached the city, describes the places it has visited. The metre is different too, and in Ovid it serves to identify the genre, which is not the case with Sidonius’ hendecasyllables. There are, however, markers of an itinerary in Ovid Pont. 4.5, where the route that the verses will travel to thank Sextus Pompeius and place themselves in his hands is briefly indicated (5–6: Thrace, Mount Haemus, the Ionian Sea). 57 58 59

See Citroni (1970) and (1975) 22–3. Santelia (2002a) 30. Santelia (2002a) 30–1.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 354

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

355

Another description of the stages of a journey (albeit only within Rome) occurs in Martial 1.70, an address in nine couplets to the book that will go to greet Proculus, whose proximity to the Muses is also remembered.60 The motif of the liber that visits a friend, brings him the poet’s greetings, and places itself under his protection is also found in Martial (in particular, at 4.86 and 3.5, which also mentions the welcome given by the addressee’s wife just as Sidonius refers to Eulalia – Probus’ wife and his own cousin – in Carm. 24.95). These precedents show Sidonius’ debt to the tradition and also help us understand the very personal way in which he reworks elements from earlier poems addressed to books, placing them in the context of a full-blown propempticon whose originality consists in having the book arrive at multiple friends’ houses in a series of intermediary stages before it reaches its final destination.

6 Epigrams, Epitaphs, Metrical Inscriptions 6.1 Epigrams after Martial 6.1.1 Carmina 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 Five of the Carmina minora, all in elegiacs, are epigrams which display all the characteristics of the form as crystallised by Martial. Carmen 17 is an invitation to a birthday banquet.61 Its relative length (ten couplets) is not unusual for an invitatio ad cenam, and – as is the case with some of Martial’s epigrammata longa – is justified by the detailed list of dishes that it contains.62 Unlike Martial, however, Sidonius produces, once again, a negative list, itemising all the dishes that he will not serve.63 Carmen 18, in six couplets, is an ekphrasis of the baths at the villa of Aydat (Avitacum).64 The three remaining epigrams are tetrastichs and we know that Sidonius considered two to four lines as the perfect length for an epigram.65 Carmen 19 describes the villa’s swimming pool, thus complementing the poem that precedes it in the collection: it is highly likely that both were devised to be engraved or painted.66 In Carmen 20, Sidonius invites his brother-in-law Ecdicius to his birthday party; Carmen 21 was written to be sent to a friend along with two fish caught the previous night. 60 61

62 63

64 65

66

See the commentary in Citroni (1975) 225–32. For an analysis of this poem, see Gualandri (1993) 204–6, who proposes Mart. 10.48 as a model, and Santelia (2010b), who, besides Latin precedents, cites Bacchylides fr. 21 (Maehler) and Philodemus AP 11.44. The reference to these Greek models is nonetheless unconvincing: Santelia does not show that Sidonius read Greek, and indeed there are good reasons to believe that he had very little knowledge of the language; see Gualandri (1979) 145 and also the doubts that she raises in the present volume, ch. 8, p. 285, n. 35. In all events, though, there are no compelling analogies between Carm. 17 and the two Greek texts. See Merli (2008), esp. pp. 309, 317–20. On sobriety as a moral and aesthetic choice, as opposed to the ostentatious splendour of contemporary dishware (attested and condemned in Sidonius’ description), see Gualandri (1993) 205–6. On this epigram, see Furbetta (2013b) 245–51. As expressed in Ep. 8.11.7, written in 477–8. Here, commemorating the rhetorician Lampridius, Sidonius cites his writings as examples of perfection, each in its own genre, e.g. epigrammata . . . quae nec brevius disticho neque longius tetrasticho finiebantur, ‘epigrams . . . never shorter than a couplet or longer than a quatrain’. Sidonius himself, in his description of the villa, speaks of pauci versiculi (‘a few lines of verse’) on the walls of the frigidarium (Ep. 2.2.7) and, in my view, this term – which Loyen (1970) 2.47 n. 12 believes relates to the tetrastich alone – is so generic that it could easily refer to both epigrams. Hernández Lobato (2015) 608–9 suggests that one was inscribed on the walls of the frigidarium, and the other at the entrance to the pool; the latter suggestion was previously made by Bellès (1992) 137. On Carm. 19, see Furbetta (2013b) 251–3, Hernández Lobato (2015) 608–9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 355

13/02/20 4:00 PM

356

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

6.1.2 Carmina 25, 32, and 39 Some of the poems inserted in the letters also belong to the genre of the epigram. Three of these are impromptu compositions: the brilliant couplet Carmen 25 (in Ep. 1.11: Scribere me satiram qui culpat, maxime princeps, / hunc rogo decernas aut probet aut timeat, ‘Who blames me for writing satire, mighty emperor, please decree that he prove it, or tremble’) that the poet improvised, at Majorian’s bidding, to refute a malicious allegation that he was the author of an anonymous satire;67 a tetrastich dedicated to the towel of the senator Philomathius which, at Philomathius’ own request, had to contain his name (Carmen 32 in Ep. 5.17);68 and, finally, Carmen 39, a couplet that Sidonius himself describes as an epigramma (tali iocatus epigrammate, ‘I amused myself by composing the following epigram’) and which is reproduced in Ep. 9.14 as an example of versus recurrentes.69

6.1.3 Carmen 29 Carmen 29, included in Ep. 4.8, can be classed as an epigram both because it complies with Martial’s use of the term and because it was meant to be engraved.70 Sidonius claims to have dashed it off in haste during an uncomfortable journey. His friend Evodius had commissioned it to be inscribed on a shell-shaped basin intended as a gift for Queen Ragnahilda, the wife of Euric. In my view, the most interesting feature of the poem is its internal structure, in the sense that the three parts into which Sidonius’ poem is divided appear somewhat disconnected from each other. The first couplet asserts that this shell is superior to the one that Triton uses to carry Aphrodite. Therefore the reader would expect it either to be complete in itself or to introduce the ekphrasis of the basin. What follows (3–8), instead, is an appeal to the queen herself, ‘the daughter, daughter-in-law, and wife of kings’, who is begged to assume the role of patroness towards the donor-client. There is an even more abrupt change in theme and tone in the last two couplets (9–12), declaring that the waters contained in the basin are happy because – besides being bathed in the light that emanates from the metal – they absorb even more radiance from the queen’s dazzling face, which infuses the silver with its glow whenever she washes. As Savaron notes,71 the last four lines are modelled on an epigram in two couplets written by Claudian 67

68

69

70

71

Ep. 1.11.13–14. On the circumstances of this poem’s composition, see Köhler (1995) 288–92, Harries (1994) 93–5. For the epigram on Philomathius’ towel and its context, see the analysis in Furbetta (2013b) 255–9. Hernández Lobato (2012b) 141–5 intriguingly sees this composition as an eloquent example of the late antique tendency to write poetry about even the most everyday objects, thus creating a poetry ‘en el campo espandido’ (‘in the expanded field’) and raising the towel to the status of objet d’art. However, although, alongside respect for tradition, late antique literature often displays an irreverent attitude (in my view, more apparent in Ausonius than in Sidonius), the idea that poetry is able to take on banal and unpromising subjects – which is typical of Sidonius – does not mean that everyday objects are presented as works of art (as they are with Duchamp, cited by Hernández Lobato). Sidonius does not aspire to transform the towel into an artwork, but simply accepts the challenge of composing an epigram about it; therefore the towel becomes the subject of the poem, but is not itself turned into an object of art. The two pentameters that appear at §4 of the same letter exemplify another type of versus recurrentes, but they are not by Sidonius. On the first of them, see Anderson (1965) 2.582–3 n. 1), Henke (2007) 218–27. For Sidonius’ confusion between recurrentes and reciproci, see Condorelli (2004a) 589–90. For analysis of this poem, see Gualandri (1993) 202–3, Di Salvo (2005a) 184–6, Amherdt (2001) 244–7, GuipponiGineste (2014) 248–53; see also Kaufmann (1995) 123–5. Savaron (1598) 244 ad loc.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 356

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

357

for the basin of the learned Serena, who – merely by washing her face in it – will bestow upon its waters virtues superior to the Hippocrene spring.72 It is as if Sidonius, forced by the basin’s very shape to write a twelve-line poem,73 opted to do so by stringing together three discrete epigrams. As Guipponi-Gineste (2014) 253 rightly notes, the result is not a tremendous success, but we cannot be sure that Sidonius was aware of that.74

6.1.4 Carmina 8 and 3 Two further compositions in elegiacs – Carmina 8 and 3 – have an epigrammatic character. These accompany the panegyrics of Avitus and Majorian respectively, and fall into the tradition of the poet apostrophising his own work.75 In Carmen 8 Sidonius tells his addressee, Priscus Valerianus, former praetorian prefect of Gaul,76 of a conversation that he has had with his own nugae, describing how eager they are to set out on their journey and submit themselves to Priscus’ judgement. The poet asks them to stay, as Priscus is a strict judge and his friendship with Sidonius will – if anything – make him even more inflexible. The poem’s originality consists in the fact that the nugae both answer back and not only reaffirm their intent, but judge the addressee in their turn, evoking his fair-mindedness.77 This explains the ‘epigrammatic punchline’78 that closes the poem: since the author cannot hold his impudent words back, then Priscus should not hesitate to burn them after reading (15–16 et quia non potui temeraria sistere verba, / hoc rogo, ne dubites lecta dicare rogo, with the play on words between the first person singular of the verb ‘to ask’ (rogo) and the ablative of rogus, ‘pyre’). Wherever this poem originally appeared when the Panegyric of Avitus was circulated after delivery, Sidonius eventually decided, in forming his collection of Carmina maiora, to place it immediately after the panegyric and thus at the end of the collection as a whole. This positioning leads Hernández Lobato to view it as both an epilogue and a propempticon performing the same role for the Carmina maiora as Carmen 24 does for the Carmina minora.79 In reality, though, there is little of the propempticon about the poem, as there is no description of the journey that the nugae are about to undertake, only of their arrival at their destination. As regards literary precedents, Horace’s Ep. 1.20 surely inspired ‘the 72 73

74

75 76

77 78 79

Claudian Carm. min. 45, on which Guipponi-Gineste (2010a) 307–13. The verses were to be engraved either on the twelve flutings of the basin or (as Sidonius himself would prefer, cf. §5) on the corresponding parts in relief. After presenting him with the text of the poem, Sidonius takes leave of his friend begging him not to reveal that he is the author. And he adds the following gloss: namque in foro tali sive Athenaeo plus charta vestra quam nostra scriptura laudabitur, ‘in that sort of forum or Athenaeum your writing material will get more praise than my writing’. This remark might suggest that Sidonius is aware of the limitations of his piece in terms of quality, an interpretation advocated by Kaufmann (1995) 125, and which might be linked to the modesty topos that introduces the poem. The most likely and most widely accepted explanation, however, is that Sidonius, knowing the barbarians’ lack of cultural sensibility, believes that the silver itself will be more appreciated than the verses engraved on it. This interpretation, first proposed by Anderson ad loc., is endorsed by Gualandri (1993) 204, Fo (1999) 30 n. 10, Wolff (2014a) 214. Amherdt (2001) 248 is slightly less disparaging of Gothic culture. For both, see the exhaustive analysis in Santelia (2002b); more recently, see also Buongiovanni (2009) 75–6. He could be identified with the addressee of the De contemptu mundi by Eucherius of Lyon, see Stroheker (1948) 225 n. 400, PLRE 2, 1142–3 (Valerianus 8), PCBE 4, 1909 (Valerianus 5), or with the bishop of Cimiez of the same name, as favoured by Heinzelmann (1982) 709 (Valerianus 3), or even with the latter’s father, as already suggested by Mathisen (1981b) 110–12. Santelia (2002b) 248. ‘Pointe di sapore epigrammatico’: Santelia (20026) 249. Hernández Lobato (2015) 413.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 357

13/02/20 4:00 PM

358

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

insertion of autobiographical details’,80 although, unlike Sidonius, Horace dwells at length on what will happen to his book. On the whole, though, a closer model is presented by Martial 1.3, where the parvus liber, eager to run off, is warned of the risks that it is about to run.81 A very different tone is adopted in Carmen 3, where Sidonius dedicates the Panegyric of Majorian to his magister epistularum Petrus. It opens by recalling the relationship between Vergil and Maecenas, in whose honour the Georgics (seen as a step towards the Aeneid) were written. Petrus will be a latter-day Maecenas for Sidonius and the book is urged to speed towards him as he is the guardian of the poet’s respectability (pudor), and, as such, Sidonius would gladly accept even a negative judgement from him. Prototypes for this poem may be found in the opening lines of the third Georgic,82 and, once again, in Martial’s epigrams, which refer, on several occasions, to the relationship between Vergil and Maecenas.83 Martial may also be a model for the motif of sending verses to a trusted recipient who can protect the book itself, but this is also found elsewhere.84

6.1.5 Carmina 12 and 13 Carmina 12 and 13 are also close to epigram but do not conform entirely to the genre. The first is a witty recusatio in twenty-two hendecasyllables addressed to the senator Catullinus, who had asked Sidonius to compose an epithalamium for him. The poet explains that the presence of the Burgundians with their hair smeared with rancid butter and their unbearable stink of garlic and onion would cause his inspiration to dry up. It has been noted that the addressee’s name brings to mind that of Catullus, but only to point to a reversal of the two poets’ situations: whereas Catullus had composed a book and was looking for an addressee, Sidonius has a potential addressee – namely, Catullinus – but he has no poem to offer.85 In lines 10–11 (spernit senipedem stilum Thalia, / ex quo septipedes videt patronos, ‘my Muse has spurned the six-footed exercise ever since she beheld these patrons seven feet high’,86 the juxtaposition of senipes stilus (alluding to the hexameter, the metre in which the epithalamium would have been written)87 and septipedes patroni, where the adjective refers to the exceptional height of the barbarians, might be inspired by Claudian’s epigram Carm. min. 13, which also plays on two different senses of the word pes, referring, in one case, to the basic metrical unit of the verse and, in the 80 81

82 83

84

85

86 87

At ll. 7–10; Gualandri (1993) 202: ‘l’inserzione di particolari autobiografici’. The same epigram by Martial also features (at ll. 5–6) the image of rhino-nosed critics, which Sidonius varies at l. 8; see Gualandri (1993) 202, and in this volume, ch. 8, sect. 5.1, p. 291. Hor. Ep. 1.20 and Mart. 1.3 are also suggested as models in Santelia (2002b) 246–7 n. 7. For the possible influence of Ausonius, see Buongiovanni (2009) 75. For an analysis of Carm. 3, see Gualandri (1993) 201, Condorelli (2008) 29–34. For the relationship between Maecenas and Vergil in Martial, see Santelia (2002b) 251 n. 22, who refers to Mart. 1.107.4, 8.55.5–6 and 23–4, 12.3.1–2; see also Franzoi (2008). On the diffusion of this topos, see Santelia (2002b) 252 n. 26. For the topos in Martial in particular, see 3.2, 3.5 which even mentions the wife of his friend Iulius (ll. 7–8), 4.86, 7.97, 12.2, 3. On Sidonius’ pudor – which his friends are asked to safeguard – see Loyen (1943) 98–9. Hernández Lobato (2015) 502–3, (2012a) 141–3. Henke (2008) 164–5 suggests further reasons why Sidonius may have wished to evoke Catullus (which he does via the name Catullinus and the use of hendecasyllables): Sidonius may be thinking of Catullus’ confession to Allius in Carm. 68 that he cannot write verse any more as he is overcome by the pain of love, or of the fact that he was the author of two epithalamia in hexameters, Carm. 62 and 64. This second suggestion puzzles me: first, because Carm. 64 is not a real epithalamium; second, because Sidonius himself had already written epithalamia, so there would be no specific reason to refer to Catullus now. Cf. Carm. 34 (= Ep. 8.9.5), v. 34 Burgundio septipes, ‘the seven-foot tall Burgundian’. See Condorelli (2004a) 564–5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 358

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

359

other, to the diseased foot of the ‘gout sufferer’ (podager) who accuses him of making mistakes in his prosody. Sidonius’ Carmen 13, which consists of ten elegiacs followed by twenty hendecasyllables, is distinctly experimental in form. It is certainly not the only case of polymetre in late antique poetry; indeed, authoritative precedents might be found in Sidonius’ fellow Gauls Ausonius and Paulinus.88 I shall not attempt a critical exegesis of this poem, with the thorny textual issue presented by the reading hystriones.89 Instead, I would highlight how the section in elegiacs – which closes with an epigrammatic pointe – is perfectly intelligible in isolation from the following part in hendecasyllables, whereas the latter cannot be understood without reference to the opening section. Silvia Condorelli has read the first part as a sort of praefatio where the comparison between the prince and Hercules leads one to expect an encomium, an expectation that is not fulfilled in the second part of the poem.90 This analysis is ultimately unconvincing, though, partly because the preface would then be as long as the main body of the text – and actually more extensive, given that the elegiacs are longer than the hendecasyllables – but especially because the line that closes the first part does not really seem to be building up to a panegyric; it serves, rather, to give an epigrammatic character to the first section. I would argue, rather, that in Carmen 13 Sidonius creates an interlocking structure – where the first part is readable on its own, but the second is only comprehensible with reference to the first – which ends with ‘another witty and decidedly surprising conclusion’.91 The juxtaposition of the two metres in the one poem has lead Alberto Canobbio to propose the interesting ‘hypothesis that the unusual metrical appearance of this poem is meant to replicate, on an intratextual level, the alternation between couplets and hendecasyllables that is typical of Martial’s work’.92 In all events, the clear epigrammatic character of the first part makes this original combination emblematic of Sidonius’s poetic innovations; he always begins with something familiar, so as to avoid disorienting the reader too drastically. 88 89

90

91

92

On the taste for polymetry in Gallic authors, see Consolino (2017). After stating that Majorian is a new Hercules and a prince besides (ll. 15–16 at tu Tirynthius alter, / sed princeps, magni maxima cura dei), the poet concludes: †hystriones nos esse puta monstrumque tributum; / hinc capita, ut vivam, tu mihi tolle tria, ‘deem us to be †hystriones and the tax to be the monster, and favour me by taking from it three heads, that I may be able to live’. Hystriones, which is found throughout the manuscript tradition, contains a cretic sequence in its first three syllables. Hence various attempts have been made to correct it, from Lütjohann’s Geryonen – which restores a very much older emendation and is also adopted by Mohr (1895) and Bellès (1992) – to the rather weak Eurysthea, suggested and incorporated into his text by Anderson (1934) 20, and Loyen’s Geryones, which has been recently defended by Canobbio (2013) 377. Hernández Lobato (2015) 517 n. 13 and (2012a) 203–12 defends and retains hystriones, considering io as one syllable by synizesis. Against the (attractively economic) emendation of hic triones proposed by Santelia (2005b), see the arguments offered by Hernández Lobato (2008) and Canobbio (2013) 377–9. See Condorelli (2008) 126–31, esp. 130–1: ‘l’impressione che si ha è che la prima parte del componimento, strutturata secondo il modulo tipico delle praefationes dei panegirici, alimenti l’attesa di un nuovo carme celebrativo, attesa frustrata nella seconda parte, in cui, non solo il tema della precatio è “spogliato” di ogni travestimento mitico, ma la richiesta del poeta è accompagnata dal palese rifiuto di concedere un nuovo encomio (vv. 35–40)’ (‘one is left with the impression that the first part of the poem, which is structured following the typical model of the praefationes to his panegyrics, creates the expectation of a new celebratory poem, but this expectation is frustrated in the second part, where not only is the theme of precatio stripped of its mythical guise, but the poet’s request is also accompanied by a clear refusal to offer up a new encomium (vv. 35–40)’). Canobbio (2013) 371 (‘finale nuovamente arguto e decisamente “a sorpresa”’), who shares some of my reservations about Condorelli’s thesis. For an overview of the epigrammatic features in the poem, see Canobbio (2013) 370–87. Canobbio (2013) 371: ‘ipotesi che l’anomala facies metrica di questo componimento intenda riprodurre a livello intratestuale l’alternanza distico/falecio caratteristica della produzione marzialiana’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 359

13/02/20 4:00 PM

360

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

6.2 Epitaphs and/or Metrical Inscriptions Sidonius’ letters contain four funerary poems,93 three of them in Phalaecian hendecasyllables.

6.2.1 Carmen 26 Carmen 26 (in Ep. 2.8) is an epitaph on the lady Philomathia, who died when she was barely thirty. The poem, commissioned by her father, opens by decrying the cruelty of her premature death (1–4) and comes full circle to conclude with a piece of paronomastic wordplay on the injustice of having to compose a funerary tribute for her (15 iniuste tibi iusta persoluta). The rest of the poem is given over to praise of the deceased and presents a portrait which brings together apparently contrasting virtues (8–11 discordantia quae solent putari / morum commoditate copulasti: / nam vitae comites bonae fuerunt / libertas gravis et pudor facetus, ‘you have by your sweet reasonableness combined things that are usually considered opposed, for a serious frankness and a merry modesty were the constant attendants of your virtuous life’).94 The words that introduce the poem merit particular attention (§2): neniam funebrem non per elegos sed per hendecasyllabos marmori incisam planctu prope calente dictavi. quam si non satis improbas, ceteris epigrammatum meorum voluminibus applicandam mercennarius bybliopola suscipiet; si quid secus, sufficit saxo carmen saxeum contineri. I composed a funeral dirge when my tears were barely cold, not in elegiacs but in hendecasyllables, and this has been engraved on marble. If you are not seriously displeased with it, the publishing secretary I employ will undertake to add it to the other sheets of my epigrams; but if you feel otherwise about it, it is enough that a poem which is heavy as stone should be preserved on stone. Two of these remarks are particularly interesting. The first concerns the choice of metre, which is not the elegiac couplet that one would expect in this genre (and that Ausonius used in his epitaphs). The second shows that Sidonius – who wrote the poem to be engraved – also meant to publish it with other verses, although it is not clear to which collection he is referring and what precisely he means by epigramma in this context.95

6.2.2 Carmen 28 Carmen 28 (in Ep. 3.12) is the inscription that Sidonius composed for the tomb of his grandfather Apollinaris, which he had restored after catching some gravediggers in the act of violating

93

94

95

The four poems are analysed by Condorelli (2013a). For an overview of the epitaphs and of the metrical inscriptions composed for churches, see Wolff (2014a). For these oxymoronic conjunctions, see Mascoli (2003b) 165; the same article also contains a commentary on the poem. Critics have generally tended to identify the epigrammaton libri with the collection of nugae; see Klotz (1923) col. 2234, 12–13, Loyen (1970) 1.62 n. 32, Schetter (1992) 351 and n. 29, Wolff (2014a) 209, ‘c’est-à-dire de ses petits poèmes (Poèmes 9–24)’. Given, however, that this poem does not feature in the Carmina minora, we must entertain the possibility that Sidonius is alluding here to a further collection, either lost or not completed, as Condorelli (2013a) 263 suggests; see van Waarden in this volume, ch. 1, p. 18 with n. 35. Epigrammaton might then refer to a compilation of epigrams in the strict sense – including funerary ones – or an anthology of light poetry, bearing in mind the broader meaning that the term epigramma can assume in Sidonius; see Consolino (2015) 81–2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 360

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

361

it (1–2). The epitaph, the only poetic text in Book 3 of the Letters, is very carefully constructed: after listing the worldly honours his grandfather enjoyed, Sidonius stresses the moral prestige he acquired through being the first in the family to convert to Christianity.96 Although it was meant to be inscribed on the tombstone,97 the poem – like all the other metrical inscriptions contained in the letters – was intended for wider circulation.

6.2.3 Carmen 30 Carmen 30 (in Ep. 4.11) is an epitaph on the priest and neo-Platonic philosopher Claudianus Mamertus. Composed of twenty-five hendecasyllables, it paints a portrait of a Christian intellectual, well versed in all fields of sacred and secular knowledge.98 As David Amherdt observes, elements such as the mention of Mamertus’ name, biographical details, and the appeal to the reader place the poem in the tradition of the epitaph, but there are also affinities with Martial’s epitaphs and with Ausonius’ Parentalia and Epicedion in patrem.99 In terms of content, it is also comparable with funerary inscriptions of Gallic aristocrats – bishops and laymen – in the fifth and sixth centuries. There is no evidence in the letter that the poem was meant to be engraved. On visiting his friend’s tomb some time after his death, Sidonius chose to write a versatile text which – besides being circulated like any other poem – could also be engraved on the tombstone, given that its content fitted the requirements of a funerary inscription and its length was not excessive both in terms of Sidonius’ own production (twenty-five hendecasyllables compared to fifteen for Philomathia’s epitaph and twenty for Sidonius’ grandfather, all of which were meant to be engraved, as, perhaps, were the fifteen elegiacs for Abraham),100 and compared to Sidonius’ own funerary inscription (eighteen hendecasyllables) and to other epitaphs from sixth-century Gaul.101

6.2.4 Carmen 33 Carmen 33 (in Ep. 7.17; the only poem contained in Book 7 of the Letters) is an epitaph for the saintly abbot Abraham, and is the only such poem that Sidonius composed in elegiac couplets, the conventional metre of the genre.102 Van Waarden has provided a very thorough commentary 96

97 98

99 100

101

102

For a commentary on the poem, see Giannotti (2016) 222–6. See also the earlier analyses in Condorelli (2013a) 268–70, (2008) 199–200, Consolino (1976) 138–9. For the features of the poem that indicate that it was really engraved on stone, see Colafrancesco (2014) 74–5. For an analysis of the poem, see Amherdt (2001) 295–301, and, for its structure, pp. 282–4 in particular. Sidonius had praised the wide learning of Claudianus Mamertus in a letter addressed to him (Ep. 4.3); see Squillante (2009a) 146–7. As suggested by Amherdt (2001) 283, with reference to the Gallic inscriptions studied by Heinzelmann (1976). This is the opinion of Wolff (2014a) 216–17, who believes that all four epitaphs were engraved. In my view, though, we can only be certain about the epitaphs for Philomathia and for Sidonius’ grandfather because the text itself proves as much. We do not know, conversely, whether Mamertus’ epitaph – composed sometime after his death – was engraved on his tomb; the circumstances of Abraham’s funeral raise doubts in his case too (cf. below, n. 104). Cf., in particular, CLE 1365, an epitaph in twenty-six lines of elegiacs for queen Caretena (†506), and two rather late texts: CLE 1387, an epitaph for Nicetius, bishop of Lyon (†573), and CLE 1389, an inscription in twenty-two elegiacs for Silvia, a noblewoman of Vienne (†579). I would exclude, conversely, the even longer epitaphs contained in the fourth book of Venantius Fortunatus, as we cannot be certain that they were meant to be engraved (and in one case, Carm. 4.26 – the Epitaphium Vilithutae in 160 lines of elegiacs – we can be sure that it was not). See Condorelli (2013a) 276: ‘l’epigramma per il confessore è un carme composto dal Vescovo di Alvernia, che rende omaggio al pio defunto impiegando un modulo poetico più consueto’ (‘the epigram for the confessor is a poem composed by the bishop of Auvergne, which adopts a more usual poetic model to pay homage to the pious deceased’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 361

13/02/20 4:00 PM

362

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

on this poem,103 so I shall make only one observation: unlike the epitaph on Mamertus, this even longer poem, which charts Abraham’s life journey from east to west, lacks any external marker indicating that it was meant to be engraved on a tombstone. However, the term inscribere, which Sidonius uses when describing the request of his friend Volusianus, strongly suggests that it was.104 In all events, in length, metre, and style, the poem is a worthy predecessor of several of the epitaphs contained in Book Four of Venantius Fortunatus’ poems.

6.2.5 Carmina 27 and 31 Sidonius is also the author of two non-funerary metrical inscriptions, composed for sacred buildings, which he includes in his letter collection (Carmina 27 and 31, in Ep. 2.10 and 4.18 respectively), just as Paulinus of Nola had done with his. Carmen 27 is a thirty-line inscription which Sidonius says was hurriedly composed (§3 tumultuarium carmen) for the apse of the new church erected by Bishop Patiens in Lyon.105 As it was going to be placed between two other inscriptions in hexameters by Constantius (the addressee of Sidonius’ first book of letters and later biographer of Germanus of Auxerre) and by Secundinus, Sidonius feared suffering by comparison and opted for hendecasyllables instead (Ep. 2.10.3). The poem has an ekphrastic character:106 most of it is taken up by a description of the building, framed by the opening four and closing three verses; at the end of the descriptive section (22–7), there is a counterimitation of the epigramma longum in hendecasyllables in which Martial describes the villa of Julius Martialis on the Janiculum (Mart. 4.64.18–22).107 Carmen 31 is a poem in ten elegiac couplets for the apse of the new basilica of St Martin that Bishop Perpetuus of Tours has built to replace an earlier church, which was too humble 103

104

105

106

107

Van Waarden (2016a) 222–43, who identifies Ausonius’ Ordo urbium nobilium as the hypotext for Abraham’s travels from Mesopotamia to Clermont. See also Gualandri (1993) 210–12, and in this volume, ch. 8, sect. 5.2, n. 76. Ep. 7.17.1 Iubes me, domine frater, lege amicitiae . . . sancto Abrahae diem functo neniam sepulchralem luctuosis carminibus inscribere, ‘You bid me, my lord and brother, by the law of friendship, . . . to write a sepulchral lament for that holy man, the deceased Abraham’: on the meaning of the verb, see van Waarden (2016a) ad loc., who correctly observes that the expression nenia sepulcralis can also be applied to a funerary inscription. In the letter, Sidonius tells how Count Victorius had entirely monopolised the saint’s funeral (§1), so that all that was left for him was to inscribe some words on paper with his stylus (§2 et quia sibi maximas humandi funeris partes ipse praeripuit, . . . saltim ad obsequium quae remanserunt verba conferimus, nihil aliud exaraturi stili scalpentis impressu quam testimonium mutuae dilectionis, ‘and since he has taken upon himself the main responsibility for the obsequies, . . . I gave as my tribute what at least is left to me – words, and the impression of my scratching style shall inscribe nothing but a testimony to our mutual love’). Sidonius makes no mention of inscribing the words on a tombstone; perhaps, since the poem had not been solicited by Victorius, he feared that he had already made provision for the inscription. It is highly likely, however, that Volusianus’ request that Sidonius write the poem did, in fact, lead to it being engraved, especially if (as was Sidonius’ plan) Volusianus assumed the supervision of the monastic community formerly governed by Abraham. For an analysis of this text, see Hecquet-Noti (2013); see also Wolff (2014a) 212–14, Santelia (2007); for ll. 5–30, see the commentary in Di Salvo (2005a) 138–42. On Sidonius’ description of the architecture of the church, see Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2014a) 380–8. The perceptive analysis offered by Hernández Lobato (2010d), subsequently reworked and expanded in (2012a) 493–518, fully brings out the visual and acoustic aspects of the ekphrasis, which entirely accord with late antique aesthetic trends. I agree with his emphasis on the ‘centrifugal’ character of the poem which urges the reader to linger on the endless wonders that surround them (p. 517); I am not equally convinced, however, that the poem consciously suggests that we view the church as a Gesamtkunstwerk. While Martial talks about external sounds not reaching the villa of Martialis, Sidonius mentions them to underline how they echo within the church, blending with the hymns to God. The reworking of Martial is noted by both Friedlaender (1886) and Geisler (1887). For a comparison of the two texts, see Baker (1996) 40–1 and Fabbrini (2007) 26–7. On the similarities between the poem and epigrammata longa, see Consolino (2015) 74.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 362

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

363

a building for so great a saint. The inscription was intended to be part of a cycle of epigraphic poems marking the path from the church entrance to the apse and acting as a guide to pilgrims. Rather than exalting St Martin himself, as Paulinus of Périgueux did in an epigram composed for the same building,108 Sidonius praises the grandeur of the basilica and stresses the role of Perpetuus, the subject of the play on words that closes the poem (20 perpetuo durent culmina Perpetui, ‘may the edifice of Perpetuus perpetually endure’).109

7 Carmen 16: Thanksgiving, Hymn, Encomium, and Poetical Manifesto Carmen 16, for which Stefania Santelia has recently published a commentary, is a solemn thanksgiving (Eucharisticon) in hexameters for Bishop Faustus of Riez. As with Carmen 24, the extreme rarity of the term in Latin means that the choice of title – be it Eucharisticon or Euchariston, as in part of the manuscript tradition – is probably the author’s own.110 It matches his choice of an elevated style, as well as the taste for Greek terms which he particularly displays in the letter accompanying the preface to the epithalamium of Polemius. As with the gratiarum actio – the Latin equivalent of a eucharisticon – one would expect to encounter encomiastic elements, but these are only present in the second part of the poem (71-128). In the first part (1–67), employing the ring composition that is traditional for religious hymns, the concluding plea to Christ links back to and reinforces the initial invocation of the divine Spirit (5 magis ille veni nunc spiritus, oro, ‘rather you come, great Spirit, I pray’),111 and finally states the poem’s purpose: to offer Faustus the thanksgiving that he deserves (68–9 da Faustum laudare tuum, da solvere grates, / quas et post debere iuvat, ‘do grant that I may praise your servant Faustus, that I may pay my debt of gratitude, which even after this payment I am glad to owe’). Then Sidonius says he is singing Faustus (69–70) and gives the reasons for his gratitude (71–88), which make him wish to pray for Faustus and praise him (89–90). First, the bishop is placed on the same level as the ancient eastern ascetics (91-103), then he is situated in the formative monastic context of Lérins (104–15). After a laudatory description of the duties that Faustus performs as a bishop (116–26), the poem closes with a declaration of everlasting and unconditional affection. The play on his addressee’s name in the last two lines (127–8 semper mihi Faustus, / semper Honoratus, semper quoque Maximus esto, ‘I wish you may be ever Fortunate, ever Honoured, ever also Greatest’) presents Faustus as the worthy successor to two great ascetics and bishops hailing from Lérins: Honoratus, the founder of the monastery and later bishop of Arles, and Maximus, who preceded Faustus as both head of the monastery and bishop of Riez.112 The title εὐχαριστικός or εὐχαριστικόν (in Greek characters) had already been used by Paulinus of Pella for a poetical thanksgiving of his own, believed to have been published in 108

109

110 111

112

On the poem by Paulinus of Périgueux, see Pietri (1983) 807–9 (n. 11); Sidonius’ text is reproduced there on pp. 810–11 (n. 16) with a French translation; the two inscriptions are compared by Zarini (2002). For commentary, see Gualandri (1993) 206–8, Amherdt (2001) 414–17. For a study of the architectural description, see Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2014a) 389–92. TLL 5.2, 1004.77–83 cites the titles of Silv. 4.2 and of Paulinus of Pella’s poem as the only sources for the term. Sidonius speaks generically of Spiritus (not of the Holy Spirit) in the section dedicated to the Old Testament (ll. 5–34), then of Christ in the section devoted to the New (ll. 35–67). Emanuele Castelli (2012) suggests that we should interpret Spiritus not as the third person of the Trinity, but as the pre-existent Christ; see Castelli (2012) 143–50. Van Waarden (2016a) 7–8 argues that Sidonius’ specific contribution to the renown of Lérins is precisely the creation of Faustus’ image, thus shaping a triad of ‘founding fathers’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 363

13/02/20 4:00 PM

364

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

459, a date close to Sidonius’ poem, however late we believe Carm. 16 to have been composed.113 Paulinus, however, cannot be one of the models for this poem. Even supposing that Sidonius knew his work (and, if he did, it is unlikely that a poet as refined as Sidonius would have appreciated Paulinus’ mediocre versification), Paulinus’ poem is of an entirely different stamp – being an autobiography in 616 hexameters – and, thus, very far from Sidonius’ composition. In fact, the only feature that the two poems share is an initial invocation to the deity, which, however – in Paulinus’s case – is handled in a more contained manner and in the style of a confession. The only Latin precedent is therefore Silvae 4.2, a poem thanking Domitian for a dinner invitation, handed down with the title Eucharisticon. We do not know whether the title goes back to Statius, but it is likely to be the one that Sidonius knew. The poem is sixty-seven lines long (about half the length of Carmen 16) and has a markedly encomiastic character. Statius opens with a typical trait of the basilikos logos: evoking Vergil’s description of Dido’s banquet and Homer’s of the feast of Alcinous, he compares his own predicament to that of these famous poets. His own task, he declares, is even more daunting, and could not even be accomplished with the talent of Vergil and Homer combined (1-10). Sidonius, by contrast, at the beginning of his poem repudiates the deities traditionally associated with poetry (1–5) in order to pray the divine Spirit for inspiration, and, by invoking him, to produce a full-blown religious hymn (5–69). Statius goes on to describe the splendour of Domitian’s palace and evokes the abundance and variety of dishes served (18–37), but stresses that what was most important for him was being able to satisfy his desire to contemplate the dazzling figure of the prince at his own leisure (38–56; the theme was anticipated at lines 10–17). He concludes by declaring that the day when Domitian offered him the sacred hospitality of his table was as bright as that other day when he received the golden crown from the prince for winning at the Alban games. Sidonius follows a similar pattern, likewise placing the eulogy of the addressee at the centre of his thanksgiving, as well as stressing his own sense of admiration and gratitude. Although Sidonius broadly adopts the same scheme as Statius, he develops his poem in a completely personal way. In fact, Carmen 16 is only a thanksgiving in its second part. The recusatio in the first part has a major precedent in a longer passage from Statius: Silv. 1.4.19–36, where the poet declares that he will not invoke Phoebus, Pallas and the Muses, Hermes, or Bacchus, and begs the addressee himself to be present to grant him inspiration (22 ipse veni: cf. Carm. 16.5 magis ille veni, referring to the Spiritus) in preference to any traditional source.114

113

114

On the various hypotheses as to the poem’s date of composition, see Santelia (2012) 46–50, who opts for 468 or a slightly earlier date. I think that, given the poem’s Christian character, we should not rule out the possibility that it was written during a period of progressive detachment from the world, and thus most probably in 469, immediately after Sidonius held the office of urban prefect. If that is the case, this poem would have been added to the collection in the second edition. For an alternative view of the publication date, see Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, sect. 3.1. Whatever the date, the arguments in Hernández Lobato (2006), reworked and expanded in (2012a) 57–72, regarding the prominent position occupied by the poem in the collection, are convincing. There is a particularly close analogy between Carm. 16.1 (Phoebum et ter ternas decima cum Pallade Musas, ‘Phoebus and the nine Muses together with Pallas as tenth’) and Silv. 1.4.19–20 (ast ego nec Phoebum, quamquam mihi surda sine illo / plectra nec Aonias decima cum Pallade divas, ‘but I will call neither on Phoebus although my quill is mute without him, nor on the Aonian goddesses with Pallas the tenth Muse’). This important parallel is underlined in Hernández Lobato (2012a) 542–6 and again in (2014a) 408–11. See also Amherdt (2014) 421, who notes how these opening lines – in which Sidonius rejects pagan poetry – are, in fact, those which most strongly evoke the poetic tradition.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 364

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

365

Another element that Carmen 16 shares with Silv. 1.4 is its encomiastic character, although the latter contains much more extensive praise. In the section of the poem devoted to biblical examples (6–67, a sort of aretology reminiscent of a hymn), Sidonius’ proven knowledge of Scripture115 permits him to draw on the Bible in much the same way as he draws on mythological sources in his pagan poems.116 His use of the same technique (unsurprising in an author who, in principle, sees no dichotomy between pagan and Christian classics)117 is evidence of a coherent poetical personality, as Sidonius exploits all his compositional skills to establish himself authoritatively as a Christian poet. From this perspective, occupying a prominent position in the Carmina minora,118 Carmen 16 anticipates the poem that closes Book 9 of the Letters (Carm. 41), where Sidonius explicitly presents himself as a new Prudentius.

8 Carmen 22: A Silva The only poem remaining to be examined in the Carmina minora is Carmen 22. It is framed by a letter in prose to Pontius Leontius, where Sidonius declares that he has composed the poem as a testimony of their friendship and has decided to praise Pontius’ castle (burgus) because he knows that the subject will please his friend even if the poem itself doesn’t. This prose introduction Ep. (Carm. 22) 1–3 is followed by the 235 hexameters of the poem, which present a mythical aetiology of the burgus, featuring Bacchus and Apollo with their respective retinues.119 Following the poem’s conclusion, Sidonius offers it to his friend to be read aloud whenever he is drinking heavily with guests, so that it will not suffer from the judgment of sober listeners (Ep. (Carm. 22) 5). He continues: si quis autem carmen prolixius eatenus duxerit esse culpandum, quod epigrammatis excesserit paucitatem, istum liquido patet neque balneas Etrusci neque Herculem Surrentinum neque comas Flavii Earini neque Tibur Vopisci neque omnino quicquam de Papinii nostri silvulis lectitasse; quas omnes descriptiones vir ille praeiudicatissimus non distichorum aut tetrastichorum stringit angustiis, sed potius, ut lyricus Flaccus in artis poeticae volumine praecipit, multis isdemque purpureis locorum communium pannis semel inchoatas materias decenter extendit. Again, should anyone consider that such a lengthy poem deserves censure for going beyond the brevity of an epigram, it is perfectly clear that he has not been in the habit of reading the ‘Baths of Etruscus’ [Silv. 1.5] or the ‘Hercules of Surrentum’ [Silv. 3.1] or the ‘Locks of 115

116

117

118 119

On the excellent knowledge of Scripture revealed by the section of the poem devoted to biblical episodes, see Daly (2000). On biblical echoes elsewhere in Sidonius, see, in this volume, Gualandri, ch. 8, sect. 7. On the use of myth in Sidonius, see Furbetta (2013a). For important remarks on the role of myth and the space it holds in Sidonius’ poetry, see Gualandri (1999) 54–62. Lucie Desbrosses – whom I thank for having sent her article to me before publication – maintains that Sidonius, who ‘seems to cultivate a Christianity tinged with numerous pagan references’ (‘semble cultiver un christianisme teinté de nombreuses références païennes’ (Desbrosses (2015) 213), had an ambiguous attitude towards the pagan tradition and a rather deep personal stake in the evocation of pagan myths and practices. See Eigler (2003) 106–7. See also Amherdt (2014) 427–8. It is precisely this continuity and the mutual interchange between secular tradition and biblical culture that, in my view, precludes the reading of this poem as a place of ‘muerte e resurrección de la poesía’ proposed by Hernández Lobato (2012a) and (2014a). See n. 113 above. For a commentary on this poem, see Delhey (1993) and also Condorelli (2008) 148–65.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 365

13/02/20 4:00 PM

366

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

Flavius Earinus’ [Silv. 3.4] or the ‘Tiburtine home of Vopiscus’ [Silv. 1.3], or indeed anything from the little Silvae of our Statius; for that man of most assured reputation does not cramp any of these descriptions within the narrow limits of two-lined or four-lined poems, but rather does what the lyric poet Horace enjoins in the Art of Poetry: once he has introduced the subject, he appropriately enlarges it by the repeated use of stock ‘purple patches’. The overall sense of this passage is clear: to defend himself against any accusation of verbosity, Sidonius cites the precedent of the Silvae, where Statius had observed what Sidonius (following Pseudo-Acro) believed to be one of the precepts laid down by Horace in his Ars poetica.120 On the other hand, the meaning of the expression quod epigrammatis excesserit paucitatem has proved problematic. In an important article, Luca Mondin has suggested that Sidonius calls this poem an epigram as the outcome of a metaliterary line of reasoning, beginning with Martial’s defence of epigrammata longa and ending by broadening the category of the epigram.121 It would therefore be an extreme case of expanding the boundaries of the genre. This reading does not convince me for a number of reasons which I have explained in depth in an essay on the different meanings and uses of the term epigramma in Sidonius.122 Here, I will only give a brief summary of my arguments. First of all, epigrammatis paucitas refers to the oligostichia which is typical of the epigrams in the Anthologia Graeca or those in the manner of Martial, which Statius did not wish to imitate (non distichorum aut tetrastichorum stringit angustiis). In the preface to the second book of the Silvae, however, Statius presents two of his compositions as substitutes for epigrams, not as examples of them: leves libellos quasi epigrammatis loco scriptos. These are Silv. 2.3 and Silv. 2.4 (seventy-seven hexameters on Athedius Melior’s tree and thirty-seven hexameters on his parrot respectively) which develop typically epigrammatic themes. The Silvae, then, would perform functions similar to the epigram in their own way. Second, for the reader to realise that an author is stretching the conventions of a literary genre, the text must retain some features that clearly indicate that it belongs to that genre; only through such clues can we identify where it diverges from the norm and appraise the author’s innovations. I do not believe that this is the case with Carmen 22, an aetiological poem in 235 hexameters, written in an epic style and on a mythical subject, where it would be hard to find any traits of the epigram, either according to the Greek practice witnessed by the Anthology and followed by Ausonius and Naucellius during the previous century, or in the style of Martial. Finally, there is the question of context. In Martial’s twelve books, there are only eightyeight poems that are between sixteen and fifty lines long and their length is both compensated for and justified within the greater unit represented by the book itself. Besides, Martial offsets their length – deemed an ‘element fundamentally alien to the rhetoric of the genre of the epigram’123 – through various strategies, all intended to underline its exceptionality and to 120

121

122 123

It is in fact a criticism, rather than a precept. The reference is to Hor. Ars 14–16 inceptis gravibus plerumque et magna professis / purpureus, late qui splendeat, unus et alter / assuitur pannus, ‘works with noble beginnings and grand promises often have one or two purple patches so stretched on as to glitter far and wide’, in which Horace censures poets who, when dealing with demanding subjects, undermine the dignity of their verses by cramming them with commonplaces. Sidonius’ dependence on Ps.-Acro has been demonstrated by Quadlbauer (1980) 1–11. Mondin (2008) 474–7, followed by Condorelli (2008) 157, and, with particular reference to Sidonius, by Franzoi (2013) 484–8. Consolino (2015). Fabbrini (2007) 266: ‘elemento sostanzialmente estraneo alla retorica del genere epigramma’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 366

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

367

ensure that the genre is immediately recognisable.124 Sidonius’ poem, on the contrary, was not originally part of a collection and therefore lacks a wider context. This situation would still pertain even if we accepted the unlikely hypothesis that Sidonius only added his concluding remarks when he inserted Carmen 22 in his compilation of Carmina minora (if indeed he did125). This compilation – as we have already observed – did not only contain epigrams (Carmina 17–21) or texts of a similar nature (Carmina 12 and 13). One cannot really stretch the concept of epigramma longum (as defined by Martial) to embrace compositions such as the dedication to Felix (Carmen 9), the Propempticon ad libellum (Carmen 24), the two epithalamia with their respective prefaces (Carmina 10–11 and 14–15), the thanksgiving to Faustus of Riez (Carmen 16), and the encomium of Consentius (Carmen 23). Sidonius’ words are, in fact, open to another interpretation which, in my view, is more convincingly authorised by the text. Carmen 22 has far exceeded the brief length of the epigram, because Sidonius has preferred to treat his subject in the extended manner of Statius’ Silvae, rather than with the paucitas of Martial’s epigrams. This reading is supported by the fact that three of the Silvae mentioned by Sidonius share a subject with Martial’s epigrams: on the baths of Claudius Etruscus there is also Martial’s Epigr. 6.42, an epigramma longum in twentyfour hendecasyllables; on Flavius Earinus’ hair there are Epigr. 9.16, 17, and 36; and the poem on Vopiscus’ villa has stylistic affinities with Epigr. 8.36, 9.64, and 10.30. Finally, Silvae 3.1 on the temple of Hercules in Sorrento is, like Sidonius’ Carm. 22, an aetiological poem on a mythological subject and of a substantial length (186 hexameters). Therefore, rather than viewing Carmen 22 as an epigramma longum that pushes Martial’s practice to the extreme, it makes more sense to class it as a silva in Statius’ manner, especially as Sidonius explicitly refers to Statius as his ideal model, thus signalling him to his reader as a term of comparison for his own poem.126

9 Carmen 41: Epilogue or Prologue? The closing sixteenth letter in Sidonius’ ninth book is mostly taken up by a poem of eightyfour lines (Carmen 41). It is the only one of Sidonius’ surviving poems to be written in Sapphic stanzas. Sidonius presents it as his final poem, in which he takes leave of a poetic production often marked by a frivolity unseemly in a bishop and in fact already abandoned in favour of serious epistolary prose. He is not, however, renouncing all forms of poetry as he does not rule out the possibility of writing verses again one day. If he did, however, it would be to compose hymns for the martyr Saturninus or for the other saints who had helped him. Style and tone are solemn.127 Looking back over his career and literary achievements (1–32), Sidonius recalls his past poetical activity, and is ashamed of its superficiality (33–48). He then turns to his present literary production, where he says he has rejected poetry so as not to undermine the gravity expected of a clergyman (49–56). From now on he will avoid the temptation to write poetry in either a pleasant or a solemn metre, unless it is to sing of

124 125 126

127

See Consolino (2015) 87 and n. 48. See above, n. 7. Hernández Lobato (2015) 624 stresses how this ekphrasis combines elements from different literary genres – including occasional poetry, mythological epyllion, epic aetiology, panegyric, and metapoietic reflection – in line with the aesthetic of ‘mélange des genres’ theorised by Fontaine (1977). For an analysis of this poem, see Condorelli (2008) 228–39. For its embedding within Sidonius’ oeuvre, see van Waarden (2010) 198 and (2011a) 107–8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 367

13/02/20 4:00 PM

368

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

the tortures endured by the martyrs who have earned their place in heaven (57–64). As a specimen of the poetry he will permit himself to write, he offers three stanzas describing the martyrdom of Saturninus of Toulouse, in a style that echoes Prudentius’ Peristephanon (65–76). After Saturninus, he would like to celebrate all the other saints who have assisted him in moments of anguish and whose names he cannot now fit within the limits of his verse: but though the strings (chordae) of his lyre cannot sound their names, his heart (corda, 77–84) will sing their praises. The influence of Horace’s last ode (4.15) has been detected by Giovanni Ravenna in the poem’s conclusion: both share a similar note of finality and, in particular, the concluding word sonabunt echoes canemus at the end of Horace’s ode.128 The influence of Horace is also perceptible in the (admittedly common) nautical metaphor at the beginning of the poem,129 and then in the prose conclusion to the letter containing the verses, where Sidonius cites Ars 21–2 to argue for the coherence of this poem and of the letter collection as a whole.130 Nonetheless, despite the significant Horatian elements,131 I believe that the major point of reference for this poem is Prudentius. As Isabella Gualandri was, to my knowledge, the first to observe, the poem is structurally similar to Prudentius’ preface,132 even though Sidonius’ self-satisfaction in recalling his former achievements is far from the severity of Prudentius’ judgement of his own past.133 It might seem odd that for a poem presented as a ‘spiritual testament’134 Sidonius would choose as his model a poem designed to set out Prudentius’ poetical programme. I believe, nonetheless, that the contradiction is only apparent, and that the reference to Prudentius permits Sidonius to outline the new poetical identity that he wishes to create for himself. Prudentius had evoked and then repudiated a life of worldly service; the decision to devote himself to poetry marks a break with his previous activities. Sidonius, conversely, recalls a life of literary service, his repudiation of which is only partial as it is limited to poetry and does not affect the writing of letters. By holding out the possibility that he will compose sacred poetry, he realigns himself with his Prudentian model, and, through the stanza on Saturninus, shows that he is equal to the task. The poem, then, is not just the epilogue to a poetic career, but serves, at the 128 129 130

131

132 133

134

This reading is proposed by Ravenna (2004); for the allusion to Hor. Carm. 4.15.32, see ibid. 321–3. Condorelli (2008) 230–1. Horace develops this metaphor in Carm. 1.14. Stoehr-Monjou (2013) 166–7, who also observes that Book 9 of the Letters (added to the collection at a later date) is structured as a ring composition, beginning and ending with a letter to Firminus. Egelhaaf-Gaiser (2010) stresses the centrality of Horace: Sidonius not only evokes him through the use of Sapphics (p. 271), but, most significantly, by imitating the recusatio of the last ode, he is able to pay tribute to Prudentius, the Christian Horace. It is for this reason that ‘in der Polyphonie der literarischen Stimmen, die Sidonius in seinem Buchsiegel anzitiert, die persona des Horaz dominant herauszuhören ist’ (p. 291: ‘in the polyphony of literary voices which Sidonius evokes in this sphragis, Horace’s persona is the one that can most clearly be heard’). Gualandri (1979) 4–7. Gualandri (1979) 6: ‘Siamo ben lontani dal vanitas vanitatum che, nel carme prudenziano, domina il ricordo della vita trascorsa e presenta la scelta – si badi bene, già avvenuta – della poesia religiosa come coerente, inevitabile conseguenza del rifiuto delle lusinghe terrene. Anzi, non si può non osservare che Sidonio, nel momento stesso in cui fa professione di rinuncia ad ogni genere di poesia profana, licenzia per la pubblicazione un libro di lettere – il nono – che contiene anche composizioni poetiche’ (‘We are very far here from the vanitas vanitatum which, in Prudentius’ poem, permeates the recollection of his past life and makes the decision to devote himself to religious poetry (already taken, let us note) appear as the coherent, inevitable consequence of his rejection of worldly enticements. Indeed, we cannot help noticing that, at the very moment when Sidonius professes to repudiate all kinds of profane poetry, he licenses for publication a book of letters – his ninth – which also contains poetic compositions’). Gualandri (1979) 4: ‘testamento spirituale’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 368

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

369

same time, as a prologue to a potential new stage of poetical activity, which Sidonius signals by adopting Prudentius as a model and announcing himself as Prudentius’ potential successor.

10 Other Poems Only a few pieces of occasional verse inserted in Sidonius’ letters remain to be discussed. Given their conspicuous lack of pretention, these poems might be termed epigrammata in the sense – well documented in Sidonius – of undemanding compositions of various length and in different metres.135

10.1 Carmen 35: A Commonitorium Carmen 35 (in Ep. 8.11) is a poem in fifty-four hendecasyllables, in which Sidonius-Phoebus invites his muse to travel to Lampridius-Orpheus in order to announce his imminent arrival and to ask his friend to come out and meet the poet, but only after preparing lodgings for him. The muse is then tasked with greeting two other potential hosts on Sidonius’ behalf, and if these are unable to accommodate him, to go to the bishop’s house and request a room for him there, so that Sidonius is not forced to stay in a tavern full of humidity, smoke, and noise. In a Christian context, the commonitorium was gradually assuming new functions, whether as a hortatory composition (for example, Orientius or Vincent of Lérins), or as a semi-private document used, especially by bishops, for dealing with particularly weighty or important matters.136 In Sidonius, however, the term retains its traditional meaning and continues ‘to be employed . . . in the general meaning of a note containing orders and instructions which, in poetic usage, could be addressed to a divinity’.137

10.2 Carmina 36 and 40:Two Recusationes Carmen 36 (in Ep. 9.13, section 2) consists of twenty-eight stichic lesser Asclepiadeans. It was composed for Sidonius’ friend Tonantius, who had asked him to write a poem in Asclepiadeans in the style of Horace. The poem is presented as a recusatio which, nonetheless, goes some way towards performing the very task to which the poet declares himself unequal. Indeed, although he refuses to compose the light and convivial poem requested by Tonantius, Sidonius expresses this refusal in the required metre, thus demonstrating precisely the technical mastery that he denies possessing. His ability is confirmed by the many learned allusions and the adoption of an expressive style that cultured readers would associate with Horace.138 135

136 137

138

For this sense of epigramma, cf. Plin. Ep. 4.14.8–9 unum illud praedicendum videtur, cogitare me has meas nugas ita inscribere ‘hendecasyllabi’, qui titulus sola metri lege constringitur. proinde, sive epigrammata sive idyllia sive eclogas sive, ut multi, poematia seu quod aliud vocare malueris, licebit voces, ego tantum hendecasyllabos praesto, ‘one thing I should declare now, that I am thinking of calling these trifles of mine Hendecasyllables, a title which defines them only by metre. So if you prefer to call them Epigrams or Idylls or Eclogues or (as many others have) Little Poems or something else, you may call them that. I offer them only as Hendecasyllables.’ See Lizzi Testa (2003). Lizzi Testa (2003) 62: ‘ad essere usato . . . nel generale significato di biglietto contenente ordini e istruzioni: una divinità, nella trasfigurazione poetica, poteva esserne il destinatario’. This is the same sense in which the word is used in the letters of Symmachus; cf. TLL 3, 1934.28–32; along with Pliny, Symmachus is Sidonius’ principal epistolary model, cf. Ep. 1.1.1. For a detailed analysis of this poem, see Consolino (2011b) 101-11.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 369

13/02/20 4:00 PM

370

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

The poem contained in Ep. 9.15, Carmen 40, satisfies a request from his friend Gelasius, who had begged Sidonius to include a letter addressed to him in his collection and to write for him – as he had already done for Tonantius – a light poem in iambic trimeters that could be sung. Sidonius responds with a composition that his friend might call either an ode or an eclogue (sive oden, sive eglogam) as he prefers. As with Tonantius, the recusatio actually fulfils the request. After expounding at length on the technique of the trimeter (1-14), Sidonius professes his own incompetence, mentioning a number of poets from his circle who can write much better than he (15–49). At the end of this list, he reiterates his own ineptitude, but also notes that he cannot refuse his friend’s request, given that not even concern for his reputation has frightened him off (54 nec pudore territus). Hence his final observation: amor timere nescit: inde parui, ‘love knows no fear, that is why I have obeyed you’.

10.3 Carmen 37: A Divertissement Ep. 9.13 to Tonantius also contains an extempore poem in one-hundred and twenty Anacreontics: Carmen 37 in section 5.139 About twenty years before, while waiting to be seated at a banquet, Sidonius and other poets had improvised poems on a recent book by the magister epistularum Petrus, each composing in a different metre so as to avoid direct comparisons that might have been unflattering for some.140 Sidonius writes a divertissement that dwells on a long list of preparations for the feast and ends with praise of Petrus’ book. The definition of epigrammata (light compositions of modest length and scant importance) that Sidonius uses to describe the works of his dining companions is the same (here and elsewhere in Sidonius) as in Pliny the Younger and perfectly matches this very slight poem.141 The Anacreontic was traditionally associated with banquets,142 and this may lie behind Sidonius’ choice of the metre. It should be recalled however, that this metre must have been highly regarded in Gaul, given that the first sixteen verses of the Poema coniugis ad uxorem are, despite the seriousness of the subject matter, written in Anacreontics.143

139 140

141 142

143

A thorough analysis of Carm. 37 is now provided by Onorato (2017a). Ep. 9.13.5 placuit namque pro caritate collegii, licet omnibus eadem scribendi materia existeret, non uno tamen epigrammata singulorum genere proferri, ne quispiam nostrum, qui ceteris dixisset exilius, verecundia primum, post morderetur invidia, ‘for although the subject matter was the same for all, yet, as was proper for devoted colleagues, we resolved that the poems of the several competitors should not be in the same metrical form, so that none of us whose recitation had been weaker than the others should be stung first with shame and later with envy’. Epigramma is here clearly used in the Plinian sense; see above, n. 135; Consolino (2015) 80. Porph. ad Hor. Carm. 4.9.9 (nec si quid olim lusit Anacreon, ‘nor what Anacreon once played’) 167, 3–4 Holder lusit, inquit, quia iocis et conviviis digna scripsit, ‘“played”, he says, because he wrote pieces apt for entertainment and banquets’ (echoed by Ps.-Acro 356, 6–7 Keller). The suggestion that the incipit of this poem (age convocata pubes) alludes to Anacreon. fr. 43 D (= 62 Bergk) ἄγε δή, φέρ’ ἡμίν, ὦ παῖ, made in Condorelli (2008) 222, and again, more cautiously, in Condorelli (2013b) 122, is, in my view, untenable: first, because – even assuming that Sidonius knew Greek well enough (see above, nn. 12 and 61) – it is rather unlikely that Anacreon was read in fifth-century Gaul; second and most importantly, because all the two lines have in common is the initial age, so that the echo cannot be interpreted as a ‘motto’ in Pasquali’s sense (not to mention the fact that Sidonius is not Horace). Gualandri in this volume, ch. 8, p. 285, n. 35, expresses similar reservations to my own here. When this chapter was already written, the question was discussed by Onorato (2017a) 115–17, who lists a number of thematic analogies between Carm. 37 and the poems by Anacreon and his imitators, but wisely admits that it cannot be definitively proved that Sidonius had a direct and integral knowledge of at least some of these Greek texts. On Anacreontics in this context, see Consolino (2017) 112–13.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 370

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ SHORTER POEMS

371

11 Between Tradition and Innovation: Literary Genres in the Poetry of Sidonius This analysis of Sidonius’ poetry proves that his attitude to literary genres is coherent with the approach that, in both his thematic and stylistic choices, he adopts to literary tradition: nihil . . . non absolutum, non ab exemplo, ‘nothing in them which is unclear or which departs from precedent’, to join in Isabella Gualandri’s conclusion144 and, of course, quote Sidonius himself (Ep. 8.16.5). As with his allusive variations, we may observe varying degrees of liberty in Sidonius’ personal treatment of literary genres. At times, he adheres quite faithfully to a genre or to a codified literary form (for example, in the imperial panegyrics or in the epigrams composed after the style of Martial). At others, he diverges from his model, either alluding to it implicitly (as, for example, in the preface to the epithalamium of Polemius and Araneola, which is not omitted, but – instead of being in elegiacs – is composed partly in prose and partly in hendecasyllables), or evoking it explicitly (as, for example, in the prose preface of the same epithalamium, where Sidonius highlights and justifies his decision to replace the tenderness of the nuptial song with the rough teachings of philosophy).145 Other poems do not belong to a specific literary genre but are related to it, as is the case of Carmina 12 and 13, which cannot be straightforwardly classed as epigrams, but are not far removed. When experimenting with these relatively new and hard-to-classify forms, Sidonius benefits from the greater flexibility of literary genres in Late Antiquity. Moreover, like Ausonius, he presents the reader with new forms that are reminiscent of well-known ones. In this way, he enables cultured readers to find their bearings more easily and to appreciate the originality of his innovations. Another significant feature of Sidonius’ poetic production is the co-presence of more than one genre within the same poem. Although this practice is certainly not new in Latin literature (compare, for example, the Kreuzung der Gattungen observed by Kroll),146 it is particularly prominent in Sidonius. The most striking case is Carmen 9, epigrammatic in its opening and closing passages, but at the same time a dedication, a letter, and a poetic manifesto. Besides Carmen 9, the versatility of the poetical letter is proved by the epigram of invitation to Ommatius (Carmen 17), which is also a short epistolary note, while the two (very different) ‘responses’ to Consentius (Carmen 23) and to Catullinus (Carmen 12) are reminiscent of letters. Apart from the mysterious collection of epigrammata that the epitaph of Philomathia was intended for,147 Sidonius reveals that he wrote other poems ‘in the first ardour of youth’ (primo iuvenis calore) which he hopes will be lost.148 These, in fact, have not reached us, either by an accident of fate or because the author himself did not collect them in a definitive edition, believing that it would be inconsistent with his episcopal dignity. He did edit his letters, however, and must have done the same for his collection(s) of poems, thus preserving for posterity a wide-ranging literary production that seeks to cover a broad repertoire of genres and literary forms. From this perspective, we can see how Sidonius strives for completeness: alongside the

144 145 146 147 148

This is the conclusion of Isabella Gualandri’s study in the present volume, ch. 8 (the quotation is from p. 279). Carm. 14.1. Kroll (1924). See above, sect. 6.2.1. Cf. Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 41–4. On the contradictory nature of this attitude (Sidonius did compose some poems as a bishop and had no hesitation about recirculating poems he had composed as a layman), see Gualandri (1979) 6–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 371

13/02/20 4:00 PM

372

FRANCA ELA CONSOLINO

more rigidly structured imperial panegyrics, we find the intimate encomium of Consentius; alongside epigrams in the style of Martial, he includes other poems with an epigrammatic spirit, while there are also a number of ‘lighter’ works reminiscent of Pliny’s collection of hendecasyllabi. Much the same could be said for the variety of metres: neither the Carmina maiora nor the Carmina minora include any lyric verse, but Book 9 of the Letters contains as many as three lyric poems. A final element that merits attention in a discussion of literary genres in Sidonius is indeed the use of metre. The hexameter and the elegiac couplet are employed in genres with which they are traditionally associated: the epithalamium, the solemn gratiarum actio to Faustus, and Carmen 22 for the hexameter, and the epigrams for the elegiac couplet. The latter is also used in the preface (Carmen 10) to one of the two epithalamia, while in the other (Carmen 14) it is replaced by the hendecasyllable, the use of which Sidonius extends to an unequalled degree. Thus, for a long letter like that addressed to Felix, one would expect either a hexameter following the Horatian model, or the couplet after the example of Ovid, while the encomium of Consentius should demand the hexameter. Furthermore, Sidonius chose to write in hendecasyllables an inscription for a church in Lyon (Carmen 27) and two epitaphs (Carmen 26 for Philomathia and Carmen 28 for his grandfather). The anonymous author of Sidonius’ epitaph paid homage to his preference for this metre.149

12 Further Reading Basic studies of Sidonius as a poet and writer include André Loyen’s Sidoine Apollinaire et l’esprit précieux en Gaule (1943), Franca Ela Consolino’s ‘Codice retorico’ (1974), and Isabella Gualandri’s Furtiva lectio: Studi su Sidonio Apollinare (1979). Recent research is exemplarily represented in monographs by Condorelli (2008), Hernández Lobato (2012a), and Onorato (2016a), as well as in the edited volumes New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (van Waarden and Kelly (2013)) and Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire (Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014)). On literary genres and the tendency towards blending them in Late Antiquity, see the seminal articles by Jacques Fontaine (1977, 1988). For details on the third century, Kirsch (1988) should be consulted; for the fourth to sixth centuries, the edited book by Consolino (2003). A lucid take on the aesthetic paradigm of Late Antiquity is offered by Formisano (2007). Michael Roberts’ book on the The Jeweled Style (1989) has deeply influenced current thinking about late Latin poetry and poetics. An important synthesis is offered in Charlet (2008). Cutting-edge contributions include Pelttari (2014) and the multi-author volume on The Poetics of Late Latin Literature edited by Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017). Translated from the Italian by Giulia Sagliardi (with Paul Barnaby)

149

Only a few fragments of the epitaph survive on the tombstone; Furbetta (2015b) has recently published a text showing some variants compared to the known version (CLE 1516). See, in this volume, van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2 (1), and Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 10.7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 372

13/02/20 4:00 PM

11 SIDONIUS’ CORRESPONDENCE Roy Gibson

S

ERIOUS WORK OF a systematic sort on ancient letters began just over a century ago with Adolf Deissman’s pioneering monograph (1908) on the epistles of the New Testament and the parallels and contrasts provided by counterparts among the Greek documentary letters of ancient Egypt.1 Scholars in the second half of the twentieth century benefited from the advanced general works of Koskenniemi (1956) and Thraede (1970) on the fundamental ideas and topics that characterise Graeco-Roman epistolography, as well as from Malherbe’s (1988) compilation of ancient epistolary theorists and from the useful general overviews of the field provided from various perspectives by Stowers (1986), White (1986), and particularly Klauck (1998).2 These works of a synoptic nature are now joined by Trapp’s standard (2003) anthology with commentary and a volume of essays on a wide range of ancient letters edited by Morello and Morrison (2007). The individual letter collections produced by the great literary figures of Graeco-Roman Antiquity, often studied in modern synoptic works as members of a gene pool dominated by the epistles of the New Testament, also began to receive concerted attention in their own right in the latter part of the twentieth century. Most recently, and of particular relevance to the present chapter, the giants of Roman epistolography have each been the subject of revised texts or specialised monographs and commentaries, including Cicero,3 Seneca,4

Warm thanks are offered particularly to Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly, also to Sigrid Mratschek and Paul Barnaby, for numerous improvements and corrections to this chapter. All remaining errors are my own. Use or adaptation of the following translations is gratefully acknowledged: Demetrius (D.C. Innes); Julius Victor (A.J. Malherbe); Sidonius (W.B. Anderson); Augustine (R. Teske); Pliny (B. Radice and J.D. Lewis); Ps. Demetrius and Ps. Libanius (A.J. Malherbe); and Horace (N. Rudd). 1

2

3

4

For an overview of scholarship in the field, with special emphasis on early Christian epistolography, see Thorsteinsson (2013). Deissmann’s monograph, Licht vom Osten (1908), was several times revised (4th edn 1923), and translated into English as Light from the Ancient East (4th edn 1927). Deissmann’s distinction between the documentary letter (‘Brief’) and literary epistle (‘Epistel’) was eventually found to be inadequate; but the impulse to achieve a more satisfactory system of classification remains (for example, Stirewalt (1993)): for an overview, see Rosenmeyer (2001) 5–12, also Trapp (2003) 1–5. Alongside Deissmann, note also Peter (1901), a work of more restricted scope (Der Brief in der römischen Literatur), and Sykutris’ widely cited entry on classical epistolography in Paulys Realenzyklopädie (1931). Further bibliography in the German-language tradition: see van Waarden (2010) 31 n. 70. Klauck (1998) – the best introduction to the field as a whole, both classical and New Testament – was revised and translated into English as Klauck (2006). Cugusi (1983) remains the standard work for the development of Roman epistolography from the late republic to early empire. For a survey of the Greek epistolographical tradition, see also Muir (2009). Text and commentaries on the Ad Atticum, Ad familiares, and Ad M. Brutum and Ad Quint. fr.: Shackleton Bailey (1965–70, 1977,(1981), respectively. Recent monographs on the corpus: Hutchinson (1998), Hall (2009), White (2010), Wilcox (2012), McConnell (2014). Commentaries on individual books or selections of the Epistulae morales: Laudizi (2000), Op het Veld (2000), Hönscheid (2004), Berno (2006), Hamacher (2006), Richardson-Hay (2006), Inwood (2007). Recent monographs: Henderson (2004), Wilcox (2012).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 373

13/02/20 4:00 PM

374

ROY GIBSON

Pliny,5 Symmachus,6 Ambrose,7 Jerome,8 and Augustine,9 among others.10 Renewed interest in Sidonius as letter-writer has arisen in the context of a more general refocusing of critical attention on Latin letter collections previously either mined only for historical data or regarded effectively as appendages to a writer’s larger oeuvre. A new focus on the characteristics and dynamics of the letter collection, driven by critical gains derived from the study of the Roman and Hellenistic poetry book, has developed in parallel.11 It is remarkable, as I have argued elsewhere, that ‘despite fundamental changes in belief (and preferred narrative patterns) . . . methods of arranging letter collections display not only some consistency of practice, but even continuity’ from the late republic to the very end of the western empire and beyond.12 This observation, as we shall see, is of direct relevance to Sidonius, who found one of his primary models amongst the literature of the Trajanic age, in the Epistles of Pliny, rather than in the great Christian letter collections of the late fourth and early fifth centuries.13

1 The Character of the Sidonian Letters 1.1 Length, Beginnings, and Endings In a work On Style, Demetrius had insisted that ‘The length of a letter . . . should be restricted. Those that are too long, not to mention too inflated in style, are not in any true sense letters at all but treatises with the heading “Dear Sir”’ (228).14 The critic went on to highlight the letters of Plato as particular offenders in this regard. In practice, length was effectively disregarded as a generic criterion by letter-writers throughout Antiquity, despite frequent reiteration of Demetrius’ point.15 At one end of the spectrum, the personal communications

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

Commentaries on Pliny’s Epistles: Whitton (2013), Gibson (forthcoming a); cf. the new Budé text of Zehnacker (2009–12). Recent monographs: Ludolph (1997), Hoffer (1999), Beutel (2000), Henderson (2002), Méthy (2007), Marchesi (2008), Carlon (2009), Lefèvre (2009a), Gibson and Morello (2012), Shelton (2013). For an overview of recent work on Pliny, see Gibson and Whitton (2016). Text of Symmachus: Callu (1972–2009); commentaries: Barrow (1973), Roda (1981), Vera (1981), Rivolta Tiberga (1992), Pellizzari (1998), Cecconi (2002), Salzman and Roberts (2011). Monographs: Haverling (1988), Bruggisser (1993), Sogno (2006); cf. the overview of Sogno (2017). Ambrose: text with authoritative introduction: Faller and Zelzer (1968–96); selected translation with notes: Liebeschuetz (2005); cf. Liebeschuetz (2015d); cf. the overview of Nauroy (2017). Commentaries on selected letters of Jerome: Scourfield (1993), Adkin (2003), Cain (2013). Recent monographs: Conring (2001), Cain (2009); cf. the overview of Cain (2017). New edition of Augustine’s letters: Daur (2004–9); cf. Fürst (2002) for commentary on the Augustine–Jerome correspondence. Recent monographs on Augustine’s letters: Morgenstern (1993), Hennings (1994), Doyle (2002), Ebbeler (2012); cf. the overview of Ebbeler (2017). For example: Paulinus of Nola: Trout (1999), Conybeare (2000), Mratschek (2002); cf. the overview of Trout (2017). Work on letter collections: Beard (2002), Gibson (2012), Neil and Allen (2015), Sogno et al. (2017a); also Ramsby and Vasaly (2018). Gibson (2012) 59. See Mratschek, chs. 5 and 6 in this volume, on the value to Sidonius of both Pliny and Trajan as cultural icons in the context of fifth-century Gaul. On Sidonius’ style – quite different in overall effect from that of Pliny (despite intense intertextual engagement with Pliny) – see Wolff in this volume, ch. 12. Τὸ δὲ μέγεθος συνεστάλθω τῆς ἐπιστολῆς . . . . αἱ δὲ ἄγαν μακραί, καὶ προσέτι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ὀγκωδέστεραι, οὐ μὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐπιστολαὶ γένοιντο ἄν, ἀλλὰ συγγράμματα, τὸ χαίρειν ἔχοντα προσγεγραμμένον.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 374

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

375

of Symmachus, like those of surviving documentary letter-writers, are mostly rather short. Many of Symmachus’ letters resemble visiting cards.16 At the other end, Augustine, Jerome, and particularly Ambrose show a predilection for the longer ecclesiastical and doctrinal letter, in the broad tradition of the Pauline letters of the New Testament. Some of the communications by Augustine and Jerome circulated effectively as separate treatises, precisely in the manner decried by Demetrius.17 The letters of Seneca display a general tendency to become longer over time, in step with the increasing difficulty of the philosophical correspondence course offered to their single addressee, Lucilius.18 The more personal letters of Pliny display a deliberate variation in length that is evidently designed to emulate experiments within the Augustan poetry book, including the Epistles of Horace, and its successors in Martial and the Silvae of Statius.19 In this context it is evident that Sidonius emulates Pliny and the poetic tradition in his own similar preference for a modulated variety in length of letters within books, although his love of longer rather than shorter letters is more pronounced than that of Pliny.20 One rough indication of this inclination towards greater individual length of letter is given by the fact that whereas Sidonius includes only 147 authorial letters in his nine-book collection, Pliny’s first nine books contain 247 letters.21 Sidonius himself comments, as he brings the first seven books to a close, ‘I studiously kept to this compromise that the text of my letters should be extended if their number was reduced’ (servans hoc sedulo genus temperamenti, ut epistularum produceretur textus, si numerus breviatur, 7.18.1).22 The great Christian letter-writers regularly prefaced their communications with elaborate formulae of salutation. Augustine’s letter to an ‘errant’ Numidian bishop illustrates the customary pleasantries: ‘To my most beloved lord and honourable brother, Maximinus, Augustine, a

15

16

17

18 19

20

21

22

For example by the fourth-century Julius Victor: in familiaribus litteris primo brevitas observanda est (‘in personal letters brevity is the norm’, Ars rhet. 27); cf. (to various effect) Sen. Ep. 45.13; Plin. Ep. 7.2.3, 9.32; Ps.-Libanius Form. ep. 48–9; Sherwin-White (1966) 4–5, Thraede (1970) 154–7, Mullett (1981) 78–9. (Poster (2007) 31 usefully underlines potential disagreements amongst epistolary theorists on the subject of length.) The date of Demetrius may be as early as mid-second century BCE: Trapp (2003) 43. On Julius Victor, see further below. For the brevity of Symmachus’ letters in the context of epistolary theory, see Cameron (2016a) 67–71. The comparison of his letters to visiting cards was apparently first made by Dill (1898) 129, albeit as a form of criticism of Symmachus. For example: Augustine’s letters 166–7 to Jerome were categorised in Augustine’s own Retractationes (71) as treatises on the origin of the soul and expositions of James respectively; cf. Ebbeler (2010) 465–6. For the porous boundary between letter and treatise in Jerome’s correspondence, see Cain (2009) 208. For an overview, see Henderson (2004) 28–52. For a representative study of a single Plinian book, see Gibson and Morello (2012) 36–72 on Book 6, with references to other comparable studies. In 1956, Alfred Wikenhauser estimated that surviving documentary letters averaged 87 words (rarely exceeding 200 words); those of Cicero and Seneca averaged 295 and 994 words respectively (with ranges of 22–2,530 and 149–4,134 in each instance); and those of St Paul averaged 2,500 words (with a range of 355–7,101): Wikenhauser (1956) 245. Such statistics, while no doubt broadly correct, are in need of update and review. Pliny’s letters range between 36 and 1,520 words (Whitton (2013) 13), with an average perhaps somewhere in the 170s (according to the now elderly survey of Roller (1933) 360 n. 173, 366 n. 176); cf. Gamberini (1983) 145–53. The collection includes 147 letters by Sidonius and a single, isolated epistle by another; see Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, n. 11. For Sidonius’ 147 letters as a form of ‘allusion’ to Pliny, see Gibson (2013a) 336–7. The text of 7.18.1, however, is not secure: van Waarden (2016a) 261–2 ad loc. notes that non might be read before produceretur, with consequent change in meaning: ‘the text of the letters would not be extended despite their number being reduced’ (where van Waarden suggests an allusion to Plin. Ep. 7.9.5).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 375

13/02/20 4:00 PM

376

ROY GIBSON

priest of the Catholic church sends greetings in the Lord’ (Ep. 23: Domino dilectissimo et honorabili fratri Maximino Augustinus presbyter ecclesiae catholicae in domino salutem). Augustine evidently felt that epistolary etiquette demanded such honorifics: he immediately offered a detailed commentary on the exact significance of the salutation, keen to ward off any suggestions that he respected the episcopal authority of the addressee.23 Sidonius may well have deployed similar honorifics in his day-to-day communications. But in the text of the letters as he cared to preserve it within the circulated collection, he used rather simpler formulae of salutation: Sidonius Constantio suo salutem (Ep. 1.1), or – for clerics – Sidonius domino papae Mamerto salutem (Ep. 7.1). (More rarely, fratri/abbati is found instead.24) In this he adhered to the practice of Symmachus, who declared that he embraced the antique ideal of using names alone (Ep. 2.35.1). Symmachus was presumably thinking in turn of the habits of Pliny and Seneca, whose letter headings are a model of consistency in simplicity.25 Even Cicero had allowed himself the latitude to include, for effect, full nomenclature and offices held.26 The endings to Sidonius’s letters display a similar commitment to consistent simplicity, with a Symmachan and Plinian uale(te) for most correspondents, or for clerics a slightly more formal memor nostri esse dignare, domine papa (‘Deign to hold me in remembrance, my Lord Bishop’). Again Cicero had allowed himself rather more variation, while Christian writers developed a range of more ornamented flourishes to bring a letter to a close.27 At any rate, Sidonius’ clear if unelaborate separation of clergy from others in his formulae of greetings and closure may reflect, among other things, a form of adherence to the sort of distinction evolved by a late antique epistolary theorist between ‘official’ and ‘personal’ letters.28

1.2 Subject Matter It is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition of a letter which advances far beyond the merely formal: ‘a piece of writing that is overtly addressed from sender(s) to recipient(s), by the use at beginning and end of one of a limited set of conventional formulae . . . which specify both parties to the transaction’.29 In this context, there can be no precise definition of expectations 23

24 25

26

27

28

29

See Ebbeler (2012) 70–2 on Augustine’s commentary on the salutation of Ep. 23. Julius Victor (see below, n. 28) had recommended that ‘headings and conclusions to letters should be calculated according to the differences in the degree of friendship or of rank involved, with due regard for conventional practice’ (praefationes ac subscriptiones litterarum computandae sunt pro discrimine amicitiae aut dignitatis, habita ratione consuetudinis, Ars rhet. 27). On Sidonius’ practice and its context, see van Waarden (2010) 44–5, (2016a) Intro. 3.2. On Plinian salutations and valedictions, see Whitton (2013) 66–7, 83. Ps.-Libanius likewise insists on the classic practice of simple salutations (Form. ep. 51). On Cicero’s practice, see the detailed study of White (2010) 68–73; cf. Birley (2000) 33–4 on the varied practice of Fronto. On the endings to Sidonius’ letters, see van Waarden (2010) 45–6; on Cicero, see White (2010) 73–5. For some possible manuscript traces of more elaborate original formulae of valediction in Sidonius, see Mathisen (2013a) 240–2. This suggestion is made by Mratschek (2017), drawing on the distinction made by Julius Victor (‘not easy to parallel exactly’: Trapp (2003) 321): epistolarum species duplex est; sunt enim aut negotiales aut familiares (‘There are two kinds of letter: they are either official or personal’, Ars rhet. 27). Julius Victor, assumed to be fourth-century in date, perhaps drew on a work by the epistolographer Julius Titianus who is mentioned prominently by Sidonius (Ep. 1.1.2) as a pupil of Fronto; see Trapp (2003) 321. Trapp (2003) 1, with further caveats and additions. Gibson and Morrison (2007) argue that texts to be included within the definition of ‘letter’ might share one or more characteristics with other texts to be defined as ‘letters’, but there need be no characteristic shared by all texts in the set. The genre of ‘letter’ is to be understood as a spectrum continuous with other genres, and not as a separate field well marked off from other genres.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 376

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

377

for what a letter should contain – for all the attempts of individual letter-writers and theorists to imply that certain topics and associated styles of treatment are somehow not ‘epistolary’.30 If a document possesses the requisite phrases of greeting and valediction from writer to addressee, then whatever is contained in between will form part of the dataset for appropriate epistolary subject matter. Individual letter-writers set the agenda for their own epistles and collections. As such, it is more profitable to ask whose letters Sidonius’ resemble, in terms of subject matter, and which topics associated with others Sidonius characteristically omits. The task of grasping Sidonius’ characteristic subject matter is made easier, in principle, by adherence to one available epistolary norm in regard to subject matter. Demetrius had long before insisted that a letter should ‘set out a simple/single [haplou] subject in simple [haplois] terms’ (Eloc. 231).31 Yet if this was part of a broad push towards monothematic epistolary practice, it was unknown to Cicero, very few of whose letters limit themselves to a single topic or indeed avoid details that are unknown to those outside the writer–addressee nexus. In the words of Peter White, ‘The “I–you” frame that defines the epistolary genre is minimised’, where ‘the topic treated is magnified. One strategy of maximization [of audience] . . . is to limit the content of the letter to a single topic.’ For personal letters, this lesson was grasped soonest and most firmly in the Latin West by Pliny. With one eye very clearly on publication, he noticeably restricts the vast majority of his letters to a single topic.32 Pliny avoids direct statement of the principle, adverting to it indirectly at best (for example Ep. 2.1.12).33 But he set a fashion for his more careful successors, most obviously for the brief and concentrated letters of Symmachus. It was Sidonius who, with clear reference to the language of a Plinian letter, eventually enunciates the principle most explicitly: ‘as a rule each letter deals only with one matter’ (singulae causae singulis ferme epistulis finiantur, Ep. 7.18.4).34 (Sidonius, more generally, makes aspects of epistolographical practice explicit that others had left implicit.35) If it is a relatively straightforward matter to identify the core subject of individual letters, the process of grasping Sidonius’ characteristic subject matter is complicated by the fact that no one book of his letters is entirely typical of the rest in terms of the range of the subject matter.36 Bringing the first seven books of the collection to a close, Sidonius characterises his corpus as ‘some exhortations, a great deal of praise, a certain amount of advice, a few laments, 30

31 32

33

34

35

36

Cf. already Demetrius Eloc. 230–1 on certain topics as unfitted to epistolography (following the positive example of Aristotle’s letters), such as logic and natural science (perhaps an implied criticism of the letters of Epicurus). Pliny likes to imply a distinction between ‘letters’ and ‘history’ (Ep. 1.1, 6.16.22): a distinction that he himself does much to undermine in his own Epistles (Traub (1955) = (2016), Ash (2003)). For a useful overview of ancient epistolary theory, see Poster (2007). Most of the relevant texts are collected and translated by Malherbe (1988); selections with translation and commentary are provided by Trapp (2003) 180–93, 316–26. περὶ ἁπλοῦ πράγματος ἔκθεσις καὶ ἐν ὀνόμασιν ἁπλοῖς. For the difference here between Cicero and Pliny, see White (2010) 95–6 (source of the quotation above). On Pliny’s practice of confining his letters largely to a single topic, see the careful survey of Sherwin-White (1966) 3–4, 43–4; although the truth of the dictum can be overplayed (as is emphasised by Gibson and Morello (2012) 1–2). See Whitton (2013) 82 ad loc.; cf. ibid. 277 on Ep. 2.20.9 for the rhetorical background to Pliny’s scholastica lex of tripartite subject matter. See van Waarden (2016a) ad loc. for the reference by Sidonius to Plin. Ep. 9.4.1 nam singulis criminibus singulae velut causae continentur, ‘for each separate charge is treated as a separate case’. For example, Sidonius comments on the revision of his letters for publication (Ep. 1.1.3), and both comments on the progress of his collection in number of books (Ep. 7.18.1, 8.1.1, 8.16.1) and even identifies the number of the book in sequence (Ep. 9.1.1). For a brief overview of the character and content of the collection, see Harries (1994) 7–17, Giannotti (2016) 27–31.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 377

13/02/20 4:00 PM

378

ROY GIBSON

and a good number of jests’ ([dictavi] enim quaepiam hortando, laudando plurima et aliqua suadendo, maerendo pauca iocandoque nonnulla, Ep. 7.18.2). Such a playfully modest summary, with antecedents in Pliny’s characterisation of the verse compilations of both himself and his friends (Ep. 4.14.3, 4.27.1), suggests the variety of Sidonius’ collection. But it does not capture the distinctive phases of the letters. Book 1 features Rome and Sidonius’ secular ambitions, while Book 2 is more concerned with personal estates in Gaul, family matters, and aristocratic leisure. Thereafter, from Book 3 onwards, Sidonius becomes intimately concerned with the resistance of Clermont to Gothic attack and the fate of Roman Gaul. Letters to friends dominate the collection, but letters to bishops arrive in substantial blocks (6.1–7.11, 8.13–15, 9.2–11) and bring with them an increase in letters of recommendation and interventions in legal matters. The letters to bishops also contain no poetry. Sidonius indeed claims to have given up writing the poetry which had made him famous, at the time of his own consecration as bishop (9.12.1), that is, around the time of the compilation of Book 3. In fact Sidonius’ poems appear irregularly across the first seven books of the collection, with a marked increase in Books 8 and 9.37 Yet these same two final books, with the addition of Book 7, also include the darkest and hardest political material of the entire collection: explicit reflections on the ‘betrayal’ of Clermont, the ‘fall’ of the Roman Empire, and his own exile – woes that Sidonius seems to have deliberately kept out of earlier books.38 Nevertheless, Book 4 of the collection gives a fair indication of the typical range of subject matter for a Sidonian letter.39 Any attempt to corral the letters into thematic groupings necessarily ignores the fact that many items belong in more than one group. But, as will be seen in more detail below, broad topics can be identified: politics and contemporary realities; literary matters; the courtesies and events of friendship, including praise of amici; and religious and ecclesiastical matters. How does Sidonius’ combination of friendship, literature, politics, and religion compare with other great letter collections in the Roman tradition? Each of the most important western epistolographers has characteristic favourite topics and correspondingly significant omissions or blind spots. Who does Sidonius resemble in terms of subject matter chosen as fit for inclusion? How distinctive are his letters in the context of the epistolographical tradition? We begin with matters of faith. As Lisa Bailey demonstrates in this volume (chapter 7), there is an intensity and coherence to Sidonius’ religious practices and convictions that previous scholarship has often missed or ignored. In Book 4, ecclesiastical matters are woven into the fabric of many of Sidonius’ ‘friendship’ letters. But in a handful of letters, issues of church and belief move centre-stage. Letter 4.13 expresses hope that a distinguished elderly friend will make a profession of religion and open declaration of past sins. Sidonius celebrates the dedication of a baptistery by a friend in letter 4.15. Letter 4.17 finishes with a highly significant 37

38

39

Most of the first seven books have one or two poems, but Book 4 contains three and Book 6 has none; Book 9 contains six poems. Mratschek (2017) compares this trajectory to that of Pliny, whose books show a marked increase in Pliny’s own poetry from Book 7 onwards. See Gibson (2013b), where I draw a parallel with the arc of Pliny’s collection which also moves from light to dark; but Sidonius, I argue, avoids Pliny’s pessimism with a display of defiant resilience encoded in the names of the addressees who open and close Books 1 and 9 (Constantius and Firminus). For a summary of the themes of Sidonius’ fourth book, see Amherdt (2001) 35–43, Gibson (2013b) 207–10. Book 4 of Sidonius’ collection marks a move away from the broad chronological progression of the first three books, whereby in Books 4–7 Sidonius is happy to mix together letters from any moment in his life between c. 467 and 477, that is, from before his consecration as bishop through the defence and surrender of Clermont to his return from exile; see Gibson (2013b) 207–8 with n. 40.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 378

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

379

(polite) refusal to write works of scriptural exegesis. Finally, the closing letter of the book (4.25) celebrates the installation of a man as chief priest of a local town, whose claims to the position were much superior to the corrupt, worldly ambitions of three rivals. Through these and other letters we grasp that Sidonius is serious about the duties of pastoral care and the virtues of the clergy (4.25);40 is sympathetic to contemporary asceticism (4.9, 4.21.4, 4.24.3–4); and is – above all – deeply imbued with a sense of sin both in himself and in society around him (4.13).41 Critics have missed or downplayed this facet of Sidonius, in part, because his letters do not meet the expectations for theological content set by the correspondence of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Rather, in Bailey’s words, Sidonius appears at first sight to want ‘those who read his collected poems and letters to think of him as a man of culture, learning, wit, power, and influence’ (p. 261 above). By contrast, the often rather lengthy letters of Ambrose engage their correspondents chiefly in conversation on points of scriptural exegesis or related religious topics. The correspondence of Jerome is more varied in character and reveals much about the man and his network of correspondents around the Mediterranean. The collection includes various types of letter familiar from ancient culture more generally, including letters of recommendation, report, consolation, and praise. But the mode of the letters is largely didactic, and their substance is very often broadly religious or theological, bound up with the refutation of heresy, reflections on the monastic life, and exhortations to asceticism and chastity. Almost one quarter of Jerome’s surviving correspondence is exegetical in the Ambrosian mould.42 The surviving correspondence of Augustine likewise shows more variety than that of Ambrose. But again the emphasis is on matters of belief, practice, and exegesis, whether Augustine is attacking heretics and pagans, setting out his thinking on theology and ritual, disputing matters of doctrine, performing the interpretation of Scripture, or dealing with more mundane diocesan matters. Sidonius’ letters are quite unlike those of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine in these respects. And deliberately so. In letter 4.17.3 he pointedly refuses to take up the exegesis of Scripture in his writings:43 de paginis sane quod spiritalibus vis ut aliquid interpres improbus garriam, iustius haec postulantur a sacerdotibus loco propinquis aetate grandaevis, fide claris opere vulgatis, ore promptis memoria tenacibus, omni denique meritorum sublimium dote potioribus. With regard to your wish that I (and a presumptuous babbler I would be) should attempt an exegesis of holy Scripture, I assure you that such requests would more reasonably be addressed to priests to who are not only near you in residence but old in years, renowned for their faith and famed for their works, ready in speech and tenacious in memory, in short, superior in all the graces of supreme worth. Clerical humility aside, there is one important, unstated, reason for Sidonius’ refusal, as underlined by Bailey: ‘[Sidonius’] distance from the theological controversies of the time [is] . . . perfectly explicable given his desire to maintain friendships’ (p. 266 above). The surviving

40 41

42 43

On this letter and its context, see Bailey in this volume, ch. 7. For the Augustinian context, and the role of sin also in Sidonius’ self-fashioning, see Bailey in this volume, ch. 7. Cf. more generally Mratschek, ch. 5 in this volume, on the specifically Christian elements in Sidonius’ appropriation of Plinian society for his own time. For a useful taxonomic survey of Jerome’s correspondence, see Cain (2009) 207–19. Cf. 4.3 where Sidonius praises the literary merits of Claudianus’ De statu animae, but does not get involved in assessment of the theological contents of the work; cf. Bailey in this volume, ch. 7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 379

13/02/20 4:00 PM

380

ROY GIBSON

correspondence between Jerome and Augustine is ample testimony to the strain put on a relationship by theological disputation and ‘corrective’ letter-exchange.44 Augustine objected to the fact that with Jerome he was effectively required ‘to argue with a more learned friend with such an attitude that we necessarily approve of whatever he says and are not permitted to oppose him even a little for the sake of investigating the matter further’ (Ep. 82.2). Sidonius’ avoidance of such disputation is one clue to the character of his correspondence. His general concern for conducting business and maintaining friendly relations through largely amicable correspondence brings him rather closer to Cicero, and particularly to Pliny and Symmachus, than to the great letter-writing Church Fathers of late fourth- and fifth-century Rome.45 In Sidonius’ circle, these friendly relations are often founded on shared literary interests. The opening letter of Book 4 gives an account of the friendly relations between Sidonius and his literary and philosophical cousin Probus. A cluster of letters concerning Claudianus Mamertus boosts the theme. Letter 4.2 is the only example in the corpus of a letter from another person, and contains the complaint of the writer Claudianus Mamertus about Sidonius’ failure to recognise him in any of his circulated works. This is in effect a prelude to 4.3 where Sidonius replies with praise of Claudianus’ doctrinal work De statu animae, and ultimately also to 4.11, where Sidonius offers praise for the now deceased Claudianus and his philosophical and literary acumen, as well as for his personal virtues. (An epitaph in verse is included.) Other friendships, and Sidonius’ handsome eulogies to friends, are attested elsewhere in Book 4. The fourth letter of the book offers praise of a fellow clergyman and childhood friend, Faustinus. Letter 4.7 is in form a courtesy note focused largely on the intermediary who bears the letter. In the ninth letter Sidonius offers fulsome praise of the household, dress, character, and piety of his acquaintance Vettius.46 And so on. The words of Pliny might have been written to explain Sidonius’ practice: ‘I plead guilty to the charge [of praising my friends immoderately] and even hug it to my breast. What indeed could be more to one’s credit than the sin of goodnature? Yet who are these people who know my friends better than I do?’ (Plin. Ep. 7.28.2).47 More detailed comparison with the contents of the letters of Cicero, Pliny, and Symmachus reveals something of the distinctiveness of Sidonius’ correspondence. The editor or editors of Cicero’s letters – in so far as can be told from the surviving correspondence and reports of books of letters now lost – had a coherent set of interests.48 S/he (or they) did not like letters devoted to senatorial business or trials, financial matters, domestic concerns, courtesy notes of all sorts; but tended to privilege for inclusion letters addressed to fellow members of Rome’s governing class, particularly letters involving government, politics, and public life. Letters to (for example) local magnates, residents of Cicero’s home town of Arpinum, Greek 44

45

46

47

48

On this correspondence, see Williams (2012) and, in rather more detail, Ebbeler (2012) 101–50, also Cleary (2015) 106–38. Cf. Harries (1994) 207–8 on the business ethic of Sidonius’ letters. For Pliny, see below. For the ‘message’ of the correspondence of the pagan Symmachus as one of ‘compromise and conciliation rather than confrontation’ with Christian contemporaries, see Cameron (2011) 353–98 and (2016a). In addition, in Ep. 4.18 Sidonius begins by expressing anger with his correspondent’s long absence, but soon yields to a request for a poem with some lines to be inscribed on the enlarged church of St Martin of Tours. The following missive (4.19) is a two-line communication to the effect that Sidonius is now writing and will come to the correspondent. Ep. 4.23 asks a father to forgive a repentant son. Finally, Ep. 4.24 reports on Sidonius’ successful attempt to secure leniency on a debt repayment from a creditor who has recently become a priest. Agnosco crimen, amplector etiam. quid enim honestius culpa benignitatis? qui sunt tamen isti, qui amicos meos melius norint?; cf. Ep. 6.17. On Pliny’s culture of mutually circulating praise, see Hoffer (1999) 101–4. See the conclusions reached by White (2010) 39–41, 59–61. For the lost correspondence of Cicero, see Nicholson (1998).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 380

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

381

intellectuals, and domestic staff (excepting Tiro) – all were excluded from circulation. Sidonius, of course, selected his own letters, but resembles Cicero’s editor(s) both in his dislike of domestic mundanities and in his willingness to include letters of high politics. Indeed, for modern readers – although hardly for Sidonius – there is an inevitable thematic congruence between Cicero’s unsuccessful fight to preserve the republic, documented so vividly in his correspondence, and Sidonius’ doomed attempt to save Clermont. (In Pliny and Symmachus, by contrast, matters of high politics are prudently omitted from the correspondence.49) The final three books of Sidonius’ letters are the most forthright, even bitter, in their explicit pronouncements on the fate of Roman Gaul.50 Nevertheless, even in the relatively cryptic and allusive fourth book, matters of high politics appear in the fifth letter, where, in the course of demanding a letter from Felix of Narbonne, prefect of Gaul, dark references are made to the current political situation. (The following letter congratulates a friend on abandoning a pilgrimage in troubled times.) Letter 4.10 jolts the reader forward into a time after Sidonius’ return from bitter exile: he asks the same Felix to break a long silence in communication. Letter 4.14, likewise, urges the praetorian prefect of Gaul to break his obstinate silence and commune with Sidonius. In 4.22 Sidonius politely but firmly turns down a request to write contemporary history: it is beyond his powers - and, it may be understood, entirely distasteful to one embittered by the surrender of Clermont.51 Sidonius, also like Cicero, largely favours the important and well connected in his society as correspondents. In Sigrid Mratschek’s recent summary: [most] letters are addressed to the author’s friends among the Gallo-Roman elite and the clergy, or the political leadership in the Visigothic empire and Burgundy – an indication that the main criteria for selection were political utility and literary repute.52 Sidonius’ correspondents include no fewer than twenty-three bishops. This preference for well-connected correspondents takes Sidonius, scion of an established aristocratic family, away from Pliny, whose circle of correspondents is rather more variegated.53 However, the lastmentioned criterion for selection of correspondents – ‘literary repute’ – brings Sidonius very 49

50 51

52

53

Pliny’s letters routinely report on senatorial matters, including the trials of fellow senators (for example Varenus Rufus: Ep. 5.20, 6.5, 6.13, 7.6, 7.10); but they omit report of the greatest events of the day (see Gibson and Morello (2012) on the omission of the political dramas of 96–8 CE from Book 1). The result is the opposite of the selections made by the editors of Cicero’s correspondence: Pliny hints at the imperial context for his difference from Cicero in Ep. 9.2. Symmachus’ omission of the great events of the day from his letters is notorious (and deliberate); see Matthews (1974), esp. 58–64, who comments ‘[Sidonius’] aim was the pursuit and cultivation of amicitia; and his letters were primarily intended not to inform but to manipulate, to produce results’ (64); cf. Cameron (2016a) on Symmachus’ silences in the supposed context of Christian suppression. See Gibson (2013b) 211-17 on Books 7–9 of Sidonius. For the context of this letter, see Gibson (2013b) 209–10. Contemporary realities are also reflected in 4.8, which tells of a pleasant journey in the country interrupted by the need to compose a poem for inscription on an object to be presented to King Euric’s wife Ragnahilda. Letter 4.20 reports the recent procession of the young prince Sigismer, while 4.21 praises the correspondent’s maternal Arvenian land and urges him to return to visit it. Mratschek (2017) 311; cf. Kaufmann (1995) 275–90, van Waarden (2010) 25–6, also Mratschek, ch. 5 in this volume, on Sidonius’ networks of correspondents. See Birley (2000) 17–21. As Syme (1985) 345 = Roman Papers vol. 5.463 pointed out, ‘Pliny betrays no impulsion to solicit and enlist the illustrious, whether estimated by birth or rank or fame’ – with two exceptions: the first is that of ‘the group which took its origin from Thrasea Paetus’, and the second ‘the young aristocrats of promise in oratory, Pedanius Fuscus and Ummidius Quadratus’. In this milieu, of course, Pliny is rarely outshone (Syme (1958) 87–8).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 381

13/02/20 4:00 PM

382

ROY GIBSON

close to his early imperial predecessor. Cicero appears to have taken little or no interest in contemporary writers or literature, other than his own works.54 But Pliny, Sidonius, and Symmachus give the production of contemporary literature by self and others prominent positions in their correspondence.55 Pliny is explicit about his motivations for the prominence of literary correspondents and contemporary literary events in his letters: together they create a context for his own literary efforts and relative pre-eminence.56 No doubt Sidonius also hoped to shine among the ‘lesser’ literary talents of his own circle, already glimpsed in his letters of literary friendship in Book 4. But he had a greater purpose in his support of like-minded friends, crystallised in letter 4.17, where Sidonius praises the Latin style of a friend living amongst barbarians: ‘the splendour of the Roman speech, if it still exists anywhere, has survived in you, though it has long been wiped out from the Belgian and Rhenic lands: with you and your eloquence surviving, even though Roman law has ceased at our border, the Roman speech does not falter’ (sermonis pompa Romani, si qua adhuc uspiam est, Belgicis olim sive Rhenanis abolita terris in te resedit, quo vel incolumi vel perorante, etsi apud limitem ipsum Latina iura ceciderunt, verba non titubant, Ep. 4.17.2).57 His goal was nothing less than the survival of Romanitas. In sum, the subject matter of Sidonius’ letters bears a closer resemblance to the correspondence of the great pagan epistolographers than to that of the Christian letter-writers of the century preceding the publication of Sidonius’ own letters. But Sidonius was far from ignorant of the writings of the latter. In the course of praising the qualities of Claudianus Mamertus as a writer in letter 4.3, Sidonius compares him first to a range of Greek and Roman preChristian writers, from Pythagoras to Cicero. Sidonius then turns to Christian authors. Jerome is put first in the position of honour, just as Cicero had come last in the pre-Christian list.58 The resulting catalogue of Christian writers is in effect a roll call of the great letter-writers of the early church in both Greek and Latin: the only people in the list not known for their epistolography are Lactantius, Orosius, and Rufinus.59 Yet Sidonius is not mentioning these 54 55

56

57

58 59

See White (2010) 99–104. For Pliny’s interest in writers and literature, particularly contemporary writers, see Gibson (2014a), esp. 211-15. The ‘literary’ letter (‘the composition, criticism and publication of his own or his friends’ speeches and verses’) is one of Sherwin-White’s eight main categories for the Plinian epistle ((1966) 43–4): its frequency across the correspondence is tracked in the introduction by Sherwin-White (1966) 45–51. For a revisionary study of the literary circle of Symmachus, both pagan and Christian, centred on the country estate, see Cameron (2011) 353–98. For Pliny, a literary superior should be praised (‘because, unless he is worthy of praise, you yourself cannot be’: Ep. 6.17.4 quia nisi laudandus ille non potes ipse laudari) no less than an equal or inferior: ‘because it concerns your own reputation that the man whom you excel, or even are on a par with, should appear as great as possible’ (Ep. 6.17.4 quia pertinet ad tuam gloriam quam maximum videri, quem praecedis vel exaequas). But the coda to this revelation – ‘For my part I actually revere and admire all those who accomplish anything in literature’ (Ep. 6.17.4 equidem omnes qui aliquid in studiis faciunt venerari etiam mirarique soleo) – is largely borne out by Pliny’s correspondence, from the first appearance of an obscure litterateur in Pliny’s north Italian home town (Ep. 1.3) to a final showing for the historian Tacitus (Ep. 9.27). Cf. also 4.16, where Sidonius reacts to the ‘theft’ of a book from his library by observing that it has clearly benefited the Latin style of his correspondent; and 4.12, with its story of a literary reading of a classic by Terence interrupted by enraging news of a messenger who has returned from friends having lost the reply they wrote to a letter from Sidonius. As noted by Amherdt (2001) 149. Sidon. Ep. 4.3.7 iam si ad sacrosanctos patres pro comparatione veniatur, instruit ut Hieronymus destruit ut Lactantius adstruit ut Augustinus, attollitur ut Hilarius summittitur ut Iohannes, ut Basilius corripit ut Gregorius consolatur, ut Orosius affluit ut Rufinus stringitur, ut Eusebius narrat ut Eucherius sollicitat, ut Paulinus provocat ut Ambrosius perseverat (‘If we turn to the hallowed Fathers for comparison, he is instructive like Jerome, destructive like Lactantius, constructive like Augustine; he exalts his tone like Hilary [of Poitiers] and subdues it like John [Chrysostom]; he rebukes like Basil [of Caeserea] and comforts like Gregory [of Nazianus]; he is diffuse like Orosius and compressed like Rufinus [of Aquileia]; he narrates like Eusebius [of Caesarea], urges like Eucherius [of Lyon], challenges like Paulinus [of Nola], and perseveres like Ambrose’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 382

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

383

writers for their epistles; rather, in the context of praising Mamertus’ doctrinal work, he is (appropriately) citing them more generally for their powers of persuasion, style of argument. Elsewhere, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine are all mentioned again by name in Sidonius’ letters, nearly always as writers, but on no occasion as the writers of letters.60 By contrast, Cicero, Symmachus, and Pliny are all mentioned again both generally for their eloquence as orators, and specifically for their activities as writers of letters.61 All three are highlighted in Sidonius’ novel canon of epistolographers in the opening letter of his collection (see below).

1.3 Types of Letter, Engagement of the Addressee Cicero made distinctions between public and private letters, and between letters containing simple information and those conveying the author’s mood.62 Epistolary theorists offered more thoroughgoing classifications of types of letter. Ps.-Demetrius offered twenty-one different types in the Typoi epistolikoi, including ‘friendly, commendatory, blaming, reproachful, consoling, censorious, admonishing, threatening, vituperative, praising, advisory . . . etc.’. The somewhat later text De forma epistolari, attributed variously to Libanius and Proclus, provides definitions of forty-one types of letter, including ‘advice, blame, request, recommendation, irony, thanks, friendship, entreaty, threat, denial, command, repentance, reproach’.63 Andrew Cain has recently used these ancient theoretical texts to provide a new taxonomy for the letters of Jerome.64 This new classification of seventeen different types of letter in Jerome’s epistolary corpus is no doubt an advance on earlier, anachronistic or oversimplified taxonomies produced by modern scholarship. It can be applied with some success to Sidonius, who after all was fully versed in the rhetorical culture that gave rise to these ancient systems of classification. From Book 4, letter 4.14 to the uncommunicative prefect of Gaul might be understood as ‘reproachful’; the fulsome portrait of Vettius in 4.9 as ‘praising’; the letter to Apollinaris on the dangers of his journey (4.6) as ‘advisory’; and the retort to the accusations of silence and absence in 4.19 as ‘denial’, etc. Cain is forced to add one invented modern category to his sixteen ancient categories: ‘exegetical’ – a classification which covers the large number of Jerome’s letters devoted to 60

61

62

63

64

Augustine: Ep. 2.9.4, 4.3.7, 9.2.2; Ambrose: Ep. 4.3.7, 7.1.7; Jerome: Ep. 4.3.7, 9.2.2. Geisler (1887) can find in Sidonius only two parallels with the phraseology of the letters of Jerome (and perhaps four with other works by Jerome), but posits no references to the letters of Ambrose, Paulinus, or Augustine. Fernández López (1994) is able to find five parallels with the letters of Jerome (and one with another work); and three parallels with the letters of Paulinus of Nola. No references to the letters of Augustine or Ambrose are found, although two references to the other works of Ambrose are posited. Symmachus appears in a context that marks him as a writer of letters (Ep. 2.10.5), alongside Cicero and Pliny, and is cited for a dictum (source unknown) at Ep. 8.10.1. Pliny is praised for his eloquence (4.3.1, 8.10.3), but is twice cited as an epistolary model by Sidonius (Ep. 4.22.2, 9.1.1). As for Cicero, after his first two appearances as a writer of letters in Books 1 and 2, he appears consistently and repeatedly elsewhere in the collection as an orator and man of eloquence (Ep. 2.9.5, 4.3.6, 4.15.3, 5.5.2, 5.13.3, 7.14.7, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 8.6.1, 8.10.3). Fronto also appears in Ep. 4.3 in a broader appraisal of eloquence (Ep. 4.3.1), but in one where the two Plinii appear alongside also. (Ep. 4.14.2 could be a reference to Fronto, but is more likely a reference to Tacitus.) Fronto is praised for his eloquence in a speech at Ep. 8.10.3, but alongside two other letter-writers (Cicero and Pliny) also praised for their speeches; and again at Ep. 8.3.3 (where he is said to be the ancestor of his correspondent, Leo). Public vs. private letters: Cic. Flacc. 37; Fam. 15.21.4. Factual vs. ‘mood’ letters (with accompanying differences in style): Cic. Fam. 2.4.1–2, 4.13.1, 6.10.4. Text and translation of both Ps.-Demetrius and Ps.-Libanius/Proclus at Malherbe (1988) 30–41, 66–81; text, translation, and commentary on selections from the latter text at Trapp (2003) 189–93, 323–6. Cain (2009) 207–19.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 383

13/02/20 4:00 PM

384

ROY GIBSON

biblical interpretation.65 The desire to classify, apparently legitimated by ancient practice, is an obvious form of reaction to a genre which is more accommodating than any other to a virtually unlimited range of subject matter. But, as Cain’s experience shows, the genre’s texts tend ultimately to outwit systems of categorisation, ancient or modern, no matter how capacious. On modern systems of classification devised for Latin epistolographers, van Waarden incisively remarks: ‘Categories disappear into the background, and individual solutions take over.’66 One modern system of classification devised especially for Sidonius ought to be mentioned, namely that of Fernández López (1994), which categorises and analyses the letters on the basis of their function: metalinguistic (on the publication of literary works), phatic (greeting), expressive (congratulation), impressive (exhortation), and declarative or poetic (description). This system produces some interesting interpretative results, but as noted (once more) by van Waarden, ‘it is all-encompassing to the detriment of clarity’.67 The urge to classify letters goes to the heart of the genre: what kind of text are we dealing with here? If subject matter and type resist ultimate definition, it is at least clear that what no letter can do without is the address of the communication from sender to recipient (at least where this address has been preserved in the transmission process). But what is the relationship between sender and addressee? To what extent does Sidonius actually engage individually with his correspondents beyond the requirements of the context and factual situation of each letter? Sidonius is clear that his ‘mind is as fully exposed in a book [of letters] as the face in a mirror’ (ita mens pateat in libro velut vultus in speculo, Ep. 7.18.2). But does he always engage with or reveal the mens of his addressees? Ancient letter-writers and epistolary theorists are wont to imply that letters are individually tailored to addressees. Julius Victor offers detailed advice on striking the right tone and mode of writing or address in keeping with the character, status, and personal situation of the addressee (Ars rhet. 27). Cassiodorus insists that letters should take account of the individuality of correspondents (propria personarum, Var. 11 praef. 2). But how far did this consideration extend beyond the formalities of salutation and certain small adjustments to register and literary style? Inadvertently revealing here, perhaps, is Demetrius’ endorsement of the idea that a letter should be ‘one of the two sides to a dialogue’ (Eloc. 223). Demetrius means ancient literary prose dialogue, which stretches back to the circle of Socrates. Whatever the subtleties of the form in the hands of early Greek and Latin masters such as Plato or Cicero, there can be little doubt that ancient dialogue easily degenerated into a monologue by a main speaker or a series of monologues by opposing speakers. The set of paratactic declamations on display in Tacitus’ Dialogus, where speakers frequently take little account of the personalities, characters, or even viewpoints of their interlocutors, is a case in point.68 If ancient letters are to be understood as one side of an ancient ‘dialogue’, then we should reduce our expectations of engagement with or evocation of the mens of an addressee. Ancient letter-writers perhaps felt entitled to monologue away at their addressees. After all, when Demetrius declared that ‘the letter, like the dialogue, should abound in glimpses of character’, 65 66

67

68

Cain (2009) 218–19. Van Waarden (2010) 37. Van Waarden (2010) 36 offers a succinct survey of the classificatory systems of SherwinWhite (1966) 42–5 and Gamberini (1983) 136–43 (both devised for Pliny), and of Cugusi (1983) 105–35 (more general, applied by Köhler (1995) 16–19 to the first book of Sidonius). Van Waarden (2010) 37. Fernández López’s system is applied, with modifications and criticisms, to Book 4 of Sidonius’ letters by Amherdt (2001) 35–7, and to the first half of Book 7 by van Waarden (2010) (where see the ‘Epitome’ section in the introductions to each letter). For a subtle investigation of the argumentative dynamics of the Dialogus, see van den Berg (2014).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 384

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

385

the character he had in mind was that of the letter-writer. And so it proves in the Latin epistolographical tradition. If the correspondence of Cicero or Augustine yields up some memorable correspondents in the shape of M. Caelius Rufus and S. Sulpicius Rufus (Cicero) or Nebridius (Augustine), this is in part because of the preservation within the oeuvre of striking letters they themselves wrote to Cicero and Augustine.69 But one should not exaggerate. It is Pliny rather than Cicero who tends to overwrite the personalities of correspondents with his own.70 In this he is followed largely by both Symmachus and Sidonius.

2 Sidonius and the Ancient Letter Collection Earlier it was remarked that it was difficult to define a letter or its expected contents satisfactorily. If we struggle to define ‘letter’, we experience few comparable problems in identifying letter collections.71 Usually the existence of epistulae either as an authorial or editorial paratext or as a term applied to individual items or the collection as a whole (by the author or another writer) is enough to settle the matter. The only problematic cases for this definition are the collections of legal opinions termed epistulae in the imperial age - whose wreckage may be spotted floating in the ocean of Justinian’s Digest.72 Nevertheless, from Cicero to Sidonius, we can point to something in excess of twenty surviving Latin letter collections (although this number is dwarfed by the number of Greek letter collections to survive from before the year 500 CE, which total around fifty). If we can ask questions about Sidonius’ individual letters and their features within the epistolographical tradition, we can also examine his letters as a collection within the same broad tradition. For all the ease with which we can identify letter collections, it is arguable that the letter collection up to 500 CE has a relatively low sense of itself as a distinct area of literary activity. In his monumental work on The Art of Biography in Antiquity, Tomas Hägg recorded his opinion that: I do not regard biography as a literary genre with a strong identity or developmental force of its own. It owes much of its vitality and topicality to its parasitic dependence on cognate literary forms and to contemporary cultural fashions.73 Here Hägg has in mind such cognate literary forms as epideictic oratory, the Greek novel, and of course historiography. It is these which have given animating force and impulse to biography; more rarely has biography influenced oratory or the novel in return. It may be suspected that the prose letter collection up to Late Antiquity likewise had no very strong identity or an independent developmental force of its own. It is hard to see what cognate areas of literary activity it might have influenced. One probable indication of the inertia of the letter collection is

69

70

71

72 73

Cf. Cic. Fam. 4.5 (the notorious letter of ‘consolation’ written by Sulpicius on the death of Cicero’s daughter Tullia), 4.12 (Sulpicius on the death of M. Claudius Marcellus), and Book 8 of the Epistulae ad familiares, which contains the seventeen letters of Caelius. The Augustine–Nebridius correspondence is preserved in Ep. 3–14 of Augustine’s epistolary corpus. See the suggestive study by Leach (2006) of letters to young men in the letter collections of Cicero and Pliny. See Gibson (forthcoming b) for the suggestion that Pliny prefers to produce ‘integrated’ rather than strongly individualised portraits of his addressees. To which may be added the argument of Gibson and Morrison (2007) 15, that ‘often the epistolary character of an individual text is guaranteed by its place within a larger group of epistolary texts, such as in a letter collection’. On these collections, see Harries (2018). Hägg (2012) 380; cf. ibid. 2–3.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 385

13/02/20 4:00 PM

386

ROY GIBSON

the fact that the massive correspondence of both Jerome and Augustine (and even the smaller archives of Cyprian and Paulinus) remained unrealised as authorially sanctioned collections at the time of their deaths, as had the letters of Cicero 450 years before.74 Ambrose assembled a letter collection only at the very end of his life. In this context it is possible to see why the best planned and realised letter collection of Antiquity prior to Sidonius – that of Pliny the Younger – had an influence and impact on later epistolographers out of all proportion to the literary stature of its author. How many of Pliny’s letters Ambrose or Symmachus (or anyone else) had actually read, and with what attentiveness, is a moot question.75 But it is clear that Pliny’s model of nine books of ‘private’ correspondence and one book of ‘imperial’ communications had an impact on the formal structuring of the collections of Ambrose, Sidonius, and (eventually) Symmachus – where the original seven books of the letters of Symmachus were supplemented over a century later by a further three.76 If Pliny’s letters represent the most robustly planned collection prior to Sidonius, then it is arguable that the letters of Sidonius are the most self-consciously realised collection in the whole of western Antiquity. The opening letter of Sidonius’ first book, by comparison with the openings of other extant letter collections, represents a significant innovation within 74

75

76

On the editorial histories of the letter collections of Cicero, Jerome, and Augustine: an overview in Gibson (2012). In more detail: see Beard (2002), White (2010) 31–61 (Cicero); Cain (2009) 13–42, 223–8 (Jerome); and Ebbeler (2012) 13–20 (Augustine). From our modern vantage point, the correspondence of Cicero looks neatly packaged: the sixteen books of the Ad Atticum match the sixteen books of the Ad familiares. This was not the case for most of Antiquity, when the correspondence circulated as free-floating sets of letters to individual correspondents, and not as two substantial matching sets. As for Jerome, during his own lifetime, he ‘earmarked certain of his pre-393 correspondence to circulate as collections (Epistularum ad diversos liber and Ad Marcellam epistularum liber), [as] smaller cohesive groupings (mutual exchanges with Pope Damasus), and as stand-alone literary show-pieces (Epp. 14, 22, 39)’; but ‘there was no late antique . . . archetype of Jerome’s complete . . . correspondence. In general, it seems that during his lifetime and for over a century following his death, his letters circulated as disiecta membra and never en masse’ (Cain (2009) 223, 227). At the time of his death in 430, Augustine was working on the editing of his letters; but the 309 letters extant today did not circulate in collected form as the product of his hand. Nevertheless, a standard collection of between 120 and 140 letters appears to have been circulating – from his archive (if not necessarily from his hand) – not long after Augustine’s death. On the disordered state of the smaller collections of Cyprian and Paulinus, see Clarke (1984) 7–12, Conybeare (2000) 12–15, 161–5. On Symmachus and Pliny, see Kelly (2013a) 263–9, with further references; on Ambrose and Pliny, see Zelzer (1989), Savon (1995), and Liebeschuetz (2005) 31–2. In a revised and rewritten version of his 1965/7 articles, Cameron (2016b) resurveys the evidence for knowledge of Pliny’ epistles in the late empire, and finds a quantity of references from Tertullian to Ammianus Marcellinus. There are probably more references than Cameron allows (see Liebeschuetz (2005) 31 on Ambrose; Adkin (2001, 2011) on Jerome; Whitton (2013) 120, 126, 139, 190 on Symmachus, Jerome, and Ammianus Marcellinus); but not very many more. The quantity of material uncovered, particularly in Jerome, is enough to support Cameron’s thesis ((1965) 297–8): ‘The view that Pliny’s Letters were completely unknown . . . until Sidonius, like some fifteenth-century humanist, “rediscovered” them, must be abandoned. No one would wish to claim that they were ever a popular book, but there is sufficient evidence to warrant the hypothesis that they came back into favour towards the end of the fourth century, along with Pliny’s friend and correspondent, Cornelius Tacitus.’ On the other hand, the rather unimpressive total of references, even in the late fourth century, ought to make us realise that Sidonius’ choice of Pliny as a model was perhaps a radical and innovative move. It is perhaps here that Ambrose had played his part, by raising the Plinian epistolary model to prestige and prominence. Furthermore, as Mratschek (2008) has shown, the era of Trajan did enjoy some cultural prestige in Sidonius’ circle. For the formal impact of Pliny on Ambrose, Symmachus, and Sidonius, see the overview of Gibson (2012). For the particular impact of Pliny on Sidonius, see Gibson (2011, 2013a, 2013b), and the summary and supplementation of this research below. On the original seven books of Symmachus and the collection’s later editorial history, see below.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 386

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

387

the epistolographical tradition: it offers a canon of letter-writers and letter collections within which Sidonius’ own collection is to be inserted. The collections of Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and Paulinus of Nola, of course, possess no canonical ‘opening’ letter. The Ad Atticum of Cicero opens with a dramatic reference to the author’s candidature for the consulship. The first letter of Seneca urges Lucilius to make proper and productive use of his time. The order of Fronto’s letters in our single manuscript is uncertain (the leaves of the manuscript were separated between Rome and Milan at some point in its history),77 and around 40 per cent of the original codex is missing. Even if the first letter in the grouping Ad M. Caesarem was the first letter in a presumed standard edition of Fronto, the fragmentary state of this first letter does not allow us to say how the collection opened. But, given the nature of the other letters written by Fronto, an opening editorialising statement from Fronto himself seems unlikely. In the first letter of his collection, Symmachus writes to his father about time recently spent at a family villa on the coast of Campania. The opening letter of Ambrose to Iustus, meanwhile, is concerned with biblical exegesis. In this context, the first letter of Sidonius is arresting: Diu praecipis, domine maior . . . ut, si quae mihi litterae paulo politiores varia occasione fluxerint, prout eas causa persona tempus elicuit, omnes retractatis exemplaribus enucleatisque uno volumine includam, Quinti Symmachi rotunditatem, Gai Plinii disciplinam maturitatemque vestigiis praesumptuosis insecuturus. nam de Marco Tullio silere melius puto, quem in stilo epistulari nec Iulius Titianus sub nominibus illustrium feminarum digna similitudine expressit; propter quod illum ceteri quique Frontonianorum utpote consectaneum aemulati, cur veternosum dicendi genus imitaretur, oratorum simiam nuncupaverunt. quibus omnibus ego immane dictu est quantum semper iudicio meo cesserim. My honoured Lord, you have this long while been pressing me . . . to collect all the letters making any little claim to taste that 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 in a single book. In so doing, I should be following, though with presumptuous steps, the path traced by Quintus Symmachus with his rounded style and by Gaius Plinius with his highly developed artistry. Marcus Tullius, indeed, I think I had better not mention, for even Iulius Titianus in his fictitious letters of famous women failed to produce a satisfactory copy of that writer’s epistolary style, and for his pains was called ‘ape of the orators’ by all the other disciples of Fronto, who were, as might be expected, spiteful towards this member of their own school for copying an outworn mode of writing. Now in the first place I have always, in my own judgement, fallen terribly short of all the authors I have named. For all the formidable interpretative problems posed by this passage, it is clear that at its heart lies a canon of Latin epistolary works and writers, into which Sidonius is now seeking entry, with due modesty. The rhetoric of the passage ought to be familiar. Horace, one of Sidonius’ favourite poets,78 had declared to Maecenas almost five centuries before, at the opening of Odes Book 1, that ‘if you rank me among the lyric bards of Greece, I shall soar aloft and strike the stars with my head’ (quodsi me lyricis vatibus inseres, / sublimi feriam sidera vertice, Carm. 1.1.35–6). Statius, another favourite poet of Sidonius, had been anxious to 77 78

See Champlin (1974) 136. See Stoehr-Monjou (2013), Mratschek (2017).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 387

13/02/20 4:00 PM

388

ROY GIBSON

construct a comparable genealogy for his ‘minor’ (non-epic) poems in the epistolary preface to Book 1 of the Silvae. But the very familiarity of the move should not blind us to the fact that Sidonius is the very first author of a Latin letter collection to construct a canon into which he is to be inserted. In Horace’s day, furthermore, there was a well-established canon of nine lyric authors. For him to join this canon, it is understood that he will have to replace one of the Greek authors or the canon will have to be extended to ten to accommodate him. But even by the time of Sidonius, it is not clear that there was an established canon of letter-writers of the sort he conjures up in Ep. 1.1. There are some unimpressive traces of a Greek canon of letter-writers in the treatise of Demetrius mentioned earlier and in the De epistulis of Philostratus of Lemnos.79 Perhaps there are more to be discovered in the massive fourth-century epistolographical corpora of the Greek East. On the Latin side, Cicero is regarded as a canonical letter-writer already by Quintilian, Pliny, and Fronto, and by Julius Victor in his Ars rhetorica (whose chapter on letters may well draw on the Iulius Titianus whom Sidonius mentions).80 But there are no traces of an explicit and accepted canon elsewhere, unless they lurk undetected in the vast corpora of Ambrose, Jerome, or Augustine.81 Sidonius, then, appears to be setting up a new literary canon. Perhaps, half a millennium after Cicero, it was not too soon to be doing so (perhaps another sign of the sense of belatedness highlighted by Kulikowski in this volume, chapter 4). But it would appear that no previous letter-writer had thought to try it. This is all the more remarkable if Tore Janson is right to assert that ‘[i]t is not particularly common in late Latin prefaces for the author to compare himself with his predecessors’.82 For a proper parallel we must move forward to the letter collections of the Renaissance,83 and in particular to the opening letter of the Epistulae of Angelo Poliziano (1454–94). Clearly modelled on Sidonius’ own first letter, Poliziano’s epistle offers due homage to Cicero, but pointedly dismisses Pliny as a model: a reminder that Sidonius’ apparent privileging of Pliny as his model was not an inevitable choice.84 79

80

81

82

83

84

Demetr. Eloc. 223–35; Philost. Lemn. De ep. 2.257, 29–258, 28 Kayser; Iul. Vict. Ars rhet. 27: texts collected in Malherbe (1988). Quint. Inst. 10.1.107; Plin. Ep. 9.2; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 2.4–5; Iul. Vict. Ars rhet. 27 (with Trapp (2003) 321 for the dependence on Titianus). In letter 125 to Rusticus, on the monastic life, Jerome provides a kind of anti-canon – including (at least potentially) some letter-writers - when he tells how he learned Hebrew ‘to bring [his] wayward mind under control’: ‘so that after the pointedness of Quintilian, the rivulets of Ciceronian eloquence, the weightiness of Fronto, and the mildness of Pliny, I learned the alphabet all over again’ (Ep. 125.12, quoted at Cain (2009) 153). But the reference here may equally well be to the orations of these figures. Cf. Macrob. Sat. 1.5.7 where a speaker assigns the four genera dicendi to Cicero, Sallust, Fronto, and Pliny (with Symmachus following Pliny in the modern age): quoted by Köhler (1995) 105–6. Kelly (2013a) 261–2 suggests, however, it may be no accident that four of the named authors are letter-writers. Janson (1964) 157; for a survey of ‘allusions to other writers’ in Latin prose prefaces, see ibid. 155–8. Sidonius’ opening letter, of course, contains unmistakable allusions to Pliny’s first letter, such as the shared response to an urging to collect for publication one’s more carefully written letters. But there is no sense of a canon of letter collections for Pliny to join here, even if the collections of Cicero and Seneca had all finally seen the light of day in their entirety around the time of Pliny’s birth. The most that Pliny will offer is a cognate genre against which his collection can be defined – history: his letters are ‘not history’. Sidonius’ discussion of Cicero, Iulius Titianus, and Fronto is an object of inquiry in Petrarch’s Familiar Letters 32: see Köhler (1995) 106–7. The latter notes that Cicero is mentioned a further twelve times in Sidonius’ letters. Text and translation of Poliziano’s Ep. 1.1 in Butler (2006) 2–7. For the reception of Sidonius’ opening letter in the work of Italian humanists, see Hernández Lobato in this volume, ch. 22. For important connections between the avowedly senatorial letter collections of Cicero, Pliny, Fronto, and Sidonius highlighted by the epistolographical canon created in Sidonius’ first epistle, see White (2018).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 388

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

389

3 Pliny, Symmachus, and Sidonius In the same passage from his opening letter, Sidonius is also clearly pointing very particularly towards Symmachus and Pliny as models in the matters of epistolographical selection, revision, correction, and collection.85 This is a reliable and significant pointer in a negative sense, in as much as the letter collections of Cicero and Fronto – even if we could be sure of the precise form in which they were available to Sidonius – appear of relatively little relevance to understanding how Sidonius has put together his collection, at least in terms of selection and collection (which I understand to include ordering and architecture). Elsewhere I have tried to argue that the same passage is a reliable pointer, in a positive sense, to the formal influence of Pliny’s letter collection on Sidonius in the same areas.86 I have suggested: (1) that there are significant parallels between the total number of letters in Pliny and Sidonius; (2) that the first books in each collection are united by a time of political crisis in Rome and the need for both writers to distance themselves from past damaging associations; (3) that the assumption of the consulship in Book 3 of Pliny matches the assumption of the bishopric of Clermont in Book 3 of Sidonius; (4) that both Pliny and Sidonius reserve the hardest and darkest of the material in their collections for the last three books (7–9) – although Pliny gives in to a pessimism which Sidonius does not; and (5) that Sidonius imitates Pliny in having the first and last correspondents of Books 1 and 9 respectively bear significant names beginning with the letters C and F. Where Pliny’s first and last addressees trace a journey from light to dark (through the names Clarus and Fuscus), the first and last addressees of Sidonius trace a journey from one point of resilience to another with the names Constantius and Firminus.87 To these arguments can be added one rather smaller, but perhaps significant observation. In his nine books of private correspondence, Pliny is very careful never to write two letters in sequence to the same addressee. He breaks that rule only once, in letters 2.11-12, where he gives Arrianus two successive reports of the trial of Marius Priscus. A late antique reader interested in Pliny’s practice with correspondents would be able to work this out quite easily, since the tables of contents which prefaced individual Plinian books in Sidonius’ time listed the names of addressees in sequence.88 Sidonius evidently noticed the fact Pliny has a single instance of the same correspondent twice in sequence. And went one better: in no instance does Sidonius address two successive letters to the same correspondent.89 Sidonius signals that he knows he has gone one better than Pliny by addressing his own letter 2.11 to Rusticus, and letter 2.12 to Agricola. The names of the ‘countryman’ and the ‘farmer’, in precisely the same position as Pliny’s only two letters to the same correspondent, mark similarity and difference: the countryman and the farmer are the same sort of thing, but their

85

86 87

88 89

Why is Ambrose not a model? His correspondence gives every appearance of a well-ordered and planned collection. Of course, the letters of Ambrose are largely exegetical; but Sidonius does not specify subject matter as his reason for choice of model, only formal considerations (selection, revision, correction, and collection) and, of course, style. Ambrose lacked neither these formal qualities nor good style. See Gibson (2011, 2013a, 2013b). But for the symbolism of Sidonius’ choice of Constantius, a churchman, over the equivalent of the (future) praetorian prefect (Septicius Clarus) favoured by Pliny, see Mratschek, ch. 5 in this volume. See Gibson (2014b). Sidonius perhaps plays an internal game with his own addressees by addressing Ep. 4.4 jointly to Simplicius and Apollinaris, then addressing 5.3–4 in sequence to Apollinaris and Simplicius respectively.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 389

13/02/20 4:00 PM

390

ROY GIBSON

names are different. The level of engagement here with the architecture of Pliny’s collection is suggestively intense.90 Nevertheless, it must be admitted that, during the course of Books 4 and 5 of Sidonius’ letters, parallels with the subject matter and language of Pliny begin to decline, and almost entirely disappear in Books 6 and 7. The character of collection and arrangement also shifts radically away from a Plinian model of variety and significant juxtaposition. Sidonius makes Books 6 and 7 a ghetto exclusively for bishops, monks, and clerics-to-be. And in letter 7.18 Sidonius announces the end of the collection, telling Constantius – the addressee of 1.1 – that, just as the collection began with him, so it shall also end with him (7.18.1). I have elsewhere argued that Sidonius is only doing openly what Pliny did covertly: creating ‘false endings’ to the letter collection.91 However, a re-evaluation of this argument is now in order. Van Waarden has argued that: ‘Book 7 of the correspondence forms a climax in Sidonius’ oeuvre. It contains everything he stood for, everything he loathed and everything he hoped for. It is his concise spiritual autobiography.’92 In the second volume of his commentary, van Waarden offers a refined argument about the ordering of the letters in Book 7: ‘The order . . . is determined by . . . status: after the bishops of 1-11, first the (semi-)conversi or recently consecrated clerics (12–15), then the monastic figures, one of them an abbot (16–17). Letter 18 closes the entire cycle of Books 1 to 7.’ Furthermore, letter 18 ‘looks back on the diversity of the collection, accounts for the different moods in which it was written, and includes Sidonius’ maxim . . . “I will never tolerate mental servility”.’93 In the light of these arguments, the importance of Symmachus as a significant model for the collection requires urgent reconsideration (just as Sidonius’ opening letter had warned us it ought).94 The older conjecture of an original seven-book edition for Symmachus in circulation during Sidonius’ time has recently received substantial endorsement.95 Whether Symmachus planned Books 1–7 as a unit, but found time to publish only Book 1, or the addition of Books 2–7 to the original Book 1 was the work of his son, is irrelevant to considering the collection 90

91 92 93

94 95

Mastandrea (2014), reviewing the articles by Ralph Mathisen and myself in van Waarden and Kelly (2013), asked: ‘how can one reconcile Gibson’s interpretation, which assumes coherent and unified planning (the ordering of the letters by Sidonius seen as following a design that revives the structure of Pliny’s correspondence) with Mathisen’s hypothesis on the material conditions (presence of dossiers, their physical grouping) supposed to have influenced Sidonius’ editorial decisions?’ It is precisely because of such instances as the play on names in 2.11-12 that I find it difficult to accept a ‘hard’ version of Mathisen’s project of providing a ‘corrective measure to suggestions that Sidonius placed each individual letter carefully and deliberately into the books of his collection’ (Mathisen (2013a) 247). (On the other hand, it may well be that instances of such micro-engagement with Pliny are confined to the earlier, and more artistically planned, books of Sidonius’ collection. And Dolveck’s revelation in this volume – in his census of manuscripts, ch. 16 – of an ultimate lack of canonical order for Sidonius’ letters in the MSS must give pause for thought.) For a ‘middle way’ between Gibson and Mathisen, see Giannotti (2016) 26–31. Gibson (2013a). Van Waarden (2010) 41. Van Waarden (2016a) 23–4. Horace may also be important here; cf. ibid. 27: ‘There is, moreover, another, very different kind of argument for considering Books 6 and 7 together: the absence of poetry, except for the Christian epitaph for Abraham, due to the incompatibility of verse and episcopal office (Ep. 9.12.1). Worldly poetry returns in Books 8 and 9. This intervallum lyricum is interpreted by Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser (2010) 268–69 as a structural element in the collection modelled on the pause between Books 1–3 and 4 of Horace’s Odes.’ The argument is also endorsed by Mratschek (2017). The importance of the Symmachan model is also urged by van Waarden (2016a). Cameron (2011) 366–70; cf. Salzman and Roberts (2011) lx–lxi, both with references to earlier literature. The late Alan Cameron pointed out to me (per e-litteras) that the reference at Sidon. Ep. 8.1.1 to Books 1–7 as opus videlicet explicitum (‘a work evidently completed’) suggests that Sidonius expected his readers to see the first seven books of his letters as following an already established model (i.e. that of Symmachus).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 390

13/02/20 4:00 PM

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

391

as Sidonius must have seen and read it. And such a sophisticated reader of structures as Sidonius will surely have noticed what has not escaped modern critics. The first book begins with letters to Symmachus’ father (1.1-12), while the seventh opens with letters to his son Memmius (7.1-14). Inside this ring structure we can observe that Books 2 and 6 feature letters to single addressees only: the Nicomachi Flaviani senior and junior, where Book 6 is addressed to the younger Nicomachus Flavianus and his wife, the daughter of Symmachus.96 Salzman has gone further along this line of inquiry, and has argued that the importance of the number seven is flagged to the reader in the second letter of Book 1, where the Hebdomades of Varro on celebrated Greeks and Romans is given particular publicity. This work by the late republican author was somehow organised by groups of seven, and the number seven evidently had a special role to play within the work, with perhaps 700 portraits of famous men arranged in seven categories of Greeks and Romans.97 Be that as it may, it is clear that Sidonius’ correspondence does become more Symmachan, in some respects, as it approaches its first ending in Book 7. There is no sign of links between Sidonius’ Books 1 and 7, and 2 and 6, in the Symmachan style. But the gathering together of correspondents in the Plinian style, found in Books 1–5, shifts towards a practice closer to the Symmachan model in Books 6 and 7. It is true that Sidonius never places two letters addressed to the same person in sequence (the very definition of the Symmachan principle of collection by addressee). But if letters to family members take up the whole of Book 6 of Symmachus and the opening section of Book 7, there is at least a partial parallel with Sidonius, who dedicates the whole of Book 6 and the first half of Book 7 to correspondence with bishops. Did Sidonius really have a unified and coherent plan for his letters, as I have argued previously, encompassing in advance the whole collection of Books 1–9? The conjecture of such planning appeared to make sense of some of the phenomena mentioned earlier: the play on the names of the first and last addressees beginning with C and F, and a similar delay in both sets of correspondence of the hardest and darkest material of the collection to Books 7–9. But perhaps the plotting of the collection was more opportunistic. In an age in which death was often sudden (and most were dead in or before their fifties), we have to allow – in both Sidonius and Pliny – for a planned scenario in which a book, if it turned out to be the last produced, could stand as a convincing ending to the collection. Furthermore, perhaps there was a form of advance planning in that Sidonius foregrounded both Symmachus and Pliny in his opening letter as epistolographical models. As the collection progressed in incremental publication, he might, with some consistency, choose to bring it to a close either in a Symmachan fashion at Book 7 (with a more Symmachan style of collection of letters), or in a Plinian style at Book 9, with a more emphatic return to the collecting practices and darker material of the final books of Pliny. In the event, it would appear, Sidonius lived long enough to do both.98

96

97

98

Sogno (2006) 60–2, Cameron (2011) 368–70, Salzman and Roberts (2011) lxiv; cf. the summary in Gibson (2012) 66. Salzman and Roberts (2011) lxv–lxvi. Salzman does not quite draw the parallel out, but appears to mean: just as Varro’s Hebdomades showcased famous Greeks and Romans, and just as Avianius (Symmachus’ father) is the new Varro in his desire to commemorate famous men in his epigrams (mentioned in letter 1.2), so – letter 1.2 itself subtly tells us – the seven books of Symmachus’ correspondence will showcase the famous men and family associated with Symmachus. For Symmachus and Varro, see further Salzman (2018). See further the in-depth discussion of dating Sidonius’ letters and of the publication of the collection by Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, sects. 4–5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 391

13/02/20 4:00 PM

392

ROY GIBSON

4 Further Reading The synoptic works of Klauck (1998) (revised edition 2006), Trapp (2003), and Morello and Morrison (2007) provide a good introduction to the full range of letters and letter collections to survive from the ancient world. Malherbe (1988) offers an invaluable compilation of ancient epistolary theory, while the older works of Koskenniemi (1956) and Thraede (1970) provide summary overviews of the topics and ideas characteristic of ancient epistolography. Late Antiquity is the golden age of ancient letter-writing, and the essays collected in Sogno et al. (2017a) survey twenty-five surviving letter collections from Julian the Apostate to the earliest collections of papal letters, including the letters of Sidonius (Mratschek 2017). Commentaries on individual books of the letters of Sidonius remain the best entry points to the correspondence: Köhler (1995) on Book 1; Amherdt (2001) on Book 4; van Waarden (2010, 2016a) on Book 7; and Giannotti (2016) on Book 3. Further volumes are in preparation. Harries (1994) remains fundamental to understanding the historical context in which Sidonius wrote and published his letters. For continuities between Sidonius and the earlier classical tradition of senatorial letter-writing, see Gibson (2012), White (2018). A new monograph on literary and narratological aspects of Sidonius’ letters is offered by Hanaghan (2019).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 1.indd 392

13/02/20 4:00 PM

Part IV Sidonius’ Language and Style

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 393

13/02/20 4:14 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 394

13/02/20 4:14 PM

12 SIDONIUS’ VOCABULARY, SYNTAX, AND STYLE Étienne Wolff

1 Preamble

S

IDONIUS APOLLINARIS WAS, of course, the author of a collection of twenty-four poems divided into two parts (the panegyrics and their accompanying texts; the Carmina minora) and of a correspondence in nine books. Yet this output partly subverts generic expectations. His letters are written in sophisticated and poetic prose1 that is often more elaborate than his verse, and he has no qualms about employing a prose register in his poems (quantumcumque, Carm. 16.75; geometricus, 23.114). Further, prose passages are inserted in his poems (Carm. 14 and 22), and poems in his letters (as in the first book of Symmachus’ correspondence), where they can play an important role (in which case he speaks of litterae bimetrae (Ep. 9.15.1), a neologism also found at Carm. 37 (Ep. 9.13.5) 89. He was fond of inserting his own verse compositions in his letters, alongside quotations and reminiscences of classical poets. His epistolary collection even ends with a long poem (Carm. 41 in Ep. 9.16), even though he had stated in letters 9.12 and 13 that poetry was not compatible with his status as a clergyman. In this sense, and although sometimes he may simply have wished to keep a text in its original context, Sidonius is a perfect illustration of the blend of genres and forms characteristic of Late Antiquity. Hence, there is nothing preventing us from studying his prose and poetry in tandem. He himself did not separate them (see Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 1–4). I shall begin with Ep. 2.10.2 In the first paragraph, Sidonius expresses the wish that the integrity of the Latin language (mera linguae Latiaris proprietas) be defended against the rust of vulgar barbarisms (trivialium barbarismorum robigo),3 for otherwise the ornaments of noble speech (nobilium sermonum purpurae) will be tarnished (decolorabuntur). He returns in another letter (3.14.2) to expertise, grandeur, and integrity in the use of the Latin language (scientia, pompa, proprietas linguae Latinae), which are too often held in contempt. In his eyes, the survival of ancient culture is conditional upon the preservation of proper Latin usage. It should be noted

A complete bibliography on the topic would be huge. The three essential publications are Kretschmann (1870–2), Loyen (1943) (which, despite its prejudices and the frequent absence of references to quoted texts, remains an extremely useful study), and most of all Gualandri (1979). There is also much useful material in the commentary on Book 4 by Amherdt (2001) and that on Book 7 by van Waarden (2010, 2016a). Several general studies may be mentioned: Kaster (1988), Chin (2008), Copeland and Sluiter (2009), Schwitter (2015). Recent studies often establish a link between Sidonius’ stylistic concerns and the copious contemporary output of grammarians and commentators. 1 2 3

Mratschek (2017). On this letter see Banniard (1992). The metaphor of rust is applied to language again at 8.6.18: loquendi robiginem.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 395

13/02/20 4:14 PM

396

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

that Sidonius’ opposition to the barbarians had far more to do with cultural issues than with problems of ethnicity, and he associated the empire’s loss of influence with the precarious state of culture. In letter 3.3, Ecdicius, a hero of the Arverni’s resistance against Euric, is praised for having contributed to the cultural education of the Gallo-Roman nobles by initiating them into eloquence and Latin poetry, and helping them to shake off the coarseness of the Celtic element (3.3.2). Sidonius uses the metaphorical expression sermonis Celtici squama, ‘the scaliness of the Celtic language’. The scaliness of Celtic, like the rust of barbarisms, is what covers and corrupts proper, authentic Latin.4 In Ep. 4.17 the Frank Arbogastes, count of Trier, is praised for the fact that although he drinks the water of the Moselle (potor Mosellae, 4.17.1) and lives amongst barbarians (barbarorum familiaris), he is able to express himself in the language of the Tiber (Tiberim ructas) and is ignorant of barbarisms (nescius barbarismorum, 4.17.1), and that although he lives in regions no longer ruled by Roman laws (etsi apud limitem Latina iura ceciderunt, 4.17.2), the grandeur of Latin (sermonis pompa Romani) survives in him. In contrast, Syagrius, who has learned the Germanic language, would do well to devote the same amount of effort to practising Latin (Ep. 5.5). The defence of Latin, then, is essential for Sidonius (see also Ep. 8.2, where Johannes, probably a grammarian or a rhetorician, is congratulated for upholding the Latin language, ‘although Latin arms have suffered shipwreck’), and one naturally expects this programme to be reflected in his writings, since his work, by its very example, is a plea for culture. I shall first examine his morphology and syntax, then his vocabulary, and, finally, his style. There are often connections between these three categories, especially in the case of vocabulary and style, inasmuch as Sidonius pays close attention both to the words themselves, and to their organisation within a sentence. As an illustration, I will conclude this chapter with the analysis of Ep. 1.8. It is not easy, in a study of this kind, to avoid lists. Therefore, rather than attempting to be exhaustive I will aim to offer both a synthesis and a more developed analysis of certain significant examples. I will focus on aspects which seem to me to have been less emphasised by previous interpreters. I should state from the outset that this is not an attempt to analyse Sidonius’ literary project as a whole; that would require an entire book. Further, rather than listing every single instance of each linguistic or literary feature, I will provide only a few chosen references.

2 Morphology and Syntax 2.1 Morphology As David Amherdt has emphasised, Sidonius is scrupulously correct in his use of declensions and conjugations.5 Among the few points worthy of note are the vocative meus for mi (Ep. 4.10.1, etc.), analytic comparatives when the synthetic form exists (plus notus, Carm. 7.44), participles ending in -ens formed on perfect forms such as meminens (Ep. 4.3.10, 6.3.1, 7.6.3, etc.), futures in -am instead of -bo in second conjugation verbs (indulgeam, 4.24.6); yet for all these forms there are either precedents or other examples in Late Antiquity.6 4 5 6

Giannotti (2002) 168, (2016). Amherdt (2001) 47. Amherdt (2001) 161–2, 272, 501.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 396

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

397

2.2 Syntax There is more to say about syntax, where we notably find constructions peculiar to late language, or which late language has borrowed from archaic Latin. One might cite vel for et (Ep. 4.17.1 and 2, etc.);7 quisque for quisquis or quicumque (Carm. 30 (Ep. 4.11.6) 22);8 cur in the causal sense ‘because’ (Ep. 1.1.2, etc.); use of the reflexive suus instead of the anaphoric eius (5.17.10, etc.); the first and second persons plural which alternate with the singular to express the respective positions of the author and the addressee, changing, if needs be, at every utterance;9 the vocative instead of the nominative for an adjective agreeing with a noun in the vocative (Carm. 7.24 and 41); a subordinate clause beginning with quod instead of an accusative and infinitive clause following verbs of thinking or believing (passim); the use of the indicative in indirect questions (Ep. 5.5.2, etc.); the correlation sic . . . quod for a comparative10 and consecutive sic . . . ut (1.2.9, 3.13.6, 4.24.3, etc.); ut non instead of ne introducing a negative subordinate clause (4.13.3).11 We find odd turns of phrase here and there, such as si quod secus (2.8.2), where quod appears to be a postponed connecting relative (unless si quod is equivalent to the pairing quod si (‘and if’, ‘now if’),12 or quo loci (1.5.5, etc.) for in eo loco, where quo seems to replace ubi, as in Carm. 7.66 and 71. Word order can be somewhat free at times:13 for instance, conjunctions and prepositions may be postponed, even in prose (ceteros supra, Ep. 8.2.3). Also worthy of note is the use of historical infinitives (1.7.3 and 8; 1.11.2, 7, and 16; 7.2.4–5),14 a rare phenomenon in Latin outside a few specific authors (historians, especially Sallust and Tacitus). On the whole, however, syntax remains very close to the classical norm, and in that sense Sidonius is conservative. In contrast, his vocabulary and style are innovative.

3 Vocabulary Sidonius’ lexical choices breathe new life into the Latin language. Words are chosen not merely for their capacity to convey information clearly, but also, perhaps even especially, for their sound, their rhythm, their connotations or allusive force, and their potential for wordplay. For instance, at Ep. 9.9.14 we read in a list of philosophers, Diogenes barba comante, Socrates coma cadente, ‘Diogenes with long beard, Socrates with trailing hair’. Sidonius chose the rare verb comare, ‘to be hairy’, for at least three reasons: it creates an effect of paronomasia (see further section 4.9) with the pairing coma cadente; it is an innovative metaphorical use of the word, since a verb which literally applies to head-hair here qualifies a beard; and finally, comare creates a surprise effect through its phonic proximity to the verb comere, ‘arrange’ or ‘comb’, which refers exactly to what Diogenes does not do. Further, it is clear that numerous hapaxes were invented by Sidonius in order to create parallelisms.15 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15

Loyen (1970) 230n. 160. See Amherdt (2001) 300. Amherdt (2001) 188; van Waarden (2010) 49–52; van Waarden, ch. 13 in the present volume. Amherdt (2001) 129–30. Amherdt (2001) 332. Editions fluctuate between quod (Loyen, Budé; Anderson, Loeb) and quid (Mohr, Teubner; Lütjohann, MGH), though this is not mentioned in any critical apparatus. For examples see Gruppe’s index verborum et locutionum in Lütjohann (1887) 455, under the heading collocatio verborum. See van Waarden (2010) 154–6. See Gualandri (1979) 178. On hapaxes in general in Sidonius, see Onorato (2016a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 397

13/02/20 4:14 PM

398

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

3.1 Neologisms and Hapax Legomena Many words appear only in Sidonius or only appear otherwise in texts that are subsequent to him. It is true that due to the flaws in our tools, we may occasionally class words as neologisms where it is not necessarily the case, and we must take lost literature into account. Yet even with these caveats in mind, the claim can be made that Sidonius is probably the most prolific coiner of words in Latin literature. It is impossible to list every neologism or hapax found in his work, but we may at least attempt to single out certain categories. There are: • • • • • • •

•

•

• • •

16 17 18 19

doublets of more common words: confabulatus, ‘conversation’ (Ep. 9.11.9), doublet of confabulatio; hirundineus, ‘of a swallow’ (2.14.2), doublet of hirundininus; diminutives (even though there are relatively few of these):16 contestatiuncula, ‘little liturgical prayers’ (7.3.1); compound nouns: colleprosus, ‘fellow-leper’ (6.1.2); verbal nouns formed with a suffix: oblatrator, ‘critic’ (1.3.2 and 4.22.6); blateratus, ‘blathering’ (9.11.10); substantive adjectives: cellulanus, ‘monk’ (9.3.4); compound adjectives:17 plectripotens, ‘master of the plectrum’ (Carm. 36 (Ep. 9.13.2) 8); blattifer, ‘wearing purple’ (Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 22); adjectives created with prefixation: semisoporus, ‘half-asleep’ (Carm. 11.60); inoppidatus, ‘not dwelling in a town’ (5.13.2); irrequisitus, ‘without scrutiny’ (9.3.2); erotundatus, ‘rounded’ (9.7.3); adjectives created through suffixation: vomax, ‘vomiting’ (8.3.2); incursax, ‘raiding’ (8.12.3); trebax, ‘cunning’ (1.11.12, probably based on the Greek τριβακός, ‘worn’, ‘experienced’); controversialis and controversalis, ‘pertaining to a dispute’ (7.9.2 and 8.11.6); concubinalis, ‘of concubinage’ (9.6.4); defaecabilis, ‘filth-proof’ (1.5.6); pervagabilis, ‘flitting about’ (2.2.16); latitabundus, ‘skulking’ (1.6.4 and 4.23.3); carminabundus, ‘melodious’ (8.11.6); otiabundus, ‘enjoying leasure’ (4.18.3 and 8.9.6); increpatorius, ‘chiding’ (9.7.5); traharius, ‘baggage-man’ (6.1.3); compunctorius, ‘admonitory’ (6.6.2); fatigatorius, ‘jeering’ (5.17.5); cantilenosus, ‘melodic’ (3.14.1 and 4.1.2); crepusculascens, ‘of twilight’ (8.3.2); adverbs, notably ending in -ter,18 formed from more or less well-attested adjectives: insultatorie, ‘spitefully’ (1.7.2); oculariter, ‘with the eyes’ (7.14.4); iudicialiter, ‘with judgement’ (7.14.4); ducaliter, ‘as a guide’ (5.13.1 and 8.6.1); trebaciter, ‘cunningly’ (9.11.4); extemporaliter, ‘improvised’ (9.14.3); adverbs ending in -tim:19 cavernatim, ‘through caverns’ (5.14.1); coactim, ‘concisely’ (9.16.2); trochleatim, ‘with a pulley’ (5.17.8); compound verbs: detepescere, ‘to cool down’ (5.17.4); inhamare, ‘to hook’ (9.9.15); dequeri, ‘to complain’ (9.9.1); verbs derived from an adjective or a substantive: pronare, ‘to bend forward’ (5.17.7 and 8.11.12); dulcare, ‘to sweeten’ (5.4.2); r(h)onchare, ‘to snore’ (1.6.3); novercari, ‘to behave like a stepmother’ (7.14.3);

Amherdt (2001) 83. See Gualandri (1979) 174n. 102, 175 nn. 103 and 104. Gualandri (1979) 178–9 n. 115. Gualandri (1979) 177 n. 111; see also the index rerum in Amherdt (2001) 547.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 398

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

• •

399

verbs with a desiderative suffix: taciturire, ‘to want to be silent’ (8.16.3); lecturire, ‘to be eager to read’ (2.10.5 and 9.7.1); scripturire, ‘to long to write’ (7.18.1 and 8.11.8); words formed from Greek: tyrannopolita, ‘governed by a tyrant’ (5.8.3, possibly referring to the Burgundians, in order not to be understood if the letter were intercepted); phthisiscere, ‘to suffer from consumption’ (5.14.1); labyrinthicus. ‘labyrinthine’ (4.11.2 and Carm. 37 (Ep. 9.13.5) 91); hermes or herma, ‘messenger’ (Ep. 4.12.3).

This selection provides evidence, for instance, of the productivity of suffixes in -tus, -tas, and -tor for substantives; of suffixes in -alis, -bilis, -ax, -bundus, -osus, and -orius for adjectives; of suffixes in -tim and –ter for adverbs. The same conclusion could be drawn from rare words.

3.2 Neologisms and Literary Echoes Hapax legomena sometimes arise from a literary reminiscence.20 So, for instance, the adjective Aganippicus, twice used by Sidonius in agreement with fons (Ep. 8.16.2 and Carm. 37 (Ep. 9.13.5) 97), stems from a reminiscence of Ovid, Fast. 5.7, fontes Aganippidos Hippocrenes, ‘the springs of Aganippian Hippocrene’. Ovid had created the adjective Aganippis, and Sidonius emulates him, using variatio to construct Aganippicus. Likewise at Ep. 7.16.2, Sidonius creates the adjective nocturnalis (nocturnalem cucullum, ‘a cowl for the night’), from a reminiscence of a passage of Juvenal (nocturnos . . . cucullos, 6.118). His verbal creativity enables him to distance himself from his source.

3.3 Concentrations of Hapax Legomena Certain passages contain multiple hapax legomena. This is the case, for instance, at Ep. 4.1.4, where Sidonius evokes barbaric peoples in a purely literary fashion: ad paludicolas Sygambros aut ad Caucasigenas Alanos aut ad equimulgas Gelonos, ‘to the Sygambrian marshdwellers or to the Caucasian Alans or to the mare-milking Gelonians’. In this ternary, symmetrical group, remarkable for its homoeoteleuta (see further section 4.9), we find three hapax legomena, all of them poetic composites with echoing sounds: paludicola,21 also used at Carm. 33 (Ep. 7.17.2) 19 (a poem inserted in a letter), is a variation on the more widespread paludosus (see Prop. 4.6.77 paludosos . . . Sycambros, a line which Sidonius certainly had in mind); Caucasigena; equimulga, which translates the Homeric adjective ἱππημολγοί (Il. 13.5) and uses the Catullan word caprimulgus (Carm. 22.10) as a precedent. A little later in the same paragraph, we read: fibraeque glaciales procul dubio emollirentur, egelidarentur, ‘and the icy vitals [of these hardened peoples] would assuredly be softened and thawed’, where egelidare is a hapax formed from the poetic adjective egelidus, which creates an effect of paronomasia with emollirentur.22 Pairs of hapax legomena occur frequently. One might cite, for instance, ad adventum hirundineum vel ciconinum, ‘until the coming of the swallow and the stork’ (Ep. 2.14.2), where the two adjectives function in place of genitives, as often happens in Sidonius. 20 21

22

Gualandri (1979) 176. This word is in fact not a hapax, since Sidonius employs it elsewhere, and it is also attested in a poem of the Anthologia Latina (395.6 Riese), which is presumably later. On this passage, see Gualandri (1979) 174–5 and Piacente (2016).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 399

13/02/20 4:14 PM

400

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

3.4 Rare Words Besides hapax legomena and neologisms, Sidonius uses many rare words. It would be pointless to list them; but I shall attempt to provide a typology, and thereby to single out specific trends.

3.5 Rare Words and Intertextuality Several rare words in the same passage sometimes point back to a single author. In Ep. 8.6, in which Sidonius warns Namatius (the commander of a fleet based in the Atlantic which was supposed to protect the coastline south of the Loire against the Saxons), we find in paragraphs 12 and 13 the rare words lepusculus, archipirata, and myoparo (‘little hare’, ‘pirate captain’, ‘sloop’, respectively), all of which occur in Cicero. Archipirata and myoparo are found in the same passage of the De suppliciis (Verr. 5.25.64 and 5.28.73). There Cicero related how Verres, having captured a pirate ship, seized all its booty, spared the captain, picked out the pirates who were particularly handsome or talented, and replaced them with Roman citizens who were crucified in their place. The subject of Sidonius’ letter is the Saxons, who attack without warning and customarily kill every tenth prisoner as they withdraw. There is an analogy between the two situations described; in both cases, we have pirates and gratuitous cruelty. Another passage in the letters refers to the In Verrem (De signis): at Ep. 5.7.7 Sidonius calls the greedy informers at the court of Chilperic iuniores Cibyratae, an allusion to the brothers from Cibyra, Verres’ spies in Sicily (Verr. 4.4.30). Another interesting example occurs at 1.9.8. There Sidonius uses the archaic verb convaso, ‘to pack’, which he found in Terence (Phorm. 190), in a passage where he is talking precisely about Terence.23

3.6 Rare Words and Literary Models Certain rare words reflect Sidonius’ literary and stylistic models. This concerns two authors in particular: Pliny the Younger (the principal model for Sidonius’ correspondence along with Symmachus; see section 4.2 below) and Apuleius (an essential model for language and style, even though he is never claimed as such).24 Examples modelled on Pliny’s correspondence include:25 haesitator, ‘hesitater’ (Ep. 9.13.4; see Plin. 5.10.2), haesitabundus, ‘hesitating’ (1.1.3; see Plin. 1.5.13), percopiosus, ‘exuberant’ (1.1.4 and 5.10.1; see Plin. 9.31.1), sinisteritas, ‘misfortune’ (1.5.1 and 3.11.1; see Plin. 6.17.3 and 9.5.2), castigatorius, ‘reproving’ (4.1.3; see Plin. 5.16.10), monstrabilis, ‘remarkable’ (4.3.5; see Plin. 1.5.1, 3.7.2, and 6.21.3), baptisterium with the meaning ‘swimming pool’.26 From Apuleius one might quote:27 busequa (1.6.3; see De deo Soc. 5; Apol. 10.6; Flor. 3.3; the passage imitated here is Apol. 10.6: vir ultra . . . bussequas rusticanus, ‘a man more bumpkin than the cowherds’), multiforatilis, ‘perforated with many holes’ (8.9.1; see Flor. 3.1 and Met. 10.32.2), naturalitus, ‘by nature’ (8.1.2; see Met. 1.12.1), irreposcibilis, ‘that cannot be demanded back’ (8.15.2; see Apol. 92.8), ambifariam, ‘ambiguous’ (9.11.2; see Apol. 4.8 and Flor. 18.23), 23 24 25 26 27

The verb returns in 7.2.8, where it heightens the atmosphere of comedy. Apuleius is mentioned four times in the Letters (2.9.5, 2.10.5, 4.3.1, 9.13.3), but never as a stylistic model. See Gualandri (1979) 156 nn. 44 and 45. See Amherdt (2001) 361–2. See Gualandri (1979) 179–80 n. 119.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 400

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

401

terriculamentum, ‘alarm’ (7.1.3; see De deo Soc. 15; Apol. 64.2), protermino, ‘extend’ (3.1.5; see Met. 9.38.3), perhaps also infantula, ‘little girl’ (7.2.6; see Met. 10.28.1, but the word also occurs in Jerome). There are a few words borrowed from Ausonius: for instance, volucripes (Carm. 40 (Ep. 9.15.1) 5, volucripes / . . . trimetria, ‘the swift-footed trimeter’), from Ep. 9b.104 Green (volucripes dimetria),28 parada, ‘awning’ (8.12.5) from Ep. 15.29 Green. Sidonius found in Ausonius – a Gallo-Roman like him – a recent model for formal and metrical virtuosity. It is presumably not a coincidence that the borrowings come from Ausonius’ letters. In contrast, very few words are borrowed from Symmachus, though this may be the case with devenustare, ‘to disfigure’ (1.7.12, 2.2.6, 7.9.8, 9.2.3), a word often used by Symmachus (TLL 5.1, 851.1–2) but also attested elsewhere. Sidonius was of course influenced by other writers (see sections 4.2 and 4.4 below). I have shown elsewhere that Martial, for instance, was one of them.29 In terms of vocabulary, it is interesting to note that the prose word hospitalitas, used three times in Sidonius’ verse (Carm. 23.3 and 434, 24.83), had only been used before him in poetry by Martial (4.64.28).

3.7 Rare Poetic Words Many rare words belong to the poetic register. They are of course particularly frequent in Sidonius’ poetry. For instance, draconigena, ‘born of a dragon’ (Carm. 2.80), bilustris, ‘lasting twice five years’ (Ep. 4.24.1; Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 29, Carm. 23.299), aurigena, ‘born from gold’ (Carm. 6.14), and tridentifer, ‘bearing the trident’ (Carm. 22.158) are only attested before Sidonius in Ovid (Fast. 3.865; Am. 2.12.9; Met. 5.250; Met. 8.596 respectively). Chironomon, ‘pantomime’ (Ep. 4.7.2) and schoenobates, ‘tightrope walker’ (Carm. 23.301) are only attested previously in Juvenal (5.121 and 6.63; 3.77 respectively); Tegeaticus, ‘originating from Tegea’ (Carm. 7.20), Labdacius, ‘belonging to the house of Labdacus’ (Carm. 9.227), and bivertex, ‘with two summits’ (Carm. 22.233) in Statius (Silv. 1.2.18 and 5.1.102; Theb. 2.210, etc.; Theb. 1.628 respectively); amystis, ‘a drink taken at one draught’ (Carm. 22.ep.5, a prose passage) in Horace (Carm. 1.36.14); finally, Hydaspeus, ‘of the Hydaspes’ (Carm. 2.447) is only attested previously in Claudian (III Hon. 4). There are also, however, many rare poetic words in Sidonius’ correspondence. So, for instance, the verb dequeri, ‘to complain’ (Ep. 9.9.1) is only attested previously in Valerius Flaccus (5.448) and Statius (Theb. 1.404 and 11.627), and the verb diffibulare, ‘to unclasp’ (3.3.5), in Statius (Theb. 6.570). As was said above, there is much overlap between Sidonius’ prose and his poetry. His prose is refined and poetic, even more so than that of his models Pliny, Apuleius, and Symmachus. It is strewn with words only otherwise attested in poetry. It is significant that when describing his prose, he uses the expressions opus prosarium, ‘prose work’ (3.14.1, 9.16.4) and prosarium loquendi genus, ‘prose composition’ (9.13.2): the adjective prosarius is apparently a neologism, where Sidonius could have used the traditional locution oratio soluta. This innovation is a way of pointing to the elaborate and sophisticated character of his prose writing. I will briefly return to poetic words in Sidonius’ prose in section 4.4 below, when I deal with intertextuality.

28 29

This adjective is also used by Ausonius at Ep. 19b.14 (Green); it is otherwise unattested. Wolff (2014b).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 401

13/02/20 4:14 PM

402

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

3.8 Archaic Words and Forms As Isabella Gualandri and Alessandra Monni in particular have emphasised, Sidonius’ writing displays archaising tendencies.30 He was interested in archaisms for their rarity and ornamental value. Since he was not a theoretician in any field, his theoretical discourse on the topic is rather confused. The clearest passage is in Ep. 4.3, where Sidonius, comparing Claudianus Mamertus to Fronto and Apuleius, praises his friend’s style for its inclusion of nova ibi verba quia vetusta, ‘new words there because they are old’ (4.3.3, with a clear borrowing from Quintilian 1.6.35).31 Among archaic authors, Sidonius displays a clear preference for the comic poets Plautus and Terence. One might cite, from Plautus, inconciliare, ‘to win over’ (3.9.1; see Bacch. 551, etc.) and nugigerulus, ‘peddler’ (7.7.1; see Aul. 525); from Terence, convasare, ‘to pack’ (7.2.8 and 1.9.8, used figuratively; see Phorm. 190). Also borrowed from the comic poets are the figurative uses of emungere, ‘extract money from’ (7.2.8 and 9.7.1; see Plaut. Bacch. 701, etc.), and autumare, ‘to affirm’ (4.2.4, 5.4.1, 7.9.12; see Plaut. Amph. 416, etc.). On three occasions, Sidonius uses the archaic form fuat instead of sit (9.7.1 etc.), always in the expression fors fuat, ‘perhaps’; here the aim is both to borrow an expression used by the comic poets (Plaut. Pseud. 432; Ter. Hec. 610), and to create an effect of paronomasia. In other cases, Sidonius receives archaisms through the filter of Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, and to a lesser degree, Fronto. I dealt with Apuleius above. Some words are directly borrowed from Aulus Gellius,32 for instance vitupero, ‘fault-finder’ (8.1.2 and 4.22.6), for vituperator (see Gell. 19.7.15). Sidonius also found a number of archaisms in Aulus Gellius’ quotations. Thus the adjective foedifragus, ‘treaty-breaker’ (6.6.1), comes from Laevius, and the adjective consiliosus, ‘considerate’ (1.1.1), from Cato, both via Aulus Gellius (19.7.5 and 4.9.12 respectively); the adverb saltuatim, ‘by leaps and bounds’ (4.3.9, 7.2.5, 8.3.1), comes from Sisenna via a chapter of Aulus Gellius (12.15) which discusses adverbs in -im in Sisenna. Finally, it is worth mentioning certain archaic words and forms which are traditional rather than specific to a particular writer: liberum for liberorum, ‘children’ (2.8.1);33 duellum, ‘war’ (Carm. 34 (Ep. 8.9.5) 50); mage, ‘more’ (Ep. 3.7.4, 7.14.2, 8.3.5, 8.12.4), and the infinitive exarmarier, ‘to be disarmed’ (Carm. 11.104). Sidonius’ archaisms can convey a sense of solemnity, yet they are often borrowed from comic poets and used in passages which are comical, or at least light-hearted in tone. His engagement with archaic writers should be understood as an attempt to embrace the Latin literary tradition as a whole, precisely at a time when this cultural heritage was under threat.34

3.9 Late Words Part of Sidonius’ vocabulary is made up of late and/or Christian words. Examples of these late rare words include amoenare, ‘to brighten’ (Ep. 1.9.8), umbratiliter, ‘in outline’ (2.10.4), parabolice, ‘metaphorically’ (5.17.11), derogator, ‘detractor’ (8.1.2 and 3.13.2), the substantive antiquarius meaning ‘copyist’, ‘calligrapher’ (9.16.2), insiccabilis, ‘undryable’ (9.16.2, otherwise

30 31 32 33 34

Gualandri (1979) 163–73, esp. 172 n. 98; Monni (1999). See also more generally Mannheimer (1975). Monni (1999) 26 and 29. Gualandri (1979) 179 n. 119. Liberum is the reading of most manuscripts. Monni (1999) 39.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 402

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

403

attested only in Augustine), iudicialiter, ‘judicially’ (5.15.1), convenustare, ‘to enhance’ (8.6.6), concrucifigare, ‘to crucify together’ (6.1.6), the substantive susurro, ‘whisperer’ (5.7.7), hirrire and hirritus, ‘snarl’ (7.3.2 and Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 10). Sidonius uses certain words in their late meaning; thus gerulus (see also section 3.14 below), ‘bearer’, ‘carrier’ in classical Latin, which acquires the meaning ‘messenger’, ‘letter-bearer’ in late Latin.

3.10 Words and Expressions from the Spoken Language This section only concerns Sidonius’ correspondence. As a dialogue between two persons, letters traditionally incorporate a few words and expressions from the spoken language; this is the case even for literary epistles such as those of Pliny, Symmachus, or Sidonius. Examples include rhetorical questions such as quid multis?, ‘to cut a long story short’ (Ep. 4.3.9), or ista quorsum?, ‘what’s the point?’ (9.9.6), and interjections such as Deus bone (4.1.2 and 4). Sidonius’ borrowings from Plautus are also a product of vernacular language. Words which belong to the spoken language, such as the adjective varicosus, ‘varicose’ (5.5.2),35 are also found here and there.

3.11 Unusual Meanings, Uses, and Turns of Phrase Certain words occur in Sidonius in unusual meanings or uses. For instance, he uses the adjective plausibilis (Ep. 9.13.1 and 9.14.2), usually ‘praiseworthy’, to mean ‘laudatory’, ‘favourable’ (see TLL 10.1, 2367.12–17), and the adjective flexilis, usually ‘pliant’, ‘flexible’, to mean ‘curved’, ‘bent’,36 perhaps using Apuleius (Met. 6.1.3) as a precedent. He also uses certain verbs transitively, for instance manere with the meaning ‘stop’, ‘prevent’ (Carm. 5.16), and exorbitare with the meaning ‘cause to deviate from’ (5.16.3); he uses the participle conclamatus (2.2.13 and 6.1.3) as an adjective, ‘famous’ (see TLL 4, 71.45–56); he turns the imperative salve into a substantive, ‘greeting’; he uses the expression monachum complere (4.9.3), ‘to act as a monk’, where one would have expected the verb implere.37

3.12 Figurative and Metaphorical Uses Many words are used with a figurative or metaphorical meaning. Sidonius calls the ‘fruits of leisure’ otiositates (Ep. 2.10.3), perhaps recalling the otia nostra of Ovid (Tr. 2.224). He uses the adjective piperatus, ‘peppered’, to mean ‘stinging’, ‘biting’ (5.8.2 piperatae facundiae, ‘pungent eloquence’; 8.11.7 non pauca piperata, mellea multa, ‘not a few peppered, many honeyed’). Tongues sharpened by jealousy are called linguas acuminatas (8.1.2). He uses the verb eventilare, ‘to fan’, ‘winnow’, ‘criticise’, to mean ‘throw to the winds’, ‘scatter’ (1.9.1, 4.11.2), and the verb acere, ‘be bitter’, which is only attested previously in Cato, in the figurative meaning of ‘bitterly displease’ (7.6.6 pectori suo catholici mentio nominis acet, ‘the mention of the word “Catholic” is repugnant to his heart’). He qualifies a moral error as

35 36 37

Giulietti (2004) 92. Gualandri (1979) 95 n. 71 and 138 n. 110. Amherdt (2001) 261.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 403

13/02/20 4:14 PM

404

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

barbarismus morum (9.3.3 barbarismus est morum sermo iucundus et animus afflictus, ‘to combine pleasant discourse and a mind distressed is moral barbarism’). We also find word associations modelled on the boldness of biblical images, for instance manum linguae, ‘a helping hand from your tongue’ (6.1.3), and digitis exhortationis, ‘fingers of exhortation’ (6.1.4). On the whole, Sidonius is fond of unusual, surprising, and expressive images such as abdominis pelago, ‘the sea of an abdomen’ (3.13.9), and his predilection for metaphors outweighs his concern for terminological accuracy.38 Certain metaphorical uses are attested before him: thus hydrops, ‘dropsy’ meaning ‘pride’ (9.9.4; see TLL 6.3, 3137.84–5) or gymnasium meaning ‘school’ (1.6.2: Rome is the gymnasium litterarum; see TLL 6.2, 2380.12–22). Sidonius’ metaphors are occasionally stretched out over the course of a letter; I shall return to this at section 4.12 below.

3.13 Abstract Words The development of abstract words in late Latin is a well-known phenomenon, the result of an evolution beginning with Apuleius. This tendency is very apparent in Sidonius’ works. One might for instance quote Ep. 4.4.1 tandem adest promissio mea, exspectatio vestra, Faustinus, ‘ my promise, your expectation, Faustinus, is finally with you’, where the two abstract words refer to a person, 2.2.20 mihi tribue veniendi celeritatem, ‘grant me a speedy arrival’, and 7.12.4 cum epulum festivitas publica facit, ‘when a banquet is given at a public celebration’.

3.14 Lexical Variation and Substitution Sidonius strives to vary his wording. A letter-bearer, for instance, may be called portitor (Ep. 6.4.2 and 7.10.1), qui litteras portat (6.5.1), apicum portitor (6.3.2), apicum oblator (6.8.1), gerulus litterarum (6.10.1 and 8.13.3), tabellarius (4.8.1), baiulus (6.4.1), baiulus apicum (4.7.1), pugillator (9.14.4), etc.39 Sidonius’ cultivation of synonyms is also frequently displayed in the poems; in order, for example, to avoid tedious technical40 or institutional language, or to vary the names of gods or heroes. It takes the form of extended circumlocutions and metonymic denominations, which are sometimes so erudite as to be obscure.41 Thus the athlete rubbed with the oil of the Therapnean gymnasium (Therapnaea pugilem cum gymnade pinguem, Carm. 5.162) is Pollux, who was a famous boxer (Therapne is a Laconian city used as a metonymy for Sparta in poetry); the Mimallones (Carm. 1.13), the Bistonides (Carm. 5.490), and Bassaris (Carm. 5.497) denote none other than the Bacchants (these three names are attested in Augustan poetry and in Statius). Rather than mocking Sidonius for this, we should bear in mind that we are dealing with learned poetry which is fond of jingles and originality in the use of proper names.

38 39 40

41

Gualandri (1979) 77, 117–19, 139–40. Amherdt (2001) 188 and 206. In the prose introductory letter to the Epithalamium of Polemius (Carm. 14), Sidonius asks his addressee to forgive the use of technical terms in an epithalamium on the grounds that it treats the wedding of a philosopher. See Loyen (1943) 143–5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 404

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

405

3.15 The Semantic Field of Hapax Legomena and Rare Words Rare words and hapax legomena belong to a great variety of semantic fields, which it would be difficult to classify in a typology. One may note, however, that in Sidonius’ poetry in particular, many hapax legomena and rare words are geographical names, or adjectives derived from proper names. In the prose works, many hapax legomena and rare words are borrowed or formed from Greek in fields such as literature, poetry, and metre (see Ep. 4.1.2, 4.3.4, 8.11.5–7); this is also the case for music (1.2.9), astrology (8.11.9–10; horoscopium, 4.3.5), or cooking (archimagirus, ‘chef’, 2.9.6; chiromunta, ‘carver’, 4.7.2), and certain aspects of everyday life.42 Here one might perhaps detect the influence of Pliny the Younger, in whose correspondence Greek words are fairly numerous.43 The use of hapax legomena can be connected to the context in which they occur. Triptolemus invented wheat and brought it to the primitive peoples still feeding on acorns (per rudes adhuc et Dodonigenas populos, 6.12.6). Just as Triptolemus invented wheat, Sidonius invents the word Dodonigena, ‘native of Dodona’, a learned hapax which, in a comic paradox, is applied to an ignorant people.

4 Style 4.1 How Does Sidonius Characterise His Own Writing? It is not safe to rely on Sidonius’ own words, which are distorted by false modesty when he speaks of himself, and hyperbolic praise when he speaks of others (see, for instance, Ep. 4.3); these two attitudes are inherent in the rules of civility and courtesy evoked by Sidonius himself (4.17.1). Such provisos apply notably to the three letters in which he praises the De statu animae and a hymn by Claudianus Mamertus (4.3), the Declamationes of St Remigius (9.7), and a treatise by Faustus of Riez (9.9). We should be wary of concluding that these letters express his ideals, or the principles which he adopts in his own writings, particularly since they deal with literary genres which are unconnected to either the correspondence or the poetry practised by Sidonius. If we believe Sidonius, his output has the uncultivated whiff of the countryside where it was composed (carmen . . . tam rusticanum est tamque impolitum, ‘the song . . . is so boorish and so inelegant’, 4.18.3; stilo rusticante, ‘in a boorish style’, 7.2.1; paginam rusticanter vobis obsecundantem, ‘(my) letter which obeys you in its boorish way’, 9.3.6). His letters are mere chatter (he uses the verb garrire44 at 3.3.9. 3.7.1. 4.21.6, etc.), his poems trifles (nugae, 4.8.5; Carm. 9.9) and verbosity (loquacitas, Carm. 23.507). Such declarations of modesty and self-depreciation, which are a rhetorical commonplace, have been widely discussed in scholarship. Yet they do not prevent Sidonius from suggesting (either in parallel to, or by means of, his very denials) that his writings are not devoid of value and are the result of meticulous honing and polishing (see Ep. 1.1.1 litterae paulo politiores, ‘somewhat more polished letters’; 4.8.5 intra officinam litteratorum carminis si quid incus metrica produxerit non minus forti et asprata lima poliri, ‘that in the literary workshop any poem that has been beaten out on the metrical anvil requires a file no less strong and rough to finish it off’). 42 43 44

Gualandri (1979) 148–55, 159, 161–3. Gualandri (1979) 162. Amherdt (2001) 164.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 405

13/02/20 4:14 PM

406

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

4.2 Explicit Models The explicit models for Sidonius’ correspondence are Pliny the Younger and Symmachus (Ep. 1.1.1, 4.22.2, 9.1.1).45 Borrowed from Pliny are his conception of the letter as literary epistle, the number of books in the collection (nine),46 the variation of subjects as a principle, several linguistic features (notably in terms of vocabulary, as we saw above), and style.47 Sidonius shares with Symmachus the number of books48 and his conception of the letter as a ritual of epistolary friendship.49 Several letters are clearly modelled (in part or in whole) on one of Pliny’s epistles; in others, a Plinian reminiscence is superimposed on the narration or description of a contemporary event.50 This occurs, for instance, in Ep. 8.11, where Sidonius announces to Lupus that Lampridius has been murdered by his slaves: in the second part, he draws inspiration from Pliny’s letter relating the assassination of Larcius Macedo (Plin. Ep. 3.14). The description of the villa of Avitacum (2.2) is inspired by Pliny’s description of his villas in Laurentum and Tuscany (Plin. Ep. 2.16 and 5.6 respectively). The letter on the dedication of the baptistery built by Elaphius in Rodez (4.15) has links with the letter in which Pliny relates that he has built a temple at Tifernum Tiberinum which is ready to be dedicated (Plin. Ep. 4.1). For his poetry (which is, from the panegyrics to the Carmina minora, characterised by great diversity), Sidonius does not use specific models; instead, he is eclectic in his inspiration. A very significant influence from Claudian can be observed in the panegyrics, which can be largely explained in terms of genre. Sidonius borrows in particular from the panegyrics and panegyrical epics of his predecessor.

4.3 What the Moderns Say It is not my purpose here to write a history of literary assessments of Sidonius; rather, I shall simply recall that, prior to a fairly recent reassessment,51 his style was often criticised by modern scholars.52 André Loyen, although he was the catalyst for this reappraisal, remained very harsh towards Sidonius, illustrating the paradox of the expert who denigrates the object of his research. The terms most often used to describe Sidonius’ style are baroque, mannerism, preciosity, neo-Alexandrianism. As Franca Ela Consolino writes: ‘Se manierismo vuol dire rendere autonome le forme, fare che il modo della narrazione si ponga come oggetto di essa, Sidonio è manierista.’53 On the whole, then, Sidonius is thought to pay more attention to the formal qualities than to the coherence or content of his words. One should note that even after his accession to the bishopric, when he praises the treatises of other clergymen (Ep. 4.3, 9.7) he always focuses on style rather than doctrinal content. 45 46 47 48

49 50 51 52 53

See Gibson’s and Mratschek’s chapters in the present volume (chs. 11 and 5–6 respectively).. See Gibson (2013a). See Gibson (2013b). Not counting the tenth book of Symmachus which contained his letters to emperors and various other documents. It is not clear, moreover, that Sidonius knew Books 8–9 of Symmachus; see Roda (1981) 66–79 (and, for an opposing view, Callu (2002) 4.xiv–xv). Amherdt (2001) 24–5, Bruggisser (1993). See Gualandri (1979) 21 n. 72, 30 n. 109. See chs. 2, 3, and 4 in van Waarden and Kelly (2013). See van Waarden (2010) 61. ‘If mannerism means making form autonomous, and turning the mode of a narrative into its very object, then Sidonius is a mannerist’; Consolino (1974) 458–9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 406

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

407

However, we should guard against excessive simplifications, and keep in mind the diversity of Sidonius’ output. For instance, the panegyrics and their accompanying texts present a political and ideological discourse that goes beyond the topoi of the genre. Besides, even if in some letters form definitely appears to be an end in itself, we should not forget that defending the Latin language and culture is Sidonius’ way of safeguarding Romanness and resisting barbarity. Thus form and content may merge and even become the same thing.

4.4 Intertextuality I have already touched upon intertextuality in my analysis of rare words, and Isabella Gualandri devotes an entire chapter to the topic.54 I shall therefore limit myself to a few general considerations on stylistics and intertextuality. Sidonius borrows heavily from prose-writers, and still more from poets, from Plautus to Claudian,55 including Horace,56 Vergil,57 Ovid,58 Lucan, Statius, Martial,59 Ausonius, etc. He is not afraid to use words from the poets in his epistolary prose. His artful practice of allusion frequently presupposes a learned reader with a well-stocked memory. Allusions may involve a single word (I discussed some examples above), a group of words, a verse clausula (for instance, the first hemistich of Carm. 6.1, Pallados armisonae, ‘of Pallas with sounding arms’, comes from Verg. Aen. 3.544, and the second hemistich of Carm. 15.146, Ephyreiadasque puellas, ‘Corinthian maidens’, from Claud. Get. 629), or an entire development; they may be of a purely rhythmical nature or motivated by the context. Borrowings are often mixed together in a kind of mosaic aesthetic. Sidonius may, in the same poem or letter, draw on several Latin writers whose sensibility and interests may vary enormously, absorbing and assimilating distinct idiolects to create something new and harmonious.

4.5 Placement and Organisation of Words We saw above that Sidonius attached great importance to the choice of words. He was no less attentive to their organisation within a sentence or a verse. As Isabella Gualandri has emphasised,60 the syntactical structure of Sidonius’ sentences or periods is not generally very complex; rather, they are a concatenation of cola (word groups) coordinated or juxtaposed in various combinations (where emphasis is placed on phonic affinity and the quest for rhythmical balance, etc.). The two poles of Sidonius’ writing are regularity and variation.61 As far as regularity is concerned, the dominant figure is symmetry or parallelism. There is almost no sentence of the letters which could not be used as an example. Here is Ep. 2.10.5: quod olim Marcia Hortensio, Terentia Tullio, Calpurnia Plinio, Pudentilla Apuleio, Rusticana Symmacho legentibus meditantibusque candelas et candelabra tenuerunt.62 Similarly, in the next paragraph: quod saepe uersum Corinna cum 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

See Gualandri’s ch. 8 in the present volume. See Kelly (2013b). See Stoehr-Monjou (2013). For good examples of this, see poems 3 and 4. On this topic, see Bruzzone (2014) and Filosini (2014b). See Wolff (2014b). Gualandri (1979) 143. See van Waarden (2010) 55–60. ‘that once wives held candles and candlesticks for their husbands while they read or composed, Marcia for Hortensius, Terentia for Cicero, Calpurnia for Pliny, Pudentilla for Apuleius, Rusticana for Symmachus’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 407

13/02/20 4:14 PM

408

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

Nasone suo complevit, Lesbia cum Catullo, Caesennia cum Gaetulico, Argentaria cum Lucano, Cynthia cum Propertio, Delia cum Tibullo.63 We might also quote 4.1.2 si quid heroicus arduum, comicus lepidum, lyricus cantilenosum, orator declamatorium,64 or 5.2.1 illic enim et grammatica dividit et oratoria declamat et arithmetica numerat.65 Here the symmetry involves multiple elements, in accordance with a rhetoric of accumulation to which I shall return below. Often, however, the symmetry is limited to three elements, in which case we have a ternary structure; thus, for instance, at 6.12.6 sacravit templis, formavit statuis, effigiavit imaginibus, or 7.2.7 puellam . . . uxorem petit, impetrat, ducit.66 As the first example shows, Sidonius is fond of the ascending tricolon, a ternary group in which each element is longer than the preceding one. Two even more expressive examples are Ep. 2.8.2 prensitarent, remorarentur, exoscularentur, and 4.1.4 rideremus, contemneremus, pertimesceremus.67 Binary rhythms are also very frequent; thus, for instance, at 2.10.5 quoque id facilius possis voluptuosiusque, opus est ut sine dissimulatione lectites, sine fine lecturias, or at 1.11.5 pecuniaeque per avaritiam parcus, per ambitum prodigus (a case of antithesis, a rare figure in Sidonius).68 Different systems may be combined in the same sentence; thus the passage from 2.10.5 quoted above, where an accumulation of parallel groups is followed by two elements in binary rhythm following the law of increasing members (legentibus meditantibusque and candelas et candelabra). Except in cases of binary rhythm, groups which are juxtaposed symmetrically are generally organised in asyndeta, although there are exceptions (for instance, the passage from 5.2.1). As we can see from these examples, symmetry is inseparable from other figures of sound, especially paronomasia and homoeoteleuton, on which I shall say more below. One particularly interesting passage in this respect comes at Ep. 6.12.6, where the twofold ternary structure (Triptolemus quem Graecia sua, caementariis, pictoribus, significibusque illustris, sacravit templis, formavit statuis, effigiavit imaginibus69) is surely prompted by an etymological wordplay on Triptolemus’ name, as though the word’s first element were ‘three’. Instead of regularity, Sidonius may choose variation, which he occasionally uses to interrupt the monotony of a list. In such cases, the symmetry is broken with a chiasmus. In Ep. 4.3, paragraphs 6 and 7 contain an accumulation of comparisons with a reversal in the middle in each case, whereby the system verb + ut + subject is replaced by the system ut + subject + verb. Several instances of chiasmus may occur in a single list, thus in 5.7.5: et oculos Argi et manus Briarei et Sphingarum ungues et periuria Laomedontis et Ulixis argutias et Sinonis fallacias et fidem Polymestoris et pietatem Pygmalionis.70 The use of chiasmus can also be motivated by semantic factors: in Ep. 4.1.5 the chiasmus tibi etsi sede absumus, adsimus affectu, buttressed by the polyptoton (see further section 4.7), emphasises the apparent contradiction between spatial remoteness and affective proximity.71 63

64 65 66

67 68

69

70

71

‘that Corinna often helped her Naso to complete a verse, Lesbia Catullus, Caesennia Gaetulicus, Argentaria Lucanus, Cynthia Propertius, Delia Tibullus’. ‘any lofty creation of an epic poet, the wit of a comedian, the tunefulness of a lyric poet, the rhetoric of an orator’. ‘for in it grammar classifies, rhetoric declaims, arithmetic numbers’. 6.12.6 ‘has hallowed him with temples, moulded him in statues, and depicted him in portraits’; 7.2.7 ‘sought, won, and married the girl’. 2.8.2 ‘clasped, held back, kissed’; and 4.1.4 ‘we deride, despise, fear’. 2.10.5 ‘in order to do so the more easily and pleasantly, you must read without losing interest, long to read without limit’; 1.11.5 ‘his avarice made him stingy, his ambition made him a wastrel’. ‘Triptolemus, whom his land of Greece, famous for its builders, painters, and sculptors, has hallowed with temples, moulded in statues, and depicted in portraits’. ‘the eyes of Argus, the hands of Briareus, the Sphinxes’ claws, the perjuries of Laomedon, Ulysses’ wiles, Sinon’s deceits, the good faith of Polymestor, and the brotherly love of Pygmalion’. ‘although our dwelling-places are far removed, let our affection draw us close to one another’; see Amherdt (2001) 90.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 408

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

409

Thus chiasmus is often associated with a figure of sound and/or a polyptoton, as again at Ep. 4.8.3 viaturos etsi nondum terebat labore, iam tamen exspectatione terrebat, where terebat – terrebat comes close to a pun.72 Another kind of variation may occur alongside chiasmus; for instance, at Carm. 7.74–5 the name of a people is replaced by that of their country: Indorum Ganges, Colchorum Phasis, Araxes / Armeniae, Ger Aethiopum Tanaisque Getarum.73 Another means of variation is hyperbaton, whereby a word is emphasised by being delayed to the end of a group or clause; so at Ep. 7.16.1 quod peregrini curas amici litteris mitigas consolatoriis.74

4.6 Word Accumulation The above analysis of word arrangement has shown the importance of verbal abundance in Sidonius. This is expressed either through redundancy (timebat enim verebaturque, ‘for he was full of fear and apprehension’, Ep. 5.6.1; fixum apud me stat constitutumque, ‘I am resolved and determined’, 8.6.9), insistence (audiri meruit meruitque placere, ‘he succeeded in getting a hearing and succeeded in finding grace’, Carm. 1.19), and periphrasis (crepusculascens hora for the twilight, Ep. 8.3.2; Nilotidis aquae for the Nile, 8.12.3), or, in particular, through listing. In contrast, anaphora is relatively infrequent, despite a few examples in the poems (Carm. 11.113–21 for an anaphora of hic at the beginning of each verse; 16.99–102 for an anaphora of nunc; 23.104–7 for an anaphora of et tu at the beginning of each verse). Lists take the form of either a simple succession of words of the same nature, or a more complex succession of groups made up of elements of the same nature and arranged in the same way; this is what the early thirteenth-century English grammarian Geoffrey of Vinsauf would call determinatio.75 These lists are often accompanied by other rhetorical devices (paronomasia, polyptoton, homoeoteleuton, rare words or hapax legomena, words borrowed from Greek, etc.). The first kind of list occurs more frequently in the poems (Carm. 2.412–15, a list of perfumes; 5.336–7 and 474–7, a list of barbarian peoples exploiting the poetry of proper names; 15.141–3, a list of Hercules’ labours; 23.39–44, a list of the merits of Narbonne). The second kind is also found in poems, for instance at Carm. 5.42–50, which has a list (with several chiasmi) of the products which every country brings to the goddess Roma: fert Indus ebur, Chaldaeus amomum, / Assyrius gemmas, Ser vellera, tura Sabaeus.76 One might also quote 7.29–34, which has a list (also with several chiasmi) of divinities each qualified by an adjective: pampineus Liber, Mars trux, Tirinthius hirtus, / nuda Venus, fecunda Ceres, pharetrata Diana;77 or 9.168–77, which has another list (again with chiasmi) of divinities associated with the place they favour and protect: Saturnum Latio Iovemque Cretae / Iunonemque Samo Rhodoque Solem;78 see also Carm. 5.555–7 and 9.65–9. Such passages exemplify an aesthetic of the list which goes back to the epic tradition, and which functions as an amplification device. Carm. 9 (in Phalaecian hendecasyllables) is a succession of lists. One should also mention the lists of 72

73

74 75 76 77 78

‘although, with our journey still before us, it was not yet wearing us with toil, it was already worrying us with the prospect’. ‘the Ganges of the Indians, the Phasis of the Colchians, the Araxes of Armenia, the Ger of the Aethiopians, and the Don of the Goths’. ‘by assuaging the worries of your friend abroad with a letter of support’. Roberts (1989) 149–51. ‘the Indian brings ivory, the Chaldaean nard, the Assyrian jewels, the Chinese silk, the Sabaean frankincense’. ‘vine-wreathed Bacchus, savage Mars, hirsute Hercules, naked Venus, fruitful Ceres, quiver-bearing Diana’. ‘Saturn Latium, Jupiter Crete, Juno Samos, the Sun Rhodes’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 409

13/02/20 4:14 PM

410

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

philosophers, in which each thinker’s doctrine is summarised using a few simple words doubtless borrowed from manuals of commonplaces (2.157–81, 15.44–50). Some poems contain a particular form of accumulation: that of ‘correlative verses’ (versus applicati or rapportati in medieval terminology), which is found at Carm. 7.79–82, where there is a vertical connection between two elements from each of the two middle verses: cum per mea iussa iuberent Sylla, Asiagenes, Curius, Paulus, Pompeius Tigrani, Antiocho, Pyrrho, Persae, Mithridati pacem, regna, fugam, vectigal, vincla, venenum.79 The second kind of enumeration, determinatio, occurs frequently in prose, especially in descriptions and portraits. This is the case, for instance, at Ep. 4.13.2 non illi stomachus nauseat, non vena flammatur, non cor incutitur, non pulmo suspirat, non riget lumbus, non iecur turget, non mollescit manus, non spina curuatur;80 one might also cite Ep. 4.3.5, 4.11.4 and 5, 4.13.2, 4.21.5, etc. Word accumulation is particularly evident in certain letters such as 3.13, in which Sidonius draws the portrait of a shameless parasite. More broadly, accumulation can take the form of a succession of sentences or clauses sharing the same structure. Thus the first paragraph of Ep. 3.2 is characterised by a succession of exclamations, and part of Ep. 3.13 on the parasite is based on a succession of preteritions (3.13.7–9 taceo . . . taceo, etc.).

4.7 Choice of Words and Repetition: Polyptoton Polyptoton is a stylistic device consisting in the repetition of several terms sharing the same root, or else of the same word (substantive, adjective, verb) in different forms. Sidonius uses it abundantly both in his poetry and in his prose. From the poems, one might cite Carm. 4.12 iussisti invicto, victor, ut essem animo, ‘I was enjoined by you, my conqueror, to keep an unconquered spirit’; from the letters, Ep. 3.3.4 exercitum exercitatissimum stupor obruit, ‘a wellexercised army was astounded’; 4.3.10 illitteratissimis litteris vacant, ‘they occupy themselves with a very unliterary kind of letters’; 8.11.8 scribebat assidue, quamquam frequentius scripturiret, ‘he wrote constantly, although he wished to write more often’; 4.3.6–7 suadet ut Cato, dissuadet ut Appius, persuadet ut Tullius . . . , instruit ut Hieronymus, destruit ut Lactantius, adstruit ut Augustinus, ‘he advises like Cato, dissuades like Appius, persuades like Tullius . . . , he is instructive like Jerome, destructive like Lactantius, constructive like Augustine’. Sometimes the same word is used in two different meanings, such as peccare in Carm. 2.268–9 (‘be wrong’ and ‘go wrong’) or cadere (‘fall’ and ‘die’) in Carm. 5.72. Examples of polyptoton could be multiplied, but I will add only one more, which is of particular significance. At Ep. 4.3.3, Sidonius explains that if one compared the two, the style of ancient literature would be eclipsed by that of Claudianus Mamertus (antiquarum litterarum stilus antiquaretur). He uses the word antiquare to mean ‘eclipse’, ‘surpass’ purely for the purposes of wordplay, even if this means slightly forcing its meaning. 79

80

‘when, at my orders, Sulla, Asiaticus, Curius, Paulus, Pompeius demanded of Tigranes, Antiochus, Pyrrhus, Perseus, Mithridates peace and realms, banishment, tribute, chains, poison’. ‘his stomach does not get upset, his veins are never inflamed, his heart has no spasms, his lungs do not pant, his loins are not hardened, his liver is not swollen, his hands do not grow flabby, his spine is not curved’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 410

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

411

4.8 Word Choice and Mimetism Sidonius sometimes plays on the signifier and signified, and chooses words or forms which have a connection with the meaning. At the end of Ep. 1.1, he declares that he will send his addressee a growing collection of rolls overflowing with abundant chatter (1.1.4 volumina numerosiora percopiosis scaturientia sermocinationibus multiplicabuntur); the use of progressively longer words mimics this future increase. At 4.1.5, to convey his wish for an enduring friendship with Probus, he includes the long word perennabuntur (‘shall be preserved’) in a clausula concluding the letter. In a passage of Ep. 5.8.3, Sidonius describes the proliferating vices of subjects governed by tyrants, which will provide rich subject matter for the writings of his addressee Secundinus; this increase is expressed by a series of long words (nostrorum vitiis proficientibus tyrannopolitarum locupletabuntur). At Carm. 2.204, the line devoted to the Antonine emperors and their innumerable legions is made up of three long words (an exceptional occurrence in Latin hexameter), innumerabilibus legionibus imperitabant. Similarly, at Carm. 15.43, the Seven Sages, the forefathers of innumerable philosophers, are the subject of a line composed of three long words, innumerabilium primordia philosophorum.

4.9 Word Choice and Sounds: Paronomasia, Alliteration and Assonance, Homoeoteleuton Sidonius is very attentive to sounds. His choice and arrangement of words is certainly guided by the quest for euphony. Here is a first example from Ep. 9.7.2, where Sidonius praises St Remigius’ Declamationes: cui . . . assistat dispositio per causas, positio per litteras, compositio per syllabas, ad hoc opportunitas in exemplis, fides in testimoniis, proprietas in epithetis, urbanitas in figuris, virtus in argumentis, pondus in sensibus, flumen in verbis, fulmen in clausulis.81 One might cite as a second example Ep. 8.3.1, where Sidonius redundantly juxtaposes the two archaising and very rare adverbs saltim (otherwise attested only in Priscian) and saltuatim (saltim saltuatim tradenda percurrere, ‘with leaps and bounds to get done what needed to be consigned’), both derived from the verb salire. This desire for euphony as the sentence is unfurled is particularly expressed in the juxtaposition or proximity of words with entirely or partially similar pronunciation. If the similarity is complete, then we have paronomasia; if it is partial, then we have alliteration or assonance. When the phenomenon only involves the end of a word, then we have homoeoteleuton, which can create a rhyming effect. These devices, which may be combined, are ubiquitous in Sidonius’ verse, and even more so in his prose.82 This is particularly the case for passages in which there is considerable word accumulation or verbal abundance. The polyptoton is a form of paronomasia. Two fine examples of alliteration83 are solus planitie quam patentissima potiebare (3.3.4, ‘you alone got to possess a prodigious plane’); et casa, cui culmo culmina pressa forent (Carm. 33 81

82

83

‘who have at their command . . . the power of arranging subjects, the ability of combining letters, the faculty of arranging syllables, moreover aptness in instances, reliability in testimonies, propriety in epithets, urbanity in figures, force in arguments, weight in sentiments, flow in words, flash in endings’. Instances of paronomasia and polyptoton are listed in Gruppe’s index verborum et locutionum in Lütjohann (1887) 467–8, under the heading lusus in verbis. Others can be found at Lütjohann (1887) 452 under the heading alliterationis usus, and in Fernández López (1994) 425–8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 411

13/02/20 4:14 PM

412

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

(Ep. 7.17.2) 22, ‘and the shack with straw strewn on its roof’). There is a good example of homoeoteleuton at 8.3.2: nil umquam litigiosius, bibacius, vomacius erit (‘the most quarrelling, boozing, spewing creatures ever’, where vomax is, incidentally, a hapax). Paronomasia is often close to wordplay, and is difficult to render in translation; so in Carm. 7.18, where everything that Jupiter sees thrives, ecce viget quodcumque videt (‘look, all gets bright in his sight’), or at 7.16.1, where Sidonius tells his addressee that he is acting in accordance with his affection and his character, facis . . . rem tui pariter et amoris et moris (‘you act kindly and in kind’).

4.10 Wordplay Sidonius is decidedly fond of wordplay. In Ep. 9.3.3, the formula litteras paulo politiores . . . quas vel ioco lepidas vel stilo cultas alternare felicium est (‘the exchange of somewhat more polished letters, either graced with jest or refined in style, belongs to the fortunate’) appears to make a distinction between playful, witty letters, and elegant ones. Yet the vel is not disjunctive, for the inclusion of wordplay forms part of refined writing. In any case, Sidonius fills his letters with wordplay, as I have shown for the prefaces of his panegyrics,84 and this inclination explains certain unexpected usages. He even puns on his own name, as for instance in Carm. 23.25–6. Sidonius’ wordplay can be etymological or pseudo-etymological.85 At Ep. 2.1.1 Sidonius notes that Seronatus’ name is antiphrastic (the poet thus thinks that he was born too early), just as wars are called bella because they are unattractive, and the Fates Parcae because they spare no one. At 6.1.1, the verb superinspicis (‘you supervise’) applied to the bishop Lupus is certainly a learned play on the Greek etymology of episcopus. However, most instances of wordplay in Sidonius use paronomasia or homonymy, and resemble approximate puns.86 Cincinnatus, called to his duties of dictator, must abandon his rakes for the rostra (a rastris ad rostra, Carm. 2.529); Xerxes builds a bridge over the Hellespont (pontum sub ponte daret, Carm. 5.453); the poet invites his dedicatee to throw his verses on to a pyre after reading them (hoc, rogo, ne dubites lecta dicare rogo, Carm. 8.16). In some cases, the wordplay is based on a word’s polysemy. Thus the poet declares himself unable to compose an epithalamium, because Thalia has abandoned six-footed verses since she beheld protectors seven feet tall (spernit senipedem stilum Thalia, / ex quo septipedes videt patronos, Carm. 12.10–11; these protectors are the Burgundian federates installed in Sidonius’ villa in Lyon, who were supposedly very tall). After composing an epitaph which has been inscribed on a dead woman’s tomb, Sidonius requests his addressee’s opinion on the poem: if he finds it good, Sidonius will have it published; if he finds it to be cold as stone (saxeum, a figurative use not attested in Latin, where a dull and tedious literary work is usually called frigidus), then it will be enough that it is preserved in stone (sufficit saxo carmen saxeum contineri, Ep. 2.8.2). At the beginning of the Panegyric of Anthemius, Sidonius plays on the double meaning of the adjective secundus, ‘second’ and ‘fortunate’, which is applied to the prince’s second consulate (Carm. 2.1). Demosthenes, the son of a blacksmith, chose instead to sharpen the file of language (Carm. 23.143–4).

84 85 86

Wolff (2009). Fernández López (1994) 430. Loyen (1943) 138–40 provides a series of examples.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 412

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

413

Wordplay can also occur in the form of a paradoxical trait.87 Thus Troy let in a horse bearing foot-soldiers (arx . . . / portantem pedites equum recepit, Carm. 9.127–9); the body of a Hun is scorched by the burning cold (corpus adustum / frigoris igne perit, Carm. 5.522–3); the island of Lérins, although flat, has sent numerous eminences to the sky (quantos illa insula plana / miserit in caelum montes, Carm. 16.109–10; this figurative use of mons is attested in Christian Latin). Sidonius’ puns are criticised because they are often unmotivated, and because they do not bring any additional meaning. Yet in his eyes, wordplay is a rhetorical and poetic ornament; it is an aspect of the formal virtuosity that he advocates.

4.11 The Art of ‘Point’ Sidonius accords great importance to his letters’ endings. I leave aside the question of metrical clausulae, which is dealt with in this volume by Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly,88 to concentrate on the ‘point’ or concluding phrase. There is a connection between the letter and the epigram (the two genres being associated with sociability), and in both genres it is common to end on a ‘point’, or at least on a witty and striking formula (in the tradition of the sententia). Thus in the final phrase of his letters, Sidonius often includes a comparative system (Ep. 4.8, 9, and 18; 7.2 and 14; 8.5, 8, 9, 10, and 14; 9.12), a play on words (non tam honorare censor quam censitor onerare, ‘[who has less claim] to be praised by the censor than to be preyed on by the tax-assessor’, 8.8) or on names (quamdiu nos Sabini familia rexerit, Sabiniani familiam non timendam, ‘so long as the family of Sabinus provides our governors, we need not fear the family of Sabinianus’, 3.6), one or more devices (istam totius civitatis occupatissimam vacationem, ‘this most busy holiday of a whole city’, 1.5; ut quod mihi insolubile videtur tibi quoque videatur inreposcibile, ‘so that, what to me seems a case of insolvability, to you also seems a case of irrecoverability’, 8.15; see also 2.2), sometimes an extended metaphor (2.5), an elegant and witty comment (plus ego admiror sacerdotalem virum quam sacerdotem, ‘I admire a priestly man more than a priest’, 4.9: Sidonius emphasises the lack of perfection of certain clergymen, and the ‘point’ is therefore not gratuitous), or a quotation (4.15).

4.12 Images Characteristic of Sidonius’ style is a fondness for images. These are based either on an analogical relation between two elements (comparisons, metaphors, allegories) or on their proximity (metonymies). Comparisons occur rather infrequently in Sidonius’ writing, but they sometimes take the form of lists. Thus Claudianus Mamertus judges like Pythagoras, divides like Socrates, develops like Plato, envelops like Aristotle, etc., and there are twenty-eight such comparisons with both pagans and Christians (sentit ut Pythagoras, dividit ut Socrates, explicat ut Platon, implicat ut Aristoteles, Ep. 4.3.6–7). There are even fewer comparisons in the poems, except for a few epic comparisons in the panegyrics (Carm. 5.132–9, 7.405–10). In contrast, metaphors and metonymies occur in abundance. I spoke above of words used metaphorically; here I shall deal with extended metaphors. The metaphor of literary activity 87 88

See Loyen (1943) 141–2. See ch. 15 in this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 413

13/02/20 4:14 PM

414

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

as a perilous sea voyage recurs throughout Sidonius’ output,89 from the prefatory Ep. 1.1 (famae pelagus; in portu iudicii publici post lividorum latratuum Scyllas enavigatas sufficientis gloriae ancora sedet,90 1.1.3–4) to 9.16, which closes the collection (see the poem inserted in the letter). Certain metaphors are restricted to a single passage: in his praise of the Auvergne (or more accurately, of the Limagne, 4.21.5), Sidonius describes it as an ocean of fields (aequor agrorum), in which the waves surging through the crops yield profit without danger (sine periculo quaestuosae fluctuant in segetibus undae), and where the more one travels it in one’s work, the less one risks shipwreck (minus naufragat). Upon learning that a messenger has lost a letter, Sidonius’ serenity and elation are obscured under the veil of a cloud of sadness (serenitas laetitiae meae confestim nubilo superducti maeroris insorduit, 4.12.3). In a letter to Ecdicius, who at this point was away from the Auvergne, Sidonius informs him that nothing could more effectively and quickly cure his fellow citizens’ anxious waiting than the remedy of his return (exspectationi aegrescenti nulla salubrius ociusque quam tui adventus remedia medicabuntur, 3.3.9). Sometimes we encounter a succession of metaphors belonging to different fields: the greedy informers of the Burgundian court are Scythians in the forum, vipers in the bedroom, buffoons at dinners, harpies in the extraction of money, statues in conversation (in foro Scythae, in cubiculo viperae, in convivio scurrae, in exactionibus Harpyiae, in conlocutionibus statuae, 5.7.4). From his conversio onwards, Sidonius increasingly uses metaphors modelled on the Scriptures.91 Thus in Ep. 6.6, Sidonius asks Bishop Eutropius to feed the avid hunger of his ignorance with the wholesomeness of his moral speeches (compunctorii salubritate sermonis avidam nostrae ignorantiae pascat esuriem, 6.6.2), for Eutropius’ exhortations can fill out the inner man’s emaciation with mystical fat and spiritual lard (exhortationibus tuis interioris hominis maciem saepenumero mysticus adeps et spiritalis arvina distentat, 6.6.2). In Ep. 6.7, Sidonius begs Bishop Fonteius to lend him the support of his prayers, so that through them the gaping wounds of his ulcerous conscience might at least heal (ut adhuc ulcerosae conscientiae nimis hiulca vulnera vestro saltim cicatricentur oratu, 6.7.1, with a pleasing hyperbaton). The poems contain fewer metaphors, but more allegories in the form of personifications. Thus Rome personified appears in all three panegyrics.

4.13 Certain Letters Multiply Stylistic Features It is clear that Sidonius took particular care with certain specific letters and poems. One might cite Ep. 2.1 on Seronatus, Ep. 3.3 praising Ecdicius, and Ep. 5.7 on the greedy informers infesting the Burgundian court. Ep. 3.13, which presents a portrait of the shameless parasite, is characterised by a persistent pursuit of the grotesque, and is remarkable for the contrast between the sophistication of its form and the crudity of its content.92 In Ep. 4.3, which sings the praises of Claudianus Mamertus’ De statu animae, Sidonius multiplies the use of stylistic devices: while praising his addressee, he wishes at the same time to show that his own style is not inferior. Although all the letters in the collection are literary epistles, some of them are more elaborate than others. Any letter has intrinsic value as a testimony to friendship, whatever its informative content, which may be non-existent (see Ep. 6.6). However, by composing 89 90

91 92

See Gualandri (1979) 104–7. ‘sea of ambition’; ‘I have reached the harbour of public approval, having sailed past Scyllas with their envious barking, and have long been safely anchored to a sufficiency of fame.’ Gualandri (1979) 109–10, and esp. 114–6 on the motif of hunger for spiritual nourishment and medical images. Gualandri (1979) 56–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 414

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

415

letters in a particularly sophisticated manner, Sidonius shows his addressees the respect with which he treats them, and his certainty that they will appreciate the labour expended on style.

5 Conclusion Sidonius incorporates words and turns of phrase from late Latin, but his language remains close to the classical language. Yet he breathes new life into this language through the richness of his vocabulary and through stylistic devices. In lexical terms, one is struck by the colourfulness and variety of Sidonius’ vocabulary, where archaisms coexist with neologisms, Greek words, poetic words, and abstract words. Sidonius does not hesitate to blend the most disparate elements (such as poetic words and prose words) in the same passage, or from accumulating unusual words (such as Greek terms). Within the individual sentence, great attention is given to the organisation of words and the balance of word groups (cola). The sentence must be lucid, abundant (with numerous adjectives), harmonious, and ornate. Sidonius’ style is everything but the ‘degree zero’ of writing, to reprise the expression of the semiotician Roland Barthes. Sidonius is at pains to demarcate his language from the ordinary and the common, and aims for an expressive richness which uses every means offered by rhetoric. And this is always filtered through the literary tradition. In summary, one can say that Sidonius exacerbates certain stylistic tendencies which are common to fourth- and fifth-century writers, yet he does not constitute a literary one-off. The letter written to him by Claudianus Mamertus (Ep. 4.2, the only letter in the collection not written by Sidonius) is not very different, in its language and style, from Sidonius’ own manner.93 The passing of time and Sidonius’ accession to the bishopric did not lead to any significant changes. Sidonius simply culled his images from the Bible and created metaphors modelled on the Scriptures in a kind of fusion of the two cultures, pagan and Christian. Finally, beyond certain generic specificities, there are no fundamental differences between his prose and his verse, which share numerous points of stylistic overlap.

6 Analysis of a Specific Example, Ep. 1.8 To conclude, I shall analyse Ep. 1.8 as an illustration of the elements on which I have focused so far. For reasons of space, the text (which is easily accessible elsewhere) is not given. The letter dates from 467. Sidonius has prolonged his stay in Rome while he awaits the end of the festivities for the wedding of Ricimer and Anthemius’ daughter. In a previous letter, Candidianus congratulated Sidonius on his still being in Rome, but did so in a playful fashion, in terms which Sidonius echoes in paragraph 1. Candidianus rejoiced that his friend could finally see the sun, which he rarely saw in Lyon. Candidianus is otherwise unknown. We know from this letter that he was from Cesena, and that he had settled in Ravenna. The letter begins with a play on sounds which is close to an anagram (morari me Romae congratularis, ‘you congratulate me on having more of Rome’, 1.8.1) in the tradition of anagrammatic wordplay on the name ‘Rome’.94 Another paronomasia follows immediately after

93 94

See Engelbrecht (1885). Also perhaps with a reminiscence of Nero’s famous wordplay (Suetonius, Nero 33.1) on the verb morari, which with an elongated first syllable recalls the Greek μωρός, ‘fool’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 415

13/02/20 4:14 PM

416

ÉTIENNE WOLFF

(id tamen quasi facete et fatigationum salibus admixtis, ‘but you do so almost wittily, wittingly teasing me out’), in which the word fatigatio, bearing the late meaning ‘sarcasm’, ‘jibe’, is evidently chosen for its sound. At the end of the sentence, which is strongly alliterative (perraro bibitor Araricus), Sidonius’ addressee is said to have called him a ‘drinker of the Saône’ (words which Sidonius presumably reproduces, even if he uses the similar expression potor Mosellae at 4.17.1). Sidonius uses a rhetorical question to retort that Candidianus, coming as he does from an oven rather than a town (Caesenatis furni potius quam oppidi verna, 1.8.2), is in no position to talk such nonsense (deblateras). What is more, as Sidonius ironically observes, Candidianus has clearly demonstrated the charms of his native country by leaving it to settle in Ravenna, where a garrulous mob of frogs leap around him while mosquitoes bite his ears (exsulantem auribus Padano culice perfossis municipalium ranarum loquax turba circumsilit). In short, the annoyances of Ravenna are still preferable to Cesena. The vocabulary in this passage is remarkable: furnus is used in a figurative sense (see Petr. 72.4 sic calet tamquam furnus), while verna is used in a derived sense (‘child of’, ‘native of’; see Mart. 10.76.4 de plebe Remi Numaeque verna); deblaterare is an archaic verb (Plautus, Lucilius), circumsilio a rare poetic verb (it occurs only three times, in Catullus, Silius Italicus, and Juvenal); the use of municipalis creates a comic effect. Sidonius is also certainly recalling Martial, who at epigram 3.93.8–9 evokes the frogs of Ravenna and the mosquitoes of Atria (a town in the Veneto) in two successive lines. Martial wrote Book 3 in Forum Corneli (modern Imola), very close to Cesena. Next, kicking back against the commonplace of the eulogy,95 Sidonius gives an unfavourable account of Ravenna, which he presents as a place where the natural order is reversed, and not only because it is a town in the water. The effect is achieved through a long list, in binary rhythm, in which we move progressively from geographical description to condemnation of the inhabitants: in qua palude . . . muri cadunt, aquae stant, turres fluunt, naves sedent, aegri deambulant, medici iacent, ‘in that marshland . . . walls fall and waters stand, towers float and ships are grounded, the sick promenade and the physicians lie abed’: Ravenna is the town of paradox. Sidonius’ criticism becomes bold and sharp when we are told that thieves are awake while the authorities sleep (vigilant fures, dormiunt potestates). He continues by declaring that this town built on water could more easily possess territory than actual land (quae facilius territorium potuit habere quam terram, 1.8.3). He then concludes with an exhortation to his addressee to spare those living beyond the Alps, for they are content with their lot, and do not seek to shine through comparison with those less fortunate than them. Clearly we are dealing with a humorous letter, written in response to an ironic letter. Sidonius adopts the principle of par pari referre. Yet there is more to it than that. Behind the two correspondents’ debate we may glimpse the outline of an opposition between Italy and Gaul, a major theme at a time when Gallo-Roman aristocrats felt abandoned by the Roman imperial power. Sidonius defines himself explicitly as Transalpine (1.5.10, 1.8.3). There is also an opposition, more implicitly, between Ravenna and Rome: Sidonius is in the great historical city that has once more become the capital, his correspondent in the little town that had for a while had the status of political capital. Indeed, having been based at Ravenna since 402, the court alternated from the 440s between Ravenna and Rome and then definitively settled in Rome in 450.96 However, Ravenna preserved a strategic role and was used for certain ceremonies (Candidianus had certainly moved there to make a career). Through Sidonius we

95 96

Köhler (1995) 257–8. See Gillett (2001).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 416

13/02/20 4:14 PM

SIDONIUS ’ VOCABULARY , SYNTAX , AND STYLE

417

see that the important events were happening in Rome. This is the case with the wedding of Ricimer with Anthemius’ daughter, for which the emperor was in Rome (see 1.5.10). It was in Rome that, a few days later, on 1 January 468, Sidonius would recite the panegyric celebrating the latter’s accession to the consulship. It was in Rome, too, that he had recited the Panegyric for Avitus in the same circumstances, on 1 January 456. In Ep. 1.6, where Sidonius exhorts Eutropius to enter the cursus honorum, he encourages him to travel not to Ravenna, but to Rome. For Sidonius, Rome is by its nature the capital of the empire, and he moreover suggests, even if the suggestion is implicit, that Ravenna was unworthy to supplant Rome in this role. Sidonius, in fact, sometimes speaks with utter frankness, as we can see from the opening of Ep. 1.9, where he depicts Ricimer’s wedding as an extravagant waste (post nuptias patricii Ricimeris, id est post imperii utriusque opes eventilatas, tandem reditum est in publicam serietatem, ‘since the wedding of the patrician Ricimer, that is to say after the wealth of two empires has been scattered to the winds, there has finally been a reversion to seriousness in public affairs’, 1.9.1). In short, this facetious and extremely polished letter is not only a virtuoso piece of rhetoric; it also puts across a distinct political message. Sidonius, as is often the case, is more profound than we might think. And we might ask ourselves whether the letter’s formal sophistication is intended to emphasise or instead to conceal its ideological content.

7 Further Reading In Late Antiquity, there exist (very roughly) two main types of letters: the long doctrinal letters by the Fathers of the Church (Jerome, Augustine) and the intricately wrought letters characteristic of elite social exchange. Sidonius is the best representative of this second type and has been very influential because of this (Furbetta (2013c)). It goes without saying that it is helpful to compare his epistolary style with that of other more or less contemporary letter-writers from Gaul and Italy, in particular Symmachus in the fourth century (Callu (1972–2009)), Ruricius of Limoges in the later fifth (Mathisen (1999a), Neri (2009)), Avitus of Vienne and Ennodius of Pavia at the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries (Malaspina and Reydellet (2016), Gioanni (2006, 2010)). Gioanni (2004) and Schwitter (2015) are indispensable. Translated from the French by Alexandre Johnston

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 417

13/02/20 4:14 PM

13 ‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN SIDONIUS’ CORRESPONDENCE Joop van Waarden

1 Introduction

W

HEN PEOPLE COMMUNICATE through language, any such exchange (‘speech event’ in sociolinguistic terminology) importantly has a relational aspect embedded in, or even constituting, its actual message.1 This social information encoded in speech events (‘social deixis’ or ‘relational deixis’2) often concerns the relative social status and familiarity of their participants. A major tool of expressing and negotiating such differences is the so-called T–V distinction. This term was coined in 1960 by Roger Brown and Albert Gilman, who proposed ‘to use the symbols T and V (from Latin tu and vos) as generic designators for a familiar and a polite pronoun in any language’, distinguishing two dimensions which determine the use of either T or V: solidarity and power – solidarity in an equal horizontal relationship and power in a hierarchical vertical one.3 Handbooks will say that second person variation in number (using plural ‘you’ instead of singular ‘you’) is used ’to show deference or degree of social distance’ and first person variation (using ‘we’ instead of ‘I’) serves as a plural of majesty (rare nowadays) or a plural of modesty (nowadays primarily associated with the ‘editorial we’). Thus, first person variation either ‘precludes the possibility of a normal reciprocal relationship’ or ‘is seen to originate in the desire to detract attention from self’.4 In this chapter, I will argue that T–V distinction cannot be applied in this way when reading Sidonius’ correspondence. As I have pointed out before,5 his use of first and second person variation is so flexible that imposing any rigid scheme on it inevitably leads to contradictions, and indeed misses the point of his particular T–V style, which I would define as an interplay of foreground and background, nearness and distance. By way of introduction, let us first look at a few examples of this flexibility.

1

2

3

4 5

In order to achieve their ends, according to the speech act theory developed by John Searle, building on John Austin’s thinking about language (Austin (1962), Searle (1969)). As defined e.g. in Semino and Culpeper (2002) 79: ‘Relational deixis refers to the encoded social relationships of the voice and its attitude to other entities.’ Brown and Gilman (1960) 254. Building on this distinction, they claimed an almost one-to-one relationship between politeness ideology and (medieval and modern) social reality (i.e. hierarchy) — which is questionable (Agha (2007) 283). We must be careful not to mistake dominant ideologies of behaviour and coding conventions (Agha calls them ‘stereotypes of indexicality’) for facts about behaviour and matters of inherent meaning. Quotations from Siewierska (2004) 216–21, ‘Person forms and social deixis’. See van Waarden (2010) 49–52, followed up in (2016a) 45–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 418

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

419

In a short letter in which he begs the addressee, a certain Hypatius, to support one of his friends, Sidonius compliments his correspondent on his moral excellence, both in the second person plural and in the second person singular: (1)

morum . . . vestrorum (3.5.1) ‘your principles’

(2)

moribus tuis (3.5.3) ‘your principles’.

There seems to be no appreciable difference between the two instances. Another example: two different, but otherwise comparable addressees, first Bishop Faustus, next Bishop Graecus: (3)

mitti paginam copiosam denuo iubes (9.9.2) ‘you ask me again for an eloquent letter’

(4)

iubetis ipsi, ut aliquid vobis a me laetum copiosumque pagina ferat (7.2.2) ‘you ask me yourself that my letter should bring you something rich and eloquent’.

That this is not to make any difference between the two is immediately apparent from the reversal of singular and plural in the same letters: (5)

qui tunc Aptae fuistis, aptissime defuistis (9.9.1) ‘because you were then at Apt, you most aptly failed [to read my letter]’

(6)

oneras . . . verecundiam meam (7.2.1) ‘you overwhelm my modesty’.

The same phenomenon can be shown of first person singular and plural, for instance: (7)

petita transmisi (7.3.1) ‘I sent it as requested’

(8)

petitum misimus opus (7.18.1) ‘I sent the requested work.’6

For want of a proper understanding of Sidonius’ flexibility in handling this tool of social deixis, the plurals which in this way – seemingly – replace the singular, and cannot be explained as sociative (inclusive) or reverential, have awkwardly come to be called ‘illogical plurals’. They are omnipresent in Sidonius’ correspondence – personal and possessive pronouns, and verbs – and are in fact, as I shall argue, in close connection with the singular, an essential means to fine-tune the interaction with the addressee.

6

See below, sect. 5.5.4, for the avoidance of hiatus. Besides, the

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 419

rhythm is one of Sidonius’ favourites.

13/02/20 4:14 PM

420

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

2 Towards a Solution Stuck with this perceived anomaly, while disregarding developments in sociolinguistics, classical scholars have tried to maximise the number of ‘real’ plurals via Slotty’s ‘sociative’ plural, and minimise the number of ‘illogical’ ones, thus failing, to my mind, to appreciate the real problem.7 In his 1986 study of Symmachus’ system of address, Jean-Pierre Callu maintains that Symmachus always uses vos with a collectivity in mind, be it the pater familias and his family, the professores and the pontifices who ‘connaissent . . . une solidarité pluralisante’ (‘entertain a multiple solidarity’), or the civil servants who take on ‘l’épaisseur d’un être collectif’ (‘the density of a collective entity’).8 For Sidonius – he admits – further investigation is necessary, because in his letters several cases of the plural cannot be explained in this way. In a renewed survey of the evidence for ‘illogical’ vos from 1995 – again especially geared towards Symmachus – Gerd Haverling does not seem to come any closer to a solution, although she usefully takes into account cases of ‘illogical’ nos as well, and rightly opposes the view that the use of singular and plural in Late Antiquity is ‘determined by the rank of the person addressed according to anything resembling a fixed scale’.9 In order to overcome this stalemate and reach the essence of Sidonius’ use of T–V, eliminating any ‘illogical’ cases, I proposed in 2010, in the first volume of my commentary on Book 7 of his correspondence, to change the paradigm for ‘You’ and ‘I’ completely towards a pragmatic, contextual framework.10 The choice essentially concerns the relative distance between the sender/author and his addressee/subject, which is manipulated at will by way of ‘foreground’ and ‘background’.11

3 Foreground and Background The idea of ‘foreground’ and ‘background’ can be demonstrated, for instance, in examples (1) and (2) above, the showpiece of those who claim insoluble cases of ‘illogical’ vos. At the beginning of this letter Sidonius uses vester in ‘your principles’, whereas at the end he says tuus in – again – ‘your principles’. The explanation is that he begins by stating his own activity (first person: me, not nos) and that of a third person. The attention is not yet directed to the addressee, who remains in the background: morum vestrorum. Then the addressee is invited to

7

8 9

10 11

See Zilliacus (1953) 48–52 ‘Die Entwicklung des unlogischen Plurals im Lateinischen’, with reference to earlier studies by Friedrich Slotty ((1927) in particular), who developed the theory of the ‘sociative’ and ‘affective’ first person plural, to replace the term ‘pluralis modestiae’; for the second person plural, its use as ‘pluralis reverentiae’ is thought to have established itself since Symmachus (very influential, Szantyr via Hofmann and Szantyr (1965) 19–20). Callu (1986) 24. Haverling (1995) 353. For discussion of relevant scholarship, including Henrik Zilliacus’ contributions (from c. 1950, summarised in Zilliacus (2001)), see also van Waarden (2010) 49–50. Van Waarden (2010) 49–52. Silvia Pieroni has proposed a kindred solution for nos in Cicero’s letters (Pieroni (2010)), drawing on Benveniste’s structuralist views of statement and context. She shows that nos functions on a different level from the actual utterance. For instance, in Cic. Att. 1.10[1].5 Multum te amamus, it ‘indicates gratitude by a depersonalizing strategy, a sort of form of courtesy between intimates by which gratitude appears to exist well beyond the actual present’ (p. 609). She also notes that the nos is never in direct opposition to the second person, but is opposed rather to a non-person (non-ego, non-tu): ‘Being, thus, non-actual, the “expanded” nos has therefore a feature in common with impersonal structures’ (p. 210). This is further developed in Pieroni (2014) 67–85. See van Waarden (2016a) 46–7.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 420

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

421

act on behalf of the named third person; he is summoned and comes to the fore: moribus tuis, continued by te.12 Another example which illustrates the interplay with the first person in one and the same letter: (9)

circa dominum te (5.15.1) ‘where it concerns you, the master’

(10) librum a nobis relectum (ibid.) ‘a copy, read over by me’ (11) volumen . . . me absente decursum (ibid.) ‘a volume, entirely written in my absence’ (12) exhortatio vestra (5.15.2) ‘your encouragement’. The addressee, Sidonius’ friend Ruricius, is put in the foreground ((9) te) when it comes to him being the master who may dispose at will of Sidonius’ services, but is protected from responsibility ((12) vestra) for the favour Sidonius asks him. Sidonius, in his turn, professes modesty ((10) nobis) at the work he has done in correcting a fresh copy from the scriptorium, but lends the full weight of his absence ((11) me) to stress the capability of his secretary to handle the copying process independently. In Sidonius’ correspondence, singular and plural are an essential means of demarcating the social playing field between the participants in the exchange. The flexible nature of this instrument lends great expressiveness to the game of negotiating politeness in the letters.13 In this game, the initiative is on the sender’s side. Sidonius’ choice between singular and plural is essentially a subjective, authorial one. Given the basic opposition ego–tu, singular and plural may alternate (ego/nos–tu/vos) within one and the same letter, and in a series of letters to the same addressee, or the spectrum may shift to nos–vos, or other combinations, to whatever extent the sender deems fit to increase the subtlety of the message or diversify the dialogical situation. The choice is essentially about relative distance, ‘foreground’ and ‘background’. What I mean by this is the figurative nearness or distance the author accords himself and the addressee concerning the actual situation. While the singular (ego or tu) puts the person in question in the foreground, in the limelight, it is the plural which makes him or her recede into the background, away from any direct involvement in the action, by providing for ‘soft focus’ – to put it in photographical terms. What matters is the perspective in which the sender decides to present reality, the way in which he wants to influence the reader. As the author deems fit, ‘nearness’ and ‘distance’ result in nuances of directness/indirectness, activity/passivity, responsibility/non-responsibility, or certainty/doubt.14 12

13

14

Van Waarden (2010) 51. For more examples, I refer to the discussion there. For detailed discussions of individual letters, see the commentary parts of both van Waarden (2010) and (2016a). Both in the broad sense of language as a ‘semiotic encounter’, ‘social relations mediated by signs’, which constitutes our lives (Agha (2007) 10), and in the narrow one of the late antique ‘epistolary ritual of literary friendship’ (Bruggisser (1993)). For politeness theory, see below, sect. 4. See van Waarden (2010) 51.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 421

13/02/20 4:14 PM

422

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Obviously, however, the sender is not operating in a void. The choice is subjective but not arbitrary. Matters like the person and position of the addressee (age, rank, relationship), the interests at stake, and the delicacy of the subject are all forces which potentially influence the authorial choice, preclude certain options, and make some attitudes more likely than others. On top of this, playing on expectations may create surprising effects. Thus, the sender manages the relationship with his addressee through the manipulation of singular and plural in a dynamic correlation with the interpersonal and social elements in the situation. It is the aim of this chapter to clarify these dynamics from a variety of angles across Sidonius’ correspondence.15

4 T–V Distinction and Politeness Theory Before we come to a detailed discussion of Sidonius’ T–V usage in a variety of situations, I would like to enlarge the theoretical framework a bit by introducing some relevant notions from politeness theory. The T–V distinction is an element of politeness theory, whose foundations were laid by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in a 1978 publication.16 In order to explain what politeness is about, they introduced the notion of ‘face’. ‘Face’, they say, is somebody’s want to be desirable to others (‘positive face’) and not to be impeded by others (‘negative face’). Any utterance addressed to someone is potentially threatening to this person, to varying degrees; it is, in their terminology, a ‘face threatening act’ (FTA). Consequently, any FTA must be compensated for (in order to restore face and maintain harmony) through politeness strategies. These strategies vary from ‘bald on-record’ action to complete avoidance of FTA, via ‘positive redressive action’ (showing interest, seeking agreement) and ‘negative redressive action’ (being indirect, being humble). Here are some examples of such actions: (13) Your headlights are on! (Bald on-record, nevertheless sympathetic advice; in doing the FTA, the speaker conveys that he does care about his interlocutor.) (14) You look sad. Can I do anything? (Positive politeness: the speaker makes it clear that she attends to her interlocutor’s interests.) (15) I was wondering if you can give me your office hours? (Negative politeness: the speaker makes the request less direct and imposing.) Which strategy is selected depends on the appropriate constellation of three factors, namely the power of the interlocutor over the speaker, the social distance between them, and the impact of the utterance, which varies across cultures. Brown and Levinson tag these factors 15

16

It will be the aim of a separate article to offer a broadened examination of this model of epistolary politeness, to see if and how it applies to other late antique letter-writers. My first impression in analysing some of Symmachus’ letters is that it also works well there. Brown and Levinson (1978), reprinted with a critical review by the authors in Brown and Levinson (1987). A useful outline of their system can be found in Brown and Gilman (1989).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 422

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

423

‘P’, ‘D’, and ‘R’ respectively. P(ower) and D(istance) are the same as the aspects of power and solidarity which were introduced by Brown and Gilman in distinguishing T–V, which we met earlier.17 To these, Brown and Levinson add the variable R, that is, the culturally determined impact (or Ranking) of an utterance. The outcome of the addition P + D + R determines the nature and the depth of the required compensating strategy. In proposing a number of angles, below, from which Sidonius’ brand of T–V distinction may be approximated, I will loosely adhere to these categories of power, distance, and ranking.

5 The Use of Singular and Plural Across a Variety of Categories Let me give an example which shows how the dynamic correlation with the situation works, regarding both authorial freedom and social constraints, with a hint at stylistic considerations to be examined later (section 5.5.4). Letter 4.19 to a certain Florentinus, about whom nothing is known, is by far the shortest in the collection, consisting of only two sentences. It reads: (16) Et moras nostras et silentium accusas. Utrumque purgabile est; namque et venimus et scribimus. Foregrounding Florentinus by using tu, Sidonius stresses his correspondent’s point of view, which, by implication, can be supposed to be justified, as the opposite would mean a direct confrontation. Conversely, by using the plurals venimus and scribimus for himself, Sidonius retires into the background, guiltily as it were, drawing the only possible conclusion, by doing as Florentinus wishes. To bring this out, one might paraphrase: You are right in accusing me of delaying a visit and of not writing. Sorry for this: it’s my fault. Do allow me to make up for it by coming, and writing too.18 Suppose Sidonius had swapped singular and plural, writing: (17) (*)Et moras meas et silentium accusatis. Utrumque purgabile est; namque et venio et scribo. Now the initiative is entirely on the side of Sidonius, who does not shy away from his delay (meas) and takes the credit for making up (venio, scribo). Florentius’ accusation is only mentioned in a veiled way. This can still mean that it is perfectly justified, but, for some reason or another, the sender wants to spare him the responsibility for it. A paraphrase would run: I’m aware my delay and silence are not to your liking. No problem: I’m going to do something about it. I’m coming, and writing too. 17

18

See sect. 1 above. P: the Power of the addressee over the speaker; D: the social Distance between speaker and addressee. The margin of uncertainty in such a short note without context is of course considerable, and it is certainly possible to interpret the plural as inclusive: Sidonius will be taking his family along. However, in Sidonius such a plural in similar contexts is highly unusual (differently from e.g. Symmachus) – definitely so for scribimus (neither 4.11.7 scripsimus nor 9.7.4 or 9.14.3 scribimus is in any way sociative), but also for venimus (the only possible distant parallel, 7.5.5 si venitis, is embedded in a second person plural context which focuses on the addressee, not on his entourage). Even so, the effect would be one of decreased directness.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 423

13/02/20 4:14 PM

424

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Here, however, social constraints come in. The swapped formulation cannot be applied in all conditions or, in any case, has different connotations in different situations. As we will see below, the second person plural is not used indiscriminately. As it denotes distance and non-commitment , using it feels different in the case of close friends or distant dignitaries. It tends to be given (whether or not in combination with the singular) to persons in authority, especially bishops (below, section 5.3.3), while being avoided for family members (section 5.3.1). It is also part of the ritual of literary politeness when speaking of one’s own, and other people’s, writings (section 5.4). In the case of Florentinus, variant (17) is feasible on condition that he be a person whom Sidonius could, or would, not approach too closely, but could nevertheless afford to confront with a firm ‘I’. More exceptionally, if Florentinus were a family member or an otherwise informal contact, the plural would probably be felt to flag either an inexplicable keeping aloof or an unusually momentous affair. In the preserved correspondence, on the face of it, we have no examples of a similar stratified usage for relatives (section 5.3.1) and some quite interesting ones for friends (section 5.3.2).19 Apart from these communicative considerations, it is not to be overlooked that venimus et scribimus in (16) provides the better clausula (the common dicretic and cursus tardus), which may have influenced the choice.20 Now, after a concise overview of the distribution of singular/plural patterns in the correspondence and a remark on ‘light’ and ‘strong’ alternation (section 5.1), I will investigate the contexts in which these patterns operate: letters to the same addressee (section 5.2), to various categories of addressees (section 5.3), and on varying subject matter (section 5.4), while rounding off with a number of considerations (section 5.5).

5.1 Patterns of Singular and Plural 5.1.1 Distribution of Patterns Across the 146 letters by Sidonius in the collection, the constellations that occur most frequently are: ego/nos–tu (or plural vos) ego–tu ego/nos–tu/vos ego–tu/vos

40 letters (27%) 40 letters (27%) 34 letters (23%) 12 letters (8%).

Together, they account for 86 per cent of cases. In addition, almost all other possible combinations, such as ego–vos, nos-tu, nos-tu/vos, or ego/nos-vos, occur, but in the much lower frequency range of one to five times. Table 13.1 shows the frequency of straightforward ego, distanced nos, and alternating ego/nos, and likewise tu, vos, and tu/vos.21 19

20 21

As I will point out in sect. 5.5.6 below, elusive shades of meaning such as veiled impoliteness or irony for the initiate must also be taken into account. See below, sect. 5.5.4. For Sidonius’ prose rhythm, see van Waarden and Kelly, ch. 15, in this volume. I omit seven anomalous cases: single ego once, single ego/nos once, plural nos and inclusive vos once, inclusive nos and tu combined with inclusive vos twice, and tu plus plural vos twice (the same group as listed below, nn. 28 and 34). For the number of 146 letters by Sidonius in the collection, which could be 147, see in this volume Kelly, ch. 3, n. 11.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 424

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

425

Table 13.1 Frequency of ego, nos, tu, vos in the correspondence ego/nos

79 letters (54%)

40 letters combined with tu (or plural vos), 34 with tu/vos, and 5 with vos

ego

55 letters (38%)

40 letters combined with tu, 12 with tu/vos, and 3 with vos

nos

5 letters (3%)

2 letters combined with tu, and 3 with tu/vos

tu (or plural vos)

82 letters (56%)

40 letters combined with ego, 40 with ego/nos, and 2 with nos

tu/vos

49 letters (34%)

12 letters combined with ego, 34 with ego/nos, and 3 with nos

vos

8 letters (5%)

3 letters combined with ego, and 5 with ego/nos

The overall picture is that, for the person of the sender, alternating ego/nos is dominant, with straightforward ego as runner-up, while, for the addressee, the opposite is the case: straightforward tu dominant, and alternating tu/vos in second position. If the addressee is given straightforward tu, both ego and ego/nos are possible; if, however, tu/vos is chosen, there is a preference for alternating ego/nos as well.

5.1.2 ‘Strong’ and ‘Light’ Alternation For a more sensitive interpretation, it should be noted that the alternation ego/nos and tu/ vos, and/or the interplay ego/vos, nos/tu, are not always equally strong. What I call ‘strong’ alternation permeates important parts of a letter, and expresses itself through verbs rather than through personal and possessive pronouns alone. ‘Light’ alternation, on the other hand, may be just one hint in an entire letter, for instance: (18) conlata vestris mea carmina (1.9.7) ‘my poems compared with yours’, the rest of the letter using tu for the addressee.22 I will get back to this phenomenon below in section 5.5.3.

22

Cf. 4.24.6 quoque plus credant litteris tuis, meas iunge, ‘to gain additional credence for your letter add one from me’, in a dialogical context, not fraught with epistolary politeness. Just as easily, however, ego–tu is preferred in a definitely polite turn of phrase, e.g. 9.13.1 de laudibus meis caritas tua mentiri potest, ‘your affection may exaggerate my achievements’ (an instance of an abstract noun with a possessive pronoun to define, or address, a person; see Hofmann and Szantyr (1965) 746–7).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 425

13/02/20 4:14 PM

426

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

5.2 Letters to the Same Addressee As a first approximation, let us consider letters to the same addressee. Does the person of the addressee influence the selection of the T–V pattern? The beginning of an answer is that it does not do so per se, as only eight out of nineteen cases show the same pattern for identical addressees.23 These addressees have nothing particular in common, Agricola and Ecdicius being Sidonius’ brothers-in-law, Euphronius, Faustus, and Principius bishops, Firminus and Ruricius rather close acquaintances, and Syagrius a more distant one. This impression is confirmed, when, on closer inspection, some diffuse patterns shimmer through across the nineteen cases, but nothing points to a fixed individual treatment. The letters to family members largely belong to the ego–tu category, although an occasional excursion to ego/nos–tu/ vos is found for uncle Apollinaris.24 Those to bishops are on the other extreme of the spectrum, with a strong tendency towards vos and tu/vos. Euphronius, Faustus, and Principius all get ego/nos–tu/vos. The others are more differentiated: Bishop Fonteius both ego/nos–tu/vos and ego–vos; Bishop Graecus ego/nos–tu/vos, ego/nos–vos, and ego/vos; bishop Lupus ego/nos–tu/ vos, ego/nos–vos, and ego–tu/vos. Bishops are the subject of a separate section below (5.3.3); here, I would like to point to some fissures. The venerable Graecus, held jointly responsible by Sidonius for the dishonest surrender of Clermont, is generally addressed in the vos sphere (which means that the speaker looks discreetly away, at least nominally), but letter 7.2 opens on the fanfare oneras, ‘you overwhelm me’. Here, the sender does not hesitate to profile himself either by using ego. It is probably no coincidence that 7.2 is a letter full of banter about the wily messenger Amantius. In 6.8, which is the letter in which Sidonius recommends Amantius to Graecus, the ‘I’ is equally straightforwardly ego (while the claim on Graecus’ goodwill is softened by the use of vos). Now for Lupus. The senior bishop Lupus and Sidonius had a somewhat uneasy relationship, whether really so or just pretended is hard to tell. The letters to Lupus display a very complex alternation of singular and plural. Amid a lot of distancing via nos and vos, there is also a prominent amount of direct ego and tu. In letter 6.1, for instance, which magnifies both Lupus’ authority and Sidonius’ sinfulness to the extreme, the clash is extremely direct: ego–tu. One gets the impression that the two men were no easy friends, their ages differed considerably, and episcopal seniority was decidedly in favour of Lupus; nevertheless, the conflict is played out without masks or gloves. Something similar can be seen in their wrangling, in letter 9.11, over the delivery of a book, where initial vos (‘sorry, Lupus, for not sending the book directly to you’) gives way to a bold confrontation ego–tu (‘my intentions were good, don’t misjudge me the way you do’). Finally, a word about yet another relationship, with Bishop Faustus, Sidonius’ spiritual mentor. In letter 9.3, we get a fascinating patchwork of both ego/tu and nos/vos. Steadily alternating, singular and plural create a vivid picture, suggesting a lively relationship. At one point, one gets the impression that singular and plural are distributed according to the subject, which 23

24

The addressees with more than one letter include (name in italics if same T–V pattern in each letter): Agricola 1.2, 2.12; Aper 4.21, 5.14; Apollinaris 4.6, 5.3, 5.6; Constantius 1.1, 3.2, 7.18, 8.16; Ecdicius 2.1, 3.3; Euphronius 7.8, 9.2; Eutropius 1.6, 3.6; Faustus 9.3, 9.9; Felix 2.3, 3.4, 3.7, 4.5, 4.10; Firminus 9.1, 9.16; Fonteius 6.7, 7.4; Graecus 6.8, 7.2, 7.7, 7.10; Heronius 1.5, 1.9; Leo 4.22, 8.3; Lupus 6.1, 6.4, 6.9, 9.11; Petronius 2.5, 5.1, 8.1; Principius 8.14, 9.8; Ruricius 4.16, 5.15, 8.10; Syagrius 5.5, 8.8. In 5.3, whereas 4.6 and 5.6 are ego–tu. The letters to his uncles Apollinaris, Simplicius, and Thaumastus are actually dubious cases; the fact that they are often addressed together makes it difficult to distinguish distanced vos and plural vos. See also n. 26 below.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 426

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

427

is a succession of (a) Faustus as Sidonius’ model for the episcopate (singular) and (b) their epistolary exchange (plural), but the letter ends in (c) literary politeness in the singular. Strikingly, however, this is a considerable deviation from the norm, which rather favours the opposite: plural for bishops and for literary politeness (see below, sections 5.3.3 and 5.4). Letter 9.9 is a special case, consisting of two letters written consecutively. The first part is a short, conventional apology for not writing at length in ego/nos–tu/vos style; the second the enthusiastic report in nos–tu form of Sidonius intercepting a treatise by Faustus and reviewing its merits. The very complexity of ‘you’ and ‘I’ in the letters to Faustus sets him apart in the universe of Sidonius’ friendships. The same feeling of a subtle treatment of individuals, which fits in with the actual situation and is grafted on to, but not determined by, their individuality and position in society, emerges from the letters to acquaintances. Let us look at Firminus, Ruricius, and Syagrius first, each of whom is characterised by his own individual T–V pattern. It is striking that Firminus, though younger and a close enough acquaintance to be the dedicatee of Book 9, but consequently in an official literary context, gets ego/nos–tu, whereas Syagrius, with whom Sidonius has no specific relationship, in a looser and more playful context gets an unconditional ego–tu. Even more strikingly, Ruricius, who in a way is the opposite of Syagrius, having a definitely more familiar relationship with Sidonius (Sidonius composed Ruricius’ epithalamium, Carm. 10–11; we have three letters to Sidonius by Ruricius, Ruric. Ep. 1.8, 1.9, 1.16, and three of his letters to Sidonius’ son, Apollinaris, 2.26, 2.27, 2.41), while also younger and not yet a bishop, is nevertheless addressed in the elaborate ego/nos–tu/vos style across three quite different letters, ranging from copying a book, through recommendation of a secretary, to the acknowledgement of literary compliments (the latter in the ‘light’ variant, namely tu interspersed with stilum vestrum and animum vestrum). Let us provisionally interpret this elaborate style, not as a sign of distance, but, because it is applied to a familiar person, as a hint of restrained emotion. I will return to this below (section 5.3.2). The rest of this group of nineteen seems to corroborate these first impressions, and to permit some sort of provisional generalisation. A few examples may suffice. Constantius, the grand old man and dedicatee of almost the entire collection, is tu (with the exception of a ‘light’ in manus vestras in 8.16.1) against which the sender is set off in a negotiation of ego and nos. A no less dear friend, Magnus Felix, gets tu twice, but tu/vos three times. Unlike Constantius, Felix is a schoolmate. One would expect a very direct style. It is improbable that rank influences the difference in any direct way, for Felix’ superior rank to Constantius (Constantius was simply a vir clarissimus, Felix praefectus praetorio and patricius) does not prevent Sidonius from addressing him with tu when congratulating him on receiving the patriciate (2.3) or complaining about the dangerous times in terms of culminis tui (‘your Excellency’, combined with ego/nos, 3.4.1).25 Next time, Sidonius deplores the critical situation in ego–tu/vos form (4.5). When returning from exile (4.10) or asking for information on an embassy (3.7), it is full-blown ego/nos–tu/vos. In the latter case, there is clearly something special the matter. The alternation is ‘strong’ throughout (from 3.7.1 a litteris temperatis, ‘you refrain from writing’, to 3.7.4 mandate perniciter, ‘write promptly’, and palpate nos, ‘help me’), but there are also tu retices, ‘you are silent’, stilo tuo, ‘for your pen’, and indicare festina, ‘inform me without delay’. Is this complexity, leaning heavily towards the distanced side despite being addressed to one of Sidonius’ closest friends, a signal of real alarm? It would seem that negative situations confronting friends are best described with caution (plural). 25

For rank, see further below, sect. 5.3.4.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 427

13/02/20 4:14 PM

428

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Summing up this first approximation, I would say that the choice of singular and plural seems to depend on the authorial decision as to the framing of the message in correlation with the person to whom he is writing. The nearness of ego–tu is in principle suitable for friends and family members, the distance of nos–vos for episcopal and other dignitaries. Relying on this substrate, however, actual practice is infinitely more complicated, even to the point of doing the opposite: direct and personal invectives with tu against dignitaries, and formally subdued, yet all the more poignant complaints or emotions with vos to close friends.

5.3 Categories of Addressees It is now time to introduce a number of viewpoints systematically. We will look at familiarity (family members, friends: 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) and authority and rank (bishop, government official, vir illustris, vir spectabilis, vir clarissimus, foreign king, low rank: 5.3.3 and 5.3.4). In the next section (5.4), we will consider subject matter, including the iubes–pareo motif (complemented in section 5.5.1 with an aside to chronology).

5.3.1 Family Members Our working hypothesis is that family members get an uncomplicated ego–tu treatment. This hypothesis is confirmed by the rest of the material. We have seen that the brothers-in-law, Agricola and Ecdicius, get ego–tu. The same is the case for Sidonius’ wife, Papianilla (5.16), and his son, Apollinaris (3.13). The uncles, Apollinaris, Simplicius, and Thaumastus (4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.12, 5.3, 5.6, 5.7) are rather more diversified, with an equilibrium between the singular and the plural spectrum.26 However, I would hesitate to interpret this as greater distance (or a more complex situation), because, as said earlier, it is difficult to disentangle the collectivity among the uncles and with their families, many plurals being either real (especially in 4.12, which is addressed to both Simplicius and Apollinaris) or sociative. Sidonius’ cousin Avitus (the son of his mother’s sister) comes as a surprise with a complex mix of ego/nos and tu/vos (3.1). On the one hand, there is the same feeling of collective vos as with the uncles (vestra praesentia might, but need not, refer to a visit by ‘you and your sister’), complemented with a vague nos on Sidonius’ side (nos, ut confidimus, ‘as we trust’?); on the other hand, the overall form of address shifts noticeably from tu to vos. We may conclude that, in particular for close relatives, nearness (ego–tu) is so natural that it scarcely admits of modifications which are bound up with the situation.

5.3.2 Friends With friends, elbow room is greater. In the case of Felix, we have seen how a complex treatment of singular/plural, ‘distant’ in theory, may be turned into an intensely personal call for help because the relationship is so close. At will, the address may be direct (tu, as in 3.4) or conform to conventional politeness (as at 4.5.1 silere meditemini, ‘you mean to be silent’). The basic pattern in this type of letters is ego–tu, with alternations occurring rather on the ego/nos side than for tu/vos. In letter 9.13 to Tonantius junior, for instance, Sidonius gives his friend all the credit for his request of a poem and for participating in dinner entertainment by using tu. He himself is also in the foreground (ego), but his self-assurance is dimmed 26

Mathisen in this volume, ch. 2, sect. 10.4, makes a case for them having been Sidonius’ cousins instead of his uncles.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 428

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

429

twice, when it comes to metrical competence and contributing an example (nos). In 4.22 to Leo, Sidonius declines the proposal that he write history. The pattern likewise is ego/nos–tu. Sidonius acknowledges Leo’s request with a direct tu, but refuses with nos (4.22.1 ‘you ask me’: tu-nos; 4.22.4 as a bishop, I’m at a disadvantage: nos). Another personal friend, however, Claudianus Mamertus, receives a letter (4.3) in ego–tu style, yet both the sender and the addressee are also once referred to in the plural: in 4.3.1 mea papyrus . . . , quae vos . . . impertiat, ‘my letter, which provides you’, and in 4.3.10 (singular and plural swapped; the initiative goes to the addressee) flumini tuo . . . tuam tubam . . . nobis autem grandis audacia, si . . . garriamus, ‘your stream [of eloquence], your trumpet, . . . but for me it would be immense effrontery to chatter’. Vos serves to convey that Sidonius bears Claudianus no grudge for complaining about his delay in writing,27 while nos is there for modesty’s sake, belittling Sidonius’ rhetorical merits. As is apparent from these examples, politeness in literary matters is an important trigger for applying singular/plural alternations. We will return to this below, in section 5.4.

5.3.3 Bishops One group of addressees unmistakably stands out in the collection: bishops, if only for their being clustered. The greeting and closing formulae set these letters formally apart also. It is characteristic for them to have a sophisticated foreground/ background, direct/ indirect structure, as I argued above in section 5.2. The distribution is shown in Table 13.2.28 The statement of complexity being typical of this group of letters clearly needs to be qualified. If we take the fully developed ego/nos—tu/vos structure, which occurs 34 times in the correspondence, only 13 cases apply to bishops. It is used for an unknown outsider (1.8 Candidianus) as well as for a kinsman (3.1 Avitus) and a close friend (4.3 Claudianus). Table 13.2 Distribution of ego, nos, tu, vos in the letters to bishops ego

nos

ego/nos

Total letters

27

28

tu

3

vos

3

tu/vos

4

tu

-

vos

-

tu/vos

1

tu

5

vos

3

tu/vos

13 32

Note direct tibi in the same sentence, conveying yet another nuance, confirming his being entitled to a timely answer. There are thirty-six letters to bishops: 6.1–12, 7.1–11, 8.13–15, 9.2–11. For Table 13.2, I omit four anomalous cases which are constructed differently: Ep. 7.1 (ego/nos only), 9.4 (incl. nos–tu (+ incl. vos)), 9.5 (plur. nos–incl. vos), and 9.6 (tu (+ plur./incl. vos)); these belong to the group listed above, n. 21, and below, n. 34.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 429

13/02/20 4:14 PM

430

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Episcopal authority is certainly not alone in triggering T–V complexity. Nevertheless, the tendency is evident, as in 24 out of the 32 cases which I consider here, the bishop is addressed with either vos or tu/vos (= 75 per cent), whereas the density of vos or tu/vos for laymen is definitely lower: 33 out of 110 (= 30 per cent). On the other hand, the remaining 25 per cent of the episcopal letters do not give evidence of any complexity as to tu and vos. If we look at the sender, we find a substantial 30 per cent of cases in which the ‘I’ is a straightforward ego. Even in so hierarchically and emotionally charged a group as the letters to bishops, there is evidently room for diversification and personal initiative by the sender, albeit that the T–V norm has a definite leaning towards plurality, accentuated by the fact that the alternation is mostly ‘strong’, that is, also expressed by the verb. It would be nice if we could find a common denominator for the letters that escape this tendency towards the plural, addressing the bishop with tu.29 Upon scrutiny, neither objective categories of seniority and professional dependency nor the subjective notion of affective nearness appear to make any difference. The addressees in question are old and young, influential and marginal, close acquaintances and distant colleagues. Subject matter does not seem to be important either, as it ranges from a simple recommendation (6.11) to a contrived ‘review’ of a volume of rhetorical showpieces (9.7), further including two eulogies, the cover letters for Sidonius’ book of Prefaces for Mass and for his address in Bourges, another recommendation letter, and a refusal to write history. Both ecclesiastical and worldly affairs are represented. The conclusion is, I think, that the sender’s freedom of choice remains basically intact, even in this most daunting category of all, which requires the sender to keep the episcopal addressee respectfully on the sidelines, far from any direct claim or responsibility, by using distancing vos and tu/vos.

5.3.4 Civil Ranking The case for diversification of T–V patterns in accordance with the addressee’s civil rank is ambiguous. As with bishops, the coupling is certainly not direct and rigid, but results in varying degrees of complexity of the elaboration of subject matter. In Ep. 7.12, high government official Tonantius Ferreolus senior (PPO Galliarum 451–2/3) gets his due for prominence by means of a sustained tu (vos appears only once in 7.12.1), while the author remains in the background by using nos and the circumlocution stilus noster, ‘my pen’. There is nothing to indicate that this is bound up with Tonantius’ lofty rank in itself. The spotlight on Tonantius is contextually motivated. In a special letter, the first in Book 7 after the body of episcopal letters, Sidonius explains to Tonantius that this seemingly modest position is really a big compliment as it associates him with bishops. Sidonius does his utmost to sugar the pill. Nevertheless, one feels that he would not go to such great lengths in the case of someone who was not so important to him (or to society, for that matter).30 29

30

These are 6.11 to Eleutherius, 6.12 to Patiens, 7.3 to Megethius, 7.9 to Perpetuus, 8.13 to Nunechius, 8.14 to Principius, 8.15 to Prosper, 9.7 to Remigius. To these could be added 7.1 to Mamertus, 9.4 to Graecus, and 9.6 to Ambrosius, which do not fit the patterns listed in the chart, but have tu (plus sociative vos) for the addressee. The emotionality of the request for help contained in 6.1 to Lupus stops all beating around the bush, resulting in straightforward tu all along, but for one instance of vester, which could be explained stylistically (see below, sect. 5.5.4). For Tonantius Ferreolus, see van Waarden (2016a) 55–6. One might want to consider that Tonantius belonged to Sidonius’ inner circle (he was a distant relative of Sidonius’ wife Papianilla, and welcomed Sidonius as a guest at his domains), which would favour a tu. However, as distanced nos is inconsistent with unconditional familiarity, something further must be the matter to justify it (and modify its effect).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 430

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

431

Magnus Felix is another case in point. Although boasting an even more distinguished array of titles (praefectus praetorio and patricius) and being an even closer friend, his T–V mix is not, as we have seen above (section 5.2), reducible to either his rank or his friendship in any one-dimensional way. Rather do high rank and friendship call forth a greater sensibility in the sender, which is intricately interwoven with the current circumstances. In a similar way, Polemius, praefectus praetorio Galliarum, in 4.14, receives a subtly spun-out exposé on worldly and spiritual power in a refined constellation of ego/nos–tu/vos. Ranking lower as a civil servant, Gaudentius, tribunus et notarius, and recently promoted to vicarius, is congratulated in letter 1.4 in ego–tu form. On the next echelon down, but in the same form, Philomathius, assessor to a vicarius, is urged to aspire to an assessorship to a praetorian prefect in 1.3. On a local level, Gregorius Attalus gets an accolade in 5.18 in ego–tu form for being nominated comes civitatis in Autun. These are relatively straightforward and less polished letters. So, on the whole, civil rank does matter in the sense that for the very highest echelon – and bound up with a considerable degree of intimacy – the treatment of subject matter is more attentively detailed and tends to be presented in a more sophisticated T–V pattern.31 When we look next to the ladder of senatorial titles, from lowest vir clarissimus through spectabilis to highest illustris, no corresponding pattern emerges. In a random selection, we see the direct singular ego–tu applied to an illustris (2.11) as well as to a clarissimus (8.3); alternating ego/nos both to an illustris (9.1, 9.16) and to a clarissimus (4.22, 5.16); and alternating tu/vos in a letter to a spectabilis (5.10) as well as to a clarissimus (5.16).32 This is further confirmed when we realise that simple ego–tu is given to the top-notch illustris Rusticus as well as, for instance, to the unaristocratic grammaticus Domitius (2.2). Finally, it is worth mentioning the only example of a king, Riothamus, king of Bretons, in letter 3.9. The singular/plural diversification (ego/nos–vos) indicates a diplomatic letter: in 3.9.1, the fact that Sidonius addresses the king is toned down by means of nos, while Riothamus’ sensitivity is spared by means of vos; in 3.9.2, Sidonius’ opinion comes to the fore (incertum mihi est; arbitror), without making too many claims on Riothamus (discingitis). Although this is the T–V constellation one would expect, it would be rash to generalise from this isolated instance.

5.4 Subject Matter Let us now consider the possible influence of subject matter on the choice of singular and plural. I use the categories which Conchita Fernández López has distinguished: (a) letters concerning literary matters, (b) letters for simply staying in touch, (c) letters of congratulation and public praise, (d) letters of recommendation and admonition, and (e) letters which contain a description.33 Plotting the distribution of the main combinations of singular and plural against these five categories, we get Tables 13.3 and 13.4 (Table 13.3 ordered according to the first person, Table 13.4 according to the second).34 31

32

33

34

Whether – and how – Sidonius’ own shifting rank in successive phases of his life is discernible in all this is an interesting question, which I discuss below in sect. 5.5.1. This selection comprises for vir illustris: 2.11 Rusticus (ego–tu); 9.1 Firminus (ego/nos–tu); 9.16 Firminus (ego/ nos–tu); for vir spectabilis: 5.10 Sapaudus (ego–tu/vos); for vir clarissimus: 4.22 Leo (ego/nos–tu); 8.3 Leo (ego–tu); 5.16 Eriphius (ego/nos–tu/vos). (Titles conform to PLRE.) Fernández López (1994); cf. van Waarden (2010) 37. Category (1) comprises 40 letters, (2) 22, (3) 23, (4) 44, 5 (23); some letters fall within more than one category. Seven anomalous letters which are constructed differently from the ‘you’ and ‘I’ pattern have been left out: Ep. 3.2, 4.9, 5.21, 7.1, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, the same as listed above, nn. 21 and 28.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 431

13/02/20 4:14 PM

432

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

5 5 9 12 9

1

1 1

1 1

19 4 2 6 9

1 1 3

ego/nos—tu/vos

ego/nos—vos

nos—tu/vos

nos—vos

3

3 2 1 6

nos–tu

ego–tu/vos

a) Literary b) Staying in touch c) Congratulation or praise d) Recommendation or admonition e) Description

ego–vos

ego—tu

From perspective of sender

ego/nos—tu (or vos pl.)

Table 13.3 Distribution of ego, nos, tu, vos according to subject matter: first person

9 8 7 8 2

a) Literary

5

b) Staying in touch

5

c) Congratulation or praise

9

d) Recommendation or admonition

12

e) Description

9

19 1 1

3

ego/nos—tu/vos

nos—tu/vos

ego–tu/vos

ego/nos—vos

nos—vos

ego–vos

nos–tu

ego—tu

From perspective of addressee

ego/nos—tu (or vos pl.)

Table 13.4 Distribution of ego, nos, tu, vos according to subject matter: second person

9

4

1

2

1

8

2

1

1

1

7

3

6

6 9

3

8 1

2

In Table 13.3, it is evident that the middle segment (nos for the sender) is far less important than the other two (ego and ego/nos). The latter two divide the letters fairly evenly among them in most categories, except in category (a), the one for literary matters. Here belong letters in which Sidonius writes about the publication of his correspondence, letters in which he declines a request for writing on a given topic, letters which contain poems or other literary output (funerary poems, dedicatory epigrams, occasional verse, the so-called litterae bimetrae in verse and prose, and a letter with a speech), cover letters for literary works, and finally literary criticism.35 This kind of letter is evidently the ideal context for displaying modesty by the sender, which is by far not as pronounced in the other types. Together with category 35

According to Fernández López (1994) 33–84.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 432

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

433

(b), this is probably the kind of letter that comes spontaneously to mind when one thinks of literary politeness and the ‘ritual of friendship’. As an example, I take letter 2.10, in which Sidonius includes his dedicatory epigram for the new church in Lyon, because it demonstrates the subtlety of the phenomenon so well. In 2.10.4, just before the poem, Sidonius writes: (19) sic nostra, quantula est cumque, tubis circumfusa potioribus stipula vilescit ‘so my humble pipe, puny as it is, becomes still meaner when set amid superior clarions’ and also: (20) istaec, quae imaginarie tantum et quodammodo umbratiliter effingimus ‘this [inscription] of mine, which is a mere creation of hollow conceits and what may be called shadowy outlines’. The first person plural makes the poet-sender recede into the background, a mere shadow of his former self, when compared to real poets. Note that the wording, too, is brimful of baroque exaggeration. Politeness theory (see above, section 4) would label this as a forceful ‘negative redressive action’. Sending a poem apparently creates so great an imbalance in the equilibrium of social goodwill that it has to be compensated for conspicuously and at length. In this case, the measure of imbalance is determined not by the addressee’s rank or his social distance, but by the impact of the utterance, which, as we have seen above, is culturally determined. In Sidonius’ world, literature is a vulnerable spot. Of course, it is also great fun and a sport for gentlemen, but, deep down, it is a serious sport. As a matter of fact, the addressee (and the later reader) had been extensively prepared for this ‘offence’ in the preceding paragraphs, where the tone is set by a stream of words as well as a clear demarcation of ‘you’ and ‘I’: nos for the sender, tu for the addressee (who had requested the poem!). However, all this is embedded within a quite different role for the sender, Sidonius. The letter begins: (21) Amo in te quod litteras amas ‘What I love in you is that you are a lover of letters’, as direct as can be, first person singular. And it ends in the same self-confident way: (22) Ecce parui tamquam iunior imperatis ‘See now, I have obeyed your command as though I were your junior’.36 Once cautiously delivered, the poem is no longer an awkward gift, but something to be proud of: first person singular parui.37 By using the singular, the author returns to the uncomplicated conditions in which the letter began: amo.38

36 37 38

These and the following translations are from Anderson’s Loeb edition. For a short discussion of ‘you’ and ‘I’ in the iubes–pareo motif, see below, sect. 5.5.5. Note that it might be influenced by the amo amas of grammars as the letter is addressed to the teacher Hesperius.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 433

13/02/20 4:14 PM

434

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Looking next at Table 13.4, it is again the category of literary matters that strikes the eye: the addressee is highlighted by means of tu (as opposed to the shrinking ego of the sender: nos) twice as often as being given a more vacillating tu/vos. Another evident conclusion is that, in letters which contain a description, little fuss is made coaxing the addressee, who is simply tu, which suggests that there is no doubt that he is entitled to receive a beautiful, elaborate letter, whereas the position of the sender is ambivalent (see Table 13.3).

5.5 Various Considerations I would like to conclude this discussion with a handful of considerations in loose order, which either have not been made above or give further details. Some questions are as yet open, as far as I am concerned, and need to be studied at greater length.

5.5.1 Chronology I have also briefly looked into chronological order as a possible category for T–V distinction, on the supposition that Sidonius’ politeness strategy could have developed over time. A simple runthrough suggests that this is not the case in any uncomplicated way. Just to pick the oldest and the most recent letter, and one in the middle, being thematically comparable: Ep. 1.2 to Agricola, containing the portrait of Theoderic, from 455, Ep. 2.2 to the grammarian Domitius, inviting him to Aydat and describing the villa, from c. 465, and Ep. 9.15 to Gelasius on literary matters, from 480–2, are all in the ego–tu form. It is no different, mutatis mutandis, for other selections across the collection, which likewise appear to be formulated independently from chronology. However, one could refine the question of chronology, combining it with the question of civil rank, which we discussed earlier.39 One then specifically asks whether it makes a difference what rank Sidonius himself held in dealing with people in successive phases of his career – that is, whether a letter is before or after his appointment as prefect or patrician or bishop. My feeling is that, while these changes obviously meant an objective shift in protocol, subjective elements are so preponderant that traces of Sidonius’ career path, if any, are invisible to us. But it is worth investigating whether our material permits a more sophisticated conclusion.

5.5.2 Dialogue A further indication, if needed at all, of the interactional nature of the ‘you’ and ‘I’ complex, and of its being typically tailored to the needs of literary correspondence, is the observation that the distancing plural is normally absent from the dialogical parts in the narratives contained in the letters. See, in the first place, Ep. 1.11 on the dinner at Majorian’s and Sidonius being suspected of satire, and also Ep. 1.7.7 where Arvandus rejects his friends’ advice when accused of treason, Ep. 2.13.5–6 with the story of the sword of Damocles, Ep. 4.12.2 reporting the words of Sidonius’ usher, Ep. 4.21.3–6 which depict the Arvernians fictitiously haranguing Aper for neglecting the region,40 Ep. 4.24.6 citing the words of a creditor whom Sidonius has 39 40

Sect. 5.3.4. It’s amusing to see how the stylised character of this scene makes Sidonius forget that the Arvernians are supposed to address Aper (nos–tu), and leads him to slip into the first person singular (nos becomes ego), even admitting an occasional praesentiae vestrae in sect. 6. This scene thus becomes a hybrid between direct speech and epistolary conventions.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 434

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

435

come to ask for debt remittance on behalf of a third person,41 Ep. 5.17.8–10 describing how Sidonius improvises a quatrain at the feast of St Justus, and Ep. 9.11.5–6 which stages a fictive dialogical partner in Sidonius’ defence against Lupus.42

5.5.3 ‘Light’ Alternation In section 5.1.2, I have discussed ‘strong’ and ‘light’ alternation of singular and plural. Let me try to suggest some tentative solutions for the problem of why the lightest among them (often no more than one instance amid singulars) emerge at all. What could be their raison d’être if they are so ephemeral as to pass almost unnoticed? In Ep. 4.3.1 to Claudianus: (23) mea papyrus . . . , quae vos cultu sedulae sospitatis impertiat ‘papyrus [finally sent by me] destined to bring you the tribute of assiduous salutation’, the explanation which follows from my theory is that Sidonius takes full responsibility for being negligent in writing (mea), while Claudianus is the innocent victim in the background (vos). However, the explanation for distancing vos in this case could be not a pragmatic, contextual one, but a grammatical one as it is part of the consecutive relative clause quae . . . impertiat, and so, syntactically speaking, placed at a secondary level. In Ep. 4.22.1, to another dear friend, Leo: (24) Hesperius . . . praecipere te dixit, ut . . . converteremus ad stilum historiae ‘Hesperius reported that you enjoined me to turn my thoughts to the composition of history’ we possibly have another instance of this ‘indirect speech’ function of the plural, this time of the first person (and of the verb at that). The plural optamus in 4.24.6, cited above with n. 41, could be another case in point. These incidental cases typically, though not frequently, occur when something belonging to the sender (his deeds, writings, sympathy, etc.) is directly confronted with (the judgement of) the addressee. To conlata vestris mea carmina, which I cited in 5.1.2, example (18),43 we might add, for example, Ep. 7.18.2 to Constantius: (25) commendo . . . varios iudicio tuo nostri pectoris motus ‘I commend to your judgment the varied feelings of my heart’,

41

42

43

I take the incidental plural optamus to be a kind of citation (see also below, next subsection 5.5.3). The creditor, who is a priest, is dictating to Sidonius the words of the letter of remittal of the interest on the sum lent. This is where the epistolary plural slips in unnoticed, probably motivated by the man’s status as a priest. An alternative solution is that, as both the creditor and Sidonius are writing a letter to the third party, this is a ‘real’ plural: ‘we both’. It is striking that these lively scenes in direct speech fail in the clerical Books 6 and 7, and in the extensions 8 and 9 (9.11.5–6 is a prosopopoeia, and not quite comparable). This pronominal pairing of course also occurs in letters with a more complex T–V structure, e.g. 7.2.2 vobis a me, ‘for you from me’, or, parallel instead of chiastic, 9.13.1 de laudibus meis caritas tua, ‘your affection [exaggerates] my achievements’. Cf. Hofmann and Szantyr (1965) 400 ‘paarweise Zusammenordnung’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 435

13/02/20 4:14 PM

436

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

and: (26) perveniretque in manus vestras volumen istud [i.e. meum] (8.16.1) ‘and that this volume should come into your hands’.44 It is worth considering, if only for a moment, another alternative solution to my ‘maximalistic’ reading in such cases, namely that the alternation might be attributable to stylistic concerns.

5.5.4 Rhythm and Euphony In an author so conscious of rhythm and sound,45 it is a priori certain that he also evaluated collocations like vestri mea and tuo nostri for their sonic and rhythmical quality.46 As the distribution of singular and plural works both ways, however, there is no such thing as a preferred solution. The most one can say is that in a particular case, and for essentially private aesthetic reasons, he opted for a specific solution. I would suggest that variation may also be among the stylistic criteria at play in such cases. Take, for instance, 6.1.1–5, which is direct ego and tu throughout (and for good reasons: see above, section 5.3.3 with n. 29), yet with one unexpected exception, 3 gravitatis vestrae, ‘your prestige’. It can be surmised that this variation came up for stylistic reasons after preceding, syntactically parallel censurae tuae. In 9.9.3 in manus meas, ‘into my hands’, is followed by desideria nostra, ‘my longing’. Here, too, variation is defendable, although the maximalistic interpretation is perfectly acceptable: meas because of the sudden enthusiasm at laying hands on Faustus’ manuscript, nostra because of the prolonged basic yearning for such a thing to happen. Avoidance of hiatus would be another matter to look into. It might, for instance, be present in the above examples (7) petita transmisi and (8) petitum misimus opus.

5.5.5 Iubes–pareo As we have seen above in section 5.4, letters on literary matters are very susceptible to nuancing the role of the sender/author in particular. I would point out here that the stock-in-trade formula of commissioning and delivering a literary work, the so-called iubes–pareo motif, in itself is scarcely influenced by its context for politeness. In the great majority of cases, it occurs in the direct singular. For a non-exhaustive list, see the appendix to this chapter. We can only guess at the reasons why Sidonius sometimes nevertheless uses the plural. In 7.2 and 9.2 it could be because the addressees are bishops (but other bishops get the singular). On the side of the sender, it is striking that the ceremonial plural is found in the final letter of Book 7 and in the opening letters of Books 8 and 9. No such plausible explanation, however, is available for the plural in 4.18.

5.5.6 Latent Effects of Freedom of Choice The elbow room which Sidonius’ system permits probably creates subtly hidden (side-)effects, which require further investigation. Two such possible effects have occurred to me. On the axis polite–impolite, I surmise that, just as it is impolite, in principle, to expose an unknown person to foregrounding in the singular, it is potentially impolite, without reason, to relegate someone whom one knows well into the background by using the plural. It is unlikely for the latter faux pas to make it into the revised collection. The former may well be present, yet 44 45 46

For iste = meus, see van Waarden (2010) 116 ad Ep. 7.1.6 populus iste. See van Waarden (2010) 55–61. See a case in point in Ep. 4.19, above pp. 423–4, especially the penultimate paragraph.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 436

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

437

hidden, for instance by a modest and tentative nos and/or by other means of politeness. The question for further investigation is whether it is possible to detect this kind of anomaly behind a seemingly correct T–V façade as substantiated above. The other, related, complexities which have room to develop in a flexible T–V context are humour, irony, and sarcasm. Giving vos to a friend may, in certain circumstances, be a serious appeal (as pointed out above, section 5.3.2), but, in a different context, could just as well be a good joke. Vos or tu/vos to a dignitary is, on the surface, correct usage, but may hide sarcasm seen only by the initiated.

5.5.7 Translations Translators of Sidonius’ correspondence into languages that distinguish familiar and polite usage of personal and possessive pronouns must be aware of Sidonius’ particular system. A sample of the translations by André Loyen and by Helga Köhler,47 consisting of Books 1 and 9, proves them on the whole aligned with each other. In Book 1, both agree on ‘vous’/’Ihr’ for letters 1 and 11, and ‘tu’/’Du’ for the rest.48 In Book 9, they agree on ‘vous’/’Ihr’ for letters 2, 4–8, and 10–11, and ‘tu’/’Du’ for letters 1 and 13–16. Letters 3 and 9, however, addressed to Faustus, both a bishop and a friend, are translated with ‘vous’ by Loyen, but with ‘Du’ by Köhler. Their decisions in the end amount to intuition. Respectable as this is coming from such eminent scholars, it is doubtful how far it reflects Sidonius’ stage directions; in Book 1 he always uses tu (nuanced for the partner by ego or ego/nos), except in 1.9 (ego/nos-tu/vos), and, in Book 9, only tu/vos in letters 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10 (opposed, once again, to different nuances of the ‘I’). Significantly, Faustus, twice, gets full-blown ego/nos–tu/vos. That this is not synonymous with utter distance is certain, but how can one translate such heavily qualified intimacy (if it is that) and also take the context into account, which is different in each letter? To say nothing of the gliding tendency in several letters, which may begin in an ego–tu atmosphere and shift to nos–vos, or vice versa, or in an A-B-A form.49 As it is impossible to render all this via pronouns in other languages, translation strategies should employ a broad range of other linguistic means to track the subtly oscillating movement of nearness and distance, both across the correspondence and in individual letters. In some ways, the problems posed in languages which do not distinguish between familiar and polite usage of personal and possessive pronouns are even greater. Here, the need to find alternative linguistic strategies to convey the constant movement from proximity to distance is absolute.

6 Conclusions Sidonius’ use, in his correspondence, of the singular and plural of the first and second person to express and negotiate the relationship with his addressee in the current circumstances is an atypical case of T–V distinction. Not only is it not laid out according to a fixed pattern of tu and vos for a familiar and a polite pronoun, it is not stable either for individuals, but may differ across and within letters to one and the same person. In correlation with the alternation of tu and vos, first person usage also varies between ego and nos to describe the fluctuating position of the sender in the relationship. 47 48

49

Loyen (1970), Köhler (2014). Köhler has chosen ‘die leicht altertümliche Anrede “Ihr”’ (‘the slightly old-fashioned form of address “Ihr”’), for ‘[e]in durchgängiges “Du” schien dem spürbaren Unterschied von vertraulichem und distanziertem Ton nicht gerecht zu werden’ (‘a sustained “Du” would not seem to do justice to the noticeable difference between confidential and distanced tones’) (Köhler (2014) xxxii–xxxiii). Examples include 1.1, 3.7, 5.1, 6.1, 7.8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 437

13/02/20 4:14 PM

438

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

I describe this constellation as a subjective, authorial process, geared towards, but only partly determined by, the rank and familiarity of the addressee or by the delicacy or complexity of the subject matter. In a subtly oscillating interplay of sender and addressee, the singular creates ‘foreground’ and ‘nearness’, the plural ‘background’ and ‘distance’. The constraint of circumstances is most felt in three cases: family members, bishops, and literary matters. Usage for family members is almost universally a direct, foregrounded ego–tu. Samples of vos found in the existing correspondence always admit of a plural interpretation (‘you both’, ‘all of you’). The opposite is the case, though much less massively, for bishops. The tendency is for them to be addressed by vos or tu/vos, or, more generally speaking, within a complex structure of singular and plural, which carefully shields them against any undue foregrounding and vulnerability. As for literary matters, sending and reviewing books or poems inevitably evokes the ritual of epistolary politeness, relying heavily on first person alternation, ego/nos, as modesty is de rigueur for an author. Letters to friends range widely from ‘foreground’ to ‘background’. T–V complexity here would seem to reflect the complexity of the situation and the emotional tension involved. My impression is that neutrally or positively charged exchanges have a tendency towards ego–tu, whereas negative, problematic sentiments invite distance and discretion in the plural sphere. It is difficult to gauge the effect of civil rank, as the examples of high officials which the collection provides coincide with personal acquaintance and contextual complexity, resulting in T–V complexity. Even if offset against more straightforward letters to lower officials in a simpler structure, they nevertheless do not furnish convincing proofs for rank as such being a criterion in singular/plural usage. More elusive even – and in need of further research – is the problem of hidden meaning, when, supposedly, the singular or the plural are used to the opposite effect of what the reader expects, resulting in humour, irony, or sarcasm understood by the well informed. Finally, stylistic considerations may be supposed now and then to have influenced the decision between singular of plural, if, both being possible in a given context, one rhythmical or sound pattern was preferred over another. This, too, merits further research. Obviously, the play on ‘you’ and ‘I’ is not the only means of coping with politeness issues in correspondence. My contribution aims to create a better understanding of Sidonius’ T–V usage and, in doing so, enrich the palette of colours recognisable by us in his work. When studied in conjunction with other elements of social deixis, it increases chances of solving ever more complex problems which still linger in his oeuvre.

7 Further Reading The relational aspect of speech is studied in speech act theory, first developed by John Austin (1962) and John Searle (1969). A useful introduction to politeness theory is Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (1987). The term ‘T–V distinction’ for a familiar and a polite form of address was coined by Roger Brown and Albert Gilman in their 1960 article entitled ‘The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity’. On person forms and social deixis, see Anna Siewierska’s book Person (2004). For Latin, the discussion on the so-called ‘illogical plural’ has petered out (lately Jean-Pierre Callu on Symmachus (1986)). A similar take to mine on the problem, from the angle of structuralism, is to be found in Silvia Pieroni’s work on deixis and Cicero’s letters (2010, 2014).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 438

13/02/20 4:14 PM

‘YOU’ AND ‘I’ IN

SIDONIUS ’ CORRESPONDENCE

439

Appendix Table 13.5 The iubes–pareo motif in the letters on literary matters or containing a description praecipis postulavisti inquiris petis quaeris petis poposcisti vis ais praecipere te petisti praecipis iubetis iniungis iniungis iubes desiderares petis iusseras poposceras iubes te . . . flagitare vis, desideras spoponderam exigis, iubes iubetise iubesf g te; (carmina . . . petat) poscis probas; requiris iniunxeras

parui pareo ordiar exponam reddo pareo obtemperavi; famulor non parui annuo; obtulimus amplectora impetrasti; me . . . indulsib paruic transmisi sume; vereor obsecundabo misimus; absolvi morem geremusd misi misi pareo pareo coeperam; taeduit (me) parco addemus non pareo non silui pareo mittam pareoh si . . . mittam; servio sponsio impleta est; (mihi)

1.1 Constantius 1.2 Agricola 1.5 Heronius 1.11 Montius 2.9 Donidius 2.10 Hesperius 4.8 Evodius 4.17 Arbogastes 4.18 Lucontius 4.22 Leo 5.2 Nymphidius 5.17 Eriphius 7.2 Graecus (bishop) 7.3 Megethius (bishop) 7.9 Perpetuus (bishop) 7.17 Volusianus (frater) 7.18 Constantius 8.1 Petronius 8.3 Leo 8.6 Namatius 8.9 Lampridius 8.11 Lupus (rhetor) 8.15 Prosper (bishop) 8.16 Constantius 9.1 Firminus 9.2 Euphronius (bishop) 9.9 Faustus (bishop) 9.11 Lupus (bishop) 9.12 Oresius 9.13 Tonantius 9.15 Gelasius 9.16 Firminus

a

In the same letter [praecipere te] ut converteremus. In the same letter several times first and second person plural. c Ego/nos and tu/vos intertwine strongly in this letter; e.g. second person singular 7.2.1 oneras, first person plural 7.2.2 quoniam iubetis . . . date veniam, si . . . perstringamus. d This letter is an example of tu–nos throughout. e But also 9.2.3 ne . . . exigas. f But also 9.9.1 vestrae, fuistis, defuistis. g Both tu and vos. h Paremus N/A. b

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 439

13/02/20 4:14 PM

14 Metrics in Sidonius Silvia Condorelli

1 Sidonius’ Metrical Expertise

S

idonius’ sophisticated poetry rests on his solid education as well as his reverence for form in the Neoteric and Horatian tradition, both of which contributed to his understanding of metre as an essential technical element of writing poetry.1 The various reflections on metre throughout Sidonius’ work are not the technical observations of a grammarian, but rather those of a poet who, while attentive to the technical aspects, is above all interested in the stylistic and poetic effects of the various metres. Sidonius’ scrupulous adherence to prosodic rules and his highly versatile application of various metrical forms2 do justice to the role of metrics within the nine arts, that of modulari, approximately translatable as ‘measuring rhythmically’.3 The rich diversity of metres used in the collection (which I shall cover below in greater detail for the Carmina and more cursorily for the letters) is in outline as follows:

• The hexameter is particularly predominant, being found in the three panegyrics, the two epithalamia, and a couple of other occasional poems (Carm. 16, 22) (section 3 below). • Elegiac couplets are used in the prefaces and dedicatory poems of the panegyrics, the preface to the epithalamium of Ruricius (Carm. 10), the first section of the Ad imperatorem Maiorianum (Carm. 13.1–20), and in epigrams such as poems 17–21, as well as short poems within the letters (Carm. 25, 31, 32) (section 4). • The Phalaecian hendecasyllable (section 6) is found prominently in the poems that open and close the collection of Carmina minora (Carm. 9, 24), and in several other poems within the Carmina minora: 12, 13.21–40 (the second part of Ad imperatorem Maiorianum), 14 (the preface to an epithalamium) and 23, and often in the letters (Carm. 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35). I would like to thank Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly for their careful attention to the revision of this chapter, which has led to some useful reconsiderations. 1

My discussion of the metre of Sidonius’ poems in this chapter is purely descriptive. I refer to more specialised studies where available, limiting my observations on the subject to specific relevant issues. On the whole, my bibliographical references will be very selective. For Sidonius’ technical interest in metre and his competence, see also Condorelli (2004a). Condorelli (2001a) already contained a chapter on his metrical proficiency. 2 Condorelli (2001a) 146: ‘In synthesis, despite writing in Late Antiquity, Sidonius stands out for a prosodic correctness that borders on “purism”, as shown in his “classical” use of a number of prosodic features and in his general avoidance of hiatus.’ 3 Ep. 5.2.1; see Gualandri (1979) 147. On the sense of the verb modulari, see OLD, s.v.: ‘1. To regulate (sounds) in accordance with the rules of melody, pitch, rhythm . . . . 2. To set to music. b to put into metre, versify’; see TLL 8, 1246.39–49: ‘vi primaria in musica, arte poetica vel oratoria sim.’ (the article cites Cens. 10.3 musica est scientia bene modulandi, and also Aug. Ep. 166.13, Mus. 1.2, Cassiod. Inst. 2.5.2).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 440

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

441

• In general the letters contain works in a diversity of metres: as well as those already mentioned, Asclepiads (36), Anacreontic dimeters (37), iambic senarii (40), and Sapphic stanzas (41) (sections 7 and 8). There are also some verse quotations of items not by Sidonius, such as pentameters (9.14.4).4 Sidonius’ poetic practice is accompanied and explained by numerous theoretical observations. Praising a hymn by Claudianus Mamertus, Sidonius stresses its adherence to prosodic norms (Ep. 4.3.8): Iam vero de hymno tuo si percontere quid sentiam, commaticus est copiosus, dulcis elatus, et quoslibet lyricos dithyrambos amoenitate poetica et historica veritate supereminet. idque tuum in illo peculiare, quod servatis metrorum pedibus, pedum syllabis syllabarumque naturis intra spatii sui terminum verba ditia versus pauper includit nec artati carminis brevitas longitudinem phalerati sermonis eliminat; ita tibi facile factu est minutis trochaeis minutioribusque pyrrhichiis non solum molossicas anapaesticasque ternarias sed epitritorum etiam paeonumque quaternatas supervenire iuncturas.5 As Gualandri has noted,6 the first part of the passage expresses in great detail the idea of prosodic and metrical correctness, which Sidonius appreciates in Claudianus’ respect for the metrical structure (the feet that make up a line) and for the prosody (the nature of the syllables). Given that by the fifth century ce the transformation of quantitative into accentual prosody was well underway, Sidonius’ observation is noteworthy.7 In the second part, as Sidonius focuses on the brevity of the poem,8 one is struck by his attention to the relationship between the word as prosodic unit, and the verse as metrical structure formed by words. I believe that here Sidonius is not only highlighting the contrast between the brevity of the verse and the ornateness of the language, but also bringing attention to a specific metrical and verbal feature. The lines are impoverished, pauper, not because of their length – which is determined by the metre – but rather because they are made of short feet (trochees and pyrrhics). In turn, this impoverishment is counterbalanced by the metrical and verbal structure of the verse, which is made of long and complex prosodic units (the words) of three or four syllables. The problem of the ‘measure’ of a word within the line is also mentioned in Carm. 23.485–6, where Sidonius apologises for not including the names of some characters because their prosody was incompatible with the metre: horum nomina cum referre versu / adfectus cupiat, 4

The choice of metre in each composition is tightly connected with the genre, an issue that is discussed in Franca Ela Consolino’s ch. 10 in this volume. Besides referring to it from time to time, I would like, from the outset, to mention its detailed bibliography on each poem. 5 ‘Again, if you ask me what I think of your hymn – abundant in matter but with ample pauses, delightful but elevated – it combines the charm of a poet with the veracity of a historian to a degree not found in any lyrical dithyramb you care to name. Moreover, it has a merit all your own, in that while the feet appropriate to the metre, the syllables appropriate to the feet, and the character appropriate to the syllables are kept throughout, yet within its allotted space a meagre line is made to hold rich words, and the brevity of your restricted verse does not preclude the amplitude of majestic speech, so easy is it for you to make tiny trochees and tinier pyrrhics surpass combinations not only of trisyllabic molossi and anapaests but even of quadrisyllable epitrites and paeons.’ On this passage, see Amherdt (2001) ad loc. 6 Gualandri (1979) 150. 7 This shift is more visibly noticeable in hymns and religious compositions; see Luiselli (1966, 1982–7). Half a century later the poets Avitus and Ennodius lament the difficulty of composing correct verses with correct prosody: Gualandri (1979) 151, Condorelli (2003c) 75–89. 8 On poetic brevitas (especially with regard to epigrammatic brevitas), see Mondin (2008). For Sidonius’ notion of epigram see Franzoi (2013) and the recent paper of Consolino (2015).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 441

13/02/20 4:57 PM

442

silvia condorelli

metrum recusat, ‘but though my affection may desire to record their names in verse, metre forbids’.9 Metre is, then, an essential part of the art of poetry. Sidonius’ skills as a poet are combined with his erudition, doctrina. He does not merely compose, but rather ‘forges’ his verses, merging technique and inspiration, ars and ingenium, as shown by the letter to Consentius (8.4.2) in which Sidonius, echoing Horace, recalls the lines his friend has sent him:10 certe mihi, quotiens tui versus a meditationis incude tamquam adhuc calidi deferebantur, sic videbatur, qui, etsi non bene scribo, bene iudico, ‘certainly it seemed so to me, whenever I was brought your poetry still hot, as it were, from the anvil of composition – and I am a good judge, even if not a good writer’. The same metaphor appears in Ep. 9.13.2 (Horatiana incude formatos Asclepiadeos, ‘Asclepiads shaped on the Horatian anvil’) and again in Ep. 4.8 as Sidonius describes metre and stylistic care as the core of poetic composition, a passage in which the metaphor is expanded to convey a remarkable statement about poetry (4.8.5):11 the technique of verse composition consists in metrical accuracy (incus metrica) and stylistic refinement (forti et asprata lima poliri) as the essential constituents of the poet’s workshop.

2 Prosody Sidonius’ attention to theory is reflected in prosodical practice that complies rigorously with the classical criteria, offering strong testimony to the solid school system of fifth-century Gaul, which trained an intellectual elite still tightly bound to traditional verse composition. Deviations from correct prosody are few and far between, usually occurring when the prosody of a word collides with the rhythm required by the metre: for example, potı˘tur in the Panegyric for Anthemius (Carm. 2.523), where metrical necessity shortens the penultimate syllable of po˘tı¯tur to avoid a cretic (tande¯m po˘tı¯tur), which is inadmissible in hexameters; the form with short i is found elsewhere in poetry (Ter. Phorm. 830, Cat. 64.402, Verg. Aen. 3.56, Ov. Met. 13.130, Manil. 4.884).12 Similarly the need to avoid a cretic must have influenced the prosody of ma¯trı˘cı¯da˘, which appears with a long second syllable in Carm. 5.290 (ma¯trı¯cı¯da˘ ) and in Ausonius (Caesares 35), and, analogously, of the noun sy¯llo˘gı¯smis, which appears as a double spondee to end the spondeiazon Carm. 2.175. Also, at Carm. 15.43, we encounter phı¯lo˘so˘phorum instead of the correct form phı˘lo˘so˘phorum: due to the three short syllables, this ‘indispensable’ term in a poem for a philosopher can only be used at the cost of a violation of metre. At Carm. 15.88, the noun a¯¯er, a¯e˘ris presents the prosodic anomaly a˘e˘rem.13

 9

This is possibly an echo of Rutilius Namatianus 1.419–20 optarem verum complecti carmine nomen / sed quosdam refugit regula dura pedes, ‘I would have liked to embrace your true name [Vo˘lu˘sı˘anus] in my verse, but a harsh rule shuns certain feet.’ Earlier instances of the topos include Lucil. 228–9 Marx, Hor. Sat. 1.5.87–8, Ov. Pont. 4.12.1–16. 10 Hor. Ars 441 male tornatos incudi reddere versus. Colton’s (2000) work on intertextuality in Sidonius explores the influence of Horace on Sidonius, on which see also Flammini (2009) and Stoehr-Monjou (2013). 11 On Sidonius’ use of Horace’s metaphor of the anvil, see Gualandri (1979) 127–8. The image of the poetic workshop and of the Horatian anvil also appear in a different context, as Sidonius responds to Volusianus’ pressing him to return to poetry (Ep. 7.17.1). 12 A letter by Avitus of Vienne provides an example of the normative influence of Vergil’s auctoritas: Avitus recounts that a rhetorician from Lyon called Viventiolus had challenged, in the name of Vergil’s licentia, the prosodic correctness of Avitus’ potı¯tur (see Consolino (1999)). 13 See TLL 1, 1047.27–31. See also Loyen (1960) 1.xlviii, with a justification of his treatment of prosodic anomalies.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 442

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

443

It should be noted, however, that the majority of cases of incorrect prosody occur in proper names14 and in Graecisms, especially in Greek proper names. This occurs in many cases, probably because the Greek accented syllable is carried over to Latin and quantities are then inferred following the Latin law of the penultimate syllable.15 Here is a list of a number of these cases:16 • Carm. 2.71: Demo¯critus instead of the correct form Demo˘critus; in this case the long syllable could result from a heterosyllabic scansion of the mute and liquid consonant group (Democ-ritus). • Carm. 2.161: Prı¯e¯nae (the correct form Prı˘e¯ne is in Carm. 23.105). • Carm. 5.284: Naba¯taeum (in Carm. 2.408 the correct form, Naba˘taeum, appears). • Carm. 7.104: Tibe¯ri (in Carm. 5.321 we find the correct form Tibe˘ri); in both cases, there is a kind of synizesis as the correct scansion of the genitive of Tı˘be˘rı˘us (Tı˘be ı ˘rı˘ı¯), with three successive short syllables, is impossible in a hexameter. • Carm. 15.44: Tha¯les at the beginning of the line instead of Tha˘les (the correct form occurs in Carm. 2.159). • In Carmen 2, there are three Greek names with an incorrect prosody within a few lines (171 Heraclı˘tus, 176 Archy˘tas, 78 Phaedo˘ne). • A˘sı˘a˘ge˘ne¯s in Carm. 7.80 is inserted with two necessary alterations (A˘sı˘a¯ge¯ne¯s), since four short syllables would be otherwise incompatible with the hexameter.17 • In Carm. 5.130 we find mathe˘sim, with an incorrect prosody, as in Prudentius (C. Symm. 2.479, 894). • In Carm. 7.31 we find Cybe¯le, a wrong form for Cybe˘le.18 • Carm. 9.54 has Da˘rı˘i instead of Da¯rı¯i. • Carm. 9.234 has Eurı˘pı¯dis instead of Eurı¯pı˘dis; in the same metrical position, at the end of the hendecasyllable, we find the same breach (Eurı˘pı¯des) in Carm. 23.127. – – • Carm. 11.18: the prosodic anomaly Aethı¯ops, instead of Aethı˘ops, avoids a cretic; elsewhere, in – – inflected forms, the scansion is correct (Carm. 2.92 Aethı˘o˘pasque, 5.35 and 7.75 Aethı˘o˘pum). • In Carm. 2.169 and 15.30, Academı˘a is found instead of the correct from Academı¯a.19 • In Carm. 15.64, we encounter diaste˘ma instead of the correct diaste¯ma. • In Carm. 15.96, we read Socra¯tica, but at Carm. 23.108 we encounter the correct form Socra˘ticas (so also 2.178 Socra˘ticusque). • In Carm. 23.113 there is Ara˘to instead of the correct Ara¯to (the same anomaly as in Paul. Nol. Carm. 22.125). • In the poem in Sapphics Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3), at v. 77, we find Sa˘turninum, instead of Sa¯turninum (a similar licence is found in Prud. Perist. 4.163). 14

Prosodic alterations affecting proper nouns also occurs in authors like Vergil: see Sychaeus, which appears with a long first syllable in Aen. 1.343, while elsewhere it has a short first syllable, or again Dı¯ana in Aen. 1.499, contrary to the form Dı˘ana throughout the poem. 15 Ravenna (1990) explains both categories by pointing out the influence of the Greek accent. See also Hernández Lobato, ch. 22. n. 85. in this volume, for detailed criticisms of Sidonius’ prosody in Greek words by Ermolao Barbaro (1454–93). 16 This list is only indicative, not exhaustive, and owes much to Ravenna (1990) 66–7, to which I add some cases which I came across myself. 17 Sirmond emended to Asiagenetes and Lütjohann to Asiatogenes, which I would reject as forms without parallel. On the other hand, the Greek accent on the epsilon of -genes might lengthen it for Sidonius, judging by Greek words elsewhere (e.g. Carm. 9.234 Eurı˘pı¯dis). 18 It is also attested in e.g. Sil. 9.293, 17.8, Claud. Rapt. 1.212, 3.271. 19 But Academı˘a also occurs in Claud. Theod. 94.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 443

13/02/20 4:57 PM

444

silvia condorelli

Many prosodic phenomena comply with the classical norms, such as the treatment of prevocalic –i/-u, the sequence muta cum liquida, or final -o. With regard to this last instance in particular, it may be observed that change in the prosody of final -o is ongoing throughout the history of Latinity. The uncertainty must reflect a general tendency in the language towards shortening final vowels that combines with other features like iambic shortening, so that forms like the pronoun ego, the adverb modo, and verb forms like volo, nolo, rogo are found scanned as pyrrhics with a short final syllable from the first century bce on, and with ever greater consistency over the course of the centuries. Shortening of final -o seems to be decisively avoided in ablatives and datives ending in o, so that in the same author one can find the adverb mo˘do˘ and the noun in the ablative mo˘do¯: so in Sidonius, the adverb is always a pyrrhic, as was already happening in Lucretius and Catullus, while the ablative of modus (e.g. Carm. 7.138), by contrast, is iambic. The evolution in the shortening of final -o is confirmed by the study of Hartenberger (1911), still the standard work on the phenomenon, and is above all reflected in the grammarian Diomedes (GLK 1.436.5), who affirms: ‘Gradually, however, usage has changed, as in our prose usage scribo, dico and likewise in such cases where not only is the o shortened, but a person who drew the letter out would even be risible. Unsurprisingly, verse follows common usage, except for any greater licence a poet might wish to take.’20 For a clear picture of the phenomenon it therefore makes sense, as a preliminary, to exclude cases where the final -o is short throughout the whole poetic tradition (ego, modo, ergo, nolo, volo). It is certainly clear that poets take advantage of the prosodic oscillation to adapt words to the metre,21 as for example with cretic words or words with cretic ending, where metre requires the shortening of final -o; in Sidonius there are abundant examples of this, especially nominatives of the third declension (for instance, Carm. 2.75 divı¯sı˘o˘ not divı¯sı˘o¯, 5.87 Scı¯pı˘o˘ not Scı¯pı˘o¯, 7.234, 322, 442, 12.6, 34.34 Burgundı˘o˘ not Burgundı˘o¯), but also the adverb ¯lı ı ˘co¯ which appears in Carm. 7.361 as a dactylic word; there are in total eighteen cases. Given these premises, one can conclude that the data for the final -o in Sidonius show a notable number of nouns and adjectives in the ablative or dative singular all with long final -o (there are over 490); this is a constant element throughout the tradition including in late Latin, and as such not a relevant statistic. To these can be added, however, eighteen relevant cases in which there is a long final -o in the first person singular of present or future indicative, in third declension nominatives, and in forms of the gerund, as against forty-two in cases with shortening of the -o. This bears witness to the fact that, contrary to the testimony of Diomedes, Sidonius treats the prosody of final -o in an oscillating manner, in a fashion which we may call ‘classical’. Sidonius tends to avoid elision and prodelision (synaloepha and aphaeresis), in the wake of poets like Ovid, Lucan, and Claudian. In fact, elision is very sparingly used, appearing 241 times in the panegyrics (for 13.7 per cent of lines, with only rare occurrences of two elisions in one line).22 In works in elegiacs the percentage is even lower (9.09 per cent): elision occurs 24 times in 268 lines, distributed in equal ratio between hexameters and pentameters. Elision never occurs at the diaeresis of the pentameter, in keeping with 20

Paulatim autem usus invertit, ut in sermone nostro scribo dico et item in talibus, ubi o non solum correpta ponitur, sed etiam ridiculus sit qui eam produxerit. mirum ergo non est, si consuetudinem sequitur versus, nisi sicubi poeta maiorem sibi licentiam vindicavit. 21 Stephens (1986) 237–39. 22 See Condorelli (2001a) 52–71.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 444

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

445

tradition, and never twice in a line. Sidonius thus accords with the historical process that sees a progressive diminution in the use of hiatus, both within continuous hexameters and in elegiac couplets. The only case of hiatus worth mentioning is Carm. 7.232 tu sine illo, at the end of a line.23

3 The Heroic Metre: The Hexameter in Celebratory Poems In line with a learned understanding of poetic composition, Sidonius’ remarks on hexameters reveal his attention to the structure of the line. Thus in poem 12, in response to Catullinus’ request for an epithalamium,24 Sidonius writes with sophisticated irony that the proximity of seven-foot tall Burgundian federates prevents his Muse from using the six-foot style (Carm. 12.8–11).25 Besides the more obvious terms hexameter (Ep. 1.9.7, 2.10.3, 5.8.1, 8.11.5), herous (Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 33), and heroicus (Ep. 1.9.7, 4.1.2), Sidonius refers to the hexameter with the rare adjective senipes (also at Carm. 23.131), a calque on Greek ἑξάμετρος, rather than the more common transliteration hexameter. In a passage of Carm. 23 to Consentius, Sidonius makes it clear that he thinks of hexameters as a solemn metre, even when combined with a pentameter in an elegiac couplet, describing them as superbientes (the passage is discussed in more detail in section 4 below). Similarly Lampridius’ hexameters (Ep. 8.11.5) are described as crepantes et cothurnati, ‘resounding and in lofty boots’, two adjectives unusual in a description of metre, which allude once again to the solemnity of hexametric poetry.26 In general, then, Sidonius ascribes to the epic metre a solemnity fitting for celebratory poetry, as one gathers from Ep. 5.8.1, where he clearly states that the hexameter is the metre for writing epithalamia and panegyrics (seu nuptiales tibi thalamorum faces sive perfossae regiis ictibus ferae describerentur, ‘whether you portrayed a torchlit bridal procession or wild beasts transfixed by royal weapons’). The ‘external structure’ of Sidonius’ hexameter – that is, the sequence of dactyls and spondees – is in line with classical norms. The dactyl in first position is especially common, and, even though there is a slight prevalence of spondees, the pattern ssds (with dactyl in third position) is extensively recurrent, around 11 per cent in Sidonius against the 6 per cent of the hexametric tradition as a whole. We shall come back shortly to this peculiarity, possibly originating from the influence of Statius and motivated by a stylistic choice. The ‘internal structure’ of the line – that is, the relationship between foot and word – tends to be stylised, with foot and word occasionally coinciding in first position (18.2 per cent of lines in the panegyrics begin with a dactylic and 7.7 per cent with a spondaic word) and quite frequently in the fifth foot (around 49 per cent of lines in the panegyrics have a dactylic word in the fifth foot). In accordance with the classical norm, Sidonius refrains from the synchronism of word and foot in the second and third feet, ensuring the regular word ending after the opening long of the third foot and, in most circumstances, the regular 23

The desire to eliminate the only case of hiatus must have induced L. Müller (see Lütjohann (1887) app. ad loc.) to propose the emendation tute sine illo: although the isolated case is slightly suspect, I think it risky to emend where the manuscript tradition is unanimous. 24 On celebratory poems, see Consolino in this volume, ch. 10. 25 Condorelli (2008) 124–6. 26 Condorelli (2004a) 584.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 445

13/02/20 4:57 PM

446

silvia condorelli

penthemimeral caesura.27 Trochaic words, or words ending in a trochee, in third position are also extremely common (more than 20 per cent),28 in lines of sophisticated design that employ the caesura after the third trochee; for example:29 includat ‖ Sarrana ‖ Chlamys, ‖ te picta togarum (Carm. 2.6) atque carens ‖ rectore ‖ ratis ‖ respublica fractam (Carm. 2.15) In such circumstances there are virtually always also trithemimeral and hephthemimeral caesurae (that is, in the second and fourth feet, as in these examples). Lines without one or other type of third foot caesura are extremely rare: six in the panegyrics (2.18, 2.48, 5.109, 5.140, 7.75, 7.136) and one at 21.3; in these cases there is only trithemimeral and hephthemimeral caesura, as exemplified by line 5.109: huius avus; ‖ nam Theudosius, ‖ quo tempore Sirmi The closing of the line is also of classical lineage,30 with a prevalence of dactyl in fifth position (spondeiazons are extremely rare)31 coinciding with a word or with the end of a dactylic word in almost half the instances, according to the classical preference for a close where longum and word stress coincide, as seen in the widespread types condere gentem and conde sepulcro. This coincidence of accent and long syllable, meanwhile, also features in the sporadic cases in which Sidonius chooses ‘irregular’ closing patterns (such as Carm. 5.594 te geminas Alpes, te Syrtes, te mare magnum, 2.159 ex Efyra totum meditaris quod Periander). Sidonius’ hexameter (including the statistics of frequency for particular arrangements of dactyls and spondees in the first four feet) will be discussed further in the following section on the elegiac couplet.32

4 The Elegiac Couplet In Carmen 23 to Consentius,33 Sidonius describes how, at the moment when he was about to send his friend a poem to thank him for his hospitality, Consentius anticipated him with a variegated poem, a multiplex poema. The opening of Carmen 23 is thus centred on the poetic exchange between the two friends and is testimony to one of the cultural paradigms of the intellectual elite of fifth-century Gaul. Sidonius refers to Consentius’ 27

On the caesura, see Beltrán Serra (1998). Cupaiuolo (1963) 70–1, Perret (1954, 1955), Gérard (1980). 29 Condorelli (2001a) 116–20. 30 See Beltrán Serra (1996). 31 There are only twelve spondeiazons, all in continuous hexameters: 2.149, 2.175, 2.319, 2.466, 7.80, 7.240, 7.577, 15.156, 16.125, 22.68, 22.107, 22.201. 32 For an analysis of prosody and metre in the hexameters of the three panegyrics, see Condorelli (2001a); on the use of hexameter in Carm. 16, see Santelia (2012) 50–6. So far there is no systematic exploration of Sidonius’ use of the hexameter in the epithalamia and in the Burgus, although Beltrán Serra (1994, 1996, 1998) addresses specific issues within it. 33 For this poem, see in this volume Consolino’s ch. 10 on poetic genres. 28

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 446

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

447

polymetric composition by the two metres employed in it, as a tribute to the learning of his old friend (22–8): Ibant hexametri superbientes et vestigia iuncta, sed minora, per quinos elegi pedes ferebant; misisti et triplicis metrum trochaei spondeo comitante dactyloque, dulces hendecasyllabos, tuumque blando faenore Sollium ligasti.34 Hexameters marched in their pride, and elegiacs went in step with them, but lesser steps over five feet each. You sent also graceful hendecasyllables, where spondee and dactyl accompany three trochees, and you have bound your Sollius in a charming debt. Describing the gait of the couplet through the anatomical image of the metrical feet ‘advancing’, an image also used by grammarians,35 Sidonius draws attention to the different measure of the two lines, a remark that is only cursorily present in the works of the grammarians.36 This same feature is noted also in Ep. 4.18.5, where, introducing a poem in couplets, Sidonius invites the addressee to lend a helping hand to the elegy, which has a limp in one foot (the pentameter’s smaller paces, vestigia minora).37 The poem in question is an epigram that Sidonius composed to be inscribed in the church of Tours, founded by Bishop Perpetuus in honour of St Martin. While Sidonius had previously referred to his composition as an epigramma, now that he focuses his attention on the metre he calls it instead elegia, thinking ostensibly of the metrical form rather than of the poetic genre. The term elegia could also be a learned allusion: the image of the limping couplet appears for the first time in the programmatic elegy of Ovid’s Amores, as Cupid subtracts a foot from the hexameter.38 34

For the use of financial language such as blando faenore . . . ligasti in the context of literary exchange, cf. Symmachus Ep. 1.14.1 unde igitur sermonis mei largam poscis usuram, qui nihil litterati faenoris credidisti?, ‘so why do you ask such a large loan of my conversation, when you have lent me nothing of your literary credit?’ 35 In the section De pedibus of his Commentarius in artem Donati (GLK 4.425), Servius observes that pes dictus est eo, quod pedis fungatur officio. nam sicut nos pedibus incedimus, item etiam metra per pedes quodam modo incedunt, ‘the “foot” is so called because it fulfils the function that a foot does. For just as we move forward on our feet, likewise do metres too in a certain sense move forward foot by foot.’ Similarly, the grammarian Sergius finds in the similarity between the human gait and that pace of metre one of the possible origins of the metrical term pes: pes dictus est, quod quasi metrorum gressus incedat. aliter dictus est pes, quod hoc quasi pedali regula ad versum utimur mensurandum, ‘a foot is so called on the grounds that it advances like the step of metres. Alternatively, it is called foot because we use it like a foot-long ruler for measuring out the verse’ (GLK 4.480). 36 Diomedes (Gramm., GLK 1.502.30) simply says: de elegio pentametro: elegium metrum binis versibus constat, hexametro heroo et ei subiuncto quinario, ‘concerning the elegiac pentameter: the elegiac metre consists of two lines, a heroic hexameter and a five-footed verse attached beneath it’. 37 Ep. 4.18.5 pone fistulas ipse pastorias et elegiae nostrae, quia pede claudicat, manum porrige. On this passage, see Amherdt (2001) 413–14. 38 Am. 1.1.1–4 Arma gravi numero violentaque bella parabam / edere materiam conveniente modis. / par erat inferior versus; risisse Cupido / dicitur atque unum surripuisse pedem; 27–8 sex mihi surgat opus numeris, in quinque residat. / ferrea cum vestris bella valete modis, ‘Arms in a serious metre and violent wars, I was preparing to produce, with rhythms matching the material. The lower verse was equal; Cupid is said to have laughed and stolen one foot . . . let my work rise in six feet and come to rest again in five: away with you, iron war, with your metres.’ Ovid insists elsewhere on the different size of the verses of a couplet: et, puto, pes illi longior alter erat (‘and, I think, one of her feet was longer’, Am. 3.1.10); nec vos pedibus proceditis aequis (‘and you do not proceed on equal feet’, Pont. 4.5.3).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 447

13/02/20 4:57 PM

448

silvia condorelli

Speaking of the pentameter as vestigia iuncta, conjoined footsteps, in Carm. 23, Sidonius echoes Horace’s expression versi iuncti (Ars 75 versibus impariter iunctis, ‘verses unequally conjoined’), used, as in Ovid, to describe the union of hexameter and pentameter. Again, Claudian reuses and expands on Ovid’s image, to the point of personifying the limping line.39 While it is possible that Sidonius chose to follow this poetic tradition purposefully, one can say with some confidence that his insistence on the uneven composition of the couplet is more influenced by his contact with the poets than with the grammarians. One of the most compelling passages for Sidonius’ definition of the couplet is Ep. 8.4.2, where the author describes Lampridius’ poetic production as ‘sharp elegies and rounded hendecasyllables’ (elegos acutos ac rotundatos hendecasyllabos). Focusing on one element of this tight chiasmus, the pair elegi acuti, and interpreting acutus in direct dialogue with rotundatus, Gualandri has suggested that the former has a double meaning: ‘it refers to the characteristic aspect of the couplet with the two “peaks”, so to say, of the half-lines of the pentameter when compared to the hendecasyllable, which is called rotundatus. Given Sidonius’ passion for puns and allusions, however, it is also possible that acutus could refer to intellectual acumen.’40 It is also possible, as I have previously suggested,41 that acutus should be read with the specific meaning of catus = doctus, with reference to the use of the elegiac couplet in prefatory poems or in compositions accompanying panegyrics; in either context, doctrina is of paramount importance. In any case, the two adjectives should be understood primarily as a reference to the rhythms of the two metres. Following Claudian, then, Sidonius employs elegiac couplets for the prefaces (Carm. 1, 4, 6) and dedicatory poems accompanying the panegyrics (Carm. 3, 8), and for prefaces (Carm. 10) to other poems, but he also uses them in epigrammatic compositions (Carm. 13.1–20, 17–21) and in many poems contained in the letters: the short epigram in Ep. 1.11.4 (Carm. 25), the epigram composed to be engraved on Queen Ragnahilda’s basin in Ep. 4.8.5 (Carm. 30), the epigram for Perpetuus’ basilica in Tours in Ep. 4.18.5 (Carm. 31), the poem for Philomathius’ towel in Ep. 5.17.10 (Carm. 32), the funerary epigram for the monk Abraham in Ep. 7.17.2 (Carm. 33), and the couplet in Ep. 9.14.6 (Carm. 38), which is discussed below in the section on metrical games (section 5); the total is 268 lines. Let us now consider how Sidonius’ hexameter varies depending on whether he is using it as part of the elegiac couplet or in stichic hexameters (that is, continuously).42 Table 14.1 compares the patterns in the first four feet. The patterns in the two settings show some marked differences. In particular the sequence ssss (one of the less common, twelfth of sixteen, in continuous hexameters, 4 per cent) is one of the more frequent in the couplets. This distribution fits with the prevalence of spondaic patterns in elegiac couplets, possibly originating from the desire to vary the rhythm of the hexameter to balance the rigid structure of the pentameter, fixedly built on the two dactyls of the second hemistich. 39

Claud. Carm. min. 13.3–4 ‘claudicat hic versus, haec’ inquis ‘syllaba nutat’, / atque nihil prorsus stare putas, podager, ‘“This verse is limping”, you say, “this syllable’s off kilter”, and in your goutiness you think nothing can stand upright.’ 40 Gualandri (1993) 213: ‘intende sottolineare, rispetto all’endecasillabo faleceo, che è detto rotundatus, il caratteristico aspetto del distico che si impunta, per così dire, nelle due metà del pentametro. Ma dato l’amore di Sidonio per allusioni e giochi verbali non è da escludere che acutus voglia al tempo stesso indicare anche l’acumen concettuale.’ 41 See Condorelli (2001a) 14. A passage by Pomponius Porphyrio – explaining catus in Horace Carm. 3.12.10 as acutus and adding that per hoc doctus significatur – supports this thesis. 42 For data on the stichic hexameter of the panegyrics cf. Condorelli (2001a) 75–86.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 448

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

449

Table 14.1  Stichic hexameters and hexameters in elegiacs compared Metrical pattern

Stichic hexameters

Percentage

Popularity Elegiac hexameter

Percentage

Popularity

DSDS

228

13%

1st

8

6%

6th =

DDSS

200

11.4%

2nd =

19

14.2%

1st =

DSSS

199

11.4%

2nd =

19

14.2%

1st =

SSDS

181

10.3%

4th

9

6.7%

5th

SDSS

138

8%

5th

6

4.5%

9th

SDDS

111

6.3%

6th

3

2.2%

14th =

DDDS

102

6%

7th

8

6%

6th =

DSSD

95

5.2%

8th =

7

5.3%

8th

DDSD

91

5.2%

8th =

4

3%

13th

SDSD

83

4.6%

10th =

3

2.2%

14th =

DSDD

80

4.6%

10th =

11

8.2%

4th

SSSS

74

4%

12th

19

14.2%

1st =

SSDD

59

3.4%

13th

3

2.2%

14th =

DDDD

58

3.3%

14th

5

3.7%

10th =

SDDD

29

1.7%

15th

5

3.7%

10th =

SSSD

25

1.4%

16th

5

3.7%

10th =

But the most distinctive feature of Sidonius’ hexameter within a couplet is the very low occurrence of the ‘feminine’ caesura after the trochee of the third foot, present in only 3.7 per cent of lines against a high 20 per cent in continuous hexameters, where it appeared as a defining characteristic of Sidonius’ use of the metre. Although a more moderate use of this caesura in the hexameter of a couplet is a general trend throughout the development of Latin,43 Sidonius’ shift between the two hexametric contexts is especially marked, leading us to conclude that he chose this element to set apart the two hexameters rhythmically. Sidonius’ preference for the penthemimeral (that is, third foot masculine) caesura could derive from his desire to create a structural analogy between the first half of the hexameter and pentameter (the hemiepes or first hemistich of the pentameter). It is also true that Sidonius’ choice could be stylistically motivated by the idea that the elegant pace of the verses featuring a third foot trochee (feminine) caesura is more fitted to lofty poetry and less suitable for poetry in elegiac couplets.44 Let us now observe some of the peculiarities in Sidonius’ use of the pentameter, compared with other authors.45 43

Tordeur (2007) 101: ‘Le pentamètre “déteint” sur l’hexamètre: il y a moins de 3tr [caesuras after the third trochee] dans les distiques que dans les hexamètres suivis. Diverses analyses montrent plus qu’une simple tendance en faveur de P [the penthemimeral caesura]. Le phenomène est particulièrement net si l’on compare les œuvres d’un même poète.’ 44 See Gérard (1980) and Perret (1954, 1955) on third trochee caesura in the hexameter. 45 On the elegiac couplet in classical times, see Platnauer (1951) and Luque Moreno (1994); see also the data presented and analysed by Ceccarelli (2012). For completeness sake, I mention Ceccarelli (2018), a comprehensive study of the elegiac distich, which came to my attention after the last revision of this chapter.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 449

13/02/20 4:57 PM

450

silvia condorelli

The structure of the pentameter ( ) allows for variation only in the first hemistich. Below I outline the patterns in Sidonius’ first hemistich, with percentages indicating their frequency: DD = 31 (23%) DS = 47 (35%) SD = 23 (17%) SS = 33 (25%) Sidonius’ predilection for the dactyl in first position (58 per cent) goes against the prevailing trend in the evolution of the elegiac couplet, and it appears to be quite moderate when compared with the practice of classical poets.46 In line with classical standards, 90 pentameters out of 134 close on a disyllabic word (67.2 per cent),47 but whereas classical norms tended to prefer final disyllables exclusively, Sidonius also admits trisyllables of the type (26 = 19.4 per cent),48 tetrasyllables of the type 49 (15 = 11.2 per cent), and pentasyllables of the type (3 = 2.2 per cent).50 We are thus very far from the rigid metrical and verbal structure of Ovid’s pentametric endings, a tendency that started progressively after Catullus and is visible already in Propertius and Tibullus.51 Sidonius is rather more in line with Martial’s reclamation of the trisyllabic and tetrasyllabic endings that Ovid had virtually eliminated.52 Sidonius shares his treatment of pentametric endings with other late antique poets (such as Ausonius, Paulinus of Nola, and Prudentius), whereas Claudian and Rutilius Namatianus follow Ovid’s tendency, taking the ending in an iambic word to a high of around 95 per cent of cases.53 Another striking feature of Sidonius’ pentameter is the treatment of the final syllable of the line. The progressive refinement of verse composition had led poets to conventionally end the line on a long or closed syllable, although this syllable is elementum indifferens within the metre. Catullus’ frequency in opting for an open final syllable with short vowel, varying from 8.23 per cent in the epigrammatic Carm. 69–116 to 6.75 per cent in the longer Carm. 65–8,54 decreases with Propertius (4.42 per cent in the fourth book and 4.85 per cent in the second) and with Tibullus (4.43 per cent in the first book and 4.19 per cent in the second). It is with Ovid that we see a drastic reduction of short final syllables, with percentages ranging from 2.35 per cent in Her. 11–15 to 0.49 per cent in the third book of the Ars amatoria. With Martial the percentage sinks to 1.93 per cent,55 decreasing again to 0.88 per cent with 46

See Ceccarelli (2012) 82: with the exception of Catullus (where the percentage of dactyl in first position varies from 56 per cent (Carm. 65–8) to 36.3 per cent (Carm. 69–116)), the other poets discussed (Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid) show a much higher frequency, around 70 per cent. Martial reaches 74.7 per cent and Ausonius 61.2 per cent; on Martial and Ausonius, see Luque Moreno (1994) 56. 47 See Ceccarelli (2012) 87, tab. 11; Marina Sáez (2003) examines this subject within late antique poetry. 48 E.g. Carm. 4.2 volveret inflatos ‖ murmura per ca˘la˘mo¯s. 49 E.g. Carm. 1.6 laudavitque sono ‖ fulmina fu¯lmı˘ne˘o¯. 50 E.g. Carm. 18.6 contigui collis ‖ lapsa su˘pe¯rcı˘lı˘o¯. 51 See Platnauer (1951) 17. Propertius epitomises this tendency; see the percentages of endings on non-disyllabic words in each book: Book 1, 36 per cent; Book 2, 10.5 per cent; Book 3, 2.4 per cent; Book 4, 1 per cent. 52 See Wilkinson (1948). 53 The data on late antique poets come from Marina Sáez (2003) and Tordeur (2007) 106. It is worth noting that the data collected by both scholars on Sidonius are based on the couplets of the Carmina (for a total of 83 couplets = 166 lines), but neglect those contained in the letters. 54 The data on Catullus, Propertius, Tibullus, and Ovid come from Ceccarelli (2012) 90, tab. 14. 55 On Martial and Ausonius, see Luque Moreno (1994) 43.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 450

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

451

Ausonius in the fourth century, a clear sign of the wide diffusion of the preference for a long syllable at the line end throughout Latin literature. Sidonius, instead, going against the evolution of poetry in elegiacs, opts for an open final syllable with short vowel 5.2 per cent of the time. In conclusion, Sidonius’ couplet is characterised by great technical accuracy and his striving for rhythmical variation can be traced back to Martial more than to the poets of the Augustan age.

5 Metrical Games A large portion of Ep. 8.11 (§§5–7) describes Lampridius’ poetical skills and his mastery of various metres.56 Speaking of Lampridius’ couplets, Sidonius mentions in particular a number of metrical ‘games’ possible within the couplet (8.11.5): faciebat siquidem versus oppido exactos tam pedum mira quam figurarum varietate: hendecasyllabos lubricos et enodes, hexametros crepantes et cothurnatos, elegos vero nunc echoicos, nunc recurrentes, nunc per anadiplosin fine principiisque conexos. For he would compose verse that was perfectly constructed in its remarkable variety both of feet and of phrasing: hendecasyllables gliding and smooth, hexameters resounding and high-flown, elegiacs now echoic, now palindromic,57 now with end connected to the beginning by duplications. Sidonius focused on the recurrentes in a letter to Burgundio,58 defining them (Ep. 9.14.4) as qui metro stante neque litteris loco motis ut ab exordio ad terminum, sic a fine releguntur ad summum (‘those which with the same metres and no shifting of letters can be read as from start to close so too from end to beginning’) and supplying two pentameters as examples. Sidonius presents the first as a verse of ancient origin: Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor Nothing is specified about the provenance of the second, which we can assume is Sidonius’ own composition: sole medere pedes, ede perede melos The verses that Sidonius labels as recurrentes are palindromes. Traditionally the element of interest for commentators discussing palindromes is that they can be read in reverse. Sidonius concentrates both in his definition of recurrentes (metro stante) and in his own composition on the fact that they scan correctly in both directions. His perfect prosody is the expression of a refined technique that refrains from using the normal verbal repertoire of palindromes, avoiding common palindromic words such as the pair Roma–amor on which the first verse is built. 56

It is the so-called ‘portrait of Lampridius’, who had been killed by his slaves; on the portrait, see La Penna (1995b). On this type of metrical form, I refer to Polara (1989); some remarks are also in Condorelli (2004a) 589–91 and (2008) 225–7; Rexin (2015). 58 See Henke (2007) for an analysis of this letter. 57

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 451

13/02/20 4:57 PM

452

silvia condorelli

The metrical games which Sidonius describes in the following paragraph – supplying once again a definition and an example – respond to a different logic (Ep. 9.14.5): nec non habentur pro recurrentibus qui pedum lege servata etsi non per singulos apices, per singula tamen verba replicantur, ut est unum distichon meum (qualia reor equidem legi multa multorum). Moreover, also counting as recurrentes are those which, maintaining the rules of the metre, are reversed word by word, although not letter by letter, such as is a couplet of mine (but I think many of these by many authors can be read). The example provided is a couplet of Sidonius’ own composition (ut est unum distichon meum), for which he also supplies the reading in reverse (Carm. 38 and 39 in Ep. 9.14.6):59 Praecipiti modo quod decurrit tramite flumen    tempore consumptum iam cito deficiet. Hoc si recurras, ita legitur: Deficiet cito iam consumptum tempore flumen    tramite decurrit quod modo praecipiti. The stream which now rushes down in headlong course will be exhausted as time passes by and quickly spend itself. If you take it the other way round, it reads thus: The stream will quickly spend itself and be exhausted as time passes by, which now rushes down in headlong course. Introducing this couplet with the words quod de rivulo lusi (‘something I playfully wrote about a brook’), Sidonius explicitly declares the ludic scope of these compositions. The game is meant to amaze the reader, but Sidonius knows that these verses do not stand out for poetical refinement, as he says, warning his young addressee: en habes versus, quorum syllabatim mirere rationem. ceterum pompam, quam non habent, non docebunt (‘so then, you have some lines whose construction you can marvel at syllable by syllable; but they won’t teach you grandeur, as they don’t have any’, Ep. 9.14.6). The significance of Sidonius’ interest in the more technical aspects of verse composition emerges when we consider that within grammatical works, only Marius Victorinus’ Ars gives any attention to word-unit palindromes.60 Victorinus describes them as verses qui retrorsum dum leguntur, longe aliud metrum ex se procreant (‘which when being read backwards produce a quite different metre’), but it is not until the end of his brief discussion that he mentions that est etiam aliud reciproci genus, quod non per singulos versus redit, sed per totum elegum (‘there is also another kind of palindrome, which does not turn around line by line, but by the entire elegiac couplet’). Commenting on an example of such a couplet, Victorinus remarks that to obtain a word-unit palindrome in a distich one has to simply move the shared verb from the hexameter 59

This couplet has been counted among the ones discussed in the previous paragraph. Artis gram. 3.5.10–7.4, in GLK 6.113–14.

60

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 452

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

453

to the pentameter. Sidonius, who also recommends preserving the nature of the metrical feet (pedum lege servata), appears, then, technically more demanding than the grammarian.

6 The Phalaecian Hendecasyllable The sheer volume of poetry in Phalaecian hendecasyllables (twelve poems, a total of 1,234 lines) signals Sidonius’ preference for this metrical form of Aeolic origin. He employs it in crucial compositions, such as the opening and closing poems of the Carmina minora (Carm. 9, Carm. 24),61 Carm. 23 to Consentius (notable for its 512 lines and unusual match of genre and metre),62 and the preface of Polemius’and Araneola’s epithalamium (Carm. 14). Sidonius also offers a number of interesting technical remarks on the hendecasyllable. In Carm. 23, after the comments on Consentius’ couplets (quoted in section 4 above), Sidonius discusses the second part of Consentius’ multiplex poema, composed in hendecasyllables (25–7): misisti et triplicis metrum trochaei spondeo comitante dactyloque, dulces hendecasyllabos You sent also graceful hendecasyllables, where spondee and dactyl accompany three trochees. In his meticulous definition of the hendecasyllable, Sidonius clarifies that he is referring to the verse formed by a spondee in first position, followed by a dactyl, and a second half made ), a form that had by then settled firmly.63 The of three trochees ( definition, which follows Caesius Bassus’ analysis of the possible origins of the metre,64 is indebted to the grammarians, as one appreciates when comparing it to that, for example, of Marius Victorinus: huius prior forma ea lege taxabitur, qua primus in versu spondeus sollemniter, post dactylus, dehinc [et] tres trochaei ponuntur, e quis ithyphallico seu phalaecio, ut supra diximus, nomen est.65 The earlier form of the latter will be determined by the rule according to which first in the line is placed the spondee in solemn manner, next the dactyl and thereafter three trochees, from which its name is the ithyphallic or Phalaecian, as I said above. Sidonius identifies the sequence of three trochees as the primary feature of this verse (triplicis metrum trochaei); the use of the adjective dulcis (dulces hendecasyllabi) is a possible reference to Prudentius: fors dignabitur et meis medellam / tormentis dare prosperante Christo / dulces hendecasyllabos 61

For the possibility that Carm. 24 did not stand last of the poems in the archetype, see Kelly, Consolino, and Dolveck in this volume, chs. 3, 10, and 16 respectively. 62 Sidonius’ use of Phalaecian hendecasyllables for composing a verse panegyric is proof of his readiness to experiment with poetry. On this topic, see Consolino, ch. 10 in this volume. 63 In the sense that, since Martial, the first foot is invariably a spondee: see further below. 64 Fragm. de metris, GLK 6.258.17–259.4. Flammini (2006) provides an overview on the evolution of the hendecasyllable in Latin poetry: see ibid. 140–6 on Sidonius’ use of the metre. 65 Artis gram. lib. 4, in GLK 6.148. The same definition is offered by Caesius Bassus (Fragm. de metris, in GLK 6.258), Terentianus Maurus (De metris, 2545–55), and Manlius Theodorus (De metris, GLK 6.590).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 453

13/02/20 4:57 PM

454

silvia condorelli

revolvens (‘perhaps with Christ’s favour he will deign to give healing also to my torments, as he peruses my sweet hendecasyllables’, Perist. 6.160–2). Sidonius mentions the hendecasyllable, along with the couplet, in the passage of Ep. 8.4.2 already discussed, as he refers to Lampridius’ elegos acutos ac rotundatos hendecasyllabos, ‘sharp elegies and rounded hendecasyllables’. As we have noted above, the chiastic disposition of the two terms as well as the iunctura that Sidonius employs for the hendecasyllables suggest that the adjectives rotundatus and acutus should be understood in opposition to one another. I believe that this ‘pointed’ is meant not only stylistically but also metrically. The hendecasyllable is, as we have seen, an especially harmonious metre, unified and compacted by the sequence of three trochees (Ep. 5.8.1): sed triplicibus trochaeis nuper in metrum hendecasyllabum compaginatis, nihil, ne tuo quidem iudicio, simile fecisti, ‘but as for those threefold trochees recently fitted together into the hendecasyllabic metre, you have done nothing like them, not even in your own opinion’. It is in this sense that we should understand Sidonius’ other remarks on the hendecasyllable: in Ep. 8.11.5 as he cites, first among Lampridius’ verses, his hendecasyllabi lubrici et enodes (‘gliding and smooth’), or again in the poem in Asclepiads in Ep. 9.13.2 (Carm. 36), where Sidonius thinks back to his poetry starting from the teretes hendecasyllabi, ‘polished hendecasyllables’. In this regard it is worth noticing that Horace uses the adjective teres in conjunction with rotundus to describe the wise man and his moral perfection, and that the two terms are employed jointly also by Ausonius and Festus.66 Therefore, the combination of these two adjectives, which in Horace signal moral perfection, in Sidonius indicate the fluid and harmonic hendecasyllables as especially fitting for light (levis) poetry. It appears, then, that Sidonius employs the hendecasyllable and the elegiac couplet for epigrammatic poetry,67 with a noticeable preference for the hendecasyllable: he also adopts it for the funerary epigrams, which were traditionally composed in elegiacs. Thus commenting on the dirge (nenia funebris) composed for the death of Philomathia (Carm. 26 in Ep. 2.8), Sidonius emphasises that the poem is written non per elegos, sed per hendecasyllabos (§2). The funerary poems composed for the tomb of his grandfather (Carm. 28 in Ep. 3.12.5) and for Claudianus Mamertus (Carm. 30 in Ep. 4.11.6) are also in hendecasyllables. Several features of Sidonius’ hendecasyllable, grounded on the opening spondees that had become traditional from Martial onwards ( ) (Catullus still has hendecasyllables with trochee or iamb in the first foot),68 are evidence of a sophisticated technique. Despite the fixedness of its prosody, in fact, the hendecasyllable allows for numerous rhythmical variations, which can be achieved especially through a varied handling of the caesurae.69 66

Horace Sat. 2.7.86; Ausonius Ecl. 20.5–6 Green; Festus Verb. sign. 363.37. The prefaces in elegiacs are instead influenced by the literary models of Claudian and Ausonius; see Consolino, ch. 10 in this volume. 68 The metrical structure reflects Sidonius’ interpretation of this metre as found also in Terentianus Maurus 2545–71. Caesius Bassus had explored the many possible origins of the verse (GLK 6.258.17–259.4). Grammatical texts provide two more possible structures for the Phalaecian hendecasyllable on top of the one assimilated by Sidonius: a spondee followed by a central choriambic sequence and by an iambic cataleptic tripodia (ll,lkkl,kl,kl,k), or a hemiepes with a spondee followed by an iambic cataleptic tripodia (ll,lr,l,kl,kl,k). These two interpretations of the Phalaecian hendecasyllable require an inversion of the rhythm: descending in the first hemistich, iambic and ascending in the second. 69 Flammini (2006) 125. I refer to Onorato (2013) for a detailed study of the patterns in Catullus’ Phalaecian hendecasyllables. 67

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 454

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

455

First, Sidonius employs two-word verses (a pentasyllable and a hexasyllable) featuring only the medial caesura after the fifth element of the verse ( ) much more frequently than previous writers: Carm. 9.180 consecratio | caerimoniarum Carm. 23.512 dormitantibus | otiosiorem Carm. 28 (Ep. 3.12.5) 9 consultissimus | utilissimusque Carm. 35 (Ep. 8.11.3) 29 declamatio | controversiarum Three-word verses are also extremely common (5.4 per cent), as are verses that contain hexasyllabic words.70 Since hexasyllabic words take up more than half the line, their position within the line generates different types of verse structure. When found in the second hemistich, for example, the word becomes the ithyphallic of the hendecasyllable, and it thus becomes prominent not only rhythmically, but also verbally and metrically. Observe these instances, along with previous examples: Carm. 9.334 isti qui valet | exarationi Carm. 27 (Ep. 2.10.4) 3 voti compote | supplicatione Even more remarkable are the instances in which a hexasyllable or a pentasyllable occupy the beginning or the centre of the Phalaecian, partitioning the line in three sections. The word can occur at the beginning of the line (Carm. 12.2 Fescenninicolae | iubes | Diones) or it can be rhythmically embedded in it, in a position that underscores its stylistic significance (Carm. 9.343 narem | rhinoceroticam | minetur).71 This latter ordering becomes especially striking when the terms are hapax legomena (as in the examples just supplied), or, more generally, words that are semantically remarkable. The use of the term hendecasyllabus – which stands for the verse while it also defines it – well elucidates the overlap of semantic and poetic relevance:72 Carm. 12.21 paucis | hendecasyllabis |iocata Carm. 23.27 dulces | hendecasyllabos | tuumque Carm. 23.508 quingenti hendecasyllabi | precantur I refer to the works of Flammini (2006) and Onorato (2016a) for a more extensive analysis and more plentiful examples of the technical aspects of Sidonius’ use of the hendecasyllable. The concise but significant observations I offered here have shown how Sidonius’ preference for the hendecasyllable is justified by the expressive potential of this metre.

7 The Iambic Senarius In Ep. 9.15, Sidonius responds to Gelasius’ complaints of not having been included among Sidonius’ correspondents. As he had done in the previous letter (9.14, discussing the palindromes) 70

Flammini (2006) 144–5. Onorato (2016a) 402–19 accurately explores this feature, providing numerous examples. 72 One should not overlook the evocative power of this term, which occurs in this same position in hendecasyllables in various instances throughout Latin poetry: cf. Catullus (Carm. 12.1, 42.1), Terentianus Maurus 1945, 2545, Ausonius (Ep. 13.83 Green). However, it seems that Prudentius Perist. 6.162 (cited above) is the most influential model for Sidonius. 71

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 455

13/02/20 4:57 PM

456

silvia condorelli

Sidonius flaunts his virtuoso skills by sending Gelasius – who had complained about Sidonius’ exclusive use of hendecasyllables – a poem (Carm. 40) in iambic senarii, a metre long unused by Sidonius and thus all the more difficult (9.15.1 nam metrum diu infrequentatum durius texitur). The coy premise for the poem – influenced by the rhetorical topos of modesty more than by actual reticence – is counterbalanced by the poem itself. The opening (1–14) provides an accurate description of the metre, in a manner traceable back to Terentianus Maurus:73 Iubes, amice, nostra per volumina modis resultet incitatioribus ferox iambus, ut trochaeus hactenus, pigrasque bigas et quaterna tempora spondeus addat, ut moram volucripes habeat parumper insitam trimetria, resonetque mixtus ille pes celerrimus, bene nuncupatus quondam ab arte pyrricha, loco locandus undecumque in ultimo; spondam daturus et subinde versui, modo in priore parte, nunc in extima anapaestus, ipse quamquam et absolutius pronuntietur, cum secuta tertia geminae brevique longa adhaeret syllaba. It is your will, my friend, that the spirited iambus with its more vigorous strains should echo through my works as did the trochee heretofore; that the spondee should add its slow-moving pair of feet with its four time-units, thus for a moment inserting a check in the swift-footed trimeter; that, mingled with the rest, should resound that swiftest of feet well named of old from the art of pyrrhic dancing – a foot which must in every case be put in the final place; and the anapaest also, to give from time to time a frame to the iambic verse, now in the first half, now in the last, though the anapaest is more readily pronounceable when the third syllable in the sequence (that is, the long syllable) clings closely to the syllable which has a twin and is short. This poem is remarkable, more than for Sidonius’ display of artistry, for its meticulous account of the substitutions taking place in the verse. The poeta doctus lists the admissible substitutions for each foot, also taking care to detail the rhythmical result of each substitution. In particular, the spondaic substitution is rendered with the image of the slow pair (bigae), where the agitated rhythm of the iamb is curbed by the four fundamental units of the spondees; the pyrrhic, is, conversely, the pes celerrimus.74 Sidonius provides an even more subtle metrical as well as verbal reflection on the anapaestic substitution: when the anapaest is placed at the beginning or at the end of a line, and if the biceps and the longum (the two shorts and the long) are bound in one word, then the anapaest acts as the ‘frame’ of the line. 73

Condorelli (2004a) 593–6. The connection that Sidonius draws between the speed of the foot and the etymology of the foot’s name is also found in grammatical treatises. Marius Victorinus (1.11, GLK 6.44.20–1) notes that pyrrichius a celeri motu ac recursu, qui in pyrricha habetur nuncupatus est (‘the pyrrhic is named from the swift movement and withdrawal that happens in the pyrrhic dance’). Plotius Sacerdos (De metris, GLK 6.497.15) and Diomedes (Gram. lib. 3, in GLK 1.475.9–476.6) give wider space to the discussion of the pyrrhic and its etymology. Comparing their treatment with that of Marius Victorinus, it is evident that Sidonius must have derived his observations from the latter.

74

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 456

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

457

Sidonius’ stylistic remarks are also noteworthy. Comparing iambic metre with hendecasyllables, he describes the former’s more agitated rhythms, modi incitatiores, by which he indicates both the fierce character of this metre when used (as in the case of Archilochus) as a medium for invective,75 and its speed. The phrase citi iambi, ‘swift iambics’, by which Sidonius refers to Lampridius’ iambic production, recurs often throughout Latin literature. Horace refers to his epodes as celeres iambos in Carm. 1.16.24, while in the Ars poetica he calls the iamb pes citus (251–2). Again, Ovid comments on the fast rhythm of the iambic metre (Rem. 377–8), an idea later rephrased by Prudentius (Epil. 7) with the pairing citi iambi that appears also in Sidonius. In a more technical remark Terentianus Maurus clarifies that the swiftness of the metre is the result of its tripartite structure and its ascending rhythm: qui brevem prima tenebit, deinde longam syllabam, / erit iambus, pes virilis et raptim citus (‘[the foot] that’ll have the short first and then the long syllable will be the iamb, a manly and thoroughly speedy foot’).76

8 Other Lyric Metres 8.1 The Lesser Asclepiad In Ep. 9.13, dating around 479, Sidonius engages in a complex recusatio.77 Responding to Tonantius, who had asked him for a poem in Asclepiad metre in the style of Horace,78 Sidonius writes first that he is now mainly concerned with his prose epistolary production (licet, si umquam, modo maxime prosario loquendi genere districtus occupatusque), but then relents (pareo iniunctis), adding that his metrical skills have for the most part ‘cooled down’ (denique probabis circa nos plurima ex parte metrorum studia refrigescere). The poem (Carm. 36), which comes after the usual show of modesty, displays once again Sidonius’ skills in composing verse. The poem is, as requested, in lesser Asclepiads,79 a lyric metre brought to Rome by Horace.80 Horace’s Odes 1.1, 3.30, and 4.8 (the poetic munus for his friend Censorinus) are composed in lesser Asclepiads (which can also be grouped in stanzas), formed by a spondee in first position followed by two choriambs and a final pyrrhic or iamb: .81 Horace is responsible for a number of interventions that make the Latin verse – centred on a strong caesura after the first choriamb – more fixed than its Greek version. The way in which 75

Sidonius refers to the laesi Archilochi feros iambos, ‘the savage lampoons of the injured Archilochus’, in Carm. 9.214. De litteris, syllabis et metris 1383–4. 77 On this letter, see Condorelli (2013b). 78 Ep. 9.13.2 praeter hoc poscis, ut Horatiana incude formatos Asclepiadeos tibi quospiam, quibus inter bibendum pronuntiandis exerceare, transmittam, ‘besides this, you ask me to send you some Asclepiads shaped on the Horation anvil, in order to occupy yourself in reciting them over your wine’. As we have previously observed, Sidonius stresses not only Horace’s role as the model for Latin lyric poetry, but also the understanding of metrical creation conveyed by the Horatian image of the anvil. 79 See Consolino (2011b) for a thorough analysis of this poem, pausing on the recusatio, which she compares to a recusatio by Venantius Fortunatus. On this poem, see also Consolino’s ch. 10 in this volume. 80 See Flammini (2009) on the intensity of Sidonius’ imitatio of Horace in this poem. 81 See the grammarian Sacerdos (GLK 6.536.23–4): choriambicum asclepiadeum fit, cum primus pes spondeus sit, ceteri choriambi, novissimus pes disyllabus, ‘you’ve got a choriambic Asclepiad, when the first foot is a spondee, the rest choriambs, the last foot disyllabic’; and similarly Diomedes (GLK 1.518.32–519.6): prima ode metrum Asclepiadeum habet. scanditur vero sic et dicitur penthemimeres, spondius, dactylus, semipes, dactylus, dactylus ‘Maece.nas ata.vis. edite. regibus’. alii sic scandunt: spondius choriambus pyrrichius ‘Maece.nas atavis. edite re.gibus’, ‘the first ode is in the Asclepiadic metre. It is scanned as follows and named penthemimeres [an idiosyncratic usage found only in Diomedes]: spondee, dactyl, half-foot, dactyl, dactyl Maece.nas ata.vis. edite. regibus; others scan as follows: spondee, choriamb, choriamb, pyrrhic: Maece.nas atavis. edite re.gibus’. 76

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 457

13/02/20 4:57 PM

458

silvia condorelli

the rigid prosody of the line is then offset by the verbal choices within the metre is the aspect that most clearly reveals the influence of Horace on Sidonius,82 who forged his Asclepiads on the incus Horatiana. Sidonius’ letter and the poem in lesser Asclepiads testify to the lively late antique interest in Horatian metre. While this interest is to be expected in grammatical treatises and scholia, 83 it is all the more remarkable in personal correspondence, and all the more informative of the cultural interests of fifth-century Gaul. As it tackles Sidonius’ past poetic production (vv. 1–4), the first half of the poem makes reference to his works in hendecasyllables, which symbolise a lighter and more fluid poetry compared to the more serious poetical engagement usually associated with the model of Horace and with the choriamb, the metre of Aeolic lyric poetry: Iam dudum teretes hendecasyllabos / attrito calamis pollice lusimus, / quos cantare magis pro choriambicis / excusso poteras mobilius pede.84 The following lines (5–13) allude to the various metres employed by Horace, more with the aim of giving an idea of their variety than to describe such metres accurately.85 The second half of the poem returns to Sidonius’ recusatio of the poetic game that takes the form of a final plea (v. 24 hoc me teque decet: parce, precor, iocis): in the style of Horace, Sidonius begs not to be asked again to engage in poetic games. While Sidonius does not relent in refusing Tonantius’ specific request for a sympotic poem, he cannot forgo the chance to flaunt his poetic mastery, which extends to the lesser Asclepiad.

8.2 Anacreontics To oblige Tonantius in his request for a sympotic poem, Sidonius includes in the same letter a second poem (Carm. 37), written twenty years previously during a banquet in honour of the new book by the magister epistularum Petrus.86 The introduction to the poem documents a peculiar poetic custom: Sidonius and his sodales, gathered to celebrate Petrus’ book, form a collegium poetarum on the spur of the moment. Each of them composes a poem extempore – La Penna calls these ‘svaghi letterari’87 – in a metre assigned by drawing lots. Sidonius’ account is a valuable testimony to this ancient Roman custom, proving furthermore that the interest in metre was not limited to scholastic and erudite contexts, but rather a vital part of a lively cultural milieu where metre was not just described, but practised. This second poem is composed in a metre rare within Latin poetry, the anapaestic anaclastic dimeter or Anacreontic ( );88 it is, with its 120 lines, the longest poem in Anacreontics in the whole of Latin literature, and a remarkable specimen of sophisticated and erudite poetry.89 82

See Flammini (2009) 240–9. See Diomedes’ De metris Horatianis and, more generally, the late antique scholia commenting on Horace’s metres, on which see Longobardi (2010). 84 ‘Long have I amused myself with the smooth hendecasyllable, with pen-worn hand: these you might have sung rather than choriambics, flinging out your foot with greater freedom.’ 85 See Flammini (2009) 239. 86 This scene testifies to the fact that Sidonius’ collegium took part in activities involving the composition of poetry. Sidonius takes care to describe the manner of such gatherings: once they settled on a topic, each poet would be assigned a metre to use for his own composition. 87 La Penna (1995a): ‘literary games’. 88 This verse occurs both in stanzas and κατὰ στίχον in the Carmina Anacreontea of the Anthologia Palatina. 89 This metre is used not only by Laevius (fr. 26 and 28 Courtney), but also in the poetic correspondence between Florus and the emperor Hadrian; in a one-line fragment by Tiberius (fr. 2 Mattiacci); in a poem in Symmachus’ Ep. 1.8; in the Ad coniugem suam of Prosper of Aquitaine; in a poem by Luxorius (Anth. Lat. 83

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 458

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

459

The opening of the poem (Age convocata pubes) echoes a fragment of Anacreon Ἄγε δή, φέρ’ ἡμὶν, ὦ παῖ (fr. 11a Page [= 43D = 33 Gentili]):90 both the form age (mirroring ἄγε) and the apostrophe to the collegium poetarum – addressed by the collective noun pubes, which seems to emulate the Greek παῖς – lead me to believe that Sidonius might have known Anacreon’s verse.91 The custom of extempore composition of poems in various metres presupposes not only the poets’ familiarity with several metrical forms, but also the existence of anthologies and handbooks that could provide metrical as well as verbal material. In his detailed analysis of this poem, its metrical and verbal peculiarities have led Onorato (2017a) to suppose that Sidonius, in using this rare metrical form, has recourse to a scheme that is traceable to a Phalaecian hendecasyllable without its first three syllables: . This enables the poet to show off in a rare metre while resorting to the habits he had formed with his beloved hendecasyllable

8.3 The Sapphic Stanza I round off this brief survey of Sidonius’ metres with the poem that concludes both his letters and in general his poetic production. Gualandri has referred to this long poem in Sapphic stanzas (Carmen 41 contained in Ep. 9.16) as Sidonius’ ‘spiritual testament’.92 With this ode Sidonius leaves classically inspired poetry behind.93 We cannot on the other hand be sure that he ever kept his intention to compose the hymn mentioned in the letter, given that nothing of the kind is preserved, and that more generally nothing dating after the ninth book of letters has reached us. Of course we should remember that we have access to only part of Sidonius’ oeuvre, as one gathers from his own description of his poetic production (vv. 33–40): Praeter heroos ioca multa multis texui pannis; elegos frequenter subditos senis pedibus rotavi commate bino. Nunc per undenas equitare suetus syllabas lusi celer atque metro Sapphico creber cecini, citato rarus iambo.94 298 R2). Terentianus Maurus 2852 mentions that Petronius employed this metre, quoting a brief poem that he attributes to him (2862–5), a poem also quoted by Aphtonius. See Paolucci (2013) for a thorough overview of the grammatical and poetic history of this metre. 90 I have also written on this similarity in Condorelli (2008) 222 and (2013b), esp. 121–3. Another instance of the Anacreontic model could be the anaphora of date in 76–86, by which the poet asks to be given the instruments he needs to be able to sing. This poetic trope seems to refer to another fragment of the Anacreontea (fr. 2 West). See Condorelli (2013b) 129–30. On the analogies between Sidonius’ poem and several fragments of Anacreon, see recently Onorato (2017a). For a different position see in this volume Gualandri, ch. 8, p. 285, n. 35 and Consolino, ch. 10, p. 370, n. 142. 91 Porphyrio’s comment on Horace Carm. 1.27 suggests he knew Anacreon’s fragment. For the learned and grammatical testimonies concerning this metre, see Morelli (2001). 92 Gualandri (1979) 4: ‘testamento spirituale’. 93 Carm. 41 (Ep. 9.16.3) 57–60 denique ad quodvis epigramma posthac / non ferar pronus, teneroque metro / vel gravi nullum cito cogar exhinc / promere carmen, ‘finally, from now on I will not plunge headlong into the writing of a trivial poem, nor will I be easily induced to produce a poem in either light or weighty metre’; cf. Prudentius’ preface. 94 Carm. 41.33–40: ‘Besides my hexameter verses I have fashioned many playful poems in many patterns: often have I turned off two-limbed pentameters placed under hexameters. Yet again, I have amused myself, a practised rider, by cantering through the eleven syllables, and many a time I have sung in the Sapphic measure, but rarely in the swift iambic.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 459

13/02/20 4:57 PM

460

silvia condorelli

Sidonius declares he has written poems in Sapphic stanzas (metro Sapphico creber cecini), but the only composition preserved to us in this metre is the aforementioned poem which closes the letters. The structure of the poem imitates Prudentius’ Praefatio as regards the themes involved,95 but whereas Prudentius seemed to perceive both an existential and a literary break with the time of his youth, Sidonius ‘does not disown his past as a poet laureate or his celebratory productions or the earthly honours he derived from such a role’.96 The ode may seem to be a farewell to literary activity, but in fact it reveals Sidonius’ ‘intentions for a new poetic season: starting with line 61 Sidonius opens to a possible (forsitan) future in which he could sing of the trials (persecutorum quaestiones) and of the lives of the martyrs’97. The poem of eighty-four lines consists of twenty-one strophes, where the Sapphic metre appears in a ‘regularised’ form, the longer lines having a long fourth syllable throughout (in fact, in Latin only Catullus provides cases of a short fourth element)98 and a masculine caesura after the fifth element:99

Compared with the hexameter ending to which it can be traced, the adonius ( ) appears in the patterns 3 + 2 (condere gentem) and 2 + 3 (conde sepulcro) in 13 lines out of 21 (= 62 per cent), substantially less than the 86 per cent regular line endings in the panegyrics, which makes for some metrical variety in the last line of the Sapphic strophe despite its otherwise fixed pattern. Following the model of Sappho and her hymn to Aphrodite, Prudentius chooses Sapphic stanzas as a metre for Christian hymns.100 What seems to us the end of Sidonius’ existential as well as literary path was probably a new start for Sidonius himself.101 The only technical reference to the Sapphic stanza in Sidonius is contained in the portrait of Lampridius (Ep. 8.11.5–7). At the very end of this passage, as he refers to his poetic production, Sidonius mentions the Sapphic metre: In lyricis autem Flaccum secutus nunc ferebatur in iambico citus, nunc in choriambico gravis, nunc in alcaico flexuosus, nunc in sapphico inflatus. quid plura? subtilis, aptus, instructus quaque mens stilum ferret eloquentissimus, prorsus eum iure censeres post Horatianos et Pindaricos cygnos gloriae pennis evolaturum.102  95

Ravenna (2004) remarks on the importance of Horace’s influence (and of Ode 4.15 in particular). Gualandri (1979) 5–7.  97 Condorelli (2008) 236.  98 Horace regularised and fixed the long fourth syllable of the Sapphic hendecasyllable in Latin (see Cupaiuolo (1982) 137–62).  99 This tendency is manifest in the entire Latin tradition: for instance in Horace, who uses Sapphics in twenty-five odes and in the Carmen saeculare, the masculine caesura after the fifth element is extremely frequent; in the first three books of Odes alone, the alternative feminine caesura after the sixth syllable occurs only in 3.6 per cent, 2.5 per cent, and 6 per cent respectively of the hendecasyllables, with a significant increase in Book 4 (22 per cent) and in the Carmen saeculare (33 per cent) (for the statistical data, see Prakken (1954)). According to Sturtevant (1939), Horace’s innovations in comparison with the Greek model and with Catullus could be explained by the desire to make ictus and word accent coincide as much as possible. 100 On this aspect, see Charlet (2007), Longobardi (2011). 101 On this theme (and with an eye to Sidonius’ poetic development), see Squillante (2010b) and van Waarden in this volume, ch. 1. 102 ‘In his lyrics, following Horace, he sometimes moved rapidly in iambic measure, sometimes with stately dignity in the choriambic, now with supple modulation in the Alcaics, now loftily inspired in the Sapphics. In short, he was refined, felicitous, and richly equipped; and wherever his mind carried his pen, he was such a master of utterance that one justly thought he would soar on wings of glory next after the Horatian and Pindaric swans.’  96

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 460

13/02/20 4:57 PM



metrics in sidonius

461

Sidonius’ reference to Horace (Flaccum secutus) should be understood here as concerning the metre rather than a more general poetic influence, as shown by the technical adjectives used to describe each type of verse.103 The eulogy for Lampridius ends on the hyperbolic depiction of the poet’s Sapphics, lifting the poet so high as to reach Horace and Pindar, the poet-swans: the adjective inflatus104 conveys the sense of the lofty and pompous gait typical of Sapphics as employed in Christian hymns and eulogies.

9 Further Reading Only some aspects of Sidonius’ techniques of versification have been studied so far: see, for example, Beltrán Serra (1994, 1996, 1998), on the hexameter, the caesura, and the line-ending respectively, and Flammini’s studies on the tradition of the Phalaecian hendecasyllable (2006) and the presence of Horatian metres in Sidonius (2009). As to individual poems, Santelia (2012) provides useful general observations on Carm. 16; on Carm. 37, see Condorelli (2013b) and Onorato (2017a). The most substantial work up to now deals with the hexameter in the panegyrics (Condorelli 2001a), taking all prosodic and metrical aspects into consideration. What has clearly emerged is that being metrically recherché is a fundamental element in Sidonian poetics (see especially Condorelli 2004a), and that accordingly, there is still room for further research on Sidonius’ versification, in particular at the intersection of technique and style, to answer the question of how his adherence to the metrical norm, determined by his thorough education, relates to his poetic practice. It is further to be hoped that – even without new aspects of Sidonius’ metrics being detected – commentaries will dedicate a section to this significant aspect of his poetics. Translated from the Italian by Maria Giulia Franzoni

103 104

See Condorelli (2004a) 585–9. See TLL 7, 1464.70–1469.25, s.v. inflo: the meaning of inflatus is not entirely clear here; it is perhaps to be associated with the rhetorical sense of tumidus (see Condorelli (2004a) 588–9).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 461

13/02/20 4:57 PM

15 Prose Rhythm in Sidonius Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly

T

his chapter serves a tripartite purpose. It provides a summary introduction to the study of prose rhythm, it rounds off the research on Sidonius’ prose by Joop van Waarden in his commentary on Letters Book 7 on the basis of the approach of Oberhelman and Hall, and – as this seems to end up in an impasse – it suggests a different solution for Sidonius, from the pen of Gavin Kelly, which explains what is distinct in Sidonius. The authorial ‘I’ shifts accordingly from van Waarden in sections 1–3 to Kelly in section 4.

1 Metrical and Accentual Clausulae, and the Cursus Mixtus In the ‘classical’ prose of Cicero, rhythmical sentence endings are metrical, determined by the rules of syllabic quantity. In his Orator, Cicero himself discusses, among others, the ditrochee (for example, co¯mpro˘b|a¯vı˘t and pe¯rso˘l|u¯ta¯s; note that the length of the last syllable is indifferent), the cretic, which is necessarily followed by another foot to complete the cadence (for example, cretic + spondee/ trochee: pro¯de˘a¯nt|ı¯psı¯, or dicretic: ¯esse˘ re¯m |pu¯blı˘ca˘m), and the paeon (applied, for example, in the famous paeon I + spondee/trochee: ¯esse˘ vı˘de˘|a¯tu˘r).1 In the Middle Ages, on the other hand, rhythmical sentence endings follow word accent, the so-called cursus system. The principal accentual patterns are cursus planus (ó~~ ó~; for example, bónum non pótest and confidénter audébo), cursus tardus (ó~~ ó~~; for example, fácere cúpimus), and cursus velox (ó~~~~ ó~; for example, sánguine consecrávit), with, as runner up, the cursus trispondaicus (ó~~~ ó~; for example, dóna sentiámus).2 The rhythmical possibilities of metrical clausulae were there from the start. Take two clause endings in the first paragraph of Cicero’s first Catilinarian: iac-tabit audacia and coniuratio); in the first, the accent falls on nem tuam non vides? Both are double cretics ( the first syllable of the two cretics, while the second shows a sharp divergence of ictus and accent, with accents on the short first syllables of túam and vídes, the middle syllables of each foot. There was probably always a preference for clausulae of the first type, and this preference became increasingly strong. (An analogous process takes place in Latin hexameter verse, where two- and three-syllable final words become almost universal because that will guarantee word accents on the first beat of the final dactyl and spondee, whereas poets like Ennius and Lucretius would still admit monosyllabic or tetrasyllabic words.) The result was that common clausulae started coinciding with particular accentual rhythms.

1

Cic. Orat. 204–26; see Laurand (1936) 165–80. Because the final syllable is anceps, spondee and trochee can be used interchangeably to denote the final foot starting with a long: we shall henceforth use spondee. 2 Here ó represents an accented and ~ an unaccented syllable. Specific syllabic patterns apply: see Janson (1975) 13–15.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 462

13/02/20 4:57 PM



prose rhythm in sidonius

463

In the high empire, the commonest forms are: • • • •

cretic spondee ( double cretic ( cretic tribrach ( cretic ditrochee (

), which lies behind the cursus planus ó~~ ó~ ) ); these both create cursus tardus ó~~ ó~~ ), leading to cursus velox ó~~~~ ó~

and also important in some authors is: • paeon I spondee (

), equivalent to the so-called cursus trispondaicus ó~~~ ó~).

In the period from the third to the fifth century ce, a hybrid system can be identified, which scholars have named the cursus mixtus. This cursus mixtus came to exhibit two distinct variants: a narrow one which comprised the first four metrical patterns listed above (cretic + spondee, double cretic, cretic + tribrach, and cretic + ditrochee3) and the three accentual cadences under which they fell (planus, tardus, and velox), and a more elaborate one, adapted to the various stylistic inclinations of authors, which comprised metrical clausulae such as paeon I + spondee, the trochee + cretic, and the paeon I + cretic.4

2 Prose Rhythm According to Oberhelman and Hall 2.1 Towards a Method Modern study of prose rhythm began in the 1880s and 1890s, emblematically represented by Eduard Norden in his Antike Kunstprosa,5 and received its most recent impulses in 1975 from Tore Janson and in the 1980s and 1990s from the work of Ralph Hall and Steven Oberhelman. This terrain is ‘a vast and varied jungle’, as Wilkinson in his Golden Latin Artistry aptly characterised it.6 This is not the place to write the history of this branch of scholarship, apart from the fact that much is of mainly archival interest. A short list of the most important publications may suffice.7 What I have sought to do in my commentaries and am doing here is to apply Oberhelman and Hall’s findings to the letters of Sidonius, who has so far received little or no specific attention for rhythm in his prose.8 In three publications from 1984 to 1986, Oberhelman and Hall started out together to renew the study of accentual prose in late Latin authors on a sound 3

There is less regularity in the foot found before the ditrochee than in the other three clausulae; Cicero was fond of a molossus before the ditrochee; dactyls and anapaests can often be found creating the same effect as the cretic. 4 Thus Oberhelman (1991) 5–8. 5 Norden (1898) 909–60. 6 Wilkinson (1963) 139–40. 7 Metrical (predominantly Cicero): Müller (1887), Wolff (1901), Zieliński (1904, 1914), Bornecque (1907), de Groot (1918) (the first to apply comparative statistics to the problem), Broadhead (1922), Laurand (1936), Schmid (1959), Primmer (1968), Nisbet (1990), Hutchinson (1995); accentual and transitional: Havet (1892), Couture (1892) (ecclesiastical), Meyer (1905), Nicolau (1930), Hagendahl (1937 (Arnobius), 1952 (Ruricius)), Janson (1975). For Pliny the Younger, see Hofacker (1903), Spatzek (1912), Münscher (1920) esp. 179–83. The first modern scholar to identify cursus was Valois (1881). For an introductory essay, see Powell (1996). There is a useful bibliography of late Latin prose rhythm, by Nigel Holmes, online: . 8 However, see Köhler (1995) 21–2, who herself points out the flawed nature of Merchie (1921) and Loyen (1943) 147–52.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 463

13/02/20 4:57 PM

464

joop van waarden and gavin kelly

statistical basis.9 First, they calculated the probability of the cursus patterns planus, tardus, and velox occurring unintentionally in any non-accentual text, taking non-accentual Renaissance prose as their reference. The outcome, calculated at as high a confidence level of 99.9 per cent, was a probability range from .525 to .629. This means that, with as little a margin of error as 1 in 1,000, any sample of 1,000 randomly selected sentence endings in such text would contain at least 525, and at most 629, cases of unintended cursus. Consequently, to infer with any probability for any given text that cursus is intended requires a higher degree of probability than found in the non-accentual reference corpus. In much the same way, this time based on medieval accentual prose, Oberhelman and Hall established the probability of metrical patterns occurring fortuitously in texts that are accentual. In this case the probability range is from .549 to .641. Again, to infer for any given text that cursus mixtus is intended – that is, that its accentual clausulae are also meant to be acceptable metrically – a higher probability level is required. Now having a neutral starting point, Oberhelman and Hall selected for examination some seventy late antique texts. They tested the results for every single text against the basic values for non-accentual and accentual prose, the question being in which cases the difference was statistically significant so that for those cases it could be assumed with a margin of confidence that they were cursus mixtus.10 In 1988, Oberhelman made a fresh start on his own, aiming to make the method even more precise.11 An important new feature was that the trispondaicus was systematically taken aboard, which led to the conclusion that some authors use not a threefold system (planus, tardus, and velox) as, for example, Arnobius, Firmicus, Macrobius, Palladius, Symmachus, and Vegetius do, but a fourfold one, including the trispondaicus, adhered to by, for example, Minucius, Cyprian, the Panegyrists, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine – which made it possible to acknowledge a much wider range of stylistic diversity.12

2.2 Heuristics and Requirements In Oberhelman and Hall’s system, the following heuristics apply for any given late antique prose text: 1 Scan it for accentual and metrical patterns. 2 Test the frequency of the three cursus forms, in order to ascertain the presence of accentual rhythms (see Table 15.1, column 5). 3 If the text is not accentual, test the frequency of the metrical forms against the normative values of a-metrical prose for the presence of metrical clausulae (ms) (Table 15.1, column 3).

 9

Oberhelman and Hall (1984, 1985), Hall and Oberhelman (1986). The test consists of a series of χ2 (chi-square) tests with degree of freedom 1, with Yates’ correction, and 95 per cent confidence level. See Oberhelman and Hall (1984) 121, and any statistical handbook. For the difference between the data found for any new population and those of the known basic population to be statistically significant, with a confidence level of 95 per cent, χ2 must have a value of at least 3.84. Just to give an impression, the outcome of the initial test on the presence of cursus for Apuleius’ Metamorphoses is that the work is non-accentual (χ2 = 0.008), but for his De Platone that it is accentual (χ2 = 16.35). Incidentally, this is one more possible argument for De Platone being inauthentic, although this must be weighed against the differences due to genre manifest in Augustine’s Confessiones (non-accentual) and his scriptural commentaries (accentual): see Oberhelman (1988a) 145–8. 11 Oberhelman (1988b, 1988a), continued in (1991). 12 Oberhelman (1988a) 148. For Ammianus’ idiosyncratic system, see Oberhelman (1987). 10

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 464

13/02/20 4:57 PM



prose rhythm in sidonius

465

4 If, however, the text is shown to be accentual, test the frequency of the corresponding metrical clausulae (ms and mt) (Table 15.1, columns 3 and 4) and the proportions of coincidence of metrical and accentual features (columns 1 and 2). 5 If the sample and the norm correlate, the text is accentual only; if, however, a significant difference can be proved, then the presence of cursus mixtus can be inferred.13 In numerical terms, Oberhelman and Hall’s requirements are as shown in Table 15.1.14 These are the requirements that I will now apply to Sidonius. Table 15.1  Oberhelman and Hall’s requirements for identifying cursus mixtus Sample size (n)

Required

> 150

1 Proportion of concurrence of ictus and accent

2 Proportion of coincidence of standard types of clausula and cursus

3 Metrical ms: proportion of four standard clausulae

4 Metrical mt: proportion of all types of clausula

5 Accentual: proportion of three standard types of cursus

> .700

‘high’

> .618

> .670

> .596

3 Prose Rhythm in Sidonius? 3.1 Question and Outcome Despite its extent and impact, Sidonius’ letter collection has as yet received little systematic attention related to prose rhythm. The question is whether it is sensitive to rhythm at all, and if so, where it sits on the scale from metrical clausulae to accentual cursus, including the transitional cursus mixtus. In both volumes of my commentary on Book 7, I have investigated the matter for this particular Book, which resulted in a fairly open conclusion.15 For the present chapter, I have extended my material to the first and the last Books, 1 and 9. Now covering 40 per cent of the entire text, while including the speech (contio) in Bourges in Ep. 7.9, it is sufficiently representative to draw general conclusions. The outcome is that, in the letters, there is no evidence of statistically convincing patterns in sentence endings,16 whether metrical or accentual (nor obviously therefore of cursus mixtus). Of course, a lack of rhythmical discipline in so self-conscious an author – and poet – as Sidonius would be surprising. That is why Kelly will be looking in a somewhat different direction in section 4. In the speech in Bourges, however, the situation is different, as Sidonius there applies a clear-cut cursus mixtus technique. 13

Cf. Oberhelman and Hall (1985) 219–20. A problem with this approach is that it cannot cope with different practice in different parts of works. 14 For these requirements in their final form, including greater margins of safety, see Oberhelman (1991) 5–19 ‘Methodology’. Oberhelman (1988a) 139–41 stipulates that, for prose to be identified as accentual with absolute certainty a value of at least .750 in column 5 is required. Otherwise additional tests for the tardus, trispondaicus, and miscellanei (i.e. other than the three standard forms and the trispondaicus) types must be carried out. Oberhelman demands that at least two of the following three criteria be met: values of c. 25.0 per cent for tardus, c. 5.0 per cent for trispondaicus, and c. 5.0 per cent for miscellanei. 15 See van Waarden (2010) 60–1 and (2016a) 49–51. 16 I.e. before full stop, semicolon, colon, question mark, or exclamation mark.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 465

13/02/20 4:57 PM

466

joop van waarden and gavin kelly

3.2 Tests The scan for accentual and metrical patterns in Books 1, 7, and 9 yields the overall results shown in Table 15.2.17 Table 15.2  Accentual and metrical patterns in Books 1, 7, and 9 1 Proportion of concurrence of ictus and accent

2 Proportion of coincidence of standard types of clausula and cursus

3 Metrical ms: proportion of four standard clausulae

4 Metrical mt: proportion of all types of clausula

5 Accentual: proportion of three standard types of cursus

> 150

> .700

‘high’

> .618

> .670

> .596

Book 1

274

.617

.387

.518

.927

.547

Book 7 without contio

326

.672

.511

.592

.937

.644

Sample size (n)

Required

Book 9

247

.619

.429

.583

.899

.591

Totals without contio

847

.639

.452

.566

.924

.598

83

.807

.771

.699

.975

.795

Contio

The most important conclusion is that the letters do not pass Oberhelmnan’s test for accentual prose, whereas the contio does. As to the letters, the outcome of 598 per 1,000 in Table 15.2, column 5, at ‘Totals without contio’ is clearly insufficient to define them with any confidence as accentual prose, the requirement being .596 minimum, and .750 to be really certain.18 They are not purely metrical either, as proved by the poor result of .566 in column 3, against a requirement of .618 minimum. One could argue that more than 90 per cent of the sentence endings belong to a broad range of metrical clausulae (beyond the narrow four-part canon; column 4), which would suit the intuitive feeling that as seasoned a poet as Sidonius might well have written a metrically distinguished prose; but then, the percentage of cursus forms of some sort (beyond the three/four-part standard) is equally high. All in all, this is the practical validation of Sidonius’ own assertion that writing prose is quite a different matter from writing poetry, one even possibly interfering with the other (Carm. 36 (Ep. 9.13.2) 14–19): Istud, da veniam, fingere vatibus priscis difficile est, difficile et mihi, ut diversa sonans os epigrammata nil crebras titubet propter epistulas, quas cantu ac modulis luxuriantibus lascivire vetat mascula dictio. 17

See Table 15.4 in the appendix for details. The additional conditions (see above, n. 14) are not met either: as little as 18 per cent tardus and as much as 11 per cent miscellanei. The considerable percentage of 18 per cent trispondaicus is striking; in an accentual text, it would have been an indication of the rich, fourfold variant of the cursus mixtus (see above and the summing-up in Oberhelman (1991) 11).

18

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 466

13/02/20 4:57 PM



prose rhythm in sidonius

467

But you must pardon me; there is one thing difficult for the old poets and difficult also for me – to contrive that the lips, in uttering poems which are so different, should not falter through having written great numbers of prose letters, whose manly diction forbids them to unbend in song and luxuriant measures.19 What remains is evaluating individual clausulae for their aesthetic function in micro-contexts – or wondering at the lack of a rhythmical ending where one would most expect it. An example of the latter is the exceptional lack of a proper metrical clausula at the end of letter 7.4: reverentiae po¯nde˘re˘ po˘te¯st. Could this be an indication of hasty revision, as writing reverentia¯e po˘te¯st po¯nde˘re˘ would have resulted in a nice double cretic?20 In fact, as Kelly will show below (sect. 4.2), qww wu is a favoured final rhythm for Sidonius. When we come to the contio, however, this ambitious test of Sidonius’ public oratory as an episcopal freshman has been written in unmistakable, tendentiously fourfold cursus mixtus style. An outcome of 795 per 1,000 in Table 15.2, column 5, is in itself proof of this, only to be confirmed by the other parameters.21 This is further underpinned by the χ2 tests providing outcomes on all parameters which easily surpass the 3.84 significance threshold. Sidonius clearly adapted his prose style to the genre he was writing in. Finally, one further result of my numerical analysis of Sidonius’ prose style: apart from rhythmical variations dictated by genre, it is reasonable to suspect that, in the correspondence, differences can be detected in relation to different addressees. This is Oberhelman’s hypothesis: ‘I suspect that letters addressed to, for example, family members are non-rhythmical or cursus, while those written to fellow bishops or popes contain the cursus mixtus.’22 I have made these calculations for bishops versus lay addressees. The results prove that differences, if any, are statistically irrelevant. Prose rhythm does not contribute to singling out the otherwise stylistically recognisable group of episcopal addressees.23

3.3 An Impasse The upshot of my research is as follows: 1 The sentence endings in the letters are not systematically marked by either metrical or accentual rhythm, or a combination of these. Rhythmical patterns can be identified on a micro-level, though without any statistic probability. 2 There are no statistically appreciable differences, in the letters, between episcopal and lay addressees. 3 The sentence endings in the speech in Bourges in Ep. 7.9 follow the cursus mixtus conventions, tendentiously the richer, four-part ones. It remains to proffer a hypothesis as to why it is so difficult to detect a clear-cut rhythmical stance in Sidonius’ correspondence when one applies Oberhelman and Hall’s 19

Cf. the introductory paragraph to this poem, Ep. 9.13.2: pareo iniunctis, licet, si umquam, modo maxime prosario loquendi genere districtus occupatusque, ‘I yield to your demand [to send a poem], although, at this of all times, I am deeply occupied and engrossed in prose composition.’ 20 But we have of course cursus planus. See the discussion in van Waarden (2010) 243. 21 In Table 15.2, columns 1–4, plus a high tardus (30 per cent) and a modest miscellanei (7 per cent) percentage, paired with an elevated, though unimpressive, 12 per cent on trispondaicus. 22 Oberhelman (1988b) 241. 23 For this, see my ch. 13 in this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 467

13/02/20 4:57 PM

468

joop van waarden and gavin kelly

method.24 Could it be that this method of, in a way, ‘one size fits all’ somehow does not apply in idiosyncratic cases? That is the case which we make for Sidonius in what follows.

4 A Self-Willed Prose-Writer My starting point in what follows is that Sidonius was undoubtedly alert to the practice of rhythmical prose, as is obvious to any reader with a good ear for Latin quantity, but there is variety of practice in different parts of the text: as van Waarden showed above, parts of Book 7 are much more strongly marked by prose rhythm than others. This is not uncommon: the same could be remarked of Cicero’s letters. One of the implications of this is that an approach which looks at the average appearances of particular rhythms may miss the local. Idiosyncrasies and divergences from the norms of late Latin prose rhythm should be considered along with the average.

4.1 Ep. 2.2 as a Test Case What I propose to do here is to look closely at one passage which is clearly clausulated to get a sense of Sidonius’ practice; from that one may reach a judgement on the role of rhythmical preferences in passages that are not as consistently clausulated. I have chosen the first ten chapters of Ep. 2.2 on his villa at Avitacum. From the first lines, the reader can have no doubt that rhythmical effects are intended: ruri me esse causaris cum mihi potius queri suppetat te nunc urbe retineri25 iam ver decedit aestati et per lineas sol altatus extremas in axem Scythicum radio peregrinante porrigitur

cretic spondee, planus paeon I spondee, trispondaicus cretic spondee, planus cretic spondee, planus cretic tribrach, tardus.

We have three of the common metrical clausulae, with the commonest cretic spondee clausula repeated three times and obtained in one case through hyperbaton (the postponement of extremas). A section of short clauses in the following sentence shows a similar effect. In what follows I have analysed the ends of all clauses: there may be an element of circularity in that passages that end in a recognised clausula are more likely to be identified as clauses (which is of course part of what clausulae are for), but 95 per cent of cases would surely be agreed by any competent Latinist, so it makes little difference.26 24

I am grateful to Steve Oberhelman, to whom I sent my material and tentative conclusions. In an email conversation in August 2016, he came up with the idea of comparing Cicero and Pliny for Sidonius’ lack of rhythmical outspokenness in the letters and the clearly different situation in the contio. For Cicero, see Hutchinson (1995); for Pliny, Whitton (2013) 28–32. Whitton’s percentages for the four classical clausulae in Pliny’s letters (29 per cent, 17 per cent, 15 per cent, 10 per cent) clearly point to metrical prose, whereas my findings for Sidonius (26 per cent, 13 per cent, 13 per cent, 6 per cent) are similar in tendency but not sufficiently outspoken. It should be borne in mind, however, that the comparison between any two datasets from different systems for calculating prose rhythm is potentially misleading. Results obtained with Oberhelman and Hall’s method tend to be less exuberant as they are statistically very demanding. 25 One might consider whether suppetat should be considered the last word of a clause, in which case one would have a metrical clausula (a double cretic), but an irregular cursus. 26 Here I dissent from the approach taken by Oberhelman: see n. 14 above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 468

13/02/20 4:57 PM



prose rhythm in sidonius

469

Table 15.3 analyses all but four of the 124 clausulae in these chapters (the exceptions are a quotation from Terence, a case where the Greek accent makes prosody uncertain, and two appearances of a question, quid plura?, too short for analysis; I have elided in cases of hiatus for reasons that will become clear below). In the top row I have listed all clausulae used more than once; in the first column I have noted the number of intermediate syllables between the last two accents: the preferred intervals for cursus of two syllables and four syllables are highlighted. As can be seen, in this passage Sidonius strikingly avoids ending a clause with one intervening syllable between the accents (barely 4 per cent in total), and has a strong attraction to two intervening syllables for the cursus planus (40 per cent) and tardus (20 per cent). There is not, however, the use of the cursus velox that one might expect in an author driven by cursus, with the three-syllable interval, the trispondaicus, more popular than the four syllable, especially if one takes into account the rhythm ó~~~ ó~~ (which might be called, usefully if slightly illogically, trispondaicus plus), and an unusually high number of cases with five intermediate syllables, a result of Sidonius’ fondness for long words. The so-called cursus octosyllabicus (ó~~~~ ó~~) is not used. So there are distinct preferences, but there is not the typical preference of cursus for an even number of intermediate syllables. If one turns to metrical clausulae, it is notable that thirty-one of forty-two cases of cursus planus (setting aside cases with hiatus) offer the cretic spondee rhythm – and none of the other eleven offers the heroic clausula of a hexameter (three are and three ). Moreover, if one considers the six cases with hiatus (glarea in vadis, fomite effundit, lati-tudine abductos, can-dore contenta est, marmora inquiras, lecti-sternio extructo), all of them become cursus planus when elided and all but the first scan as cretic spondee; one may also notice that, setting aside the prodelision contenta est, in four of the five other cases of elision, the syllable that is elided is a short one – similar to what one would expect in verse. Similarly, twenty of the twenty-four cases of the cursus tardus give the standard metrical forms of double cretic or cretic tribrach. In the cursus velox, which is less popular, adherence to the normal late antique rhythm of the cretic ditrochee is less strict (four of thirteen), but that is something that Sidonius has in common with most authors, and there are several ‘near misses’ of dactyl ditrochee or anapaest ditrochee. Of the fourteen uses of the trispondaicus, six are paeon I + spondee, the traditional esse videatur clausula beloved by Cicero, and another seven consist of a three shorts followed by a three longs, best ). This combination (latera clivorum, imconsidered as paeon IV + spondee ( plicita singultat, o-peribus extructas, latera curvatum, ca-pitibus effundunt, par-iete castrensi, capite defrudans) is a notable pattern, and can best be seen as a variant on the traditional cretic spondee, with two shorts for the initial longum. (One might wonder whether some of the words might in practice have undergone syncope in pronunciation, and it is striking to see the same words recurring.) A similar impression comes when one looks at cases with ó~~~ ó~~, where four of the seven forms can be seen as variations on either the double cretic, with two shorts substituted for the long of the first cretic to make paeon I + cretic (ca-lore venientibus, iure vocitabitur), or of the cretic tribrach to make paeon I + tribrach (te-tendit opificium, interpel-lata parietibus). But it is looking at the forms that do not conform to the three main types of cursus or to the trispondaicus that is most striking. Of the eight cases where there are five intermediate syllables between the last two syllables, in four, the pentasyllabic final word itself creates a

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 469

13/02/20 4:57 PM

Cretic spondee

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 470

12.5

5.0

4.2

5 9.2

11

5.8

7

1.7

2

35.8

6

Percentage

15

43

 

Total

3

1

4

4

ó~~~~~ó~

 

 

 

2

ó~~~~ó~ (velox)

 

2

7

 

 

ó~~~ó~~

6

 

Paeon IV spondee  

Paeon I tribrach

 

Paeon I spondee 1

1.7

2

 

2

 

 

Paeon I cretic

6

 

2.5

3

 

 

3

Dactyl pyrrhic

ó~~~ó~

 

ó~~ó~~ (tardus)

Cretic tribrach  

2.5

3

 

 

3

Cretic pyrrhic

14

 

36

Double cretic

ó~~ó~ (planus)

Cretic ditrochee

1

Dactyl cretic 2.5

3

 

2

 

1

6.7

8

1

5

 

1

1

Other + ditrochee

1

10.0

12

1

3

1

2

4

1

Other

1

 

 

 

120

8

13

7

14

24

48

1

5

Total

ó~ó~~

ó~ó~

Table 15.3  Analysis of clausulae in Ep. 2.2.1–10

6.7

10.8

5.8

11.7

20.0

40.0

0.8

4.2

Percentage

13/02/20 4:57 PM



prose rhythm in sidonius

471

cretic spondee clausula (imbricaretur, temperamento, nuncupavere, i-maginabuntur).27 In a further three the rhythm is paeon I + spondee (occidu-i subiceremur, inclementi-am canicularem, cubicul-um petierimus). Similarly, most of the cases with one intermediate syllable between the accented syllables work as metrical clausulae: in carbaso sudat unus (cretic ditrochee), patrio mihi dulcius (double cretic), inferiores sibi colles (cretic spondee). As far as word breaks are concerned, Sidonius shows a strong preference in the cretic + spondee and double cretic clausulae for placing the main word break of the clausula after the short of the penultimate cretic ( , so that it does not coincide with the feet (for example, esse causaris, limus in ripis, mundus incanduit, terra perscribitur), but this is not an absolute rule (for example, marginem villae, civicum frigus, frontibus tenditur). In the clausula the break is regularly before the antepenultimate syllable, supporting the interpretation of this form as a variant on cretic spondee. The paeon I + spondee clausula normally has the break in the equivalent position after the first short of the paeon (urbe retineri).28 A number of details in the above suggest strongly that Sidonius’ approach to clausulation is notably more metrical than it is accentual. These include: • the use of elision, and the preference for eliding the short syllable and for elision in certain positions; • the avoidance of metrical patterns characteristic of verse, such as the heroic clausula ( ); • the willingness to substitute two shorts for a long to create his own distinct clausulae ( ); • the willingness to use forms which are metrically correct clausulae but do not adhere to cursus – in fact, to go back to Cicero’s practice. But there is arguably an accentual element, since in most cases where Sidonius does not adhere to traditional metrical clausulae or his own variants on them, he does adhere to accent. In a case like glarea in vadis, if we accept the elision, the stress accent on the first syllable of vadis substitutes, in a sense, the effect of a long syllable. Only five of the clausulae in the passage, 4 per cent, do not adhere either to repeated metrical patterns or to the cursus. This discussion has focused on statistics more than aesthetics. In thinking of the aesthetic effect of prose rhythm one might point to equal lengths of phrases and repeated rhythms. Take this passage from Ep. 2.2.4: intra conclave succensum solidus dies et haec abundantia lucis inclusae ut verecundos quosque compellat aliquid se plus putare quam nudos

, planus cretic spondee, planus cretic spondee, planus cretic spondee, planus

27

In these cases one could perhaps see a cursus planus created by the secondary stress accent on the first syllable, which would carry the main stress in the cognates imber, tempero, nuncupo, imago. But no ‘feeling’ of cursus can be rescued for the paeon I + spondees described next. 28 The exception is the type discussed in the previous paragraph where the word break comes after the long of the paeon I (e.g. inclementi-am canicularem).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 471

13/02/20 4:57 PM

472

joop van waarden and gavin kelly

As well as the roughly even clauses and the repeated planus, one can also identify further patterns of rhythm within clauses: conclave succensum and ut verecundos both give further cretic spondee patterns and haec abundantia offers a double cretic. Or take the second paragraph of Sidonius’ journey to Rome (Ep. 1.5.2): sic Alpium iugis appropinquatum quarum mihi citus et facilis ascensus et inter utrimque terrentis latera praerupti cavatis in callem nivibus itinera mollita

cretic spondee

where the distinctive and relatively rare paeon IV + spondee is brought out three times in a row (this same clausula has already occurred four times within the short compass of the letter so far: positus accepi, sol-licitus inquiris, car-minibus illustres, a-picibus accito).

4.2 The Next Steps This case points to one of the next steps in understanding Sidonius’ practice, which is a fuller study looking at the metrical patterns favoured by Sidonius without assuming that they should all be conventional clausulae of cursus mixtus, any more than that they should be the same as Cicero’s. Like the resolved form in the opening of Ep. 1.5, one can demonstrate in the opening letter of the collection Sidonius’ distinct fondness for the one-word cretic spondee clausula (e-nucleatisque, ma-turitatemque, insecuturus, nuncupaverunt, praerogativam, haesitabundos, mul-tiplicatisque). One Sidonian clausula that I have not discussed hitherto is , which always ends with an iambic word and is thus a cursus planus. It occurs only three times in the first ten chapters of Ep. 2.2 (climate loquar, praesule deo, milia capit), but is clearly a rhythm that Sidonius is happy with, found three times, for example, in the first few sentences of another display piece, Ep. 1.2 (pagina sinit, lactea cutis, vere-cundia facit). This answers a problem posed by van Waarden earlier in this chapter, whether Sidonius was revising in haste when he allowed Ep. 7.4 to end reverentiae pondere potest: he was in fact ending with a favoured clausula.29 On the other hand, we need to acknowledge that Sidonius on occasions writes less markedly rhythmical prose. In some cases his fondness for polysyllabic endings is more important than the quest for rhythm; in other cases he writes art prose divided carefully into short clauses where rhythm is simply not the point, or at least not the main point. Take for example this passage from Ep. 5.7.2: hi sunt, quorum laudari audis     in otio occupationes     in pace praedas,     inter arma fugas     inter vina victorias.

29

See above, and van Waarden (2010) 243 and 585. In the other case of a similar clausula which he considers at Ep. 7.6.1, effi-cacia queat, there is no need to infer that the noun might be ablative.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 472

13/02/20 4:57 PM



prose rhythm in sidonius

473

hi sunt, qui causas     morantur adhibiti     impediunt praetermissi,     fastidiunt admoniti     obliviscuntur locupletati. hi sunt, qui emunt lites     vendunt intercessiones,     deputant arbitros     iudicanda dictant     dictata convellunt,     attrahunt litigaturos     protrahunt audiendos,     trahunt addictos     retrahunt transigentes. Now it is true that some of these endings are regular clausulae or fit the expectations of cursus, but many do not. The primary effect comes from the dazzling lexical display. But clausulation is not without a role. If one looks at the last sentence, there are regular clausulae at deputant arbitros (double cretic), dictata convellunt (cretic spondee), protrahunt audiendos, and retrahunt transigentes (both cretic ditrochee30). So even here, clausulation helps to mark what seem to be the natural groupings of these short phrases.

4.3 Conclusion Sidonius, therefore, is a sophisticated and idiosyncratic personality in prose rhythm as much as in other areas. A fuller study would look for his practice not in an ideal of cursus mixtus as inferred from the practice of other authors, but rather with an expectation of idiosyncrasy. Lengths of clauses and rhythm other than at the clausula would also deserve attention. To pay such attention would help explain the exoticism of his language and might also contribute to improving the text.31

5 Further Reading There is a very considerable literature with a vast range of approaches to the study of prose rhythm. One might sort out as landmarks Norden (1898) 909–60 and Janson (1975) for rather more qualitative analysis, and de Groot (1918) and Oberhelman and Hall (in the 1980s) for quantitative analysis. There is still no agreement as to which method best approximates the intentions of antique authors. Oberhelman (2003) is very helpful in providing a comprehensive assessment of the ancient and modern evidence on Latin prose rhythm in a single volume.32

30

Applying a degree of licence in syllable division in the latter case (ret-rahunt). To give just one example of this last point: at Ep. 1.1.1, we should surely read si quae litterae politiores . . . varia occasione fluxerunt, cretic + spondee (so Köhler (1995), following the consensus of the MSS), rather than the irregular fluxerint (so Anderson (1936) and Loyen (1970) following T). 32 See also n. 7 above for a list of important publications. 31

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 473

13/02/20 4:57 PM

Appendix

Totals Books 1 + 7 + 9 without contio %

45

29

12

21

7

14

1

11

6

4

24

23.3

13.2

13.8

8.9

3.7

6.4

2.1

4.3

0.3

3.4

1.8

1.2

7.4

5

4

1

17

2.4

1.9

 

0.5

8.1

 

 

 

 

51

26

27

23

9

13

2

6

24.3

12.4

12.9

11

4.3

6.2

1

2.9

 

 

 

 

847

 

 

Paeon I + spondee

Paeon I + paeon I

43

Paeon I + creticus

Spondee + creticus

76

Dispondee

Choriambe + creticus

7.7

Paeon IV creticus

21

2.6

Paeon IV spondee

7

–

Trochee creticus

0

0.4

Creticus tribrachys

1

1.8

Dicreticus

5

–

ditrochee

0

Creticus spondee

16 5.8

25

17

18

6

3

8

5

8

1

6

2

3

7

21.6

14.7

15.5

5.2

2.6

6.9

4.3

6.9

0.9

5.2

1.7

 

2.6

6

1

6

2

1

1

5

1.2

7.2

2.4

1.2

1.2

6

 

 

 

 

23

12

14

9

3

1

27.7

14.5

16.9

10.8

3.6

1.2

 

 

59

39

39

7

3

25

8

4

1

6

3

0

3

11

23.9

15.8

15.8

2.8

1.2

10.1

3.2

1.6

0.4

2.4

1.2

–

1.2

4.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

23

28

5

2

18

5

4

1

3

1

0

3

5

25.6

14.7

17.9

3.2

1.3

11.5

3.2

2.6

0.6

1.9

0.6

–

1.9

3.2

 

 

 

 

19

16

11

2

1

7

3

0

0

3

2

0

0

6

20.9

17.6

12.1

2.2

1.1

7.7

3.3

–

–

3.3

2.2

–

–

6.6

217

110

107

45

25.7

13.0

12.7

5.4

91

Book 9.1, 12-16 %

Totals Books 1 + 7 + 9 without contio #

9 3.3

156

Book 9.2-11 %

Book 9.1, 12-16 # (laymen)

36 13.1

247

Book 9 %

Book 9.2-11 # (bishops)

9 3.3

83

Book 7.contio %

Book 9 # (entire)

9 3.3

116

Book 7.12-18 %

Book 7.contio #

23 8.4

210

Book 7.1-11 %

Book 7.12-18 # (laymen)

28 10.2

326

Book 7 %

Book 7.1-11 # (bishops)

82 29.9

274

Book 1 %

Book 7 # (entire minus contio)

choriambe-spondee

Book 1 # (laymen only)

Occurrences

 

Table 15.4 Statistics of the clausulae in Books 1, 7, and 9

“Ictus = accent”: the proportion of coincidence of ictus and accent “Metr4+acc3”: the proportion belonging both to the group of the four most important metrical forms and to the group of the three most important rhythmical forms “Prop metrical ms”: the proportion of standard metrical forms of the cursus mixtus “Prop metrical mt”: the proportion of all cursus mixtus metrical forms “Prop accentual”: the proportion of the three standard rhythmical forms

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 474

13/02/20 4:57 PM

Other

No cursus or doubtful

Ictus = accent

Metr4 + acc3

Prop metrical ms

Prop metrical mt

Prop accentual

13

11

12

0

19

169

106

142

254

150

4.7

4.0

4.4

–

6.9

61.7

38.7

51.8

92.7

54.7

6

7

20

89

74

47

2

48

17

7

16

4

22

219

170

193

306

210

1.8

2.1

6.3

27.3

22.7

14.4

0.6

14.7

5.2

2.1

4.9

1.2

6.9

67.2

51.1

59.2

93.7

64.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

6

15

59

53

30

1

29

8

3

9

4

14

129

115

127

195

142

2.4

2.9

6.8

28.1

25.2

14.3

0.5

13.8

3.8

1.4

4.3

1.9

6.7

61.4

54.8

60.6

93.2

67.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planus

Medius

67 24.5

Trispondaicus plus

1 0.4

Trispondaicus

26 9.5

Velox plus

34 12.4

Velox

90 32.8

Tardus

Dispondaicus

No clausula or doubtful 21 7.7

Heroica 1 0.4

Dactylus + creticus 7 2.6

1

1

5

30

21

17

1

19

9

4

7

0.9

0.9

4.1

25.9

18.1

14.7

0.9

16.4

7.8

3.4

6

3  

3.6

2.5

 

 

 

26

25

15

1

10

2

3

31.3

30.1

18.1

1.2

12

2.4

3.6

 

 

 

8

90

55

66

111

68

6.8

77.6

47.4

57.0

95.9

58.7

 

 

 

 

 

67

64

58

81

66

1.3

80.7

77.1

69.9

97.5

79.5

5

9

26

80

45

21

4

37

17

10

25

0

8

153

106

144

222

146

2.0

3.6

10.5

32.4

18.2

8.5

1.6

15.0

6.9

4.0

10.1

-

3.2

61.9

42.9

58.3

89.9

59.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

5

13

50

27

13

2

26

10

6

17

0

5

105

68

96

144

90

0.6

3.2

8.3

32.1

17.3

8.3

1.3

16.7

6.4

3.8

10.9

-

3.2

67.3

43.6

61.5

92.3

57.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

4

13

30

18

8

2

11

7

4

8

0

3

48

38

48

78

56

4.4

4.4

14.3

33.0

19.8

8.8

2.2

12.1

7.7

4.4

8.8

–

3.3

52.7

41.8

52.7

85.7

61.5

259

153

94

152

541

382

479

782

506

30.6

18.1

11.1

18.0

63.9

45.2

56.6

92.4

59.8

≥ .700 ‘high’

≥ .618

Tests Oberhelman:

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 475

≥ .670 ≥ .596

13/02/20 4:57 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 476

13/02/20 4:57 PM

Part V The Manuscript Tradition and the History of Scholarship

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 477

13/02/20 4:30 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 478

13/02/20 4:30 PM

16 THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS Franz Dolveck

A

count, the manuscript tradition of Sidonius Apollinaris comprises just over a hundred witnesses. This makes Sidonius a well-diffused author, but the situation varies greatly from period to period. Setting aside florilegia and manuscripts containing only excerpts of Sidonius, there are seventy-seven manuscripts in total.1 Just under fifty of them were copied in the twelfth or very early thirteenth centuries; about fifteen are earlier (three are Carolingian, three date from the second half of the eleventh century, and the others can be placed with more or less precision between these periods), and about fifteen later (almost all from the fifteenth century). The main problem is not the fact that the Sidonian tradition is rich, but rather that in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is impossible to use chronological arguments to classify the witnesses. In addition, the quality of the transmitted text – or, to be more exact, of the copies produced – is, as far as I can judge, exceptionally good: the most evident mistakes are shared by numerous witnesses, something which often prevents the establishment of a precise classification. Is the quality of the transmitted text due to the particularly high regard in which Sidonius was held? I am inclined to think not; more likely, the notorious difficulty of the text required the scribes’ constant attention: any word chosen by Sidonius is rarely what one would write ‘by default’; it is often a related or similar but rare form which one must be careful not to garble. The consequence of this is that, short of collating all the manuscripts or at least the majority of them, the construction of the stemma is difficult and often precarious. However, this also means that in practice, the stemma can be used to reconstruct the text even if it is not correct in every detail. T THE CURRENT

1 History of Modern Editing and Stemmatic Scholarship The other major problem faced by anyone studying the manuscript tradition of Sidonius is its historiography. I hope I will be forgiven for speaking of certain predecessors in rather blunt terms, and for reiterating basic elements of methodology. A sizeable bibliography rests on a very small number of works, which too often have been used to draw conclusions that are – to say the least – risky. Sidonius has been the subject of three ‘critical’ editions. The death of Christian Lütjohann in 1884, at the age of thirty-seven, came before he had time to complete the edition he was 1

A census of the known manuscripts of Sidonius Apollinaris with brief notes is provided in the second part of this chapter: item numbers preceded by a hash sign, such as #37, refer to this census. With a few exceptions, I have stopped short of analysing the manuscripts included in the second category, those that are fragmentary or contain only excerpts of Sidonius.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 479

13/02/20 4:30 PM

480

FRANZ DOLVECK

preparing for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica; it was eventually published under his name, but had been completed under Theodor Mommsen’s supervision. Hence, although the text and critical apparatus are (directly or not) by Lütjohann, he had only completed the first part of the introduction, devoted to the description of the manuscripts, which are classified into four families. The construction of the stemma is the work of Friedrich Leo, and is the weakest part of the edition. It has already been noted that Leo’s stemma directly opposed Lütjohann’s classification into four families.2 Yet Leo’s arguments have perhaps not been sufficiently analysed: in the majority of cases, he is prompted by questions of spelling or perfectly reversible variants; that is, elements which can almost never constitute evidence. In Leo’s defence, he had no knowledge (like generations of scholars after him) of the fragments of the Laudianus (#37. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. lat. 104, and now also Erlangen, UB, 2112/7) containing the Carmina, which were first noted by Bernhard Bischoff in 1976;3 Leo thus took it for a manuscript of the Epistulae only. Though a minor element, it makes a considerable difference. Returning to Lütjohann, his work is exceptional in many ways, and particularly the important list of witnesses, nearly all of which he consulted himself.4 Nevertheless, his classification of the manuscripts into four families raises methodological issues: he admits from the first page that it is dependent on the order of the works and on the lacunae. The second factor is irrefutable, and the fourth family, the only one which is really based on this criterion, undeniably exists. However, the first point is not irrefutable in itself: before we can say that the order followed by a given manuscript is wrong or, in other words, is an innovation, we must be able to say what the authentic order is: as far as I am aware, this has not been generally established in the case of Sidonius’ works.5 Besides, within the first three families, Lütjohann tends to deal with manuscripts separately depending on whether or not they contain the poems as well as the letters. This is acceptable for descriptive ends, but not for a classification, because since an incomplete manuscript may very well derive from one which is more complete, a manuscript that only has the letters may well derive from one containing both the letters and the poems. My final criticism is for the most part a question of vocabulary. Lütjohann legitimately notes the resemblances between manuscripts (gemellus est, affinis est, artissima affinitate conexus est, simillimus est, etc.); he is generally right, yet he offers no indication as to the degree of such similarities. Thus, as we will see, certain manuscripts marked as ‘twins’ or ‘very close’ are indeed so, while others are actually separated by a more or less significant number of intersections in the stemma. Conversely, certain similarities which might have seemed evident remain undetected. For instance, the two manuscripts containing the eleventh-century poem Deidamia Achilli, which this fact alone would have sufficed to bring together, are left unsorted in their family (Lütjohann describes them at pp. ix and x–xi). Since the subsequent editions by Paul Mohr (for Teubner in 1895) and André Loyen (for the Budé series, in 1960 for the poems and 1970 for the letters) reproduce certain errors found in Lütjohann’s apparatus – which, it must be said, is sometimes unclear but rarely 2 3 4

5

See e.g. Burke (1911) 7. Bischoff (1976) 19–20 = (1981) 184–5. The manuscripts not listed in Lütjohann’s (1887) preface (and of which he was therefore not aware) are indicated in my census in the second part of this chapter by an asterisk. Lütjohann reached a total of 86 manuscripts (of which 64 belong to the first category of the census); for my part, I reach a total of 116 (with 77 in the first category): such a modest increase over a period of more than a century attests to the sheer breadth of Lütjohann’s research. This criterion may indeed be used, but only when it is possible to decide if a given order is inherited or the result of innovation. This applies, for instance, to the manuscripts inverting Ep. 5.2–3 (discussed below), because in doing so they differ from the rest of their branch, the order of which is shown to be authentic because it is also that followed by the other branches.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 480

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

481

mistaken – one may harbour doubts regarding their independence from their predecessor; admittedly, however, neither of them claimed to be starting again from scratch. From a philological point of view, there is much to be gleaned from Mohr’s edition: he adds collations, notably for witnesses N and V, and reduces Lütjohann’s apparatus by eliminating numerous minor variants (minor as far as establishing the text is concerned, though they are useful for assessing scribal practice), resulting in an edition that is sometimes easier to use. Turning to Loyen’s edition: it is not my place to judge his text and translation; others will be more competent in this respect. However, his critical introduction displays a profound disdain for philology, and I find it difficult to trust an editor who quotes manuscripts using obsolete shelf marks,6 gives a nonsensical description of his witnesses,7 or does not hesitate to claim, in the space of fifteen pages, first that the manuscripts derive from several late antique editions, and then that they all have a single archetype.8 Finally, the invention of the hyparchetype m is but a flimsy construct.9 Moving back in time, I should also mention two important contributions. Fridolf Gustafsson, though dealing primarily with issues of textual criticism, did so using important collations:10 he was, after Lütjohann, the modern scholar with the most wide-ranging knowledge of Sidonius’ manuscripts. Finally, the discovery of #56. Reims, BM, 413 is to be credited to Malcolm Burke, who wrote a doctoral thesis on the topic;11 the readings from the manuscript quoted by Loyen in his edition were taken from Burke’s collation. The following pages do not endeavour to provide an exhaustive overview of the manuscript tradition of Sidonius Apollinaris – which would be unrealistic in the context of the present volume.12 Rather, they are an attempt to open up potential avenues of research for future editors, and to indicate the principal manuscripts that they should use as well as the relationships between these. Thus I offer only the first steps towards an overview which, as things 6

7

8

9

10 11 12

Loyen (1960) 1.xxxvi n. 1, quoting C as Matritensis F 150, and even noting: ‘C’est par erreur que Luetjohann donne au Matritensis la cote Ee 102.’ In fact, at the time when Lütjohann was writing, Ee. 102 was indeed the established shelf mark; the shelf mark F. 150 is older (it is used to identify the manuscript in Hänel (1830) 968, but does not appear anywhere in the manuscript itself). At the time when Loyen was writing, the current, numerical shelf mark (9448) had been in use for more than half a century. Loyen (1970) 2.li: ‘[T and M] ont, l’un et l’autre, ce point commun (qui les distingue de L): c’est de rapprocher, curieusement inséré [sic] au milieu des Epistulae, les carmina I à VIII, les Panégyriques’; T has all the Carmina, not only the panegyrics, while M does indeed only have the panegyrics, but they are arranged according to the normal order, that is, following the letters. Loyen’s description of the two states of the witness M, which follows the passage quoted here, is a serious distortion of elements taken from Lütjohann. The mere observation (correct, but probably underestimating the number of archetypal errors) at Loyen (1960) 1.xl: ‘les . . . codices renfermant environ une quinzaine d’erreurs communes, il est nécessaire de leur supposer un même ancêtre X’ undermines everything that Loyen has said from p. xxx onwards; see below on the archetype. This is the siglum used by Loyen to designate the readings shared by #29. Montpellier, BU Méd., H 4, #41. Paris, BNF, lat. 2171, and #44. Paris, BNF, lat. 2782 (Loyen (1960) 1.xxxix). Regrettably, Loyen did not realise that the collation of the third of these alone made it practically unnecessary to consult the other two, which are situated much lower on the stemma as I reconstruct it. Gustafsson (1882). Lütjohann did not have the chance to read it, but it is mentioned in Leo’s preface. Burke (1911). I shall of course focus only on the works which are considered authentic, that is, the traditional corpus of letters and poems. Pithou’s attribution to Sidonius of the epigram against Majorian edited in the Anthologia latina (391) looks credible enough, but it is not my place to judge (see Pithou (1590) 466, Sirmond (1652) 118; see in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2, point 8, with n. 33). The distich is known through two manuscripts, #101. Paris, BNF, lat. 8071 (the Florilegium Thuaneum) and #115. Vienna, ÖNB, 277, where it directly follows the Ovidian Halieuticon, which is itself preceded by the poem of Eucheria (Anth. 390). The relationship between these two manuscripts seems decisively settled by Russo (2019).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 481

13/02/20 4:30 PM

482

FRANZ DOLVECK

stand, is impossible to reconstruct in its entirety.13 The research presented below is of varying degrees of precision: I have attempted to provide as precise a stemma as possible for the complete manuscripts (containing the Epistulae, the Panegyrici, and the Carmina minora), which are few in number; I have sought to clarify as much as I could the genealogy of the witnesses containing only the letters and the panegyrics. The manuscripts containing only the letters, which form the largest group, are classified with far less precision, for two main reasons: first, in the case of prose (and especially Sidonius’ prose), it is more difficult, without complete collations, to distinguish an authentic text unambiguously from one that is the product of innovation; second, instances of contamination are notoriously more frequent. I refer to the manuscripts using existing sigla when they have entered common usage, and failing that, abbreviations. The latter are only used for convenience within the framework of this chapter; it will be up to future editors to assign proper sigla to the surviving or reconstructed manuscripts which they use.14 The sigla assigned to the archetypes are used right from the first stemmata in order to facilitate cross-referencing, but their logic will only emerge fully at the end of this chapter. The stemmata offered here should be understood as an illustration of my text rather than its conclusion: on no account should what they present be used independently of the text which validates them. If their filiation is certain or very probable, witnesses are given in text boxes; if their position is less clear, they are left unframed: they are mentioned only to indicate the fact that their archetype is known, and that they do not descend from any clearly identified branches deriving from it. In general, the source of contaminations (indicated by a dotted line, or by underlining a manuscript with a dotted line) is not provided; in most cases, this is difficult to determine with any certainty, but when it can be identified, this is noted in the text. Quotations are from Lütjohann’s text and follow his numeration.

2 The Archetype I should begin with a few preliminary remarks on the origins of the manuscripts: although anticipating some of the arguments made below, this will make the chapter as a whole more readily comprehensible. There is no evidence to suggest that Sidonius’ works derive from multiple archetypes:15 the need for correction through conjecture occurs regularly in the editions, always in places which implicitly reveal faults shared by all the manuscripts and therefore inherited from a single archetype; conversely, there is never any reason to suspect that variants

13

14

15

For reasons of space, I shall not systematically demonstrate the independence of a given manuscript from another. Two manuscripts, say A and B, can be connected in three ways: either A descends from B, B descends from A, or both descend from the same manuscript; I shall not seek to demonstrate the last case, which is by far the most frequent in practice. However, when one of the other two cases occurs or may legitimately be suspected, I shall provide a justification. When dealing with contaminated manuscripts with identifiable sources, I shall distinguish their initial state (before contamination) from their final state: M1, Avr1, or M2, Avr2, etc. If no indication is given, I am referring to the final state. Additionally, in the case of #63. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 203, I make a strict distinction between the two sections containing the letters and the poems respectively (which I thus treat as two different manuscripts, Reg203/1 and Reg203/2), because I am not completely certain that they originally formed one manuscript. I use the term ‘archetype’ to refer to the first common ancestor (surviving or not) of a given group of manuscripts, and in absolute terms, of all the manuscripts. In the latter sense, when ‘archetype’ on its own could be ambiguous, I use the German term Ur-Archetyp.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 482

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

483

in important passages go back to the author himself.16 The most important consequence of this is that although it is very probable that several editions of parts or all of Sidonius’ oeuvre were published within his lifetime, the tradition never bears any direct trace of them; therefore it cannot provide arguments justifying the existence or the nature of these editions, which are irretrievably lost to us. Certain surviving manuscripts contain both the letters and the poems, and others only the letters; those containing only the poems (which are very few in number) are late and all derive from more complete manuscripts – in other words, they are the result of an editorial choice to omit the letters.17 Consequently, there is no reason to think that the letters and the poems each have a distinct tradition and that the presence of both corpora in some manuscripts is the result of editorial rather than authorial choice.18 It is difficult to provide any precise information on the archetype. Leo thought it was non vetustissimus, but without very strong evidence.19 The oldest surviving manuscripts are witnesses dating to the first half of the ninth century.20 Since they are – assuming my final stemma

16

17

18

19

20

The argument seems certain from an empirical perspective; however, in points of detail it can admittedly be hard to distinguish Sidonius’ style from the prose of medieval scribes or scholars. In such cases, the stemma plays a determining role: see, for instance, n. 39 below. See below on humanist witnesses; they all descend either from #13. Florence, BML, plut. 45.23 (T), or from #6. Brussels, BR, 10615–729 (Br2). The latter, copied in Trier around 1150, is a genuine exception, but its aim clearly was to compile an anthology of poetry only: it omits Sidonius’ prose, but does the same for Paulinus of Nola. This remark is valid in general; it does not apply to certain special cases, including the English family and the archetype which I call κ. Leo’s Ur-Archetyp is what he calls α; he dates it approximately to the eighth century: see Lütjohann (1887) xxv–xxvii. I cannot understand how Leo (and Mommsen, who is the author of the note on xxv) are able to attribute to the archetype a number of lacunae which do not in fact exist in all the manuscripts: the lost manuscript which they describe is only a hyparchetype. #37. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. lat. 104 + Erlangen, UB, 2112/7 (L), reign of Louis the Pious; #56. Reims, BM, 413, second quarter of the ninth century; #89. Marburg, Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Hr 4, 15, same dating. To be absolutely exact, the oldest surviving manuscript appears to be #105. St Gallen, Stiftsbibl., 190, dated by Bernhard Bischoff (albeit eighty years ago, at the very beginning of his career) to the early ninth century; see Bischoff (1998–2014) 3.313, no. 5648 (cf. Bischoff (1937) 695). If only because of its date, this manuscript, deserves to be treated as an exception to my rule of not discussing fragmentary or partial witnesses. As it stands, the volume is a very complicated assemblage. The greater part of the manuscript is comprised of the letter collections of Faustus of Riez (and the letters linked to that collection), of Ruricius of Limoges, and of Desiderius of Cahors, but there are also various texts with no obvious relation to this epistolary series: for example, the Libellus precum by Faustinus and Marcellinus (= Collectio Avellana 2), the De scripturis divinis by Evantius (CPL 1076), fragments of two letters by Augustine, and two letters which are thought to come from the pen of Bachiarius (CPL 570). Furthermore, at the beginning of the manuscript, there is a summary list of (some of) the contents (written in at least two separate stages, and evidently imperfect). Although this list provides much relevant information, there is no obvious way of reconstructing the story of this fascinating manuscript. The two studies by Mathisen (1998, 1999b) have seductive conclusions, but, despite being accepted in subsequent bibliographies, are based on a sequence of hypotheses. To date, moreover, no analysis has taken various highly significant technical elements into account, including composition of gatherings and hints of Luxeuil script, for example on pp. 277 and 300. Two elements connect this manuscript to the transmission of Sidonius: a list of letters selected from Books 3–9 (in the summary of the volume only), and Ep. 2.1, which has lost its opening words (until bella dixerunt, in §1) and is presented as if it were the conclusion to Faustus’ Ep. 11 (pp. 130–2). The list, probably incomplete, refers to an earlier stage in the history of the collection represented by the manuscript, when it included an anthology of Sidonius’ letters, probably also with letters from Books 1 and 2: for similar florilegia, see #96, 99, 103 in the census of manuscripts below (although they are later in date, such selections are common enough throughout the Middle Ages). The remains of Ep. 2.1 may be the only concrete remnant of that earlier stage. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the text: although it contains various mistakes, errors, and variants, it cannot be linked precisely with

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 483

13/02/20 4:30 PM

484

FRANZ DOLVECK

is correct – at least four generations lower than the archetype, it seems highly unlikely that the latter could be dated later than the beginning of the eighth century; it would probably be safer to place it at some point in the seventh century, though this is mere hypothesis. We can be more confident – even certain – that the archetype contained all of Sidonius’ known works:21 letters, panegyrics, then Carmina minora, in that order, which is manifestly original. However, the available stemmatic arguments are insufficient to establish how these works were arranged in detail, especially in Book 7 of the letters; neither do they allow us to confirm whether Carmen 24 was indeed at the end of the collection, or if it was followed by Carmina 22 and 23.22 Besides, even if it was possible to reconstruct the archetype in its exact state, it would not necessarily mean that it corresponded to the author’s intentions. There is at least one feature which surely did not form part of the original collection: the inclusion, probably immediately after Sidonius’ works, of Ausonius’ Caesares in a very abridged version, and, moreover, in a pretty bad state.23 In the Middle Ages, the Caesares was probably the most popular work of Ausonius – perhaps his only work known beyond narrow circles. Not only was it transmitted in the principal collections of Ausonius’ works, but it was also transmitted independently in anthologies, in the manuscripts of Sidonius, and in those of Suetonius.24 This is of some significance for our purposes: since the transmission of the Caesares in the collections of Ausonius undoubtedly offers the ‘authentic’ – or at any rate the least damaged – text, it is possible to distinguish systematically between elements derived from the tradition and those derived from innovations in the ‘non-Ausonian’ tradition. We will see that in certain cases, the Caesares provides the most immediately clear arguments, though not the only ones, for classifying the manuscripts of Sidonius.25

21 22 23 24

25

any known branch of the transmission of Sidonius. This does not mean, however, that the manuscript is ‘extrastemmatic’. Quite apart from the implausibility of an otherwise unknown branch surviving until the beginning of the ninth century merely to end with this sole manuscript, Ep. 2.1 may share at least one corruption common to the whole tradition, quique for quippe on line 4 (but Lütjohann’s emendation may be unnecessary); moreover, the order of the letters in the summary clearly indicates a selection made from Sidonius’ letter collection in the state and order that we know. Additionally, although it carries less weight as an argument, it should be noted that nowhere in the manuscript is there a variant that might be authentic against all other witnesses. Citius for citus, §4, might be the truth, but even if that is the case the variant has no value stemmatically. See also Mathisen in this volume ch. 20, sect. 3, with a somewhat different outcome. Another partial witness worth citing is #111. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 1341 (see Williams (1967), brought to my attention by Joop van Waarden), which contains Ep. 4.25 from the beginning up to 4 augeri (the ending is regular but nonsensical: the scribe copied just enough of the letter to fill the blank space available). Some variants are noted above the line, all but one absolutely stupid (e.g. imperitiam for impertiam in l. 1; or are they the text of the model that the scribe corrected?): at 3 iunctis repente manibus, the MS has iunctis with L (Mohr (1895)’s apparatus evokes the possibility that N has it too; I checked N, and it clearly has iactis), and iactis, which is the text of all other manuscripts, as a variant. However, I cannot help seeing iunctis as a banalisation, which could actually have occurred more than once. With the reservations expressed at n.12 above. See Franca Ela Consolino’s ch. 10 in this volume, n. 7. The Caesares occurs in eighteen manuscripts of Sidonius, covering virtually all the branches. The Caesares appears in the family which includes the famous Vossianus, Leiden, UB, VLF 111, as well as in the Z family, which has mostly humanist attestations, and in some manuscripts of the so-called Excerpta. The ‘anthological’, ‘Sidonian’, and ‘Suetonian’ Caesares all share a single source, which corresponds more or less to the archetype χ of Green’s edition. I limit myself here to the bare minimum, but I hope to publish a complete study of the tradition of the Caesares in the near future.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 484

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

485

3 Lütjohann’s ‘Fourth Family’ The existence of Lütjohann’s so-called ‘fourth family’ cannot be doubted. Its most visible characteristics are a lacuna from Ep. 6.12 to 7.5, the omission of Ep. 8.2, the reduction of Book 9 to letters 2–6, and the loss of paragraphs 7–8 of Ep. 3.3 and of the final words of Ep. 7.18. Occasionally, one or another of these features may have been corrected by a given witness using a manuscript other than its direct model; yet the first of them can almost always be easily identified. Here is a list of the twenty-nine relevant witnesses: #9. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl., GKS 30 2o (Gks) #11. Douai, BM, 291 (Douai) #13. Florence, BML, plut. 45. 23 (T) #15. Florence, BML, plut. 90 sup. 8 (Pl90) #16. Florence, BML, S. Marco 554 (M1) #27. Milan, Bibl. Ambr., F 131 sup. [second part] (F131sup/2) #28. Milan, Bibl. Ambr., L 97 sup. (L97sup) #30. Montpellier, BU Méd., H 445 (Mtp445) #31. Montpellier, BU Méd., H 541 (Mtp541) #32. Munich, BSB, lat. 70 (Clm70) #33. Munich, BSB, lat. 24508 (Clm24508) #37. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. lat. 104 + Erlangen, UB, 2112/7 (L) #40. Paris, BNF, lat. 2170 (Par2170) #45. Paris, BNF, lat. 2783 (Par2783) #46. Paris, BNF, lat. 2784 (Par2784) #47. Paris, BNF, lat. 3477 (Par3477) #48. Paris, BNF, lat. 6360 (Par6360) #50. Paris, BNF, lat. 14296 (Par14296) #51. Paris, BNF, lat. 14490 (Par14490) #52. Paris, BNF, lat. 18584 (N) #54. Prague, Capit., A. 137 (Prague1) #55. Prague, Capit., I. 33 (Prague2) #56. Reims, BM, 413 (R) #57. Seitenstetten, Stiftsbibl., 51 (Seit) #62. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 202 (Reg202) #66. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 412 (Reg412) #70. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 1783 (V) #75. Vienna, ÖNB, 3204 (Wien) #76. Wolfenbüttel, HAB, 486 Helmst. (Helm486) All but four of these manuscripts (L, R, V, and Par2170) invert Ep. 5.2 and 3, a feature which may be recognised as an innovation since it is limited to only part of an already identified family.26 Of the four exceptions, L is the only one containing the opening of

26

To be precise, this feature is also found in #60. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Ottob. lat. 2013. As this manuscript also displays an irregularity in the case of Ep. 8.2 (a half-leaf (f. 53) had to be added in order to copy it), it is fairly likely that its base belongs to the type of manuscripts under analysis here, but that it was completed and massively corrected following another family: see below. Thus for reasons of convenience, I shall neglect the ‘first stratum’ of Ott2013.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 485

13/02/20 4:30 PM

486

FRANZ DOLVECK

Ep. 9.7:27 this must correspond to the state of the family’s archetype. The other three recognised that Ep. 9.7 was incomplete and chose (either by themselves, or more probably following their model) to omit it entirely. Of these other manuscripts, R and Par2170 at least are contaminated: for instance, the former knew a manuscript where the ending of Ep. 7.18 was complete (the missing words are added in the margin). R is also unusual in that it signals, albeit unclearly, the lacuna between Books 7 and 8, which coincides with a change of page (between ff. 59v and 60). Par2170 was completed (and heavily corrected) using another manuscript, and is related in a somewhat unclear way to #48. Paris, BNF, lat. 6360 (Par6360), with which it notably shares three medieval epistles (or rather, if I am right, one epistle in three parts) on the election of Sanctio as bishop of Orléans in 1096. An examination of their respective texts rules out the possibility that one was copied from the other.28 At first glance, Par6360 does indeed seem to be independent from this family, since it does not contain the lacuna between Books 6 and 7 of the letters and contains all of Book 9; yet the very order it follows in this book (letters 2–6, 1, 7–16) and the presence at the end of Ep. 9.6 of a ‘rubric’ in black (f. 88), Expliciunt epistole Sidonii, prove that the first impression it leaves is deceptive. Therefore, I suspect that it is a close relative of Par2170, but one which was considerably more heavily contaminated. Among the descendants of the manuscript that inverted Ep. 5.2 and 3, T, Helm486, L97sup, and Reg412 form a recognisable group, not so much because they contain all or part of the Carmina,29 but because they are alone in omitting Ep. 3.5–8. These four witnesses are, moreover, apparently independent from one another (but see below). 27

28

29

Together with a manuscript which was at Fulda, and of which only one leaf remains, #89. Marburg, Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Hr 4, 15; see its description. Something should be said here of the gaps occurring in L from the beginning of the corpus until Ep. 2.2.15. They vary in length and location, and were studied very systematically by Burke (1911) 18–28 – perhaps too systematically. It is worth making the effort of transferring all the lacunae in L onto an edited text – an easy exercise now that a reproduction of the manuscript is available online – to realise that matters are not as systematic as Burke wished. Most of these lacunae do correspond to material defects in the exemplar, but Burke’s hypothesis, that this was a manuscript written over two columns and with a damaged corner, does not work. The gaps can be found either approximately six lines apart (like Burke, I use Lütjohann’s edition) or approximately eighteen lines apart. Separated by six lines are numbers 1–2, 4–5, 6–7, 13–14, and 15–16, then 18–19, 20–1, etc. down to 34–5, and finally 38–9. Separated by eighteen lines are numbers 2–3, 3–4, 7–8, 8–9, 9–10, etc. In short, though there does indeed appear to be a regular pattern, the alternation between six and eighteen lines is not systematic, so that Burke’s hypothesis does not stand up. Besides, these gaps probably do not all correspond to lacunae in L’s model (but the chances that this is the case increase the more the space between the gaps is inaccurately calculated, as occurs fairly frequently: these are the places where the scribe was not able to determine the number of missing letters exactly): some of them probably cover words which the scribe was not able to understand even if, technically, he could read them. In any case, editors have used these gaps in a highly problematic way, for if one relies on them to identify lacunae in Sidonius’ text – which must, as far as possible, be filled through guesswork – then one must accept that no preserved manuscript is prior to L, and this is not possible if my stemma is correct. Yet if one really wishes to rely on these gaps, this must be done consistently, and it would therefore be necessary to reject systematically any text transmitted by the manuscripts which fits in the gaps. If this were the case, Lütjohann’s text would be interpolated in every gap except 2, 3, 5, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 29. Conversely, if I am right, it would mean that all the conjectural additions offered in the places cited are unjustified (if not in detail, at least in principle). These letters (or this letter) are not referenced, and apparently unedited. The two copies are quite bad, though independently so; besides, one may doubt that they were produced in the diocese of Orléans, since in both manuscripts the first occurrence of Aurelianensis (Ecclesia) is distorted into aurebavensis (Par2170) and aut rebavensis (Par6360). The name ‘Sanctio’ only appears in the ‘final letter’. It is by no means evident at this stage (but it will be shown later on) that these Carmina were reinserted in these manuscripts from another branch: since the rediscovery of the fragments preserved in Erlangen, we now know that these Carmina were present in L from the beginning. If all the manuscripts of this family except L do indeed have

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 486

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

487

Just as easily recognisable is a Germanic family consisting of the two manuscripts from Munich, the two from Prague, together with Seit and Wien. They all transpose Ep. 5.8 after 5.11, and were able somehow or other to restore the ending of 7.18. Another common feature is the addition at the end of a note on the alleged local celebrity of Sidonius (transcribed in the description of Seit). It is probably reasonable to assume that Prague1, by far the oldest of the group, is also its archetype and was very probably imported from France (whereas all the others are indeed of Germanic origin): it contains the end of Ep. 7.18 as an addition written in the margin. There is a further model that is common to Douai, F131sup/2,30 Par2784, and Par3477 (the latter before contamination, through which it gained Ep. 7.1–7 and 9.7–16), identifiable, for instance, by its omission of the first word of Ep. 7.16 (facis); perhaps other witnesses, in which this feature has been hidden through contamination, are also descended from it. One final, verifiable filiation is that uniting Mtp445 and Par14490; it is recognisable through the addition of the end of Book 9, and after it, of (previously omitted) letters from Book 7, with important lacunae, to reach the following order at the end of the volumes:31 Ep. 9.2–13*, 14*, then 7.6*, 7.2*, 7.3–5*. Par14490 may well be the model for Mtp445: the former appears to have copied the letters discussed above at a later stage, whereas in the latter they were clearly part of the original copy. In addition, these two manuscripts seem to have a model in common with Gks and Reg202, a model in which Ep. 7.18 ended with avocere and not (as in the rest of the group) with respiras. This model was influenced by another manuscript, which contained Ep. 7.18 in an incomplete state, yet still extending beyond respiras. This provides a further argument for Mtp445 being copied from Par14490: in both, Ep. 7.18 does indeed end with avocere, yet in Par14490 this is the result of a marginal addition (as it originally ended with respiras).32 Of the other descendants of the manuscript inverting Ep. 5.2–3, N, Mtp541, Par2783, and Par14296 cannot be related to any of the groups discussed above. As regards Par2783, one must be mindful of the fact that the manuscript was ‘contaminated’ through the systematic replacement of the folia which did not correspond to the state of the source of contamination. Thus numerous characteristic features are hidden; yet the inversion of Ep. 5.2 and 3 and the original ending of the collection at Ep. 9.6 are definitely present. Finally, there remains M, or to be more exact, the original state of M, before its contamination and the resulting codicological complexity, both of which are well known.33 M originally reduced Book 9 to 2–6, but does not invert Ep. 5.2–3. It must therefore be ‘related’ to V, R,

30

31

32

33

a common model – which seems to me to be the case – and if this model was responsible for the position of the Carmina right in the middle of Book 1, it would be possible (though admittedly improbable) that its descendants detected the problem, even on more than one occasion, and omitted the Carmina – perhaps, in some cases, with the intention of copying them after the letters, even though none actually did. For the letters only (for the Carmina, i.e. F131sup/1, see sect. 6 below). It is possible that this manuscript was copied in France, albeit perhaps by an Italian amanuensis, as all other known witnesses are clearly unconnected to Italy. I use the asterisk (as in the census below) to indicate the lacunose state of a piece, at the beginning (*18) or at the end (18*), whatever the cause. This does not imply, I think, that Gks and Reg202 also descend from Par14490: perhaps the latter is faithful in the extreme (regarding this addition at least) to their common archetype. Besides, the addition may have occurred independently in Par14490 and in an archetype common to Gks and Reg202 only. On the manuscripts descending from M, see n. 38 below.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 487

13/02/20 4:30 PM

488

FRANZ DOLVECK

and Par2170; in other words, like them, it descends from the manuscript which eliminated what came after Ep. 9.6, without, however, descending from the manuscript which inverted Ep. 5.2–3. The overall shape of the family is indicated in Fig. 16.1.

Figure 16.1 Stemma of the so-called ‘fourth family’

4 The English Family Six manuscripts, all probably copied in England, constitute a homogeneous group and derive from a single archetype, hereafter called γ. They are: #19. Hereford, Cath. Libr., O. II. 6 (Hfd) #23. London, BL, Royal 4 B. IV. (Roy) #35. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Auct. F. 5. 25 (Auct) #36. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Digby 61 (Dig) #38. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Rawl. G. 45 (Rawl) #49. Paris, BNF, lat. 9551 (F) F, Roy, and Rawl are complete; Dig (which lost its first quires through an accident, and thus begins at Ep. 3.*12) contains only the letters and Carm. 1–2; Hfd contains only the letters; Auct contains the letters only until 5.3 (and this already slender selection has suffered multiple material losses).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 488

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

489

In three of these manuscripts (Roy, Rawl, and Hfd), letters 5.12 and 18 are copied again after Book 9 – without any immediately visible reason, since the text is broadly the same. Three manuscripts (Roy, Rawl, and Dig) contain two poems by Eugenius of Toledo (copied without the author’s name), and two of them (Roy and Rawl) contain Ausonius’ Eclogues 20 and 21. Finally, all of them (except Auct, which is interrupted before) share an easily identifiable characteristic, the inversion of Ep. 5.12 and 13. The section of the corpus for which all these witnesses are extant is not very large (from the middle of Ep. 3.12, since everything preceding is missing in Dig, until Ep. 5.3, the end of the copy in Auct). It contains at least one certain error (besides a few variants, minor omissions, and inversions) which is characteristic of the group: 3.13.4 omnino] om. Hfd Roy Auct Dig Rawl F Otherwise, all these manuscripts share the loss of -currentibus at Ep. 4.20.3, except Auct, which must therefore predate the others (and is, in fact, the oldest of these manuscripts). Similarly, at Ep. 4.22.1, all the manuscripts except Auct and Hfd add studio either after summo in the case of F, Roy (which omits it before correction), and Rawl, or before summo in the case of Dig. That is sufficient to establish the relationship between these manuscripts (see Fig. 16.2), but the situation is more complicated when it comes to their relationships with the rest of the tradition. Here we must anticipate what follows. In a nutshell, the corpus of which these manuscripts are a witness is a reconstruction: as far as the letters are concerned, they are connected to an archetype ν (described in the next section) which is situated relatively low on the stemma, whereas they derive the poems from a much higher branch of the stemma, and therefore contain all of them, not only (as ν and its other descendants) the panegyrics (with Carm. 2 incomplete at the end). This will be set out in the final synthesis (Fig 16.7 below). Roy poses an additional problem, because the text of the Caesares that it transmits points to a third branch of the stemma.34 In both its contents and textual detail (for Sidonius), Roy does not particularly differ from its English relatives: it does not seem contaminated. Hence I assume that Roy knew a manuscript of Sidonius containing the Caesares, deduced that the latter was a work of Sidonius, and therefore copied it (I say Roy, but the responsibility probably lies with its antigraph, since the Caesares was clearly copied at the same time as Sidonius in Roy); the scribe did not collate this last manuscript, either through lack of interest or courage, or deeming it inferior to his principal, English model.35 Finally, we should note that F is contaminated,36 but most importantly, it is the only one in its family that is. It seems to me that this could provide support for the hypothesis that the whole group (except F, of course) originated in the West Country, which one might suppose was less likely to be in touch with the continent than the more central regions of England.37

34 35

36

37

See sect. 5.2, p. 496, below. One might suppose that it is from the same manuscript containing the Caesares that Roy derived those glosses which it did not inherit in the usual way (and which are those also found in Auct). It is the only member of its family to have the addition si casu dentium . . . at Ep. 1.2.2; see also sect. 5.2, p. 495, below. See in particular Chronopoulos (2010) 266–7; but the caution that she expresses remains appropriate, and we should also remember that the exemplar of Roy at least must have known a ‘foreign’ manuscript.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 489

13/02/20 4:30 PM

490

FRANZ DOLVECK

Figure 16.2 Stemma of the English family

5 Manuscripts Containing the Epistulae and the Panegyrici The group of manuscripts containing only the Epistulae and the Panegyrici (and thus excluding the Carmina minora) probably represents an accidental collection. In other words, these manuscripts are unlikely to derive from an archetype which explicitly selected only this part of Sidonius’ works, since the said archetype must also be responsible for the loss of the greater part of Carm. 2, from 183 onwards, which is also missing in all its descendants (with two exceptions, through contamination). I would hesitate to class the transposition of Carm. 8 before Carm. 6 as a characteristic innovation, since the idea of placing the dedication of the Panegyric on Avitus (to Priscus Valerianus) before the poem itself (Carm. 7) and its preface (Carm. 6) is not fundamentally illogical: such is the order of the texts for the Panegyric on Majorian (Carm. 3 = dedication to Petrus; Carm. 4 = preface; Carm. 5 = panegyric). But, despite my theoretical objection to taking this transposition into consideration, it is worth noting that the results of doing so would fit perfectly with my classification. This family includes the following manuscripts: #1. Avranches, BM, 242 (Avr1) #2. Berlin, Staatsbibl., lat. fol. 591 (Berl1) #3. Berlin, Staatsbibl., Phillipps 1685 (Berl2) #4. Bern, Bürgerbibl., 285 (Bern) #10. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl., Thott 50 2o (Thott) #14. Florence, BML, plut. 45. 26 (Pl4526) #15. Florence, BML, plut. 90 sup. 8 (Pl90) #16. Florence, BML, S. Marco 554 (M) #21. Leipzig, UB, Rep. I 48 (Leip1) #29. Montpellier, BU Méd., H 4 (Mtp4) #41. Paris, BNF, lat. 2171 (Par2171)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 490

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

491

#44. Paris, BNF, lat. 2782 (Par2782) #58. Stockholm, KB, Va 26a (Stk) #60. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Ottob. lat. 2013 (Ott2013) #63. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 203 [first part] (Reg203/1) #65. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 216 (Reg216) #68. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Urb. lat. 1515 (Urb1515) They are all ‘complete’, that is, they all contain Carm. 1–8 (apart from the end of Carm. 2, which is lost), except Leip, which only contains Carm. 1–5 (with the end of Carm. 2 and Carm. 21 added at a later stage), and Avr, which contains all the (complete) Carmina after contamination. Reg203/1 is a special case, since the part of it which is relevant here is the one containing the Epistulae. We can eliminate Pl90 and Urb1515 straightaway: they are both copies of M, and can thus be disregarded.38 A subgroup of these manuscripts is easily recognisable in that it ends the Epistulae with an incomplete and garbled version of Ep. 9.16: I shall deal with this group first, before returning to the classification of the remaining manuscripts.

5.1 Manuscripts with an Incomplete and Garbled Version of Ep. 9.16 Now the following group of manuscripts is immediately recognisable through a number of innovating characteristics, some of which are clearly identifiable as mistakes. #2. Berlin, Staatsbibl., lat. fol. 591 (Berl1) #3. Berlin, Staatsbibl., Phillipps 1685 (Berl2) #4. Bern, Bürgerbibl., 285 (Bern) #10. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl., Thott 50 2o (Thott) #29. Montpellier, BU Méd., H 4 (Mtp4) #41. Paris, BNF, lat. 2171 (Par2171) #63. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 203 [first part] (Reg203/1) #65. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 216 (Reg216) Most evidently, the poem included in Ep. 9.16 is given in a garbled version (in the following order: lines 1–9, 27–35, 10–26, 54–77, 36–53; lines 78–84 and the prose conclusion are missing), which must have originated in a faulty reading of an archetype where the poem 38

This has already been demonstrated for Pl90: see Marchiaro (2009) 283, and also sect. 6, p. 502, below. As for Urb1515, one need only compare the order of the corpus: the reason why the scribe of Urb1515 wrongly copied Ep. 3.3 after Ep. 1.2 evidently has to do with the material state of M; he only understood the cross-reference in M afterwards. This filiation is fully confirmed by a selective survey of the Carmina. I believe that #18. Florence, Bibl. Riccard., Ricc. 247 is also a descendant of M, because M is the only MS known to me which would explain why the copyist of the Riccardian MS omits vv. 79–80 in the poem inserted at Ep. 9.16.3; but oddities in the order of the letters still leave room for doubts. The same can be said of #34. Naples, BN, IV. B. 39, and for the same reasons (Ep. 9.16.3 vv. 79–80 are by another hand); but it should be noted that this manuscript was corrected (throughout) and completed (for Carm. 2), very likely from a printed edition.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 491

13/02/20 4:30 PM

492

FRANZ DOLVECK

was written at least in part over two columns.39 With the exception of Reg203/1, these manuscripts contain the letters as well as the panegyrics. Berl1, Berl2, Bern, Thott, Mtp4, and Par2171 also contain Ausonius’ Caesares; it is probable that Reg216 also had the Caesares: the manuscript in its present state is interrupted by a lacuna in the course of Carm. 7. Berl1, Berl2, and Mtp4 are all witnesses of a collection which must originally have contained Cassiodorus’ Variae, Sidonius, and a compilation of poetry centred on Hildebert. Berl2 is the only complete witness of this collection: Berl1 contains only Sidonius and Hildebert, and Mtp4 only has Cassiodorus and Sidonius (with works taken from elsewhere inserted between them). Their common origin may be deduced in particular from the erroneous placing of lines 39–41 of the Caesares after 17; however, Berl2 is also characterised by a certain number of distinctive mistakes, a fact which, together with the differing content of each volume, leads to the conclusion that none of them is the source for the other two. Berl2 cannot come from Pontigny (as has sometimes been claimed) for the simple reason that it does not contain – and never can have contained, given the numbering of the quires – the initial Cassiodorus which is mentioned by the various descriptions of the manuscript attested in this abbey. In addition, the last catalogues of Pontigny very clearly state that the text of Sidonius was lacunose because the end of the manuscript was lost – which does not correspond to any volume known today.40 However, it is possible – though impossible to probe as things stand – that the Pontigny manuscript was an ancestor of these three surviving manuscripts (presumably indirectly, since Berl1 and Berl2 contain exactly the same Hildebertian collection, which is slightly different from that of the Pontigny MS). Thott and Par2171 are immediately identifiable as twins, both because they have exactly the same layout (as is demonstrated by the indication of their foliation in their descriptions in the census), and because they share a certain number of common mistakes: Ep. 1.1.1 uno] novo Carm. 5.161 arte] om. Carm. 7.178 ac torque] auctor circoque Nevertheless, they are a priori independent from one another: Thott was quite regularly corrected using an exemplar from outside the family (see the next example for such a correction; it is probably also from the exemplar used for these corrections that Thott recovered line 28 39

40

Another innovation that is characteristic of a number of these manuscripts, and of some interest, is the additional text at Ep. 2.2.5, placed either after personas (Berl1, Berl2, Mtp4) or after imbricarentur (Thott, Par2171, Reg216). Whatever the editors (except Lütjohann) might think, this cannot be anything other than a gloss: ipsa vero convenientibus mensuris exactissima spatiositate quadratur. It is omitted in Reg203/1: so it was probably still laid out as a gloss (which Reg203/1 does not copy) in its model. In Bern it is an addition by the second hand, the one that completed the MS by adding ff. 56–97 (hereafter I speak of Bern only in its definitive state: the original one is of no particular interest, whatever its origin). See also in this volume Furbetta, ch. 17, sects. 2.3 and 2.4, on Woweren’s and Savaron’s editions, which contain this and other additional pieces of text. See Peyrafort-Huin (2001) items A 102, C 141, E 40, F 5, G 293. From this last notice onwards the situation is complicated, because under G 289 one finds a closely related Hildebertian collection, a fact which could be taken to suggest that the original manuscript had been split up; yet if this were the case, G 293 would be partially false, since it would wrongly mention the Hildebertian collection, which could not be there any longer. The simplest hypothesis, in my view, is that G 289 and G 293 were two entirely different codices; G 293 was still complete, but had lost its ending (leading to the loss of the end of Sidonius and all Hildebert) when H 161 and I 59 were written. G 289, which had apparently never been catalogued before, would thus correspond to H 62, and to the manuscript known today as Montpellier, BU Méd., H 35.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 492

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

493

of the Caesares, omitted nearly everywhere else, and the addition si casu dentium at Ep. 1.2.1, inserted by mistake after nervis), whereas the text of Par2171 is free from any such contamination. In theory, it is possible that Par2171 was the model for Thott, but this is very unlikely: its text is mediocre compared with that of Thott, which is far superior even before the contamination. The archetype of these two manuscripts is related to Reg216: Ep. 1.2.5 si venatione] est si venatio Thottac Par2171 Reg216 Ep. 3.12.5 (v. 14) purgans] purgatus Thott Par2171 Reg216 Carm. 5.176 sparso] spargo Thott Par2171 Reg216 These three manuscripts as well as Berl1, Berl2, and Mtp4 probably derive from a single archetype, and all the available evidence points to #58. Stockholm, KB, Va 26a (Stk). According to Gustafsson,41 this manuscript, of which I only know ff. 118–118v at first hand,42 copied the Carmina in columns that were too narrow to contain all the verses on one line. This caused a number of transpositions, some of which are very poorly indicated; this is the case notably at Carm. 7.224–5, where amicum and -pulsam are moved back to the end of line 220. Gustafsson notes that there is an exact correspondence between the transpositions in Stk and the omissions in Bern: in fact, these omissions are characteristic of the entire group. The layout of Stk is not isolated: Par2782 (which, textually, is probably very close to Stk) has roughly the same, and presents comparable problems of transposition at the end of verses.43 However, I do not think that any manuscript other than Stk transposes both the amicum of Carm. 7.224 and the last two syllables of repulsam at Carm. 7.225 in an equally incomprehensible way (Par2782 in any case does not). Therefore, it seems a reasonable working hypothesis that all the manuscripts with Ep. 9.16* are descendants of Stk (albeit indirectly: a hyparchetype is needed, particularly to explain the problems related to this final letter). This assumes that Stk does indeed correspond to Gustafsson’s description, which will need to be verified by consulting the original. Two of Stk’s descendants have distinctive features. Bern does not systematically bear the characteristic features of the family (see, for instance, Ep. 1.2.9 [line 21 in Lütjohann], where illis is replaced by vel except in Bern). This is due to the fact that Bern is in fact a two-step manuscript, that is, a manuscript originally produced with a smaller corpus (whose archetype I have not investigated), extended a few years later with the help of a superior model.44 On the other hand, Reg203/1, though it is necessarily a member of the same family (it also shares the loss of the rubric at Ep. 9.16), was heavily contaminated, at least at the beginning; it is difficult to determine the origin of its contamination with any precision.

41

42

43

44

Gustafsson (1882) vii n. All the variants quoted for Bern are shared by the whole group except the last one, Carm. 7.309, where Bern is the only manuscript to have est followed by a blank space instead of estie, which has remained uncorrected in the text of its cousins. I would like to extend my thanks to the National Library of Sweden in Stockholm for graciously providing reproductions of these pages. However, Stk and Par2782 are independent. Discussing the manuscript transmission of the Deidamia Achilli, Stohlmann (1973) 217–23 reaches the same conclusions. (The third MS of the letter, Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Auct. F. 1. 17, England, s. XIV1, is much closer to Stk than to Par2782 but is still not a descendant of the former.) On the material state of the codex, see its description; the important point had already been grasped by Lütjohann (1887) ix.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 493

13/02/20 4:30 PM

494

FRANZ DOLVECK

One final word on the history of this family (see Fig. 16.3): we saw above that some of its members were linked to Pontigny; it also happens that the manuscript of Sidonius located at Clairvaux contained the same texts (the letters and the panegyrics, with Carm. 7 as the volume’s final piece), and must have had a very similar layout to Reg216 (judging by the incipit of f. 2, mentioned in Pierre de Virey’s catalogue).45 One may thus speculate that the entire family was Cistercian.

Figure 16.3 Stemma of descendants of Stockholm, KB, Va 26a (Stk)

5.2 The Remaining Manuscripts Once we eliminate the codices descripti and identify the descendants of Stk, we are left with a much more restricted group of manuscripts ‘containing the panegyrics’: #1. Avranches, BM, 242 (Avr1) #14. Florence, BML, plut. 45. 26 (Pl4526) #16. Florence, BML, S. Marco 554 (M) #21. Leipzig, UB, Rep. I 48 (Leip1) #44. Paris, BNF, lat. 2782 (Par2782) #58. Stockholm, KB, Va 26a (Stk) #60. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Ottob. lat. 2013 (Ott2013)

45

The shelf mark is I 21 in Pierre de Virey’s catalogue, and 1408 in Mathurin de Cangey’s; the manuscript no longer appears in the catalogue of 1664. F. 2 began with [ve]neratur quamquam (Ep. 1.2): no surviving codex corresponds to these characteristics. See Vernet (1979–98) 1.162.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 494

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

495

In the poems, the common origin of these manuscripts is attested by numerous mistakes (in the case of Avr and Leip, before corrections). For instance, if we focus on the opening of Carm. 2: 4 fastis] om. (sed Par2782 ante crinem add. p.c. cingere) 34 om. 56 om. 162 lesbo sate pittace] lesbos epittace That said, it is very difficult to work out any detailed picture of the relationship between these witnesses. I am almost certain that they derive from their archetype following two branches, the first including M and Avr1, and the second all the others (Pl4526, Leip1, Par2782, Stk, Ott2013): Carm. 5.101 est nunc praeterea eximius, quem saecula clamant praeterea] M, om. Pl4526 Leip Par2782 Ott2013, praetura cett. quem] praescia add. Pl4526 Leip Par2782 Ott2013 In this example, I am merely guessing the reading of Stk, but it is almost certain given what we know about it (see above on the close relationship it probably had with Par2782). This attests, then, to the existence of a manuscript from which all of these (but not M or Avr1) are descended. This manuscript, which we shall call ν, has one immediately noticeable feature: it has arranged Book 7 in a particular order, in which 12 comes after 7, and is immediately followed by Ep. 6.11, which is extracted from its own book; the latter at least is a definite error.46 This allows us to relate to ν both the text of the letters witnessed by γ (the English family) and certain manuscripts which only contain the letters, and therefore obviously do not share the innovations found in the poems:47 #8. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl. (olim UB), Fabr. 91 4o (Fabr) #22. London, BL, Harley 4084 #42. Paris, BNF, lat. 2171A #77. Wolfenbüttel, HAB, 1027 Helmst. At Ep. 1.2.2, Fabr has the addition beginning with Si casu dentium which is mentioned in Lütjohann’s apparatus as occurring in F. It does indeed appear there, but through contamination, since no descendant of γ has it; it also appears in Thott (thereby enabling us to identify the source of Thott’s contamination) and in two further manuscripts, #61. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 166 and #64. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 209, which should thus be considered as relatives of Fabr.48 Conversely, it is more difficult – but not impossible – to demonstrate the existence of a hyparchetype that is specific to M and Avr1: the variants in M indicated by Lütjohann and not 46 47

48

I am grateful to Joop van Waarden for bringing this point to my attention. However, this argument cannot be used to classify #7. Clermont-Ferrand, BM, 260: contrary to Lütjohann’s assumption ((1887) xii – in his defence, he did not have first-hand access to the manuscript), it has Ep. 6.11 in the right place. I have no idea where this manuscript should be situated. Conversely, this characteristic allows us to identify ν as the source of the contamination affecting Par2783 and Par6360, identified above as members of the ‘fourth family’. See Lütjohann (1887) xx–xxi, who was wrong not in his argument but about its significance. He was partly deceived by his attribution of an excessively important role to F.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 495

13/02/20 4:30 PM

496

FRANZ DOLVECK

shared by the rest of the group (except Avr1) are, it has to be said, very rare. Nevertheless, they do exist. The most obvious are in the Caesares, and they seem sufficient to me. Following the order of the text, the main variants are: the omission of duplicem at line 22;49 the (metrically impossible) omission of et at line 24 (Galba senex, Otho lascive et famose Vitelli); and the omission of sibi at 27 (Implet fatalem decadam sibi Vespasianus). These errors are also found in two other manuscripts of the Caesares, #5. Brussels, BR, 10020–21 (Br1, which contains only the letters) and #23. London, BL, Royal 4 B. IV. (Roy), which both share further errors, such as, for example, the shifting of lines 23–9 after 36. It is impossible to draw conclusions from this in the case of Roy (see above); yet there is no reason not to link Br1 to M and Avr1 for the totality of its contents. The situation is unclear for the other manuscripts, Pl4526, Leip1, Par2782, Stk, and Ott2013.50 I believe that Pl4526 and Ott2013 can be connected without much hesitation on the grounds that they both have appendices containing a small poetic corpus, which includes excerpts from Corippus and Fortunatus as well as anonymous Versus VII Sapientum (see the description; Ott2013 is a rather fine copy in which difficult passages are left blank and copied in the margins when the scribe was not able to correct them; it contains a few valuable conjectures). The same applies for Stk and Par2782, which both contain the Deidamia Achilli. For editorial purposes, all these manuscripts (whose relationships are indicated in Fig. 16.4) may be ignored except M, which is the best by far; however, prudence suggests that M should be tested case by case using a manuscript from the other branch, in order to weigh tradition

Figure 16.4 Stemma of the manuscripts with Carm. 2 incomplete 49

50

By entirely omitting the word duplicem, M and its siblings are just faithfully reproducing the text of the Caesares as it stood in λ (and this reading may reach further back, as far as β), whereas ν spotted the defect and cleverly, but without authority, corrected it to binam. The α family of Sidonius still has duplicem. I note in passing that of all the manuscripts I have encountered, Pl4526 is one of only two to provide a portrait of Sidonius, which is reproduced on the cover of this volume. The other is #53. Paris, IRHT, collection privée 347, the former Schøyen MS, on f. 109, in the initial to Carm. 9. Leip, which is (coincidentally) from the same family as Pl4526, also stands out in terms of illustrations: its margins contain ‘figurative glosses’ which would probably be worth studying in their own right.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 496

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

497

against innovation: any of the above manuscripts would do the job, except Leip1 (to be on the safe side) – which would in any case deserve a collation in its own right, if my discussion below is correct.

6 Manuscripts containing the Carmina We have already noted the unique origin of certain manuscripts transmitting the Carmina, whether or not they are complete: the English family (γ), the family transmitting only the letters and panegyrics (λ), and the group T Helm486 Reg412 L97sup (ϗ). The others are as follows: #1. Avranches, BM, 242 (Avr2) #25. Madrid, BNE, 9448 (C) #43. Paris, BNF, lat. 2781 (P) #53. Paris, IRHT, collection privée 347 (olim Schøyen Collection, 246) (Sch) #69. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 1661 (Vat1661) #71. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 3421 (A) To these should be added (though it now only contains fragments of Carm. 7 and 9): #37. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. lat. 104 + Erlangen, UB, 2112/7 (L) In addition, a few manuscripts contain only the Carmina without the letters (with the exception of Br2 and Vat5219, but these only have insignificant excerpts of the letters); these are: #6. Brussels, BR, 10615–729 (Br2) #12. Florence, BML, conv. soppr. 6 (Conv) #17. Florence, BNC, Magl. VII 315 (Magl) #27. Milan, Bibl. Ambr., F 131 sup. [first part] (F131sup/1) #59. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Ottob. lat. 126 (Ott126) #63. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 203 [second part] (Reg203/2) #67. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Urb. lat. 649 (Urb649) #72. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 5219 (Vat5219) We can deal straight away with the manuscripts containing the panegyrics, which I shall henceforth reduce to their archetype λ, the text of which they all share – disregarding contamination – for the quoted variants: λ is undeniably descended from an archetype that is closer to L, as can be seen in the excerpts of Carm. 7 which the latter contains. Here are the most notable variants: 563 camillus] cimillos L, cum illos λ 572 forte loco pia] porte loco capta L, porte locopta λ 579 donantque] namque L λ However, the textual state represented by λ is older than L, because it does not share the characteristics of the ‘fourth family’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 497

13/02/20 4:30 PM

498

FRANZ DOLVECK

For instance, one can, using Carm. 9, identify a group including P, ϗ (represented by T and Helm486 only, since Reg412 and L97sup do not contain this poem), and Br2; I mention L explicitly when it is present: 115 curribus occidens] o. c. contra metrum P ϗ Br2 148 zmyrnae] zminae P ϗ Br2 (sed smirnae Helm486) 292 mutato lare Gallias] L cett., muta tolerare gallia P, mutatas tolerare gallias ϗ Br2 297 baetin] L cett., haetin P ϗ Br2 If we can only cite one example of a certain relationship of these manuscripts to L, it is surely due to the brevity of the surviving text in the latter: 313 hoeni] hent P T Br2 L, ˜hnt (i.e. habent) Helm 486 This seems to pose a sizeable problem, to which we shall return shortly; let us first deal with the simpler questions. The example quoted at line 292 implies the existence of a common model for ϗ and Br2 only; this is confirmed in other places, such as: 107 est] om. ϗ Br2 The characteristic variants of ϗ and Br2 are also found – though often corrected, rendering some of them invisible – in Conv, and therefore in its descendants Magl and Urb649.51 Conv, which belonged to Giorgio Antonio Vespucci, is a Florentine production from the early 1470s; although I have not looked for definitive proof, it is almost certainly a copy of T. As such, it can be ignored together with its descendants. F131sup/1 and Ott126 are probably also descendants of Conv; they share the latter’s innovations, including the omission of Carm. 21. Since Reg412 and L97sup do not transmit Carm. 9, I cannot determine the exact relationship between Br2 and ϗ. Is Br2 the latter’s sibling or offspring? Though I have no proof of this, I would tend towards the former hypothesis, because T is considerably closer to Helm486, Reg412, and L97sup than to Br2: if they were all siblings, there would be less of a gap between them. Besides, I think that L97sup is probably a copy of Reg412, but the textual evidence is yet to be found. If I am right, though, it would add a fascinating element to the unknown history of Reg412 as well as to the far better known history of the library of Archbishop Piccolpasso, who probably ordered the copy of L97sup. Contrary to what one might expect, Vat5219 is not a descendant of T (nor, of course, does it descend from Conv, which is probably later and lacks Carm. 21); it is thus closer to Br2. Since the latter belonged to Nicolaus Cusanus, it seems not unlikely that it was the source used by Bussi (who was a friend of Nicolaus Cusanus) to copy Vat5219.52 To summarise: at this stage, a manuscript (κ) generates (1) Br2, which itself generates Vat5219, and (2) a common model (ϗ) for T, Helm486, Reg412, and L97sup. T engenders Conv, itself the source of Magl, Urb649, F131sup/1, and Ott126. From here onwards I shall reduce the entire group to T and Br2, which are amply sufficient to represent it. The problem 51 52

Reeve (1977) 204 n.11. I have collated T, Helm486, Reg412, L97sup, Br2, and Vat5219 only for the parts of the poems contained by Reg412 and L97sup (the end of Carm. 22 and the opening of Carm. 23). The collation reveals an undeniable relationship between Br2 and Vat5219, even though the evidence is slender, given the small size of the corpus: Carm. 22 ep. 6 (ed. Lütjohann, p. 250, l. 6) istum] illum Br2 Vat5219; l. 7 earini] farini codd. praeter Br2 Vat5219 (sarini) et Helm486 (farvii); Carm. 23.1 cum] vel non Br2 (contra metrum), non Vat5219; 28 sollium] solium Br2, soltum ut vid. Vat5219. In these passages, T, Helm486, Reg412, and L97sup contain no errors against the two others.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 498

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

499

lies further up: the variants quoted above (for Carm. 9.115, 148, 292, 297) give the impression that κ is a sibling of P, and therefore that L is older than them. If the stemma offered above for the ‘fourth family’ (see Fig. 16.1 above) is correct – and it definitely is on this point at least – then this is impossible: given the corpus of letters it contains, P cannot be situated lower than L. In fact, the solution is provided by a point briefly touched upon above: when the ‘fourth family’ was first classified, it was not possible fully to demonstrate that the Carmina in ϗ (and therefore also in κ) derived from an external source and not from a normal inheritance. We have just seen that the textual analysis of these Carmina provides confirmation of this: κ inherited its text of the Epistulae from a relative of L, but its text of the Carmina was derived from a relative of P. This can be represented synthetically by the stemma in Fig. 16.5, where I use continuous lines to represent the tradition of the Epistulae, and dotted lines for that of the Carmina (thus the dotted lines exceptionally do not indicate contamination). Incidentally, we might note that this gives us the situation of P for the Epistulae, which is necessarily higher than L; this is confirmed by the fact that P, like L, omits Ep. 7.6–7 but does not have the lacuna which is typical of η (Ep. 6.12*–7.*5). P has not been given enough attention; I have gone through three books of the Epistulae (2–4) using Mohr’s apparatus (which is more useful for such a purpose, notably because it generally omits variants in spelling, and collates V and N), and found perhaps a dozen mentions of P, all stemmatically insignificant. There are only two possible explanations for this: either the constitution of Mohr’s text is disastrous, or P has an excellent text. The second solution is correct: it makes sense that the manuscripts which are closest to the top of a stemma should appear the least frequently in an apparatus. C, A, Sch, and Vat1661 form another, radically different branch. It is relatively difficult to find mistakes in them, but not impossible; however, in Carm. 4–5 and in a few passages here and there,53 I have not found anything definitely irrefutable. Still, one should mention solveret

Figure 16.5 Stemma of ancestors and descendants of archetype κ

53

The reason why I chose to use Carm. 4–5 at this point is purely practical, for I originally knew Sch only through photographs of the folia corresponding to these poems, which Tiziana Brolli was kind enough to share with me: these photographs were taken before the Schøyen Collection parted with the manuscript. The few pictures available on the website of the Schøyen Collection provide a few further fragments of text. I am thankful to Luciana Furbetta, who sent me a collation of the text of the Caesares before I gained access (thanks to Francesco Siri, to whom I am deeply grateful) to a complete reproduction of the manuscript, which fully confirms the deductions I made using only Carm. 4–5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 499

13/02/20 4:30 PM

500

FRANZ DOLVECK

for volveret at Carm. 4.2, and a problem related to line 292: C omits the line, A copies it in the margin (through contamination? see below), and all (except C) invert nobis potuit (without, however, affecting the metre). All four manuscripts are independent from one another; yet a group does emerge, uniting C and A (see, for instance, Carm. 5.40 solio] solo). I do not think that it is possible to identify a parallel group uniting Sch and Vat1661; in fact, it seems to me rather that Vat1661 has an older text than the other three, that Sch is prior to C and A, and that A was fairly regularly (but not always) corrected using an anterior manuscript of a type similar to Vat1661; the arguments are somewhat weak, but here are a few: Carm. 1.5 tuba] tubaque Sch C Aac Carm. 1.15 m(a)enala] melana Sch C Aac Carm. 5.599 mitis] mittit Sch C A, mittis Vat1661 Carm. 8.9 et] om. Sch C Aac The only place where I could find an error common only to Vat1661 and Sch is inconsequential: contentu for contemptu at Carm. 8.14. This is a good place to deal with the two editiones principes, that of Nicolaes Ketelaer and Geraert van Leempt, published in Utrecht in 1474 at the latest, and that of Giovanni Battista Pio, published in Milan in 1498. The 1474 edition is almost certainly derived from a manuscript of the Vat1661 type, and in my view actually from Vat1661 itself:54 certain apparently minor traces of contamination should probably be attributed to the editors rather than to their model (but see also n. 56 below). Pio’s edition is probably derived from its predecessor, though he had access to other manuscripts. One example will suffice: at Carm. 7.546, the manuscripts with which we are dealing are distributed as follows: orbem ego sat potui mihi subdere teque magistro Sch Cac A orbem ego sat potui mihi subdere teque magistro Cpc orbem ergo sat potui mihi subdere teq magistro Vat1661 The 1474 edition contains exactly the same text as Vat1661, with the gap in the same place, but omits ergo (which is indeed metrically incorrect); Pio’s edition has Immo orbes potuit si te tibi tota magistro, which derives more or less faithfully from other manuscripts. One can confirm that the 1474 edition derived from Vat1661 (or from a manuscript so close that no one would ever feel the need to postulate its existence) by comparing the strange colophon of the final book of letters, where it contains exactly the same garbled text as Vat1661: i Explicit epistolarum liber nonus. bb. kk. Tpmmkk. bqpmm. kobstkt. Tkepokk. Fqk. Vat1661 Eplicit (sic) epistolarum liber nonus. b.b.k.k.T.p.m.m.k.k.b.q.p.m.m.k.obs.T.K.T.T.K. e.p.o.k.k.f.qi .k. ed.1474 Explicit epistolarum liber VIIIIus. h b k T p m m k k . b q p m m k o b s k t . T k e p o k k. f. c˜ k. Sch

54

Or, more likely, through a copy of Vat1661 made for this purpose. But it is not impossible that Vat1661 itself could have been lent by the Vatican Library, as was confirmed to me by scriptor Antonio Manfredi, for whose advice I am most grateful. Unfortunately, there is no record of any such loan, as there are no surviving records earlier than 1475.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 500

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

501

What we have here is a perfectly common numbering method according to which each letter is replaced by the next one in the alphabet. If we decipher Vat1661 and Sch, we get the following: aa. ii. Sollii. apoll. inarsis. Sidonii. epi Vat1661 gaiSollii. apollinaris. Sidonii. ebi Sch Both of them contain mistakes, but in different places; neither of them (nor indeed the 1474 edition) understood what they were copying – which once deciphered is, to say the least, unexciting. Another manuscript, #39. Paris, BNF, lat. 2168, is related to this family. If the order of the letters were not enough to prove it,55 it can be demonstrated by a few readings which are shared with C, A, Sch, and Vat1661:56 Ep. 1.2.4 ratione] religione Ep. 1.4.2 perfectionis] huius enim add. (nonnulli codd. add. cuius) Ep. 1.6.2 trepidum] tepidum Finally, Avr2 is related to the same family (although I do not know whether it should be connected to the archetype of Vat1661 or to that of Sch): this is most clearly demonstrated in the Caesares, through two irrefutable examples. In the editions (and the manuscripts) of Ausonius), line 35 appears as Matricida Nero proprii vim pertulit ensis. Instead of this, most manuscripts of Sidonius (including Avr1) contain a piece of historical nonsense (deriving from what is basically a reading error): Matricida Nero propriorum pertulit enses; the exceptions are precisely Sch, Vat1661, and Avr2, which have a secondary reading that is historically correct, but whose existence is due to the impossibility of the reading in the other manuscripts: Matricida Nero proprio se perculit ense. In addition, though line 25 is assigned a number in the editions of Ausonius, it is in fact lost;57 it is generally omitted without any indication in the manuscripts. However, here too Sch, Vat1661, and Avr2 stand out by offering a new line: Interitus dignos vita properante probrosa. The recension they are derived from may be challenged for its authenticity, but certainly not for its intelligence. We must now investigate the relationships between the families identified above. At least one mistake in Carm. 5 is shared by all the manuscripts (including Avr) except C, A, Sch, and Vat1661, but it is hidden in all the editions: 87 (Romanaque tecta) Hannibal ante meus quam nostra Scipio vidit nostra . . . vidit transp. C A Sch Vat1661 (vadit Vat1661) 55

56

57

The inversion of 6–7 and 8–9 in Book 7 is a fairly characteristic feature, but it is dangerous to rely upon it insofar as it could be inherited from the Ur-Archetyp (it scarcely matters whether or not it is mistaken; if it is a traditional element, it cannot be used to determine the existence of a family). All these readings are absent from the editiones principes, which may be taken as an indication that that of 1474 was already affected by contamination. Its presence is deduced from the fact that the piece containing it must have twelve lines, to match the number of ‘Suetonian’ emperors; yet Ausonius does not necessarily attribute one verse to an emperor. Besides, in this particular passage there should have been a group of three verses (24–6) assigned as a group to Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. The third of these (the verse which is lost) must have been fairly superficial, because the two preceding lines make sufficient sense on their own: Galba senex, Otho lascive et famose Vitelli, / tertia vos Latio regnantes nesciit aestas (‘old Galba, playboy Otho, and notorious Vitellius, by the third summer your reigns in Latium were forgotten’). I take this opportunity to draw attention to a mistake common to all the Sidonius manuscripts, not because it is important, but because it is amusing: the corruption of famose into formose. Vitellius, handsome?

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 501

13/02/20 4:30 PM

502

FRANZ DOLVECK

I do not understand how one can justify nostra¯, because Sidonius would never have allowed such a lengthening before sc-, especially without a syntactical rest. In particular, he would not have admitted it while there was a simple enough way to avoid it by transposition. To my eyes,58 it is evident that C, A, Sch, and Vat1661 are correct,59 and consequently that all the other witnesses are descended from a single hyparchetype in which the words, for whatever reason, have been inverted.60 One manuscript remains from the list of witnesses quoted above: Reg203/2. I do not know exactly what its place is; it was very probably copied using two manuscripts at once, resulting in some inconsistent readings which are due either to the original hand or to corrections. Thus for the readings quoted above at Carm. 9.115 and 297, Reg203/2 agrees at first with the received text, but after correction, with δ (that is, with P, L, κ, etc.). At line 313, it originally had hoeni, which was then ‘corrected’ to hent; in contrast, it remains faithful to the received text at line 292. Since it does not seem to contain any characteristic readings of C, A, Sch, and Vat1661 or of the English family, I suppose that one of its models is related to δ, and that the other is older – and therefore a relative of the archetype shared by δ and the English family. Yet since all of this is far from certain, I omit Reg203/2 – which is probably of no editorial use anyway – from the stemma. We must finally take into account the manuscripts which only contain a selection of the poems: #15. Florence, BML, plut. 90 sup. 8 (Pl90) #20. Leiden, UB, BPL 121 (Leid) #21. Leipzig, UB, Rep. I 48 (Leip2) #24. London (Kensington), Westminster Diocesan Archives, 83 (Westm) #26. Milan, Bibl. Ambr., C 52 sup. (C52sup) #73. Venice, Bibl. naz.le Marc., Lat. II, 63 (2077) (Ven) Of these, Pl90, though a copy of M, includes on f. 169v fragments of Carm. 15, 22, and 2 which are taken from another tradition. Leip, originally derived from ν, recovered the endings of Carm. 2 and Carm. 21 from a complete manuscript. Finally, Leid, Westm, C52sup, and Ven are not related to λ since they do not have its characteristic variants; that is why I include them here even if they only contain Carm. 1 and a small part of Carm. 2 (Leid and Ven) or the Carmina only up to 5.198 (C52sup), or even no Carmina at all (Westm, the end of which is lost): their model was a manuscript containing all the Carmina. 58

59

60

As in those of Gustafsson (1882) 119 and Tiziana Brolli (private communication). Incidentally, I am not certain that simul at line 386 (in these four manuscripts, when all the others have postquam) is a mistake (or even just an innovation). I do not know of any other example of the first letters of Scipio being used to lengthen a preceding short, which – had it existed – could have been used as a parallel to justify Sidonius’ use here. Note that the lengthened shorts at Carm. 7.225 (gerere. Stupet) and 275 (ruere, strictumque) correspond to a pause in recitation. Note too that the cases gathered by Housman (1927) 3 = (1972) 1117 from Carm. 7 are all lengthenings before a mute and liquid: therefore it might be hypothesised (metricians would need to confirm it by further inquiry) that Sidonius allows the lengthening of a short final before two consonants if there is a syntactical rest or, if not, if these consonants are a mute and liquid. I find proof of this in Carm. 22.122, a reference I owe to Müller (1894) 388, who also mentions 23.338 – but I am not sure it can be used to judge the point in dactylic verses. A very exciting study of this type of final shorts is Hoenigswald (1949) but unfortunately it is not pertinent to later authors such as Sidonius. Some manuscripts attempt to correct by writing nostras (notably M, but there are others as well); this is obviously a poor solution.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 502

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

503

The case of Leip is highly unusual: in the final part of Carm. 2 (which it could not have inherited through the branch ‘containing the panegyrics’), I was not able to find any mistakes corresponding to either of the identified branches. Leip is far from having no mistakes of its own, yet all the evidence suggests that it is descended from the Ur-Archetyp without relying on one of the hyparchetypes which I have reconstructed.61 Judging by their ordering of the letters, Leid, Westm, C52sup, and Ven do not derive from the family of C, A, Sch, and Vat1661; by the same token, we may deduce that they do not descend from the English archetype, or indeed – very probably – from κ. But they still have a common archetype whose most distinctive feature was to put Ep. 5.18 after 5.20, and I think that Ven was copied from Leid.62 In all likelihood, the ancestor of these four manuscripts is a descendant of the hyparchetype on which P depends, but I do not have any evidence of this, and have omitted it from the stemma. Finally, Pl90 contains very slight fragments of the Carmina on f. 169v (besides the corpus which it inherited from its exemplar M): Carm. 15.136–43 (inverting 137 and 138 and omitting 140) given with the title Eiusdem reperti versiculi de Hercule breviter et perinde eleganter; Carm. 23.158–61 (Item de Nasone), then Carm. 2.190–3 and 184–5 (until tubas), given with the title Item alia.63 I do not think that these fragments could have come from anywhere but T, directly or via one of its descendants.64 We thus obtain the stemma in Fig. 16.6. I have left out Reg203/2, and Leid and its relatives (whose place is uncertain) as well as Pl90 (for its fragments of the Carmina minora), which is in all likelihood derived from T.

7 Synthesis The stemma of Sidonius is essentially bipartite, with two branches deriving from the Ur-Archetyp. The manuscripts forming the first branch are derived from an ancestor (which we shall call α) dating from the eleventh century at the latest, which must have been located somewhere in Aquitaine, even though it has at least one Italian descendant (Vat1661). Since this last manuscript is relatively late, it is possible that the archetype, or at least one of its descendants, left Aquitaine for Italy. One could retain Vat1661, the highest in the stemma (even if the latest in time), as a representative witness of α, provided that its readings are checked against A before or after correction. Before correction, A occupies a fairly low position (yet, in contrast to C, it is relatively free from interventions ex ingenio); after correction, its situation is comparable

61

62

63 64

It may be interesting to note in this respect that Leip, together with C before corrections and P, kept the spelling exciduum (for excidium) at Carm. 2.350. Naturally, Leip’s value lies only in the fact that it was contaminated: in other respects, I think that its text does not have any particular authority; however, if one were, for instance, to conclude (see n. 27 above on the gaps in L) that there really is a lacuna in the whole tradition at Ep.1.1.3 where Lütjohann prints litterulas, Leip would offer an excellent solution with lucubratiunculas, which is added in the margin. Leid and Ven both omit the end of Ep. 1.5, 1.11, and 3.3. In Leid, at the end of 3.12, another hand has noted in the margin the absence of 3.13, referred to by its first words: Unice deest hic. I think Ven comes from Leid because, at this point of the text, Ven does not have the note but changes the end of 3.12 by adding the word ‘unice’; a misunderstanding of the note in Leid is the most likely explanation for this innovation. Incidentally, Crinito, surprisingly for such an erudite scholar, kept T’s mistake flumine for fulmine at Carm. 2.191. Br2 could be a possible source, yet it seems that the manuscript was no longer in Italy at the time when Crinito was active: he was born in 1475, and Nicolaus Cusanus, the owner of Br2, died in 1464, from which date Br2 must have been kept in St Nikolaus-Hospital at Kues with the rest of the cardinal’s library.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 503

13/02/20 4:30 PM

504

FRANZ DOLVECK

Figure 16.6 Stemma of the complete manuscripts

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 504

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

505

to that of Vat1661.65 It would also be worth attempting to determine the precise position of Par2168: if it turns out to be high, it will have to be collated. A second branch comprises in practice all the other manuscripts; its archetype may be called β. A first split generates the Carmina of the English family, which derives from an archetype which we may call γ. It is unfortunate that, since Lütjohann, F has been chosen to represent this family, not so much because it is the group’s latest manuscript, but above all because it is the least faithful and, moreover, was contaminated. The best solution would be to use Roy instead as the most complete manuscript, provided that its readings are verified using Auct, and possibly Hfd (for the letters) and Rawl (for the Carmina), whenever they are likely to be accepted in the text. The date and origin of γ are uncertain: I assume that the manuscript was imported to the British Isles at the time of the Norman Conquest, so in the second half of the eleventh century;66 yet it was perhaps much older. The other descendant of β (which we may call δ) generates a hyparchetype ε which recurs in P and, in the case of the Carmina, in κ. In addition, δ generates a hyparchetype ζ which in turn generates the archetype of the ‘fourth family’ (η) and that of M and the related manuscripts (λ). η is the source of κ for the Epistulae; we need retain only T and Br2 to represent it (bearing in mind that κ is more authoritative for the Carmina than for the Epistulae). It goes without saying that one cannot eliminate M, which offers too many superior readings; that being said, in my view, these readings derive from an extremely intelligent recension rather than from a source which, given the manuscript’s content, could not be situated very high.67 Also descended from λ is the hyparchetype ν, which notably generates Leip (to be retained not for itself, but for its text after contamination, which may go back to the Ur-Archetyp) and, for the letters only, the English family. It is apparently in λ that the corpus of glosses took shape, but it is better transmitted in ν than in µ.68 All this can probably be represented more clearly by the partial and simplified stemma in Fig. 16.7. Ideally, an editor should collate all the manuscripts on this stemma (at least partially in the case of the lowest ones), keeping in mind what has been said above about Roy, which should be checked against one or several other descendants of γ. The same applies for M: it would be wise to check its text against one of ν’s descendants, and probably also Br1 for the letters. I do not believe that θ’s descendants, such as V, R, and N, are very useful, except perhaps to verify L. In this case, V seems preferable because it is not contaminated, or else R, provided one uses it only in its initial state. 65

66 67

68

The reason why Lütjohann (and his successors) preferred C must be that, at the time, it was the only known witness of Sidonius’ epitaph; yet this is an addition which in no way guarantees the manuscript’s text. On the epitaph see now Furbetta (2015b), who, incidentally, seems to me to provide definitive arguments to identify C with the codex Cluniacensis of Sidonius containing the epitaph: if the texts of C and Sch both derive independently from epigraphic transcripts of the epitaph, it is rather unlikely that there was ever a third manuscript containing exactly the same readings as C. The place of Sch in the manuscript tradition is also discussed in Furbetta (2014a). Such is also the opinion of Chronopoulos (2010) 268. We saw above that M and Avr1 had a common model, from which Br1 is also descended (as we saw for the Caesares, and as is confirmed by the order of letters in Book 7). A possible explanation for the fact that M’s text is superior to the rest of the tradition could be a second contamination, this time comparable to that of Leip and thus originating in a manuscript older than the Ur-Archetyp; yet why would M not have seized the opportunity to complete its corpus of the Carmina? In fact, unless I am mistaken, Br1 is the only manuscript outside ν to be properly glossed: could it be that its glosses are in fact derived from ν, and that Br1 contains them only through contamination?

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 505

13/02/20 4:30 PM

506

FRANZ DOLVECK

Figure 16.7 General stemma (simplified)

Here is a brief (and therefore considerably simplified) summary of the state of the corpus transmitted by the principal archetypes (unless otherwise specified, the characteristics noted here are transmitted): • • • • • • •

•

The Ur-Archetyp contained the entire works of Sidonius, either in the order given by α, or in that given by β.69 α inverted letters 6–7 and 8–9 in Book 7. β inverted Ep. 7.10–11 and placed Carm. 24 before Carm. 22. γ had the contents of ν for the Epistulae (with the inversion of Ep. 8.1–2, inherited or not), and of β for the Carmina. δ probably omitted Ep. 7.6–7. ε and ζ a priori had the same contents as δ. η had a lacuna between Ep. 6.12 and 7.5, omitted (besides 7.6–7) Ep. 8.2 and the final words of Ep. 7.18. It also omitted Ep. 9.1 and lost the end of this book, but it still contained at least part of Ep. 9.7 (which is found in L). θ deleted what remained of Ep. 9.7 (and therefore only contained 2–6 from Book 9) and all the Carmina.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 506

13/02/20 4:30 PM

THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF SIDONIUS

507

•

κ inverted Ep. 5.2–3 and omitted Ep. 3.5–8. It reinserted the Carmina (with 16 and then

•

λ must have had the same content as ζ for the Epistulae. It lost the Carmina minora and the

• •

ending of Carm. 2, and placed Carm. 8 before Carm. 6. µ a priori had the same contents as λ but recovered Ep. 7.6–7. ν inverted Ep. 5.12–13; it inserted letters Ep. 7.12 and then Ep. 6.11 after Ep. 7.7; it perhaps inverted Ep. 8.1–2.

24 between 21 and 22) after Ep. 1.5.

It will be clear that this stemma is radically different from what has been proposed hitherto. It is fragile and should be better defined in many points, and above all, it should be based on much more extensive collations than those which I was able to carry out myself; yet it seems to me that it opens the way for a finer comprehension of Sidonius’ works and their tradition. It has been said that ‘Sidonius is in need of explanation rather than emendation’;70 there will doubtless be less to emend and less to explain if the text is established on truly scientific foundations.71 Translated from the French by Alexandre Johnston

69

70 71

The authentic order could of course be altogether different – and should in this case be reconstructed through conjecture. E.H. Warmington’s preface to Anderson (1965) 2.xiv. For a preliminary attempt to apply some of the conclusions of the chapter, see Kelly and van Waarden’s Epilogue to this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 507

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A Census of the Manuscripts of Sidonius This census of Sidonius’ manuscripts does not aim to be comprehensive. Having said that, I am relatively confident that almost all complete and surviving manuscripts are included, and, if any are not included here, they must be lurking in private collections or small, uncatalogued libraries. However, this is not the case with ‘partial’ or ‘fragmentary’ manuscripts, which have not always been mentioned here, as the objective of this study is primarily to provide the clearest guidelines for future editors and commentators of Sidonius, not a complete manual for students of the transmission of his works. The manuscripts are listed within two main categories: 1

2

Manuscripts containing a full text of Sidonius’ works, either letters or poems, or both. By ‘complete manuscripts’ I mean, in fact, all manuscripts that are not listed under the following category. When they already have been assigned a widely known siglum, it has been mentioned: that is, manuscripts used by Lütjohann (C, F, P, T, M, and L) and manuscripts added later by other scholars (namely, Gustaffson, Mohr, and Burke: A, V, N, and R). Manuscripts surviving only in small fragments (a few leaves, at the most one quire or so), or manuscripts containing only extracts from Sidonius: mainly florilegia. None of the manuscripts in this second category should be of any use to an editor, and they are not mentioned in the first part of this chapter, except for a few special cases. Once again, I make no claim for completeness for this second category.

Manuscripts not recorded in Lütjohann’s preface have been assigned an asterisk. Descriptions are in the following format: • •

•

‘∞’ designates manuscripts which I have inspected personally; ‘φ’ designates manuscripts seen in microfilm or photographic form (following the usage of Munk Olsen (1982–2014). Date and place of origin are as precise as possible. Supralinear 1 and 2 refer to halves of centuries; thirds and quarters are indicated in full (1/3, 1/4, etc.); ‘in’, ‘med’, and ‘ex’ refer respectively to the beginning, the middle, and the end of a century. These data usually come from the bibliographical references indicated below in the notice (when available), or are my own opinion. It should be emphasised both that Lütjohann’s datings almost always require reconsideration, and that there is necessarily a degree of imprecision in the dates given, since very few MSS have explicit or external testimonia. This is particularly relevant for Sidonius’ MSS, of which the majority were copied within approximately seventy years between 1150 and 1220. Material, number, and dimension of leaves: The number is only indicative, usually ending with the number allotted to the last folio, even when there are errors of foliation. Dimensions are given in millimetres, rounded up to 5 or 0. If they are unknown (for example, for manuscripts I know only through reproduction and without a detailed catalogue entry), a purely indicative bibliographic format is given, such as ‘in-4o’, for a ‘medium’ manuscript, ‘in-8o’ or ‘in-12o’ for ‘small’ or ‘very small’ ones, and ‘in-fol.’ for ‘large’ ones.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 508

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

•

•

•

•

•

•

509

Composition of the gatherings: This indicates the present state of the manuscript, with details, whenever possible, of its original state (for example, a quaternion missing two folios, either accidentally or not, is indicated by ‘n8–2’). When the numbers of gatherings are between brackets, this means that there is no signature. However, whatever kind of signatures there may be, they have always been converted to Arabic numerals (in other words, a manuscript referred to as ‘1–48’ may have signatures such as A, B, C, D). I account for the presence of catchwords, and in some particular cases provide details of the signatures. Whenever I have been unable to provide a faithful account of such archaeological data, I have omitted this part (for example, manuscripts without signature or catchwords, with tight binding, or known to me only in reproduction). Layout and copying: This part briefly describes the type of script used by the copyist together with decorated initials and the presence of rubrics (normally in the same script as the text). Unless otherwise stated, I assume that manuscripts are the work of a single copyist, or of several copyists showing similar characteristics. Note that the distinction in nomenclature between ‘post-Caroline’ and ‘proto-Gothic’ is merely a criterion of personal judgement. History of the manuscript: Here, whenever possible, I provide precise information on the origin and history of the manuscript. This section does not appear when dating and localisation are based solely on palaeography. Bibliography: ‘Lütjohann’ and a Roman numeral indicate Lütjohann’s preface (although it is generally of limited use). Only essential bibliography is given: above all, references for dating and localisation when I have adopted these. Description: Non-Sidonian material is treated only briefly and more or less synthetically. Works by Sidonius are referred to by book number (in Roman) and letter number (in Arabic) in the case of the letters (for example, ‘V.3’), and by C. + number in the case of the poems (for example, ‘C.5’); divergences from the standard order of printed editions are indicated, with sequences separated by dots (for example, C.1–5.8.6–7.9–21.24.22–3). The asterisk* indicates that a textual unit is incomplete, for whatever reason, from the beginning (for example, ‘I.*1’) or from the end (for example, ‘I.1*’). The numbering of books is as given by the edition, even if it differs from the manuscript. Variations in titling and book division are normally not recorded. Various remarks: I distinguish between ‘variants’, usually one or two words at a time, written above the line or in the margin, and ‘glosses’, which are more important, usually in the margin, and theoretically characterised by a (more or less) syntactic construction.

Where available, references to digitised copies of manuscripts, and/or to their repositories, are provided. For ease of use, I refer to the clickable links to these manuscripts on the Sidonius website, https://sidonapol.org/manuscripts/.

‘Complete’ Manuscripts 1.

Avranches, BM, 242 Online at the Bibliothèque virtuelle du Mont-Saint-Michel:

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 509

13/02/20 4:30 PM

510

FRANZ DOLVECK

φ Mont-Saint-Michel?, s. XII2. — Parch., 92 leaves, 185 × 275 mm. — [0]1, 1–118, [12]3. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min. by various hands, not always very skilled (but the text, after many corrections, is very accurate), rubrics in capitals, red or blue initials with contrasted decoration. A few glosses. Lower corner of f. 24 torn out. The guard-leaf is a fragment of the Roman de la rose by a fifteenth- or sixteenthcentury hand. F. 1 is a contemporary addition with the life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. and a list of works, on the verso. Lütjohann xiii. I (ff. 2–8v), II (ff. 8v–14v), III (ff. 14v–19), IV (ff. 19–28), V (ff. 28–33v), VI (ff. 33v–37), VII.8–9.11.10.6–7.12.1–5.13–18 (but the book title is before letter 1; ff. 37–46), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 46–54v), IX (ff. 54v–63). — Aus. Caes., and Fort. Carm. 8.3 (ff. 63–6). C.1–5.8.6–7.9–21.24.22–23 (23 in two parts; ff. 66–92v). 2.

Berlin, Staatsbibl., lat. fol. 591 (olim Phillipps 3671) φ France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 84 leaves, 265 × 350 mm. — 1–108, [11]4. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., plain initials in red or blue (some more ornate and with more colours, esp. ff. 1 and 83v), rubrics, running titles. Glosses and variants. End of MS lost. Lütjohann x. Descr. (mostly material) Fingernagel (1999) 108–9 and plates 285–6. I (ff. 1–8), II (ff. 8–14v), III (ff. 14v–19), IV (ff. 19–28v), V (ff. 28v–34), VI (om. 11, inv. 10–12 a.c.; ff. 34–7), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 37–45v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 45v–59v), IX (16*; ff. 59v–61v). C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 61v–71v). — Aus. Caes. (f. 71v). Various poetic works by Hildebert, ending with two passions, of St Laurence (by Marbodus?) and St Vincent* (ff. 72–84v).

3.

Berlin, Staatsbibl., Phillipps 1685 Online: φ France, c. 1200. — Parch., 177 ff., 200 × 285 mm. — 1–58, 66, 7–228, [23]3. — 2 cols, wide margins; Gothic min. from the first period; blue or red initials with contrasted strapwork, the bigger ones parted; a few champ initials, very rich but archaising; rubrics, running titles. The manuscript belonged to the Collège de Clermont (M L 29) in Paris, and is thought by Wilmart to be a descendant (direct or not?) of Troyes, BM, 887 (Clairvaux, s. XII2); but neither of these factors can be used to narrow down the geographical provenance of the MS. L. x. Descr. Rose, no. 170; for the end, Wilmart (1936) 166–8. Cassiod. Var. (ff. 1–95). I (ff. 95v–101v), II (ff. 101v–107), III (ff. 107–11), IV (ff. 111–119v), V (ff. 119v– 124), VI.1–9.12.10 (om. 11; ff. 124–6v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 126v–133v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 133v–140), IX (16*; ff. 140–7) — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 147–56). Aus. Caes. (immediately after Sid.; ff. 156–156v); Hildebert, Marbodus et alii (ff. 156v––175); various extracts from or inspired by Seneca (ff. 175–6v). Annotations and variants, by the first hand.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 510

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

511

4.

Bern, Bürgerbibl., 285 ∞ France, s. XIImed and XII2. — Parch., 112 leaves, 180 × 270 mm. — 18, 27, 3–118, 9 12 , 13–148. Catchwords only at quires 6 and 7. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, red, green, or blue plain initials, many bulleted (the space reserved for them is always rectangular); the first one, more ornate, in a Cistercian style. Glosses. From the library of Bongars. According to the Mirabile database, the MS comes from Fleury. It may well be true, but I could not find the source of this information. Lütjohann ix explains that ff. 56–97 (quires 8–13) were probably made at a later stage, and that the original MS thus contained only I-VII.1–6 followed by Beda. This is true, but the addition (s. XII2?) is roughly contemporary with the original MS. I (ff. 1–11), II (ff. 11–20), III (ff. 20–7), IV (om. 22; ff. 27–40), V.1–7, IV.22, V.8–21 (ff. 40–9v), VI (om. 11; ff. 49v–54v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 54v–66), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 66–75v), IX (16*; ff. 75v–85v). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 85v–96v, but quire 12 has been bound inside out: reverse ff. 88–91 and 92–5). — Aus. Caes. (f. 96v). — VII.*2–6 (ff. 97–9v). — Beda, De natura rerum (end lost; ff. 99v–112v).

5.

Brussels, BR, 10020–21 ∞ France, s. XII2. — Parch., 90 leaves, 190 × 265 mm. — [0]2 (ff. B-C), 1–108, 10–1 11 ; signatures usually trimmed (b at the end of q. 2, then c, e, i and l at the beginning of respective quires). — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, plain red or green initials. — Many glosses and variants. Origin unknown, but modern history known through the notes on f. B: the MS was bought by Johannes Livineius in 1598 at the sale of the library of Abraham Ortesius; when Livineius died a year later, the manuscript went to the Jesuit College of Antwerp. Lütjohann xiii. Life of Sidonius (ff. Bv–C, by another hand; probably heterogeneous); I (ff. 1–10v), II (ff. 10v–20), III.1–6.9.7–8.10–14 (ff. 20–7v), IV (ff. 27v–41v), V (ff. 41v–49v), VI (ff. 49v–54), VII.8–9.11.10.6–7.12.1–5.13–18 (ff. 54–66v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 66v– 78), IX (ff. 78–90). — Aus. Caes. (ff. 90–90v). The model has long lines and the poem in II.10 is copied, vv. 1–6 on one page, the rest in two columns on another (hence the order here: 1–6, 7, 19, 8, 20, etc.). Similar problem in IV.8, VIII.9, IX.13 and 16.

6.

Brussels, BR, 10615–729 ∞ Trier, c. 1150. — Parch., 233 leaves, 270 × 360 mm. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., titles in caps. Sidonius on ff. 123–36. Lütjohann xxi. The manuscript later became part of the library of Nicolaus Cusanus. C.1–15.17–21.16.24.22–3 (but the rubric to 16 is between 15 and 17; ff. 123–34v). — I.1–2.5.3–4, IV.*23–5, V.1.3.2.4 (and rubric to V.5; ff. 134v–136).

7.

Clermont-Ferrand, BM, 260 (olim 195 et A. 19) Online:

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 511

13/02/20 4:30 PM

512

FRANZ DOLVECK

φ Saint-Alyre, s. XIex (maybe later, but not much). — Parch., 91 ff., 130 × 210 mm. — No signatures or catchwords; there are lacunae between ff. 15–16 and 66–7; f. 46 almost entirely lost (in V.7). — Caroline min., titles in black capitals struck out in red, initials in black ornated with red (or plain red for beginning of books). Many glosses. The copy, not very good, has been heavily corrected by a contemporary hand. Some ex-libris from Saint-Alyre, all late, but the MS appears in the twelfth-century catalogue, and so was probably copied there. Lütjohann xii. I (ff. 1–12), II (3*–*7 because of missing leaves; ff. 12–21), III (ff. 21–8v), IV (ff. 28v–44), V (ff. 44–52v), VI (ff. 52v–57v), VII.1–7.12.8–9.11.10*.*14 (ff. 57v–68v), VIII (ff. 68v–80v), IX (ff. 81–91). 8*. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl. (olim UB), Fabr. 91 4o Online: φ France, s. XII2. — Parch., 146 leaves (no f. 122), 135 × 195 mm. — 1-[8]8, [9–11]8, [12]10, [13–18]8. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, red or blue initials, larger at the beginning of books. Annotations and variants. Descr. online appended to the reproduction of the MS. I (ff. 1–8), II (ff. 8–14v), III (ff. 14v–19v), IV (ff. 19v–29), V (ff. 29–34v), VI (om. 11; ff. 34v–37v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 38–46v), VIII (inv. 2–1, and 2 considered as part of the preceding book; ff. 46v–54v), IX (ff. 54v–62v) — C.1* (ff. 62v–63), immediately followed by the ‘Saint Bernard’s Jubilus’ (Iesu dulcis memoria) and by Boeth. Cons. 3.m9 (ff. 63–4), both by slightly later hands. Apul. Socr. (with the fragments of the Florida); Bern. Silv. Cosm.; Ps. Apul. Ascl. (ff. 65–98). Bernard of Bologna, Ars dictandi, version B (ff. 99–129). Moralium dogma philosophorum (ff. 130–46), then proverbs and various school notes (ff. 146–7v). 9.

Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl., GKS 30 2o Online: φ Northern half of France, s. XII2. — Parch., 47 leaves, in-4o. — 18, 27 (one leaf lost, in II.2), 3–68, no catchwords. End of manuscript lost. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics, plain or with early interlace (contrasted), red or green. From the collection of Friedrich Lindenbrog. Lütjohann xvii. Descr. online appended to the reproduction of the MS. I (ff. 1–8), II (ff. 8–14v), III (ff. 14v–19), IV (ff. 19–29), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 29–34v), VI (12*; ff. 35–37v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 8–9 a.c.; inv. 10–11; ff. 37v–43v), VIII.1–9* (om. 2; ff. 43v–47v).

10.

Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibl., Thott 50 2o φ France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 92 leaves, 185 × 265 mm. — 1–118, [12]4. No catchwords. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics, red or blue initials with minimalist, contrasted decoration, caps struck out, running titles in red at the beginning (eventually carried out by a later hand, in black). Some glosses and variants at the beginning (the glosses are later in my opinion). Various notes and signs (thirteenth-century). Lütjohann x. I (ff. 1–9v), II (ff. 9v–17v), III (ff. 18–24), IV (ff. 24–35v), V (ff. 35v–42), VI (om. 11; inv. 10.12 a.c.; ff. 42–6), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 46–57v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 57–68), IX (16*; ff. 68–79). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 79–91v). — Aus.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 512

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

513

Caes. (f. 92, but three verses to be placed at the end were written in red at the end of f. 91v, with a sign). 11.

Douai, BM, 291 φ Probably Marchiennes, s. XII2. — Parch., 48 leaves, 205 × 300 mm. — No signatures or catchwords. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, decorated initials. From the abbey of Marchiennes; late fifteenth-century shelf mark on f. 48v. Lütjohann xvii. I (ff. 1–7v), II (ff. 7v–14), III (ff. 14–17v), IV (ff. 17v–26), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 26–31v), VI (12*; ff. 31v–34), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 34–8v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 39–45v), IX.2–6 (ff. 45v–47). — Immediately followed by the Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (ff. 47–8). The insertions in II.4 and II.11 mentioned by Lütjohann have been signalled immediately by the copyist or his corrector.

12*. Florence, BML, conv. soppr. 6 ∞ Florence, first half of the 1470s. — Pap., 208 leaves, 145 × 210 mm. — [1–7]10, 9 [8] , [9]12, [10]10, [11–17]12, [18]13, [19]10. Catchwords, no signatures. — Manuscript in two parts, the first (ff. 1–79) containing Statius’ Silvae, the second (ff. 80–208v) Ausonius and Sidonius. The second part is copied by two hands, switching at the beginning of its third quire, f. 102. The first hand is quite archaising, but the second is an absolutely ordinary cursive humanistic hand. Belonged to Giorgio Antonio Vespucci (erased ex-libris f. 208v), then to Santo Spirito in Florence. Dating and localisation deduced by M.D. Reeve from the dates and localisation of the MSS copied from this manuscript: Reeve (1977) 205. C.*2–14*.*15.17–20.16.24.22–3 (om. 21; 22 has lost v. 167–218; ff. 140–208v). The first quire is lost, together with a bifolium in the penultimate quire (between ff. 174 and 175, and 196 and 197), hence the lacunae. 13.

Florence, BML, plut. 45. 23 (T) Online: ∞ Italy, A s. XII, B s. XI. — Parch., 65 leaves, 150 × 245 mm. — Two codicological units, combined probably much later. A 1–58, [6]6. 2 cols, post-Caroline min., ‘rubrics’ in black capitals, initials written out later in black ink, with many errors. B 18, the rest to be determined (gatherings not numbered, obviously because of the fullpage figures going with the treatises). — Post-Caroline min., rubr., decoration quite extensive, with many figures. F. 47v, in a line-filler, Iste liber est abatie Fesulane (clumsy hand, s. XIII/XIV?), and, f. 63v, in an equally clumsy but different and (I believe) earlier hand, Domina Blanda obtulit Deo se et XL. l pro remedio anime sue et filiorum suorum, unde tenemur deprecari Deum, but it could be a pen-trial. The first inscription (referring to the Badia Fiesolana) cannot correspond to unit A; neither, probably, does the latter. Lütjohann xiii. No bibliography, except Bandini’s still valuable notice. A (ff. 1–46) I.1–5 (ff. 1–2). — C.1–15.17–21.16.24.22–3 (ff. 2v–19v). — I.6–11 (ff. 19v–22), II (ff. 19v–26), III (om. 5–8; ff. 26–8), IV (ff. 28–33v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 33v–37), VI (12*; ff. 37–8v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 38v–41v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 41v–45v), IX.2–6 (ff. 45v–46).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 513

13/02/20 4:30 PM

514

FRANZ DOLVECK

B (ff. 47–65) Two treatises with many figures, the first on astronomy (incomplete at beginning by loss), the latter on a computus. Many errors in initials, for example I.1, I.3, C.15, II.10, II, 12, etc. The end of A was never copied: f. 46v is blank. 14.

Florence, BML, plut. 45. 26 Online: ∞ France, s. XII2 (maybe XII4/4) — Parch., 120 leaves, 130 × 230 mm (I am following the newer foliation, in the lower right-hand corner of the leaves). — [1–14]8, [15]6, [16]2. Quire 14 is signed II. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, titles in Lombardic caps (or like the text but struck out in red), plain red initials (f. 1, portrait of Sidonius, and an initial similar to the other ones, but in black with blue decoration); running titles (only book number, later). Some glosses and annotations. The beginnings of pages are frequently copied by another, less skilled hand, at the bottom of the preceding ones. Lütjohann viii. Various notices, for example De Robertis and Resta (2004) no. 122 (by Gabriella Pomaro); I am not convinced that the last bifolium is, as has been claimed, a remnant of something more substantial. Came to the Biblioteca Laurenziana in 1571 from the collection of Canon Antonio Petrei. I (ff. 1–12v), II (ff. 12v–22v), III (ff. 22v–30), IV (one-and-a-half blank leaves at the end of quire 5, ff. 40–40v, in the middle of letter 20, without loss, but with some repetition before and after: probably an attempt to follow the quiring of the original; ff. 30–44v), V (ff. 44v–53), VI (om. 11; ff. 53–7v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII. 8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 57v–71); VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 71–83v), IX (ff. 83v–96v). — C.1– 5.8.6–7 (1–2 separated afterwards; 2*; ff. 96v–115v). Aus. Caes. (immediately following; ff. 115v–116); Aug. Civ. 6.2 (judgement on Varro; f. 116); Odo Clun. Occup. 1.160–2 (with the rubric Eusenii (sic) versus ad Diabolum; the Occupatio is an exceptionally rare text, so the manuscript may be Cluniac); Coripp. Iust. 3.271–88 (ff. 116–116v); Versus VII Sapientum, inc. Te, Solo, praecipue (f. 116v); Fort. Carm. 1.21, 11.25–6* (ff. 116v–118). — Symm. Epist. IX.*43.45– 47.49.53–54.57.61.67 immediately followed by Ps. Sen. Paul. (ff. 118v–120v).

15*. Florence, BML, plut. 90 sup. 8 Online: φ Florence, copied by Pietro Crinito from #16, slightly after 1489/90. — Pap., 176 leaves, 145 × 210 mm. — 12, 218, 3–916, 108, 11–1216, [13]8, vertical catchwords. — Rubrics, but guide letters only for initials. Various dates mentioned by Crinito. Many annotations, variants and glosses, generally in the margin, in red or black. Descr. Marchiaro (2009) 94–7. I (ff. 1–15v), II (ff. 15v–29v), III (ff. 29v–39v), IV (ff. 39v–61), V (ff. 61–73), VI (om. 11–12; ff. 73–8), VII.1–5, VI.11–12, VII.8–9.11.10.6–7.12–18 (ff. 78–98), VIII (ff. 98–116), IX (ff. 116–36), C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 138–69); fragments of C.15, 22 and 2 (f. 169v); Aug. Civ. 6.2 (judgement on Varro; f. 169v); Wandalb. von Prüm, Horologium (ff. 170–2); Carm. de ponderibus (ff. 172–6).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 514

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

515

16.

Florence, BML, S. Marco 554 (M) Online: ∞ France? Italy? s. XI2. — Parch., 157 leaves, 120 × 200 mm. — 19, 2–108, [10a]7, 11–138, 149, [15–17]8, [18]12. Quire 1 is normal; it is not the first leaf that has been added, but the central one, f. 5 (and it is an original addition). The last leaf of quire 11 is blank but the first 7 lines (f. 88). — Caroline min. by one hand but in different times, plain initials in black ink (as well as the ‘rubrics’, in the ordinary script); general title in caps f. 2. Various notes, notably by Crinito and Pico della Mirandola. Lütjohann xiv; descr. Marchiaro (2009): an absolutely indispensable contribution detailing everything on this complicated manuscript, hence the brevity of my own notice. I describe below the final state of the MS but have given further details when speaking of its position in the tradition (pp. 487–8 above). I (ff. 2–18 except 5v), II (ff. 18–32v), III (ff. 32v–43v, part of III.3 to be read f. 5v), IV (ff. 43v–64), V (ff. 64–76v), VI (ff. 76v–81v, then 89–89v, then 82–82v), VII.1–5.8–9.11.10.6–7.12–18 (ff. 82v–85v, then 89v–96, 85v–88, 96–102), VIII (ff. 102–19v, then 121; VIII.2 to be read f. 1v), IX (ff. 121, 120–120v, 121–34v). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 134v–146v). Aus. Caes. (f. 147); Carmen de ponderibus (ff. 147–147v and 156–156v); various astronomical texts (ff. 148–55v and 157).

17.

Florence, BNC, Magl. VII 315 ∞ Northern Italy, prob. c. 1470/80. — Parch., 274 p. (137 leaves), 170 × 255 mm. — 16, 2–610, 78, 910, 108, 11–1510, 164, with catchwords and (quires 9–15) signatures from 1 to 7. — Humanistic min., rubrics, blue or red, plain caps; ornate caps p. 1 and 129, and special decoration p. 1. It should be noted that the titles of the two components (Ausonius and Sidonius) are inverted. A later hand, which is also responsible for the pagination, has added summaries on blank pages, p. 120–4 and 128. Copy attributed to Nicolaus Antonii de Riccis, who probably also wrote Urb. lat. 649: Garzelli (1985) 520 (see too 431–2). Lütjohann xx. Ausonius, ‘Z’ Collection (p. 1–119). C.1–15.17–20.16.24.22–23 (om. 21; p. 129–269).

18.

Florence, Bibl. Riccard., Ricc. 247 ∞ Florence, by Giraldo Giraldi, 1492. — Pap., 132 leaves, 220 × 300 mm. — Gatherings of 10 leaves, without any signature or catchword. — Humanistic min., quite cursive but written with care. Rubrics, red initials, marginal notes in black or red. Date is given at the beginning (Ihesus 1491, f. 1) and at the end of the volume (Cai Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii epistolarum liber VIIII et ultimus finit. Die XXIIII Febr. M CCCC LXXXXI, f. 131). On the date and on the copyist, whose name followed the colophon but has been erased, see the description by Giovanna Lazzi in the online Manus database. Lütjohann xx. Description: http://manus.iccu.sbn.it//opac_SchedaScheda. php?ID=161111

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 515

13/02/20 4:30 PM

516

FRANZ DOLVECK

I (ff. 1–17v), II (ff. 17v–32), III (ff. 32–42v), IV (ff. 42v–62), V (3 ends on terminum and 5 on ridearis; ff. 62–73v), VI (ff. 74–80v), VII.8–9.11.10.6–7.12.1–5.13–18 (16*; ff. 80v–98), VIII (ff. 98v–114v), IX (8*; om. (with space left) vv. 79–80 in the poem in 9.16; ff. 114v–131). 19*. Hereford, Cath. Libr., O. II. 6 φ England (Gloucester, St Peter’s?), s. XII2. — Two units: A Augustine (s. XII1; ff. 1–48v), B Sidonius (ff. 49–139v). — English proto-Gothic min., rubrics (many not carried out), plain rubricated initials. A title has been added (f. 49) by a later hand (s. XIII): Salutationes Sidonii. Some contemporary corrections in the margins (mostly in the beginning). Fuller descr. in the new catal., Mynors and Thomson (1993) 13–14. I (ff. 49–59), II (ff. 59–68v), III (ff. 68v–76), IV (ff. 76–90v), V (inv. 12–13; ff. 90v–99v), VI (om. 11; ff. 99v–104v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 104v–118v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 118v–129), IX (ff. 129–39), V.12.18 (f. 139v). 20.

Leiden, UB, BPL 121 ∞ France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 57 leaves, 160 × 240 mm. — Note that this manuscript is only part of a larger volume, which also contains Leyden, UB, VLQ 84 and Paris, BNF, lat. 2389. — [1]4+1, [2]2, [3–4]8, [5]8+1, [6–7]8, [8]8+1. Originally quires 1 and 2 were probably a single quire. In quire 5, f. 26 is a contemporary addition. In quire 8, f. 57 is an ancient guard-leaf. No signatures or catchwords. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics, plain red initials. Some corrections; very few glosses or variants, but the manuscript was collated (though only slightly emended) some time after its copying. Note, at f. 39v (in VII.17) a title in Greek added to the poem and then cancelled: ΗΠΥΤΑΦΥΩΝ (sic). The manuscript belonged to Pierre de La Bruyère (ex-libris f. 56) in the fifteenth century, and later to Pierre Daniel (ex-libris f. 1). Lütjohann xi. On the original manuscript, see Pellegrin (1978). I (5* and 11*, without material loss; ff. 1–5v), II (2* and 9*; ff. 5v–9v), III (3*; om. 13 with a slightly later mention of it; ff. 5v–10v), IV (ff. 10v–22), V (18 after 20; an omission in 17 added on f. 26; ff. 22–7v), VI (om. 11; ff. 28–30v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 30v–40), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 40–7v), IX (ff. 47v–55v). — C.1–2* (ff. 55v–56); there is an explicit after the end of C.2 (v. 51), so the copy never went further: Explicit iste liber, poscat sua dona magister. Copied onto the blank leaves of the MS, in a fifteenth-century hand, is a Latin glossary (ff. 26v, 56–7; 57v has remained blank).

21.

Leipzig, UB, Rep. I 48 (Leihgabe Leipziger Stadtbibliothek) φ Southwest of France?, final years of s. XII or XIII1/4 (units 2–3 s. XIII1). — Three units, ff. 1–95, 96–104, and 105–41, the second and third later and not so well copied; the last part of the first unit, ff. 96–103v, looks more contemporary with the second than with the first. — Parch., 141 leaves, 160 × 210 mm. — [1–2]8, 3–68, 77, 8–98, [10–17]8, [19]6; not all existing signatures are original; later catchwords at the beginning. One leaf is missing between ff. 53–4. — 2 cols (except ff. 92v–103v, 1 col.), proto-Gothic min. by various hands, red initials with elementary green strapwork (some plain, some green with similar red strapwork), caps struck out in red (last part of unit 1, plain red or black initials; unit 3, plain red bulleted initials). Many drawings

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 516

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

517

in black, red, and green in the margins, many notes from different periods (mostly seventeenth-century). By a contemporary hand, some variants and glosses. In the seventeenth century belonged to Johann Christoph Wagenseil (maybe the modern annotator). Lütjohann xi. Descr. catal. no. XCIV; Shooner (1981) 420–1 (on the Bursarii Ovidianorum). I (ff. 1–10v), II (ff. 10v–19), III (ff. 19–26), IV (ff. 26–39), V (ff. 39–46v), VI (om. 11; ff. 46v–51), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (5*–*6 because of the missing leaf; ff. 51–62v), VIII (inv. 1–2 a.c.; ff. 62v–73), IX (ff. 73–83v). — C.1–5.21 (2 in two parts, the latter copied at the end of the collection; ff. 83v–92). Suetonius, Caesars* completed by extracts from it from Heiric of Auxerre’s Collectanea and followed by extracts of Val. Max. from the same (ff. 92v–103v), Bursarii Ovidianorum (ff. 104–41v). 22.

London, BL, Harley 4084 ∞ England?, s. XII2. — Parch., 84 leaves, 140 × 200 mm. — [1–5]8, [6]10, [7–10]8, [11]2, catchwords trimmed out, modern signatures (with twice C and D). — Pre-Gothic min., quite square (changing to a more elegant hand from f. 51, quire 7), made with a large pen; ‘rubrics’ in black struck out in red, plain red initials with interlace, title and explicit in Lombardic interlocked caps (very fine). Very few variants; corrected with great care, certainly by the same hand. Lütjohann xii. I (ff. 1–12), II (ff. 12–21v), III (f. 21v–29), IV (ff. 29–43), V (ff. 43–51v), VI (om. 11; ff. 51v–55), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (VI.11 exceptionally without initial; 17 lacks the sentence before the poem; ff. 55–65), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 65–74), IX (14* last sentence, at the bottom of a folio; ff. 74v–84). F. 84v, later addition, St Anselm, Or. 1.

23.

London, BL, Royal 4 B. IV. ∞ Worcester, s. XII1 (A-B), XII2/4(C). — 190 × 280 mm. — Three units: A Epist. Pauli, Cant., Apoc. (ff. 1–119v), B Sidonius (ff. 120–202v), C Commentary on the Justinian Code (ff. 203–19v). — Gatherings indiscernible, apparently no signatures or catchwords. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics in cap., blank red initials (the first one green). Variants, glosses. Accents sometimes added. Changing of layout from f. 152 onwards. Ex-libris of Worcester f. 1 (s. XIII, perhaps even s. XIV). Lütjohann vii; descr. Chronopoulos (2010) 276–9. I (ff. 120–8), II (ff. 128–36), III (ff. 136–42), IV (ff. 142–53), V (inv. 12–13; ff. 153– 7v), VI (om. 11; ff. 157v–160), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 160–7), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 167–73v), IX (ff. 173v–180), V.12.18 (ff. 180–180v). — Aus. Caes. (f. 180v). — Life of Sidonius (f. 181, additional, verso blank). —C.1–21.24.22–23 (23 in 2 parts, with rubr.; ff. 182–202). — Aus. Ecl. 20–1 Green and Eug. Tol. Carm. 2–3 (ff. 202–3, immediately following Sid.).

24*. London (Kensington), Westminster Diocesan Archives, 83 ∞ France?, s. XIImed. — Parch., 80 leaves, 120 × 160 mm. — 2 units: A England, s. XIImed, Augustine, Enchiridion (ff. 1–31), B Sidonius (ff. 32–80). Though apparently contemporaneous, the two units have nothing in common except format (the margins

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 517

13/02/20 4:30 PM

518

FRANZ DOLVECK

being heavily trimmed to fit the actual dimensions); I describe B only. — [1]8–1, 2–38, [4]8, 58, [6]9. Catchwords have mostly been trimmed. The exact composition of the last quire is hard to determine. — Post-Caroline min. (unskilled), rubrics, plain initials (red for letters, green and larger for beginning of books). — The MS is in a poor state; the first folio and the end are lost; trimming also occasionally cut parts of the text. From St Edmund’s College, Ware. The spine title reads ‘Caxion 1478’ (the binding is late eighteenth-century). Mentioned in MMBL 5.21, where its origin is given as English; however, I cannot detect any particularly English quality in the writing (in B at any rate, for A is clearly English), and the text does not point to England at all. Nor do we have any information about the date when the two elements were united. I.*3–11 (ff. 32–8), II (ff. 38–44), III (ff. 44–8v), IV (ff. 48v–56), V (18 after 20; ff. 56–60v), VI (om. 11; ff. 60v–63), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 63–9v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 69v–75v), IX.1–4* (ff. 75v–80v). 25.

Madrid, BNE, 9448 (olim Ee. 102) (C) Online: φ Southwest of France, s. XI2. — Parch., 162 leaves, 180 × 220 mm. — [1]10–2, 2–68, 712–2, 8–98, 1010–1, 11[-19]8, [20]8–1. The whole manuscript probably had catchwords, but most have been trimmed. The first gathering is a bit later than the rest. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics in rustic caps, bulleted initials; one big strapwork initial, in black ink, f. 9, preceded on f. 8v by the title, rubricated, in interlocked caps. The manuscript is almost certainly Cluniac, corresponding to item 371 in Cluny’s Great Catalogue (see above sect. 7, p. 504 and n. 65), but as the style does not fit the productions of the Cluniac scriptorium, it must have been an acquisition. Lütjohann vi; Munk Olsen (1982–2014), descr. I.221, to be complemented by III/2.33). On its origin, Delisle (1903) 475–6. Cic. Cato maior (not really extracts but an abridged version; ff. 1–6); following this, in the blank left on f. 6, the same hand wrote: Dignum est memoria quod domnus Bernardus camerarius dixit in cimiterio fratrum coram domno abbate, audientibus nonnullis seniorum. Ait enim: ‘Dedecus magnum est monacho murmurare’, quod memorabile dictum iussit scribi domnus abbas; sentences from Ps. Quint. Decl. (in a student’s hand, ff. 6v–7); life of Sidonius based on extracts from Greg. Tur. (ff. 7–8); Aus. Caes. (attr. to Sid.; f. 8v). I (ff. 9–19v), II (ff. 19v–28v), III (ff. 28v–35v), IV (ff. 35v–49), V (ff. 49–57v), VI (ff. 57v–61v), VII.1–5.8–9.6–7.10–18 (ff. 62–74v), VIII (ff. 75–87), IX (13* last words; ff. 87–99v) — C.1–24 (C. 23 in two parts; ff. 100–62v) — Epitaph of Sidonius (f. 162v, an addition, contemporaneous or a little later).

26.

Milan, Bibl. Ambr., C 52 sup. ∞ Italy?, s. XIII1. — Parch., 52 leaves, 145 × 225 mm. — 18, 210, [3–5]8, and then, it would appear, a quire of 7 leaves followed by one isolated leaf and one bifolium. Quires 1 and 2 have a signature, though trimmed. Quire 4 only has a catchword. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., red and blue initials with contrasted strapwork (very simple); rubrics and first initial not carried out. Some corrections, very few notes and variants. The manuscript is materially complete, but the end of the copy was never carried out. Lütjohann xii. No bibliography except the Inventory of Western Manuscripts (Jordan and Wool (1986)) 2.81–2 (giving the date s. XII3/3, which I believe to be a little too early).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 518

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

519

I (ff. 1–6v), II (ff. 6v–11), III (ff. 11v–15), IV (ff. 15–22v), V (18 after 20; ff. 22v– 27), VI (om. 11; ff. 27–9), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 29–35v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 35v–41v), IX (ff. 41v–47v). — C.1–5* (ff. 47v–52). 27.

Milan, Bibl. Ambr., F 131 sup. ∞ Italy, s. XVex. — Parch., 234 leaves, 205 × 310 mm. — Quires almost always of 10 leaves, catchwords. — Humanistic min. Two very different hands, one for the Carmina, another for the Epistulae and what follows, the first hand appearing to be older. Red initials but no rubrics in part 1, rubrics but no initials in part 2. Lütjohann xx. A C.1–15.17–20.16.24.22–23 (om. 21; ff. 1–61). — B I (ff. 65–76v), II (ff. 76v–87v), III (ff. 87v–96), IV (ff. 96–111v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 111v–121), VI (12*; ff. 121–5v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; 18 ends on respiras; ff. 125v–135v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 135v–149), IX.2 (ff. 149–149v). Immediately followed by letters by Symmachus, Dictys Cretensis, etc.

28.

Milan, Bibl. Ambr., L 97 sup. ∞ Northern Italy (maybe Milan), s. XV2/4. — Parch., 106 leaves, 185 × 270 mm. — Quires of 10 leaves except the last (of 6), catchwords. — Humanistic min., rubrics, red or blue plain initials. According to a note on the pastedown (later reiterated on f. 1), the manuscript was given to the cathedral of Milan by Archbishop Francesco Piccolpasso (1435–43); his customary ‘colophon’ is on ff. 65 and 103v: Francisci memores sint he˛ c sua scripta legentes / Omne cui subest fundere sepe preces. The binding is probably original. Lütjohann xx. Notice from Gennadius (f. 1); I.1, C.22 (last prose part only) and 23 (1–36 only), I.6–11 (ff. 1v–7v), II (ff. 8–18), III (om. 5–8; ff. 18–21), IV (ff. 21–32v), V.1, I.2–5, V.2–21 (inv. 2–3; ff. 32v–43), VI (12*; ff. 43–6v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 46v– 53v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 53v–63), IX.2–6 (ff. 63–5). — After blank leaves, Symmachus’ letters (ff. 71v–103v, probably in the same ‘recension’ as in Vat. Reg. lat. 412).

29.

Montpellier, BU Méd., H 4 φ France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 181 leaves, 335 × 460 mm. — The quiring seems regular, but signatures have usually been trimmed. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics, red and blue initials with contrasted strapwork. A few variants and glosses. From the collection of Pithou. Lütjohann x. Cassiod. Varia (ff. 1–79v), Symm. Epist. (ff. 79v–116v), Boeth. Opuscula sacra (ff. 116v–127), Versus extranei (also known as Tractatus de fluvio Oronte; with commentary; ff. 127–8v). I (ff. 129–34), II (ff. 134–8), III (ff. 138–41v), IV (ff. 141v–148), V (ff. 148–53), VI (om. 11; ff. 153–5), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 155–61v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 161v–167v), IX (16*; ff. 167v–173v). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 173v–181). — Aus. Caes. (ff. 181–181v).

30.

Montpellier, BU Méd., H 445 φ Northern half of France, s. XIIex (maybe XIIIin). — Parch., 167 leaves, 115 × 160 mm. — No signatures or catchwords. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics (at the

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 519

13/02/20 4:30 PM

520

FRANZ DOLVECK

beginning only, the first one in red and blue), red or blue initials with contrasted strapwork and early antennae. F. 1, originally blank, summary of the manuscript, s. XIII or XIV. From the Bouhier library. Lütjohann xviii. I (ff. 1v–9), II (ff. 9–14v), III (ff. 14v–18), IV (ff. 18–25), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 25–9v), VI (12*; ff. 29v–31v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 31v–36), VIII (om. 2; ff. 36–42), IX.2–13*.14* (ff. 42–6v), VII.6*.7.2*.3–5* (ff. 46v–48). — Seneca* (ff. 48v–167v). 31.

Montpellier, BU Méd., H 541 Online:

φ Part of a larger MS comprised of shelf marks 538–42, which was formerly bound with MS H 136 (various laws, s. IX, with no original relation to 538–42). I take 538–42 as a whole for the material description (the foliation is continuous across the shelf-mark sequence, from 190 to 380). The original MS contained St Bernard (538), various theological works (539, 540), and Yves of Chartres (541). France, s. XII2. — Parch., 191 leaves, 190 × 290 mm. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics and decoration not carried out. Lütjohann xviii. I (ff. 291v–296), II (ff. 296–300v), III (ff. 300v–303v), IV (ff. 303v–310), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 310–14), VI (12*; ff. 314–16), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 316–20), VIII (om. 2; ff. 320–5), IX.2–6 (ff. 325–6). — Prophecies of the Sibylline Prophecies, with the introduction Quid Sibylla vaticinando (f. 326). Many gaps in the text, probably corresponding to the layout of the original.

32*. Munich, BSB, lat. 70 Online: φ Nuremberg?, 1460 and circa. — Pap., 414 leaves, in-fol. — Very late rotunda; decoration varying within the volume; some illuminated initials, some titles in Lombardic caps, etc. (note the painted figure of a woman on f. 325v, at the beginning of the De duobus amantibus). Annotations in the margins of the whole volume. The MS belonged to Hartmann Schedel, who had probably inherited it from his cousin Hermann (Stauber (1908) 35). The Sidonian part is dated 1460 on f. 66v (other dates near to this are mentioned in various parts of the MS). I (ff. 12–19v), II (end of 10 and beginning of 11 misplaced in the middle of 13; ff. 19v–26), III (ff. 26–31), IV (ff. 31–41), V (inv. 2–3, 8 after 11; ff. 41–6v), VI (12*; ff. 47–9v), VII.*5.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 49v–55v), VIII (om. 2; marks 9 as beginning of a book; ff. 55v–63v), IX.2–6 (ff. 63v–65v). — Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (end irregular; ff. 65v–66v). Explicit and ‘final note’ (cf. #57; f. 66v). — The rest of the volume mainly contains works by Enea Silvio Piccolomini, and the letters of Peter of Blois. The first leaves of the volume (before Sidonius) are devoted to a summary of the manuscript, followed by a summary of Peter of Blois’ letters, or are blank. In the higher margin of f. 12 (beginning of Sidonius), someone (maybe the main copyist) has added the eight verses on Sidonius from Alan of Lille’s Anticlaudianus (3.238–45).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 520

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

521

33*. Munich, BSB, lat. 24508 Non vidi (I am relying on notes taken by Gavin Kelly, who kindly examined the original MS on my behalf.). Very likely Germany, s. XV. — Pap., 69 leaves, 160 × 260 mm. — Gothic min., initials (not all carried out), rubrics. A few variants. I (ff. 1–10), II (end of 10 and beginning of 11 misplaced in the middle of 13; ff. 10–18v), III (ff. 18v–24v), IV (ff. 24v–36v), V (inv. 2–3, 8 after 11; ff. 36v–44), VI (12*; ff. 44–8), VII.*5.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 48–55), VIII (om. 2; marks 9 as beginning of a book; ff. 55–65), IX.2–6 (ff. 65–7). — Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (end irregular; ff. 67–9). Explicit and ‘final note’ (cf. #57; f. 69). 34.

Naples, BN, IV. B. 39 ∞ Prob. Rome, s. XV4/4. — Paper, 174 leaves, 160 × 230 mm. — [1]10, [2]8, [3–9]10, [10]8, [11–17]10, [18]8. Catchwords. — The MS is obviously comprised of two parts, the first containing the letters and the end of C.2 (ff. 1–136v), the second containing the Carmina (f. 137–74). Both are written in humanistic min., much more formal in the second part, with titles in red caps (initials never carried out); in the first part, rubrication is generally not carried out (but there are very brief notes in red on the content of each letter in the first three books). Many corrections, notes and variants in the second part. Watermarks are close to Briquet 12202 or 12204 (a bird in a circle), pointing mostly to Naples or Rome, and, in all events, to the last two decades of the fifteenth century. Since the second inscription copied at f. 174v seems to have been from Rome, it is likely that the MS was copied there. In my view, the MS originally contained only the poems, and was extended to incorporate the letters – very shortly afterwards, but, nevertheless, clearly at a later date: this would explain the odd position of the end of C.2, and the fact that it is copied by the hand responsible for the letters. Lütjohann xx. I (ff. 1–15v), II (ff. 15v–29), III (ff. 29–39v), IV (ff. 39v–59), V (ff. 59v–71v), VI (ff. 71v–77v), VII.8–9.11.10.6–7.12.1–5.13–18 (16*; ff. 77v–94v), VIII (ff. 94v–111), IX (8*; the verses of the poems are copied out of order; the error was corrected by numbering the verses, probably immediately after they were copied; ff. 111–29). — C.*2 (ff. 130–6v). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 137–71). — After blank leaves, two Latin metrical inscriptions in other hands, which are often found printed in old collections (f. 174v; inc. Bis duo sunt hominum: manes, caro, spiritus, umbra and Semicapri quicumque subis penetralia fauni; for the second, see Ménestrier (1694) 1888, who mentions that it was in Palazzo Della Valle at Rome).

35.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Auct. F. 5. 25 ∞ Composite manuscript; Sidonius on ff. 113–50: maybe England, s. XI2 (less probably XII1). — Parch., 38 leaves, 130 × 180 mm. — [1–2]8, [3]8–1, [4]8, [5]8–1; quire 3 is irregularly constituted, and from one bifolium (f. 131 and its counterpart) only the inner half of one folium remains, with loss; but quire 5 is regular, without loss. Later catchwords (all correct, so the loss between quires 1 and 2 is earlier). — Post-Caroline min., initials in black except the first, in green. Variants, some glosses, some later notes. Lütjohann xx. I.1–9* (ff. 113–20), II.*2–14 (ff. 121–7v), III.1–6*.7*.*12–14 (ff. 127v–134), IV (ff. 134–49v), V.1–3 (ff. 149v–150v).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 521

13/02/20 4:30 PM

522

FRANZ DOLVECK

36.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Digby 61 (olim B.N. 6) ∞ Three units, first (ff. 1–20) and last (ff. 83–94) from s. XV, not described. Probably England, s. XIIex. — Parch., 62 leaves, 145 × 210 mm. — 6–118, 1210, [13]4; original signatures trimmed, but certainly present, doubled by fifteenth-century signatures from f to m on the front folios of the gatherings. — Pre-Gothic min., rubr., plain initials in red or blue, or with contrasted flourishes. Beginning lost, but regular ending (with ff. 81–2 blank). Lütjohann viii. III.*12–14 (ff. 21–2), IV (ff. 22–31), V (inv. 12–13; ff. 31–6), VI (om. 11; ff. 36–36v and 45–7), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 47–55v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 55v–63v), IX (ff. 63v–72). C.1–2 (ff. 72–80v), followed immediately by Eug. Tol. Carm. 2–3. On ff. 37–44v (gath. 7), selection of Symmachus’ Letters, the first one rubricated as if by Sidonius. On f. 80v, the end trimmed, a letter to a king of France from three officials of the diocese of Soissons begging him to intervene in the nomination of a certain ‘P.’ as archdeacon, who has been turned down by their bishop, named ‘Aydus Bestisi’ (Aidus of Béthisy?). This is almost certainly a fictitious letter, maybe part of an ars dictaminis.

37.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. lat. 104 + Erlangen, UB, 2112/7 (L) Online at the Bibliotheca Laureshamensis digital: (Oxford); (Erlangen) ∞ (Oxford) φ (Erlangen). — Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen), court of Louis the Pious (most probably), between 814 and 830. — Parch., 103+2 leaves, 185 × 255 mm. Oxford 103 ff., Erlangen one bifolium. This bifolium was the external part of its quire: the lower margin, where the signature should have been, has been cut, but the verse count is what one would expect (taking into account that this MS should have had C.8 before C.6). — (Oxford) 1–128, [13]7. — Caroline min., rubr. in rustic caps (from III.4 until the end of book IV, nothing except book titles, in caps in black ink), small initials in black ink; title rubricated in big rustic caps on f. 1v. Lütjohann xvi; on dating (certain) and origin (a little less certain), Bischoff (1998– 2014) II.369 (no. 3819). Oxford I (ff. 2–16v), II (ff. 16v–29v), III (ff. 30–9v), IV (ff. 39v–58), V (ff. 58v–69), VI (12*; om. first rubr.; ff. 69–74), VII *5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 74–84v), VIII (om. 2; om. book title; ff. 84v–99), IX.2–7* (book title erased; ff. 99–102v) — Erlangen C.7.9 (fragments).

38.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Rawl. G. 45 ∞ Probably England, s. XII2. — Parch., 131 leaves, AB 155 × 225 mm., C 145 × 220 mm. — A is a bifolium from a breviary, containing pieces for St Clement, St Catherine, and the Common of the Apostles, with red and green blank initials. B, post-Caroline min., no rubrics except the one at the beginning, red, green or blue blanc initials (the first decorated): Solinus, Polyhist. It may have the same origin as C, but is nevertheless clearly a different unit. — C [1]8, [2]6, [3–7]8, [8]6, [9]8. Lacunae between 2 and 3, 3 and 4. — Post-Caroline min., rubr. in caps, red or blue blank

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 522

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

523

initials. First initial in red with blue branches, fine, followed by a ‘rubric’ in blue caps and first line of (large) Lombardic-style capitals in red. Lütjohann viii. I (ff. 64–70), II.1–3.*9–14 (ff. 70–4), III.1–14* (ff. 74–7v), IV.*3–25 (ff. 78–84), V (inv. 12–13; ff. 84–8), VI (om. 11; ff. 88–90v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13– 18 (ff. 90v–97), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 97–103), IX (ff. 103–9v), V.12.18 (f. 109v). C.1–21.24.22–23 (ff. 109v–130v). — Aus. Ecl. 20–1 and Eug. Tol. Carm. 2–3 (ff. 130v–131). 39.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2168 Online: ∞ Moissac (very likely), s. XII1. — Parch., 48 ff., 150 × 265 mm. — [1–6]8. Catchwords from quire 3. End of MS lost. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics in caps, plain red initials, some bulleted. Very few notes and variants. Letters numbered continuously. The lower part of f. 8v is left blank, probably to follow the quiring of the model. Lütjohann vii. Descr. Dufour (1972) 123. I (ff. 1–10v), II (ff. 10v–18v), III (ff. 18v–25), IV (ff. 25v–37v), V (ff. 37v–44), VI (ff. 44–8), VII.1–2* (ff. 48–48v).

40.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2170 ∞ France (maybe Paris), s. XIIex. — Parch., 106 ff., 195 × 305 mm. — Binding too tight; only one signature (II) on f. 17v. — 2 cols, proto-Gothic min., rubrics, initials (some large for Cassiodorus, quite beautiful, followed by capital letters in green, all others small, plain, in red with blue lacework or vice versa). MS water-damaged, particularly towards the end. Bought by Jean Bréhal for the Dominicans of Évreux (f. 1v); from the collection of Claude Dupuy. Lütjohann xix. Catalogue général 2.351. Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (ff. 1–1v). I (ff. 2–6v), II (ff. 6v–11), III (ff. 11–14v), IV (ff. 14v–21), V (ff. 21–5), VI.1–12* (om. 8, but cf. below; 10–11 not distinguished; ff. 25–6v), VII.*5.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 26v–30), VIII (om. 2, but cf. below; ff. 30–5), IX.2–6.1.7–16 (between 6 and 1, three medieval letters, cf. catal.; ff. 35–42), VI.12 and VII.1–7 and VIII.2 (ff. 42–45). — Cassiodorus, Variae (ff. 46–106v), with many problems too, ending imperfectly. Some interesting material problems, always corrected, probably by the head of the workshop: in particular, some passages that were originally missing have been added; cf. particularly ff. 24–24v (end of book 5, with rewritings and insertion of VI.8 and VIII.2) and IX.13 (ff. 39v–40). Lacunae often signalled by Dupuy.

41.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2171 ∞ France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 103 ff., 180 × 260 mm. — 1–128, [13]7 (probably lost its last leaf). — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., quite angular, rubrics, red or blue plain initials with very light, contrasted strapwork; sometimes red highlighted capitals. Lütjohann x. From the library of Colbert. I (ff. 1–9v), II (ff. 9v–17v), III (ff. 17v–24), IV (ff. 24–35v), V (ff. 35v–42), VI (om. 11; inv. 10.12 a.c.; ff. 42–6), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 46–57v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 57v–68), IX (16*; ff. 68–79). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; 3 verses from the

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 523

13/02/20 4:30 PM

524

FRANZ DOLVECK

Caesares ending 7; ff. 79–92). — Aus. Caes. (f. 92). — Cic. De amicitia* (missing more or less what should have been on the last folio, now lost). 42.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2171A ∞ France, s. XVin. — Parch., 108 ff., 180 × 250 mm. — [1–12]8, [13]12. Catchwords; double signatures, but trimmed. — Gothic cursive, titles in black, no decoration (neither planned nor realised). F. 107, ‘P. Chacerat’ (late fifteenth-century) and ‘donné par l’abbé de Castres le 21 octobre 1709’; f. 108, ‘A. Luillier’ (early fifteenth-century). Formerly in the Gaignières collection. Lütjohann xx. I (ff. 1–12), II (ff. 12–22v), III (ff. 22v–30v), IV (ff. 31–47), V (ff. 47–56v), VI (om. 11; ff. 57–62), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 62–77), VIII (ff. 77v–91), IX (ff. 91v–107). Strange order of verses in II.10, but corrected by first hand (f. 19v).

43.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2781 (P) Online: ∞ France, s. Xex (maybe later). — Parch., 153 leaves, 160 × 215 mm. — 1–48, 56, 6–88, [9–10]8, [11]2, 12–148, [15–19]8, [20]6, [21]6–1; quires 12–14 are in fact signed a–c (quires 1–8 regularly I–VIII). Quire 11 ends with book VIII, quire 14 with book IX. — Caroline min., ‘rubrics’ in black, rustic caps, plain, black initials (3 red ff. 68, 100v, and 106; a few zoomorphic, in black, in the Carmina). Very occasional notes and variants. From the library of Claude Dupuy. Lütjohann xii (it may be true that the hand changes from f. 81, but the origin is absolutely the same). I (ff. 1–13), II (ff. 13–25), III (ff. 25–35), IV (ff. 35–52v), V (ff. 52v–62), VI (ff. 62–7v), VII (om. 6–7; inv. 10–11; ff. 68–80v), VIII (ff. 81–96v), IX (ff. 96v–110v). — C.1–21.24.22–23 (7 lacks 137–600; 23 in two parts; ff. 111–53). — Life of Sidonius, by a fifteenth-century) hand (ff. 153–153v).

44.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2782 Online: ∞ France, s. XII2. — Parch., 104 leaves, 135 × 190 mm. — [1]-138, catchwords at the beginning of quires. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics and decoration not realised; sketch of an historiated initial f. 1, probably contemporary, but maybe not original; annotations, contemporary and thirteenth-century, including variants. From the library of Charles of Orléans, and subsequently the royal library in Blois. Lütjohann x. Catalogue général 3.81. I (ff. 1–12v), II (ff. 12v–22v), III (ff. 22v–30), IV (ff. 30–43v), V (ff. 44–51v), VI (om. 11; ff. 51v–55v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 55v–68), VIII (ff. 68v–79), IX (ff. 79–90). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (1–2 in one; 2*; ff. 90–102v). Aus. Caes. (f. 103); Deidamia Achilli (ff. 103–4).

45.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2783 ∞ France (Burgundy?), s. XII2 and XIIIin. — The manuscript was corrected and expanded after it was first copied: hence the strange quiring. — Parch., 112 leaves,

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 524

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

525

130 × 195 mm. — 1–68, 76, 87, 98, 102, 118, 122, 137, 145, 154, 168, 177; double catchwords, twelfth-century: 1–7 = a–g, 11 = i, 13 = k; thirteenth-century: 8, 9 and 11 = a–c, 14–16 = d–f. — Post-Caroline min. by various hands (and at various times), rubrics (until f. 15 only), plain red or green (a few purple, one yellow) initials with extremely fine contrasted decoration (until f. 48 only). Lütjohann xix. Cited as coming from Fleury by J. Leclerq, in DACL 5.2.1760, s.v. ‘Fleury’; but there is certainly a mistake in the shelf mark. I (ff. 1v–14v), II (ff. 14v–26), III (ff. 26–34v), IV (ff. 34v–49v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 49v–58), VI (om. 11; ff. 58–63), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.12–18 (ff. 63–80v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 80v–94), IX (ff. 94–112). The later additions concern VI.*10-VII.8*, VII.17*–VIII.3*, VIII.*16-IX.3* and IX.7–16. Then VII.12 is copied twice; the original manuscript stopped at IX.6 (f. 97v, bottom blank). 46.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2784 Online: ∞ Normandy (Mortemer?), s. XIIIin. — Parch., 51 leaves, 160 × 230 mm. — 1–58, 3 [6] , [7–8]4. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics, red or yellow initials. Ff. 44–51 (the last two quires), of poorer quality, have the same characteristics but the initials are not carried out (or in black), without rubrics. The MS went from the library of Mareste d’Alge to the library of Colbert; it may originally come from Mortemer, but there is no evidence (see too below #48). It is MS 43 and 36 in the lists ‘Mareste A’ and ‘Mareste B’ in Laffitte (2014); the Mortemer provenance, as stated in the list, p. 106, has never been proven. The latter mentions ‘Epistulae Senecae, epistulae Sidonii’ but that can only be an error. There may have been a very complex case of confusion between this MS and the Mortemer MS which is now divided between Par. lat. 6360 (ff. 1–40) and 73, since the two collections, the Mortemer and the Mareste, arrived in Colbert’s library almost simultaneously, the former in August 1677, the latter in October of the same year. However, Par. lat. 6360+73 has texts by Seneca, but not the epistles. No Colbert MS has both Sidonius and Seneca, and no Seneca MS can fit. En passant, I suggest that for ‘Mortemer A’ 46 (= ‘Mortemer B’ 47), lat. 3553 (Colbert 4772) would fit much better than lat. 3554 (Colbert 6022), because the Colbert shelf marks near the former are almost all from Mareste’s library. Lütjohann xviii. I (ff. 1–6v), II (ff. 6v–12v), III (ff. 12v–17), IV (ff. 17–25), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 25–9v), VI (12*; ff. 29v–32), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 32–6v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 36v–43), IX.2 (ff. 43–43v). — Glosses and notes on Sidonius (ff. 44–51; incomplete, until beginning of book V).

47.

Paris, BNF, lat. 3477 Online: ∞ Only the second unit is described (ff. 141–82); the first (ff. 1–140), s. XIII, Petrus Cantor, probably has nothing to do with the second. France, s. XII2. — Parch., 43 leaves (from 141 to 182, with 181bis), 160 × 235 mm. — 1–48, [5]3, 6–74. Signatures 6 and 7 are more recent. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics in red and green, initials in red, green, and blue. Corrections and variants.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 525

13/02/20 4:30 PM

526

FRANZ DOLVECK

Formerly Bigot 263*. Lütjohann xix. Catalogue général. 5.478–9, q.v. for unit 1. No bibliography relating to part 2. I (ff. 141–5v), II (ff. 145v–150v), III (ff. 150v–153v), IV (ff. 153v–160v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 160v–165), VI.1–12* (ff. 165–6v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 166v–170), VIII (om. 2; ff. 170–2v and 176–8), IX (om. 1; ff. 178–86v). — VII.1–7, in another (similar) hand taken from another tradition (ff. 174–5v and 173–173v, which are an addition between quires 4 and 6). 48.

Paris, BNF, lat. 6360 ∞ Normandy (Mortemer?), s. XIIex. — 2 units: A (ff. 1–40), B (ff. 41–96); only B is described here. — Parch., 56 leaves, 220 × 285 mm. — 1–78; signatures remain for 1–3 and 5, the other are trimmed out. — 2 cols, proto-Gothic min., not very fine; no rubr. or decoration but the first two (champ) initials, f. 41 and 42, in red, blue, and gold, with interlace, the first (a P) very large. The margins of B may have been mostly trimmed. A (s. XIII1) certainly comes from Mortemer, where it was united with Par. lat. 73 (Cicero, Seneca), and was bought by Colbert. B certainly belonged to the collection of Mareste d’Alge, for it is his coat of arms we can distinguish, though scratched, at the beginning (f. 41): therefore it is the unidentified MS 22 and 25 in the lists ‘Mareste A’ and ‘Mareste B’ in Laffitte (2014). Given that many MSS owned by Mareste came from Mortemer, this one may have done too, but the codicological and palaeographical evidence remains to be established. Lütjohann xx. Life of Sidonius (ff. 41–2). I (ff. 42–7v), II (inv. 5–6; ff. 47v–53), III (ff. 53–7), IV (om. the sentence before Carm. in 11, om. 19; ff. 57–64), V (ff. 64–8v), VI (om. 11; ff. 68v–71), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 71–9), VIII (inv. 1–2; 14–15 as one letter; ff. 79–86v), IX.2–6.1.7–16 (between 6 and 1, three medieval letters, cf. #40; ff. 86v–95v, end of 16 by another hand). — F. 96 blank, except for a sketch of a monk on his knees before his abbot.

49.

Paris, BNF, lat. 9551 (F) Online: ∞ England, s. XIII1/4. — Parch., 75 leaves, 220 × 325 mm. — [1–9]8, [10]3, catchwords (almost all trimmed out), double signatures on some quires, but later. — 2 cols, proto-Gothic min., rubr., blue or red initials with contrasted strapwork, with gold for beginning of books I and II. The first six leaves are damaged: f. 1 was partially cut to get the initials, ff. 2–6 have lost the upper-external corner (with losses of text). Lütjohann vii. Avril and Stirnemann (1987) 62 (no. 96), for place and date. I (ff. 1–6v), II (ff. 6v–12), III (ff. 12–16), IV (ff. 16–23v), V (inv. 12–13; ff. 23v–28), VI (om. 11; ff. 28–30), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 30–7v), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 37v–44v), IX (ff. 44v–51v). — C.1–21.24.22–23 (11 om. last line; 23 in two parts with rubr.; ff. 51v–75).

50.

Paris, BNF, lat. 14296 ∞ Saint-Victor, s. XIIIex. — Parch., 255 leaves, 255 × 400 mm. — [1–3]12, [4]15, [5–20]12, [21]13. Catchwords. — 2 cols, Gothic min., rubrics, strapworked initials

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 526

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

527

(red/blue), initials with various types of decoration, some with gold, animals, running titles in red and blue, caps struck out in red. This MS (Saint-Victor CC. 7) was formerly bound with Saint-Victor CC. 6 (Par. lat. 14295), which, contrary to what may be deduced form its current shelf mark, was the latter part of the original volume. They both form a series with Saint-Victor CC. 5 (Par. lat. 14294), copied together to make a collection of Augustine’s works. Lütjohann xix. Ouy (1999) II.201–2. I (ff. 1–5v), II (ff. 5v–10), III (ff. 10–13), IV (ff. 13–19), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 19–22v), VI (12* ff. 22v–24v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 24v–28), VIII (om. 2; ff. 28–33v), IX.2–6 (ff. 33v–34v). — Life of Sidonius (ff. 34v–35). — Augustine, various works. 51.

Paris, BNF, lat. 14490 ∞ Northern half of France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 163 ff. (in Roman numerals), 250 × 355 mm, medieval binding. — 1–78, 86, 9–168, 177 (without loss), 18–198, [20]8, [21]5. — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubr., plain red, green, or blue initials, some more ornate, running titles. Very few glosses, some corrections. F. 79, with a hard point, ‘Paulus de Tily’, and, f. 157v, ‘Frater Paulus’, fifteenthcentury. Summary of MS on f. [0]v, thirteenth-century. MS bought by the Saint-Victor library in 1638 (note on f. 1). Fulgentius, various works (ff. 1–98). Lütjohann xviii. I (ff. 98–105v), II (ff. 105v–113v), III (ff. 113v–119v), IV (ff. 119v–129v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 129v–136), VI (12*; ff. 136–9), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; 18 ends on respiras, and on avocare after correction; ff. 139–45v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 145v–155), IX.2–13*.14* (hand changing after 6; ff. 155–61), VII.6*.7.2*.3–5* (end of MS regular; ff. 161–2v).

52.

Paris, BNF, lat. 18584 (N) Online: ∞ Paris?, s. X. — Parch., 105 leaves, 150 × 200 mm. — 14 quires all numbered except the last (of 3 leaves, defective), all quaternions except 5, 10, and 13 (of 7 leaves, with lacunae). — Caroline min., titles in rustic caps, usually in red, red or black plain initials. Many corrections, by various hands, mostly contemporary. F. 1 is a defect from the twelfth century. Comes from Notre-Dame’s Chapter library, where it was perhaps copied. Lütjohann xvii. I (ff. 2–17v), II (ff. 17v–31), III (13*; ff. 31–40), IV (ff. 40–61), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 61v–73), VI (4*–*8; 12*; ff. 73–7v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 77v–88v), VIII (13*–*14; om. 2; ff. 88v–104), IX.2–3*.*6 (ff. 104–5). The lacuna in book VI is certainly not entirely material, for one missing leaf could not have borne all the missing text.

53*. Paris, IRHT, collection privée 347 (olim Schøyen Collection 246) Digitisation available on site at the IRHT: ; a few images here:

φ Aquitaine (in my opinion, but possibly north of Spain), s. XII2. — Parch., 132 leaves, 170 × 240 mm. — [1–6]8, [7]6–1, [8–14]8, [15]10–1, [16]8, [17]8–1. No signatures

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 527

13/02/20 4:30 PM

528

FRANZ DOLVECK

or catchwords. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, initials in red and black, of various types, often highly ornate (those at the beginning of books I–VII were not carried out). The earliest known possessor is the Balthazar de Villars (1557–1627). The MS, previously known as Schøyen 246, was sold in 2008. The current owner remains anonymous but a full reproduction may be consulted at the IRHT (hence the current shelf mark). I (ff. 1–10), II (ff. 10–18v), III (ff. 18v–24v), IV (ff. 24v–38), V (ff. 38–45v), VI (ff. 45v–49v), VII.1–5.8–9.6–7.10–18 (ff. 49v–60v), VIII (ff. 60v–69), IX (ff. 69–79v). — C.1–24 (many irregularities originating from an erroneous understanding of the layout of the model; ff. 79v–132). — Aus. Caes. (ff. 132–132v). Epitaph of Sidonius (ff. 132v–133). 54.

Prague, Library of the Metropolitan Chapter, A. 137 (catal. 241) φ France, s. XIII1. — Parch., 56 ff., 180 × 250 mm. — Proto-Gothic min.; decorated initials (the first painted) and rubrics carried out maybe one century later. Some variants. Lütjohann xviii. I (ff. 2–9), II (ff. 9–16), III (ff. 16–21), IV (ff. 21v–31), V (inv. 2–3, 8 after 11; ff. 31v–37), VI (12*; ff. 37–9v), VII.*5.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 39v–45), VIII (om. 2; marks 9 as beginning of a book; ff. 45–53), IX.2–6 (ff. 53–4v). — Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (end irregular; ff. 54v–55v). ‘Final note’ by a later hand, but partly masked by black ink (cf. #57; f. 55v). — F. 46 is a flyleaf, probably original, containing on the recto what appears to be some sort of record of accounts. It may date from the end of the thirteenth century, and all the names are clearly French; so it is highly probable that the whole manuscript came from France.

55*. Prague, Library of the Metropolitan Chapter, I. 33 (catal. 1137) φ Prague?, 1470. — Pap., 144 leaves, 210 × 310 mm. — Two units, contemporaneous though very different in style: A ff. 1–61, B ff. 62–144v. A contains the Clementines with surrounding gloss by Giovanni d’Andrea (title of the gloss, f. 1, giving date: Apparatus Iohannis Andree super Clementinis scriptus anno Domini 1470), followed by Clement V’s apostolic constitution Exivi de paradiso (2 cols, ff. 53v–55v) and by a series of notices in Czech on ancient philosophers and authors (ff. 55v–61). It is copied in a quite cursive Gothic hand (the last item is by another hand). — B Textual Gothic, rubr., plain initials (beginning of letters), illuminated initials showing influence of the humanistic style (beginning of books). A few variants, very few glosses. Dated ‘anno Domini MoCCCLXX feria III. in die Marcelli’ (f. 144v; the dies Marcelli refers to pope Marcellus I: 16 January 1470 was indeed a Tuesday). I (ff. 62–73v), II (ff. 73v–83), III (ff. 83–90v), IV (ff. 90v–105), V (inv. 2–3, 8 after 11; ff. 105v–114), VI (12*; ff. 114–18), VII.*5.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 118–27), VIII (om. 2; marks 9 as beginning of a book; ff. 127–40), IX.2–6 (ff. 140–2v). — Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (end irregular; ff. 142v–144v). Explicit and ‘final note’ (cf. #57; f. 144v). 56*. Reims, BM, 413 (R) Online: φ Saône Valley?, s. IX2/4. — Parch., 68 leaves, 220 × 275 mm. — 1–58, 68–1, 78, 88–1, 8–2 [9] . — 2 cols, Caroline min., without rubrication; book titles only in caps (titles of letters in min.), small initials. MS defective at the end; some margins mutilated.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 528

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

529

Chapter of Reims (from the fourteenth century at the latest, prob. much earlier). Dating and localisation: Bischoff (1998–2014) III.272 (no. 5289). I (ff. 1–12), II (ff. 12–22v), III (ff. 22v–31), IV.1–24*.*25 (lacuna between ff. 45 and 46 [gathering 6]; ff. 31–46v), V (ff. 46v–55v), VI (12*; ff. 55v–59v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 60–7v), VIII.1–4* (lacks 2; ff. 67v–68v). 57*. Seitenstetten, Stiftsbibl., 51 φ Austria (A partly Italy?)?, s. XV1. — Pap., 131 leaves, 220 × 285 mm. — At least two units (the first may be composite): A ff. 1–82, B ff. 83–131. A contains Plin. Nat. 1 (preceded by his life by Suetonius; ff. 1–38v), Cic. Catil. (with the note from the ‘German’ family after Cic. Catil. 1; ff. 39–58), Plat. Tim. in Chalcidius’ Latin translation with prefatory letter (ff. 59–82v, end lost), written in humanistic, then bastarda min. by three hands (one per author), with wide margins. — (B) Cursive Gothic min., rubrics (or at least titles and names of correspondents), Lombardic initials, a few notes. Formerly in the Alte Universitätsbibliothek, Vienna. The (otherwise unknown) copyist of B identified himself f. 129v, Finitum per fratrem M. [some read W.] Ebner de Iglavia. After this comes a note that seems original: Liber iste epistolarum beati Sydonii episcopi Clarimontis Arvernis in magna admodum est auctoritate atque delectatione intelligentium lectorum, adeo ut in partes Arvernye tamquam tritum sermone proverbium istud dicatur: ‘Nichil novit qui Sydonium non novit’. Vernat siquidem totus verborum floribus, sententiarum ornatibus, pollet nichilominus totus verborum pondere, sensuum gravitate; porro etiam in hec omnia placet granditer horum omnium observata proprietate quod acutus lector atque exercitatus diligenter considerans magis nam (sic) simplex et ydiota intelliget. Tu autem, pie Ihesu, miserere nobis. Various online descriptions, as well as in the catalogue by Wagendorfer (2011) 94–6. I (ff. 83–9v), II (ff. 89v–95), III (ff. 95–9v), IV (ff. 99v–108), V (inv. 2–3, 8 after 11; ff. 108v–113v), VI (12*; ff. 113v–116), VII.*5.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 116–21v), VIII (om. 2; marks 9 as beginning of a book; ff. 121v–128), IX.2–6 (ff. 128–9). — Explicit and ‘final note’ (see above); life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (ends on extat exin; ff. 130–1). Internal errors in verse pieces. 58.

Stockholm, KB, Va 26a Non vidi. France, s. XIex. — Parch., 119 leaves, 140 × 260 mm. — [1–10]8, [11]3, [12]1. — End of the original manuscript lost; f. 119 has a different origin. F. 119v blank. 2 cols, post-Caroline min. Lütjohann ix. Descr. Pellegrin (1955) 15–16 and Stohlmann (1973) 218–19, from which I take all the information given here (I extrapolate from #44 for the detail of the letters). Some complementary information in Gustaffson (1882) vii. I, II, III, IV, V, VI (om. 11), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18, VIII, IX (ff. 1–106). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (1–2 in one; 2*; ff. 106–17v). Aus. Caes. (f. 118); Deidamia Achilli* (f. 118v). — Fortunatus, Carmina (fragments; f. 119).

59.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Ottob. lat. 126 ∞ Italy, s. XV3/3. — Pap., 86 leaves, 150 × 215 mm. — [1–2]10, [3–5]12, [6]6, [7–8]12, catchwords; ff. 78v–86v blank. An error was made in binding quires 2 and 3: after f. 11,

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 529

13/02/20 4:30 PM

530

FRANZ DOLVECK

read 17–19, 15–16, 12–14, 20–1, 28–31, 26–7, 22–5, and then 32, etc. Watermarks: a tower, Briquet 15872–1875 (quires 1–6), almost always Bavary, but one ex. at Mantua in 1468, then two crossed arrows, near Briquet 6281 (quires 7–8), mainly Florence and Venice, ss. XVex–XVIin. — Humanistic cursive min., no rubrics. Some notes in a pale ink. From the Altemps Library (ex codicibus Ioannis Angeli ducis ab Altaemps, f. [II]). Lütjohann xxii. C.1–15.17–20.16.24.22–3 (om. 21). 60.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Ottob. lat. 2013 ∞ France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 87 leaves, 165 × 225 mm. — a–e8, f12, g9, h8, [i]2, k10, 8–2 [l] ; on quire g, the first leaf, f. 53, is a single sheet to fill in an omission (of VIII.2). — 2 cols, post-Caroline min., rubrics, plain initials (some very fine, for example, f. 84) in red and blue, with (minimal) contrasted decoration. Very occasional annotations. F. 5v, in the lower margin, drawing (by a later hand) of a praying monk and of flowers, and the caption ‘C’est celi qui le fist c’est Denis Redllon’ (a name that does not seem to be otherwise recorded). Formerly part of MS Saint-Victor HHH. 29, which was composite. In Ouy’s view, the hand is Italian; I am not convinced. E. Pellegrin (see below) expressly identifies it as French. Lütjohann xi. Descr. Catal. of Classical Latin MSS by Pellegrin et al. (1975–2010) 1.744–45. Ouy (1999) II.539–40. See remarks by Elisabeth Pellegrin in Fohlen et al. (1971) 205–7 (). I (ff. 1–9), II (ff. 9–16v), III (ff. 16v–22), IV (ff. 22–33v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 33v–40), VI (om. 11; ff. 40–3v), VII.1–7.12; VI.11; VII.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 43v–52v), VIII (ff. 52v–62), IX (ff. 62–71). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (1–2 in one; 2*; ff. 72–83v). — Aus. Caes. (ff. 83v–84); Coripp. Iust. 3, 271–88 (f. 84); Versus VII Sapientum, inc. Te, Solo, praecipue (ff. 84–84v); Fort. Carm. 1.21, 11.25–26* (ff. 84v–85). — Late notes, seemingly of grammar (ff. 85v–87v). Some lines or words left blank in the Carmina.

61.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 166 Online: ∞ 3 units: A (ff. 1–26), B (ff. 27–41, France, s. XII, Boethius), C (ff. 42–55, Fleury, s. XI, Sedul., Prud., from Orléans, BM, 307 [260]: Pellegrin (1988) 260 and the new catalogue of Orléans public library by Pellegrin and Bouhot (2010) 420–4). Île-de-France?, s. XIIex. — Parch., 125 × 170 mm. — [1]10, [2–3]8, no catchwords. The first quire comprises what was originally the second as well as the outer bifolium of the original first quire. — Proto-Gothic min., rubrics, red and blue initials with contrasted ‘proto-strapwork’, one parted f. 1. Glosses mainly interlinear; continuous numbering of letters. End (and part of the first quire) lost. — Irregular incipit of III.7: longum] non. Lütjohann xxi. I.1–2*.*10–11 (ff. 1–1v, 10–10v, 2–3), II (ff. 3–9v, 11–12v), III (ff. 12v–18v), IV.1–20 (ff. 19–26v).

62.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 202 Online: ∞ Probably Italy, s. XIIin (date from Ouy, the most credible estimate; datings by other scholars later). — Parch., 106 leaves, 140 × 225 mm. — [1]10, [2–13]8, catchwords,

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 530

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

531

first contemporary, the rest maybe later. — Post-Caroline min. quite crude, rubrics, interlaced initials (except f. 1, large, in black; f. 1v et 57, lettrines dragonnées, not as large, rubricated; f. 84v, in two colours, line-drawn, zoomorphic, quite original); caps struck out in red, some highlighting in yellow. Formerly Saint-Victor NNN. 20 (with Reg. lat. 221, Ovid. gloss., etc.; Pellegrin [1988] 311 n. 1). Lütjohann xviii. Ouy (1999) II.611–12. I (ff. 1–16), II (ff. 16–29v), III (ff. 29v–38), IV (ff. 38–56v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 57–68), VI.1–12* (ff. 68–73), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 73–84v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 84v– 101), IX.2–6 (ff. 101–4v). — Life of Sidonius* (ff. 104v–106v). There is therefore a loss at the end, but, a priori, it does not involve the letters. Wilmart (1937–45) 478–80, in the catal. of Reginenses , believes that the copyist tries to obtain the same imposition as his model (end of quire 1 blank, repeat at the beginning of the second one; end of f. 4v blank too), but it could be a sign that it is the product of a workshop (cf. e.g. #14). 63.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 203 Online: ∞ France, s. XII1. — Parch., 108 leaves, 130 × 220 mm (ff. 1–64) and 125 × 210 (ff. 64–108). — 2 units, united maybe almost immediately after copying, maybe in the seventeenth century by Petau (the latter is more probable, as the units do not have the same dimensions and do not stem from the same family, but far from certain). A [1]8, [2]10, [3–7]8, [8]8–2; B [1–5]8, [6]4. Post-Caroline min., small, rubrics, initials (B only: A is entirely made in black, with cap. titles). Lütjohann vii. A 2 hymns, from a slightly later date, with Aquitanian notation of their first strophe (R.H. 2854 and 22180; f. 1). I (ff. 1–8v), II (ff. 8v–15), III (ff. 15–20), IV (ff. 20–9v), V (ff. 33–4 and 35–6, corresponding to a change of quire, bear the same text, copied twice; ff. 29v–37v), VI (om. 11; ff. 37v–40v), VII.1–7.12; VI.11; VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 40v–49), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 49–56v), IX (16*; ff. 56v–64v). B C.1–21.24.22–23 (ff. 65–107; some passages, seemingly at random, copied two verses per line). Glossary (ff. 107v–108), by later hands.

64.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 209 Online: ∞ France, s. XIIex. — Parch., 69 leaves (one leaf not numbered after f. 51), 135 × 200 mm. — [1–4]8, [5]10, [6–8]8, [9]3, no catchwords. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, blue, red, and green plain initials; f. 1, yellow, struck out in black. 2 units, probably from a single scriptorium. Continuous numbering of letters. Was in the library of the Augustinians of Reims in the fourteenth century. Lütjohann xx. I (ff. 1–9), II (ff. 9–17v), III (ff. 17v–24v). — Sen. Epist. (ff. 25v–68, with table f. 25). The end of the last letter was added in the bottom margin shortly after the copy was made. This may indicate that the MS originally stopped there (as Wilmart (1937–45) 1.494–5 thinks) but does not conclusively rule out the possibility that the MS was

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 531

13/02/20 4:30 PM

532

FRANZ DOLVECK

lacunose. The end of the letter may have been copied onto the current last folio solely to have a full text at the end of this quire. 65.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 216 ∞ France, s. XIImed. — Parch., 104 leaves, 130 × 200 mm. — a–n8, but [g] not signed; l–n signed a–c too. — Post-Caroline min., no rubrics or titles, plain initials in red, blue, green, yellow. A few glosses, mostly at the beginning. End lost. Lütjohann ix. I (ff. 1–11v), II (ff. 11v–21v), III (ff. 21v–29), IV (ff. 29–43v), V (ff. 43v–52v), VI.1–9.12.10 (om. 11; ff. 52v–56v; at the end of quire [g], some lines left blank), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 57–70), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 70–81), IX (16*; ff. 81–93). — C.1–5.8.6–7* (2*; ff. 93–104v).

66.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. lat. 412 ∞ France, s. XII1. — Parch., 103 leaves, 165 × 260 mm. — 17, 2–138 (even the last one signed, on the blank verso). — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, plain initials, or (ff. 1 and 72v) rubricated a bianchi girari line-drawn with red ink. Occasional annotations. Lütjohann xiv. Notice from Gennadius (f. 1); I.1, C.22 (last prose part only) and 23 (1–36 only), I.6–11 (ff. 1–9v), II (ff. 9v–20v), III (om. 5–8; ff. 20v–26v), IV (ff. 26v–39v), V.1, I.2–5, V.2–21 (inv. 2–3; ff. 39v–50), VI (12*; ff. 50–3v), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 53v–61), VIII (om. 2; ff. 61–71), IX.2–6 (ff. 71–2v). — Symm., abridged or with lacunae, cf. the catalogue (Wilmart (1937–45) 2.496–7).

67*. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Urb. lat. 649 Online: ∞ Florence, between 1470 and 1474, written by Niccolò Ricci. — Parch., 176 ff., 175 × 280 mm. — Humanistic min., slightly archaising; decorated in the usual manner of MSS copied for Federico da Montefeltro. Identification of the copyist by A. de La Mare cited in Reeve (1977) 203 and n. 7. Description (except Sidonius) in Pellegrin et al. (1975–2010), 2.2.621–3. Niccolò Ricci also copied #17 Florence, BNC, Magl. VII 315 (q.v.). The MS bears the coat of arms of Federico II before he became gonfaloniere (in 1474); the terminus post quem is deduced from the fact that it was copied from #12 Florence, BML, conv. soppr. 6, which on palaeographical grounds, cannot have been copied before 1470. Statius’ Silvae (ff. 2–71v), Ausonius (ff. 72–123). C.1–15.17–20.16.24.22–23 (om. 21; ff. 123v–176). 68.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Urb. lat. 1515 ∞ Northern Italy, s. XV4/4. — Parch., I+178 leaves (jump from 30 to 41, many errors), 170 × 255 mm. — [0]1, [1–17]10, [18]8; catchwords; double signatures, almost all trimmed out. — Humanistic min., rubrics, blue initials (gilded with floral, painted motifs for the beginnings of books), rubricated running titles and foliation; f. Iv, title in medallion, and, f. 1, border on three sides, gilded initial and title in blue and gold caps, all in the style of the MSS of Federico II da Montefeltro (coat of arms with the gonfalon f. 1). Infrequent signalling of rare words in the margins. Lütjohann xx.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 532

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

533

I.1–2, III.3, I.3–11 (ff. 1–19v), II (ff. 19v–44v), III (3*, with cross-ref. of the copyist to book I; ff. 44v–54v), IV (ff. 54v–76v), V (ff. 76v–89v), VI (ff. 89v–97), VII.1–5.8–9.11.10.6–7.12–18 (ff. 97–118), VIII (ff. 118–137v), IX (om. 1 with a note: Exigis, domine fili, ut epistolarum priorum limite irrupto stilus noster in ulteriora procurrat: numeri supradicti privilegio non contentus includi. Addis et causas quibus hic liber nonus, octo superioribus hic deest; ff. 137v–156v). — C.1–5.8.6–7 (2*; ff. 156v–185v). — Table (letters only, ff. 186–8v). 69.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 1661 Online: ∞ Italy, s. XIIex/XIIIin. — Parch., 92 leaves, 220 × 315 mm. — [1]8, [2]10, [3–11]8, [12]2, catchwords, some trimmed out. — 2 cols, proto-Gothic min., rubrics, initials carried out only for Claudian. Numbering of verses in tens from IX.15 to C.2. Bought under Nicholas V. Lütjohann xx. Pellegrin et al. (1975–2010) 3.1.292–3. Claud. Pros. (3*; ff. 1–7v). I (ff. 7v–14v), II (ff. 14v–20v), III (ff. 20v–25), IV (ff. 25–33v), V (ff. 33v–39), VI (ff. 39–42v), VII.1–5.8–9.6–7.10–18 (ff. 42v–51), VIII (ff. 51–8v), IX (ff. 58v–66). — C. 1–24 (ff. 66–92). — Aus. Caes. (ff. 92–92v).

70.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 1783 (V) Online: ∞ France?, s. X/XIin. — Parch., 166 leaves, 100 × 155 mm. — [1–3]8, 4–128, [13–16]8, [17]9, [18–19]8, [20]7, [21]2, [22]4. Signatures, when present, are of the type ‘I. Q.’. Passim, double signatures maybe dating from the arrival of the MS in the Vatican Library (under Sixtus IV, † 1484). — Caroline min., without rubrication, titles in rustic caps, initials (in black ink). Lütjohann xviii. Pellegrin et al. (1975–2010) 3.1.396–8 (not repeated here; from f. 97 only: Fulbertus, Priscian, etc.). Many corrections. F. 1v is blank, so the lacuna of letters I.1–2 is original. The end of the Sidonian part is lost. I.3–11 (ff. 1v–12v), II (ff. 12v–25v), III (ff. 25v–35v), IV (ff. 35v–55), V (ff. 55–66v), VI (12*; ff. 67–72), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11; ff. 72–84), VIII.1–12* (om. 2; ff. 84–96v).

71.

Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 3421 (A) Online: ∞ Probably Aquitaine, s. XI. — Parch., 162 leaves (numbered in Roman, without f. I), 145 × 205 mm. — [1]8, [2]6, [3–5]8, [6]10, [7–12]8, [13]12, [14–19]8, [20]6; no catchwords. — Post-Caroline min., rubr. in rustic caps, rubricated initials, some big zoomorphic initials with strapwork in black ink (very finely made). Titles in rubricated (and much interlocked) caps ff. 2 and 97v. No rubrication towards the end of the MS. The end is written in a much smaller script, but strictly contemporaneous. A few glosses, quite extensive. Numbering of every tenth verse from VIII.9. Lütjohann vii. Aus. Caes. (without attr.). I (ff. 2v–13), II (ff. 13–23), III (ff. 23v–30v), IV (ff. 30v–44v), V (ff. 44v–53), VI (ff. 53–7v), VII.1–5.8–9.6–7.10–18 (ff. 58–72v), VIII (ff. 72v–85), IX (ff. 85–97v). — C.1–24 (ff. 98–158).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 533

13/02/20 4:30 PM

534

FRANZ DOLVECK

Sanctus Clangat hodie vox nostra (f. 158), grammatical treatise or fragments, not in print (ff. 158v–163v). 72*. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 5219 ∞ Northern Italy, c. 1460. — Pap., 123 leaves, 220 × 300 mm. — MS made of 5 units, only the first fully described here (ff. 1–49v); many blank folios between units. Units 2, 3, and 5 (ff. 61–72, 73–100, 115–18) contain humanistic texts. Unit 4 (ff. 101–13), on parchment, is mostly devoted to Seneca the Rhetor. Units 1, 2, and 4 are copied by Giovanni Andrea Bussi, who signed unit 2 on ff. 61v, 62v, and 72v (September 1460). All show similar features, and are written only in black ink. Many notes and variants (or corrections?) in Sidonius. Letter I.1, though alone, may be the beginning of a complete copy of the letters (because of the title, Sidonii epistolae), but it is more likely that the text that should follow was never copied rather than that it was lost. The date of the MS is given by signatures of Bussi (the first and the third have the date 1460, as mentioned; the second has no date but gives name and title in full, Iohannes Andreas episcopus Acciensis (not Aleriensis as recorded in the catalogue); Bussi was nominated bishop of Acci in 1461, and the text is a lament on the death, in March 1463, of Card. Prospero Colonna), by the date of his nota to Seneca’s manuscripts (f. 113), 1458, and by watermarks (roughly, between 1450 and 1460). It belonged to Aldo Manuzio the Younger (1547–97). Pellegrin et al. (1975–2010) 3.2.514–15. C.1–15.17–21.16.24.22–23 (ff. 1–49v), I.1 (f. 49v). 73.

Venice, Bibl. naz.le Marc., Lat. II, 63 (2077) ∞ Italy, s. XV3/4. — Pap., 111 leaves, 140 × 205 mm. — [1–9]12; the last three leaves are old flyleaves (f. 109 is made of parch.; all three are blank, except for a modern note on 111v). No catchwords or signatures. — Humanistic min., quite cursive; rubrics (a few in black ink) in caps. Extremely plain, red initials as plain as possible. — The whole MS has been very badly water-damaged; the internal part of the leaves is always fair, but the external part was washed, and is sometimes irrecoverable. The verses of the Carmina (except f. 109v) are copied as prose. Belonged to a certain Ioannes Baptista Perusinus (ff. 1 and 108v). Olim Nani 12. Lütjohann xx. I (5*, 11*; ff. 1–10), II (2*, 9*; ff. 10–17v), III (om. 13; 3*; ff. 17v–24), IV (ff. 24–42v), V (18 after 20; ff. 42v–53), VI (om. 11; ff. 53v–58v), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.10.13–18 (ff. 59–76), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 76–91v), IX (ff. 91v–107v). — C.1–2* (2 until l. 51, end regular; ff. 107v–108v).

74.

Venice, Bibl. naz.le Marc., Lat. II, 84 (2403) ∞ Italy, s. XIV. — Parch., 53 leaves, 180 × 260 mm. — [1–2]8, [3–4]10, [5]8, [6]6, 2 [7] , [8]1. Signatures. Gothic min., rubrics, blue or red initials with contrasted strapwork, more ornate at the beginning of books. Notes and variants. On the lower flyleaf, a note, very likely contemporary with the binding (which is indeed medieval), as some letters continue onto it: Ortulani de Cracovia i. (?) 1436 Crispini et Crispinis (?). F. 51, in the lower margin, two verses, by another hand (later): En giro torte sol ciclos et rotor igne / Tedaus iratum sedes mutari suadet. They are

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 534

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

535

two palindromes. The first one is known for being in the baptistery of Florence cathedral. I could not find any mention of the second. Lütjohann xiii. Catal. p. 280. Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (f. 1). I (ff. 1–7), II (ff. 7–12), III (ff. 12–16), IV (ff. 16–24), V (ff. 24–8v), VI (ff. 28v– 31v), VII.8–9.11.10.6–7.12.1–5.13–18 (ff. 31v–39), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 39–45v), IX (ff. 45v–83). — A ‘tabula’ (?) on the date of Easter from 1242 onwards, of Pisan origin (f. 53). 75.

Vienna, ÖNB, 3204 Online: φ Probably Hungary, s. XV4/4. — Pap., 173 leaves, in-4o. — Probably sexternions throughout, but signatures and catchwords end with Sidonius (hence 1–1212, 13 and [following ones] unknown). — German Gothic min., rubrication and initials rarely carried out. Very few corrections. Lütjohann xx. I (blanks without loss ff. 12–12v, in letter 7, probably an attempt to follow the quiring of the original; ff. 1–21), II (ff. 21–37), III (ff. 37–49), IV (ff. 49v–76v), V (inv. 2–3, 8 after 11; ff. 77–93v), VI (12*; ff. 93v–102), VII.*5.8–18 (inv. 10–11; ff. 102– 19), VIII (om. 2; marks 9 as beginning of a book; ff. 119–40), IX.2–6 (ff. 140–4). — Life of Sidonius from Greg. Tur. (end irregular) followed by the ‘final note’ (cf. #57; ff. 144–7). — Some letters by Galeotto Marzio, two of them dated from 1461, the last one from Prague (ff. 147v–150v). — A collection of model letters (ff. 153–70v), also in MS Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna, M I 159 (olim I VII 13): cf. Polak (1993) 32.

76.

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, 486 Helmst. ∞ Italy, s. XII. — Parch., 100 leaves, 150 × 260 mm. — [1–12]8, [13]4. No signatures or catchwords. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, plain red initials, caps struck out in red. Some contemporary notes, many others by later hands. Colophon (f. 100): Sit pax scribenti, sit lux concessa legenti. Lütjohann xiii. Descr. catal. by Heinemann (1884–8) 1.373. I.1–5 (ff. 1v–4v). — C.1–15.17–19.21.20.16.24.22–23 (ff. 4v–46). — I.6–11 (ff. 46–51), II (ff. 51–8v), III (om. 5–8; ff. 58v–63), IV (ff. 63–73v), V (inv. 2–3; ff. 73v– 80), VI (12*; ff. 80–3), VII.*5.8–18* (inv. 10–11 and 17–18; ff. 83–9v), VIII (om. 2; ff. 89v–98v), IX.2–6 (ff. 98v–100).

77.

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, 1027 Helmst. ∞ France or Germany, s. XIIIin. — Parch., 153 leaves, 125 × 185 mm. — Composite MS, though the main parts are roughly from the same period and may have the same origin. Ff. 1–7 and 74–83 are later additions. Quires are mostly quaternions, but only those for Sidonius are signed (from I to [IX]). Proto-Gothic min. by various hands, rubrics, decoration and figures in red (ff. 1–51), in green with traces of red (ff. 52–73), in red and blue (ff. 84–153). A few glosses at the beginning. Bequeathed by Heinrich von Herford to his friary at Minden (ex-libris f. 1, ex-dono f. 153). Lütjohann xii. Descr. catal. by Heinemann (1884–8) 3.18–19, and (beginning of MS only) Folkerts (1981) 34–5, but his dating is much too late (‘s. 13/14’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 535

13/02/20 4:30 PM

536

FRANZ DOLVECK

For a full description of the contents of the MS before Sidonius, see the catalogue. The main texts are Boethius’ De arithmetica, with figures (ff. 10–51v) and Horace’s Epistles with many glosses (ff. 52–73v). Sidonius is on ff. 84–153. I (ff. 84–92), II (ff. 92–9v), III (ff. 99v–105), IV (ff. 105–15v), V (inv. 12–13; ff. 115v–121v), VI (om. 11; ff. 121v–125), VII.1–7.12, VI.11, VII.8–9.11.13.10.14–18 (ff. 125–35), VIII (inv. 1–2; ff. 135–43v), IX (ff. 143v–153).

‘Partial’ and ‘Fragmentary’ Manuscripts 78.

Arras, BM, 64 (olim 65) Online: φ N. France, s. XIII1. — Parch., 143 leaves. Florilegium Gallicum. Sidonius on ff. 123v–130. Full description in Jeudy and Riou (1989) 79–91.

79.

Berlin, Staatsbibl., Phillipps 1714 Non vidi. Probably Mont-Saint-Michel, s. XIIex or XIIIin. — Parch., 49 leaves, in-4o. The MS contains Claud. Mam. De statu animae as well as some smaller texts which are more or less linked with it. Sidonius IV.2.3.11 (ff. 2–3v). Lütjohann xxii. Full description in catalogue of Rose (1893) 45–47, who identifies this MS with the one from Mont-Saint-Michel used by Sirmond.

80.

Brussels, BR, II 1060 (olim Phillipps 4640) ∞ Aulne?, s. XIII1. — Parch., 150 leaves. — Proto-Gothic min., rubrics, plain red initials or blue/red with early contrasted interlace. — Ex-libris from Aulne on f. 150v (Liber Sancte Marie de Alna), s. XIII2? Lütjohann xxii. Sidonius VII.9 (contio only, rubr. Sydonius episcopus ad populum in promotione Simplicii; ff. 1–4); list of precious stones and their virtues (ff. 4–4v); an abbreviated, anonymous treatise on the Trinity (ff. 5–33); a glossary, from Abies to Zona (ff. 35v–133); a list of moral definitions, with their author, alphabetically ordered (ff. 133v–145v); the Psalterium attributed to Stephen Langton (ff. 145v–150).

81*. Clermont-Ferrand, AD, 51 (F 2531) φ France, s. Xex or XIin. — Parch., 2 ff., 235 × 300 mm. — 2 cols, Caroline min., rubrics. Bischoff (1998–2014) 1.201. Contains II.2.4–8. The letters are numbered continuously (for example, II.7 is no. 18 here). 82.

El Escorial, Bibl. mon., Q. I. 14 Non vidi. Lütjohann xxii. Florilegium Gallicum.

83*. Florence, Archivio Mori Ubaldini degli Alberti (private), V. 4. 7. Non vidi. Autograph letter from Enoch d’Ascoli to Battista Alberti (Roskilde, in Denmark, 6 December 1451), sending him a copy of II.2 as (probably) he found it in some Danish manuscript. Document edited by Mastrorosa (2002). Enoch’s source unknown.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 536

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

537

84*. Florence, Bibl. Riccard., Ricc. 153 ∞ Florence, s. XV4/4. — Pap., 161 leaves. — Extracts from Latin authors by Bartolomeo della Fonte (Bartolomeo Fonzio), including three extracts from Sidonius ff. 133v–134 (C.5.417–18, C.14, praef., §4 lecturus – nominavit, C.23.158–61). Full description of the MS in the Manus database. 85*. Florence, Bibl. Riccard., Ricc. 371 ∞ Prob. Italy, s. XIII1/4. — Parch., 64 leaves, 110 × 165 mm. — Epistles by Hildebert followed by a few epistolary extracts (Sid. V.7 from §2 hi sunt, but hi is replaced by Romani, to §5 sphingarum) and by a rhythmical Latin poem. Full description of the MS in the Manus database. 86.

London, BL, Add. 25104 ∞ Italy, s. XV. — Parch., 112 leaves, 110 × 180 mm. — Humanistic min., very regular, many rubricated pieds-de-mouche; rubr., often in caps; one blue initial with red interlace (archaising) f. 1. Lütjohann xxii. Collection of extracts: Macrobius (ff. 1–40v), Apuleius (ff. 40v–50), Cicero (ff. 50–8v), Sidonius (ff. 58v–70), Seneca (ff. 70–86v), etc., increasingly poorly organised. Very brief extracts (rarely more than a sentence from Sidonius), following the order of the letters.

87*. London, BL, Add. 34652 Online: ∞ Various leaves rebound together. Sidonius ff. 11–12, one bifolium (the external one of a quire), s. XIII. I.1–2*.*11*. Variants and glosses apparently grouped within frames, in the margins. 88.

London, BL, Add. 34760 (olim Phillips 16346) ∞ Probably England, s. XIIex or XIIIin. — Parch., 170 leaves, 160 × 225 mm. — Various hands, post-Caroline min., rubr. Lütjohann xxi. Sidonius ff. 122–32v (unfinished copy: the main part of f. 132v is blank, as well as the following leaf, without numbering). I.1–7* (ff. 122–6), then I.8-II.13 as extracts (ff. 127–32v). Immediately preceded by two letters by Jerome; the rest of the manuscript mainly consists of biblical books with glosses.

89*. Marburg, Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Hr 4, 15 φ Lorsch, s. IX2/4. — The last leaf of quire VI, containing IV.*11–12. Descr. Bischoff (1998–2014) II.175. Copied or stemming from #37: Bischoff (1989) 75 and n. 31. Formerly in Fulda: Christ (1933) 125 (described in the old catalogue as ending imperfectly at IX.7). Reproduced and edited in Aris (2000). 90*. Milan, Bibl. Ambr., A 210 inf. ∞ Northern Italy, s. XV2. Paper, 105 leaves. Cursive Gothic min. Signed by copyist on f. 98 (Franciscus Iacobi). Cassiod. Var. followed by I.8, VI.11, I.2 (in 2 parts, see #114); after that there are a number of miscellaneous elements (but treated as a separate collection: the explicit of the Variae is after Sidonius).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 537

13/02/20 4:30 PM

538

FRANZ DOLVECK

91*. Montpellier, BU Méd., H 145 Online: φ Pontigny, c. 1170. — A miscellaneous manuscript containing, among many other items, the first letter of Claudianus Mamertus followed by IV.3.11 and V.2 (ff. 102v–104v). Full description: Peyrafort-Huin (2001) 546–7. 92*. Oslo–London, The Schøyen Collection, 1650 φ Two units. A s. X2, 6 leaves. A quaternio without its third bifolium. II.*10–11*.*9*.*13–14, III.1*.*3–6*. The translation of II.9 is not a material error in the MS. B s. XIin, 2 fragments of leaves. End of book I, beginning of book II. 93.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Auct. F. 1. 8 ∞ England, s. XIII1/4. — Parch., 140 leaves, 225 × 325 mm. — [0]2, 1–118, [12]9, [13–15]8, [16]2, [17]8, [18]7, [19]3. — Post-Caroline min., rubr., red and blue initials with contrasted flourishings (the first one, f. 1, red with green flourishings, the second one, f. 3, parted in red and green). Different codicological units (one per work), but of a single origin. Lütjohann xxii. John of Salisbury, Policraticus, preceded by the Entheticus; complete works of Arnulf of Lisieux (ending imperfectly in Serm. 4); selection from Symmachus’ Letters, preceded by I.2 only (f. 126); Martial. On f. 140v, addition, in later cursive hand, of Frederick II’s letter to the cardinals (dated 1239).

94.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Digby 172 (olim B. N. 10) ∞ Composite manuscript; Sidonius on ff. 143–50v (1 quaternion): England, s. XIIIin. In fact, a collection of glosses on Sidonius, edited (not so well, it seems) by Ellis (1885). Lütjohann xxii.

95.

Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Digby 209 (olim B. N. 16) ∞ England, s. XIII. — Parch., 152 leaves, 225 × 325 mm. — Gothic min., rubr., blank red initials. Lütjohann xxii. It is highly probable that the MS is a copy of #93; it contains the same items, in the same order, but omits the Entheticus and the Sermons of Arnulf of Lisieux. All corrections and glosses from MS Auct. F. 1. 8 are entered in the text; the abbreviations, even when unintelligible, have the same form (see also the same line-filler on the same rubric f. 128, Auct. f. 121; both make an error, albeit a different one, in copying Martial on f. 150, Auct. f. 139). Sidonius I.2 on f. 131.

96.

Paris, BNF, lat. 1778 ∞ South of France or Italy?, c. 1374 (date f. 111). — Parch., 163 leaves, 250 × 320 mm. — 2 cols, cursive Gothic, rubrics, plain red initials (the first parted in red and black with strapwork, f. 1). F. 111: Expliciunt moralia beati patris nostri Iohannis Crisostomi in sanctum evangelistam Iohannem a Burgundione, Pisano cive, de Greco in latinum translate, anno Christi mo cccesimo lxxviiii. From the library of Benedict XIII (Pedro de Luna).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 538

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

539

Lütjohann xxii. Ioh. Chrys. in Latin, St Bernard, Sallust, Cicero, Iter Hierosolymitanum, etc. Sidonius on ff. 153–67: abridged text of letters (almost always at the end), in editorial order except V.2–1, VII.8–9.11.10.12–18; om. I.2, VIII.2, IX.1.15–16. After the last of book IX (that is, letter 14), VII.6–7.2–5. Subsequently, ff. 167–8v, brief extracts from the letters. 97.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2169 ∞ France, s. XII2. — Parch., 60 leaves, 165 × 265 mm. — [0]2, 1–58, 13–168, [0bis]2; some catchwords; signatures, not all original, but the gap between 5 and 13 is nonetheless genuine. — Post-Caroline min., decoration not carried out for Sidonius (except the title, in red and green caps); rubrics, plain initials in red or green for Euseb. Gall. What remains of Sidonius is to be read f. 1–1v, 59–60v, 2–2v: these two bifolia are the external part of the first quire of a lost MS. It is not clear whether, as they stand, they are really intended to be frontleaves. The body of the MS is Eusebius Gallicanus; it was used for the editio princeps, Paris, 1547. Lütjohann xxi. I.1–4*.*9–11*.

98.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2191 Online: ∞ France, s. XV. — Pap., 321 leaves, 210 × 290 mm. Watermark: an anchor, cf. Briquet 371 or 376. Lütjohann xxi. Catalogue général 2.360 to be complemented by Pellegrin (1961) 368–9. Cassiod. Var. (ff. 1–185v). — Cassiod. Anim. (ff. 188–200); Aegid. Rom. Reg. princ. (ff. 201–30v); Publilius (ff. 231–42); Petrarch and ps. Petrarch (mainly the Psalmi paenitentiales; ff. 249–99v). I.8, VI.11 (in 2 parts, break between §3 and 4), 1.2 (ff. 186–7v). The final rubric is that of Cassiod. Var.

99.

Paris, BNF, lat. 2638 Online: ∞ France, s. XIII1. — Three units: Ambr. Hexam. (ff. 1–23, with decorations in red and blue but slightly archaising, maybe of the same provenance as the following unit though much more beautiful), Sidonius (ff. 24–31), Eclogue of Theodulus with gloss (ff. 32–50, s. XIIImed, very curious decoration). — One quaternion of parchment, 115 × 165. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, plain, rubricated initials. Some variants, few glosses. From the Colbert library. Lütjohann xxi. IV.3, II.11.6.13–14, III.2.4.6–7.10, IV.9.13.17, V.2–4.7.10–11, VII.9.13.16, VIII.10.13–15, IX.1.4, then a fragment of Freculf of Lisieux, Hist. 1.4.14 (with rubric Excerptum ex quadam historia; irregular incipit: Eo tempore quo Galli Senones duce Brenno exercitu copioso et robusto nimis Romam ceperunt et depredaverunt, Socrates etiam . . . ; cf. Oros. 2.19) and five excerpted letters of Ennodius.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 539

13/02/20 4:30 PM

540

FRANZ DOLVECK

100. Paris, BNF, lat. 7647 Online: φ Sens or Auxerre, c. 1165–75 (unit 2, ff. 34–185). — Parch., 185 ff. Florilegium Gallicum. Sidonius on ff. 170–5, but there is a lacuna at the beginning. For date and place, see Stirnemann and Poirel (2006). 101*. Paris, BNF, lat. 8071 Online: φ The Florilegium Thuaneum, near Auxerre, s. IX3/4. Same content as #112, on ff. 58–60. 102. Paris, BNF, lat. 8544 Online: ∞ Pavia, 1389 (copied by a Dutchman, Johannes of Alkmaar). — Parch., 155 leaves, 250 × 340 mm. — Ornamentation ff. 3, 86, 118, and 130. Mentions of the copyist ff. 84 and 155v. Ex-libris of Agostino Fazardi, notary in Pavia, f. 155v. Lütjohann xxi. Material descr. and dating: Avril and Gousset 2003, no. 24, pp. 55–6 and pls. 48–9. Seneca (Epist. Paul., Epist., De IV virt. [Martinus of Braga], Benef., Apocol.*, Clem.). — Seneca (De copia verborum, Rem. fort., De moribus), index of Seneca’s works by Giunta da San Gimignano, o.s.a. C.1, V.7 and contio of VII.9 (ff. 123v–125). 103. Paris, BNF, lat. 13774 ∞ Le Bec?, s. XII3/3. — The MS is in fact comprised of many units; the first one (ff. 1–25), though heterogenous in itself, certainly belongs to the priorate of ConflansSainte-Honorine, founded by Le Bec. The last, which is part of a larger Sidonius MS (ff. 107–22), has (f. 122v) a seventeenth-century ex-libris from Le Bec; the penultimate (ff. 81–106, various texts related to St James and the Codex Calixtinus) has a strikingly similar layout, even if the decoration is different; ruling is quite similar too, but it is made with lead point for Sidonius A [see below], with dry point for the other and for Sidonius B. It seems possible that both come from Le Bec, the first (St James) being earlier than the second (Sidonius). There was a MS of Sidonius in Le Bec (PL 150, col. 777D) but we have no information about it. I describe only the Sidonius part, consisting of two quaternions, from different MSS: A ff. 107–14, B ff. 115–22. Parch., 16 leaves, 180 × 230 mm. — [1–2]8. No catchwords. — Post-Caroline min., rubrics, red or green initials with contrasted decoration (A only, if any; in red, green, or yellow; a motif consisting in a sort of clover appearing in negative from a painted circle; B has only much smaller, red or green initials). I think the B copy is complete in itself, even if the last letter does not end normally. Belonged to Saint-Germain-des-Prés in the eighteenth century. Lütjohann xxi. Bibliography, though abundant, is of absolutely no use, except Dolbeau (1979) 229 and n. 1. A I.2.4.6, II.6.8, III.2–3.10, IV.1–2.10–11.13, V.13.17–18, VI.10, VII.1.3, VIII.3.9, IX.14. B I.8, II.2–3.9, III.13, IV.7.20, V.7, VII.9 (contio only).5.13–14, VIII.14, IX.12, I.9, IV.17*.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 540

13/02/20 4:30 PM

A CENSUS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF SIDONIUS

541

104. Paris, BNF, lat. 17903 Online: φ Paris, s. XIIIin. — Parch., 170 leaves, 250 × 340 mm. From Notre-Dame. Lütjohann xxii. Florilegium Gallicum. Sidonius on ff. 138–45 (extracts from letters only, books not mentioned after V). 105*. St Gallen, Stiftsbibl., 190 Online: φ East of France, s. IXin. — Parch., 356 pp. (= 178 leaves; without p. 11), 125 × 210 mm. — Quaternions except pp. 290–301 (6 leaves), pp. 348–55 (4 leaves), pp. 356–7 (1 leaf); the quire of pp. 334–47 has lost one leaf, with loss of text. The fourth to twentieth quires (pp. 50–317) are signed from I to XVII; quire 1 is signed I. Caroline min. from various hands; titles in caps, sometimes in red; initials in black or red. For dating and localisation: Bischoff (1998–2014) III.313 (cf. Bischoff (1937) 695). For the contents, see above, sect. 2, p. 483, n. 20. 106. Troyes, BM, 256 φ Clairvaux, s. XIImed. — Parch., 152 leaves. Fulgentius, Faustus of Riez, Claudianus Mamertus. Formerly Clairvaux G. 64. Lütjohann xxii. Vernet (1979–98) II.448–9. IV.3.2 only (ff. 151–2v, following Claud. Mam. De statu animae). 107. Troyes, BM, 1171 φ France, s. X? — Parch., 318 leaves. Vitae sanctorum, Novellae. Bequeathed by Pithou to the Oratory of Troyes. Lütjohann xxii. VIII.15 only, as preface to the life of St Aignan (f. 210). 108. Troyes, BM, 1452 φ Clairvaux, copied by Jean de Voivre, s. XVex. — Pap., 166 leaves. Extracts from correspondence (among them the Epistulae duorum amantium); Sidonius (ff. 21–41v) among other authors, classic or medieval. Lütjohann xxii. 109*. Troyes, BM, 2471 Non vidi; it is a printed work (probably the editio princeps) among other (manuscript) items. 110*. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Barb. lat. 61 Non vidi. Italy, s. XVex. Pap., 175 leaves. Various works, including the letters of Symmachus. A fragment of VII.9 on f. 175v. Cf. Pellegrin et al. (1975–2010) 1.110. 111*. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 1341 Online: φ Corbie, s. IX3/3. Parch., 189 leaves. Collectio Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis. The beginning of IV.25 is inserted in a space left blank at f. 130: see Williams (1967), but I disagree absolutely with his dating of the hand responsible for the Sidonius addition:

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 541

13/02/20 4:30 PM

542

FRANZ DOLVECK

it is later than those copying the bulk of the MS but not that much. After the tenth century it becomes improbable, and I think it is much older. For the date and provenance of the MS (in its original state): Bischoff (1998–2014) III.447 (no. 6855). 112*. Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. lat. 3269 Online: ∞ Very likely Rome, s. XVex. Parch., 59 leaves. Catullus, Appendix Vergiliana, among which (ff. 56v–58) are extracts from Sidonius’ Carmina: 5.40–9, 7.20–36, 9.168–210, 10, 11.63–71. Cf. Pellegrin et al. (1975–2010) 3.2.190–1. 113. Venice, Bibl. Marc., II, 19 (2043) ∞ Italy, s. XIV. — Parch., 135 ff. — Cassiod. Var. Colophon on f. 135v: (after the explicit of Cassiodore, which is indeed after the extracts from Sidonius) Iacobus frater Guidi civis Castellanus scripsit, quem Deus benedixit. Lütjohann xxii. Ff. 134v–135: I.8, VI.11, I.2 (in two parts; see #114). 114. Vienna, ÖNB, 79 Non vidi; Bohemia or Austria, c. 1375/80. Paper, 84 leaves. — Three letters by Sidonius (ff. 80–1) after Cassiod. Var. According to the old catalogue of Endlicher (1836) (no. CCCLXIII, p. 254), these should be I.8, VI.11, and I.2 (the last in two parts), but with the rubric of VI.11 above I.8 and the rubric of I.8 above VI.11, and with two original titles for I.2, one for each part: Epistola de forma Theoderici regis and Epistola de actionibus). Lütjohann xxii. For the description, see Endlicher, which is more complete than the Tabula codicum. Dating and one reproduction in the catalogue of illuminated MSS, vol. 12 Mitteleuropäische Schulen III = Jenni and Theisen (2004), no. 46, p. 159. There is no trace of Angelo Decembrio’s hand in this manuscript: there is confusion between this MS (now 79, CCCLXIII in Endlicher’s catalogue) and the MS Endlicher LXXIX (now 59). 115. Vienna, ÖNB, 277 Online: φ Probably Lyon, s. VIIIex for the part concerning Sidonius; it is a heterogeneous manuscript, assembled by Giovanni Sambuco, and is one of the manuscripts related to the Anthologia latina. Lütjohann xxii. Descr. Vecce (1988) 95ff. Ff. 55–73v contain the poem by Eucheria (beginning lost, Anthol. 390), Ovid’s Halieuticon, the epigram Anthol. 391 and Grattius’ Cynegeticon. 116. Vienna, ÖNB, 445 Non vidi; southwest Germany, s. XI2 according to the catalogue of illuminated manuscripts (Hermann (1926) 22–3). A very miscellaneous MS, containing among other items the Life of St Martin by Sulpicius Severus, followed by Sidonius’ epigram from IV.18 (f. 45v). Lütjohann xxii.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 542

13/02/20 4:30 PM

17 SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP: FIFTEENTH TO NINETEENTH CENTURIES Luciana Furbetta

T

SIDONIUS’ literary and critical fortune is shown not only by a significant manuscript tradition but also by a substantial number of early editions, which I shall briefly survey here, focusing on the earliest editions with commentary in particular. These mark the real beginning of Sidonius scholarship and of the critical interpretation of his works, besides bearing witness to the continuing interest of his poems and letters. Individual editions reflect the varying cultural contexts for the reception of his works and their enduring significance both as historical documents and as a stylistic model, even after Poliziano.1 After the great ferment of the twelfth century, the survival and internalisation of Sidonius’ manner depends, in fact, on an intense editorial and exegetic activity that gives rise, in a short space of time (c. 1475 to c. 1650), to a succession of printed editions, most richly furnished with notes and glosses commenting on the text. Subsequently, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries see the birth of ‘modern’ interpretation where the Latin text is annotated but, above all, translated and thus made accessible to a wider public. The history of scholarship, initially represented by annotated printed editions,2 thus opens up to incorporate the history of translation (and of the philosophy underlying translation), which constitutes both a new phase and an element of continuity in the interpretation and reception of Sidonius’ work. HE EXTENT OF

1 Fifteenth Century 1.1 The editio princeps, 1473/4 The editio princeps was printed in 1473/4 by Nicolaes Ketelaer and Geraert van Leempt in Utrecht, the Netherlands,3 and only a limited number of exemplars have survived.4 In folio format, and printed in Gothic characters, this edition contains Sidonius’ complete works, both 1

2

3 4

For an overview of the reception of Sidonius’ work from his late fifth-century contemporaries onwards, see the chapters by Mathisen, Chronopoulos, and Hernández Lobato in this volume (chs. 20, 21, and 22 respectively). I shall deal in this chapter with early Sidonius scholarship, beginning at the close of the fifteenth century and ending with the first critical editions in the nineteenth century. For the evolution of Sidonius scholarship and the critical interpretation of his works since the nineteenth century, see Silvia Condorelli’s ch. 18 in this volume. For links to Sidonius editions that are available online, consult the Sidonius website, . USTC 435244, ISTC 493000, BSB-Ink S-377, GW M41999, IGI 8966. Thirty-four in all, as surveyed in van Thienen and Goldfinch (1999).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 543

13/02/20 4:30 PM

544

LUCIANA FURBETTA

letters and poems, in the same order as in modern critical editions.5 While the order of the poems agrees with that found in what Lütjohann (1887) terms the first family of manuscripts, exemplarily represented in that edition and in Loyen’s by Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, 9448 (C),6 the order of the letters in Book 7 differs from this family and, in fact, from all surviving manuscripts. A complete analysis of the text of the editio princeps (to which no specific study has, to date, been devoted) and a study of its connections with the readings transmitted by the codices might lead to the hypothesis, highly probable in my view, that it was preceded by extensive collation of multiple manuscripts. Such a study is beyond the scope of this chapter, but here are a few of its characteristics, without pursuing its links with the other manuscripts: •

• • •

•

In Ep. 2.2.5, after the verb imbricaretur, the phrase ipsa vero convenientibus mensuris exactissima spatiositate quadratur, found in some manuscripts, is lacking (so the editio princeps has the same text as the main manuscripts used by editors: L, N, V, M, C, T). In Ep. 3.3, the text has the same lacuna in paragraphs 7 and 8 as is found in MSS L, N, V, T. However, unlike T, the editio princeps includes Ep. 3.5 and 3.6. In Ep. 9.14, Ketelaer and van Leempt print the additions to paragraph 4 (et si bene te tua laus taxat sua laute tenebis) after ibit amor, and paragraph 6 (et Musa michi causas memora quo numine leso) after praecipiti, which are found in manuscripts C and Paris, IRHT, Collection privée CP 3477. In Carm. 7.546 the edition has the text: orbem ego sat potui magistro (the same text with lacuna in Paris, IRHT, Collection privée CP 347.

The editio princeps has no annotations, but its text constitutes the point of departure for all future printed editions.

1.2 Giovanni Battista Pio’s Edition, 1498 1.2.1 Introduction Giovanni Battista Pio was responsible for the first commented edition of Sidonius in 1498.8 His edition proved highly influential and has often been mistakenly cited as the oldest edition in place of the rare editio princeps. The text is furnished with detailed scholarly notes by Pio himself, which not only represent the real starting point for the exegesis of Sidonius’ work but are also amongst the most mature cultural productions of the Bolognese School. Hernández Lobato (2014c) has published an in-depth study of this edition and of the figure of Pio himself, which places Pio’s Sidonius scholarship in the context of the historical, literary, and aesthetic debates that arose in Bologna in the wake of the teachings of Beroaldo and of Pio’s own editions of the classics (notably his edition of Lucretius).9 Hernández Lobato particularly 5 6

7 8 9

Followed by vv. 1–43 of Ausonius’ Caesares, printed with rubrication immediately after the text of Sidonius. Loyen (1960) 1.xxxvi (and list of sigla) refers to this manuscript with the shelf mark F 150 (assigned by the Biblioteca de Madrid after the acquisition of the collection of the Marquis de Cambis; see Étaix (1983)). On the problems connected with the division of codices into family groupings and for the criteria employed in the Lütjohann (1887) edition, along with a description of the codices mentioned here in the framework of a new stemmatic layout, see Franz Dolveck’s ch. 16 in this volume. He calls this family α (see ch. 16, sect. 7) proposing a different stemma reconstruction, and he argues against using C as the representative MS of this family. On this codex and MS C and its branch see Furbetta (2014a) and Dolveck, ch. 16, sect. 6, in this volume. ISTC 494000, BSB-Ink S-378, GW M42001, IGI 8967. See Hernández Lobato (2014c), esp. 118–79; for a brief synthesis of this monograph, see Hernández Lobato’s ch. 22 in this volume. For an overall introduction to the life and work of, see Del Nero (1981).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 544

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

545

underlines Pio’s enduring interest in Sidonius, noting that, in his Annotationes priores (1496), he clearly indicates his intention to pay close attention to the text of Sidonius’ work in his forthcoming edition, and that he returns to the subject of his Sidonius commentary in his Annotationes posteriores (1505).10 On the basis of a partial collation, Charlet (2014) had charted the relations between Pio’s edition and the editio princeps. He argues that, at least as far as the panegyrics are concerned, Pio’s base text is, like that of the editio princeps, connected to MS C and its branch, and he highlights the most significant concordances. He also concludes that Pio must additionally have had access to at least one manuscript witness unknown to the editors of the editio princeps. This is not the place for a close examination of the results of Charlet’s collation, but if a manuscript source connected to C might be posited for the poems, then it must be excluded for the letters. For his part, Hernández Lobato believes that Pio established a text by correcting and revising the editio princeps with the aid of manuscripts accessible in Italy (and difficult to identify).11 One might add that a further proof of Pio’s dependence on the editio princeps is the identical text of Ep. 2.2.5 and the presence of the same additions in Ep. 9.14 (see section 1.1 above). In numerous places, however, Pio presents revisions which diverge from the text of the editio princeps: see, for instance, Carm. 7.546, where he has immo orbem potuit si te tibi tota magistro, thus filling the blank space left in the editio princeps (orbem ego sat potui . . . magistro).12

1.2.2 Table of Contents The contents are as follows: 1 2 3 4

title: Sidonii apollinaris poema Aureum eiusdemque epistole; declaration sub fide sigilli by Ludovico Sforza, dated 9 November 1497, authorising publication;13 twelve verses (entitled Monosyllabi) by the ducal secretary Baldassare Taccone, dedicated to Niccolò da Correggio;14 dedicatory epistle addressed to the senator and ducal councillor Francesco Marliani, which is devoted to the theme of friendship and is rich in allusions to ancient authors and works that are proposed as life examples: Pio only considers Sidonius’ style in the final part, describing it in these terms: reverendae antiquitatis opus observantissimum et retinentissimum Apuleiani fulminis aemulum, litteratoribus trivialibus neutiquam placiturum;15

5 10

11 12 13

14

15

Elegidion amatorium by Pio in 32 distichs (see Franzoi (2018)); In particular, Pio indicates that he has changed his mind on several points and feels that some of his comments were immature and excessively long. See Hernández Lobato (2014c) 185–94, and in this volume ch. 22, sect. 5. See Hernández Lobato (2014c), esp. 138–39. For a detailed analysis of this passage, see Charlet (2014) 502. The date of the letter suggests that the edition must already have been ready in 1497. The letter grants Giovanni Passerani da Asola the right to print Sidonius Apollinaris, Fulgentius, Apicius, Nonius Marcellus, Festus, and Varro for a period of five years. The same letter is also printed in the edition of Fulgentius that appears a few days before the edition of Sidonius. For further information on the publication of Pio’s edition, on the patrons involved in financing and promoting it, and on the terms of the contract drawn up with the printer Scinzenzeler, see Ganda (2009), esp. 273–9. Balthasaris Tachoni ducalis scribae ad Nicolaum Corrigium virum illustrem. On this poem and on Taccone in general, see Pyle (1991). ‘A work that clings faithfully to venerable antiquity and emulates Apuleius’ brilliance, which will certainly not be to the taste of mainstream scholars’. On the importance of this letter and on Pio’s judgement of Sidonius’ style, see Charlet (2014) 503–9, Hernández Lobato (2014c) 142–6, with the relevant passage in full.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 545

13/02/20 4:30 PM

546

LUCIANA FURBETTA

6 7 8 9 10

Sidonius’ works in exactly the same sequence as they appear in the editio princeps; the first forty-three verses of Ausonius’ Caesares, precisely as in the editio princeps;16 note to the reader by Pio; poem in four elegiac couplets dedicated to Pio by Sebastiano Duccio;17 a few lines on Sidonius’ life and works extracted from the biographical notice by Johannes Trithemius:18 these do not provide chronological details or precise information on the author’s life, but instead briefly sketch his character and present a list of his writings which also includes Ausonius’ Caesares; 11 An indication of the place and date of publication (Milan, 4 May 1498), with details of printer/publisher and funders: Impressum Mediolanni per magistrum Uldericum Scizenzeler. Impensis venerabilium dominorum Presbyteri Hyeronimi de Asula necnon Ioannis de abbatibus placentini. Sub Anno domini.M.cccc.Lxxxxyiii. Quarto Nonas maias; 12 registrum libri.

1.2.3 The Commentary As regards Pio’s commentary itself, one example may suffice to characterise its most essential and significant elements.19 The substantial notes devoted to the very first letter in Sidonius’ collection make the extent of Pio’s knowledge of and passion for Sidonius immediately clear. In the first two paragraphs – where Sidonius identifies Pliny the Younger and Symmachus as his models, and is loath to mention Cicero, whose epistolary style not even Iulius Titianus could imitate – Pio focuses on Sidonius’ treatment of Cicero, referring to Petrarch’s reaction to these lines in the first version of his Ad Familiares 1.1.32.228–9. Pio looks in depth at Petrarch’s response and his relationship with Ciceronian style, then goes on to explain how Sidonius uses the metaphor oratorum simia, ‘ape of the orators’, to characterise Iulius Titianus as a mediocre letter-writer who imitated contemporary writers in a slavish fashion. Pio notes that Sidonius echoes the judgement passed on Titianus in the Historia Augusta by ‘Iulius Capitolinus’,20 who also employs the metaphor of the simia which, Pio observes, was first used in a literary context by Pliny the Younger (cf. Ep. 1.5.2). Pio’s further observation that Ausonius also speaks of Titianus, and indeed his attention to prosopography in general, are striking.21 His commentary on Ep. 1.1 closes with a lexical note on the adjective veternosum, ‘outworn’, which he glosses as languidum, marcidum, sopnolentum, nec utique vegetum, ‘languid, enervated, sleepy, not at all forceful’, with reference to the emperor Caligula’s judgement and condemnation of Seneca’s writings, and to his own notes elsewhere. Pio’s exegesis essentially functions on three levels. The first concerns the explanation of individual lemmata (such as the gloss on the adjective veternosum). The second involves passages of text, which, in addition to an explanation of the context, necessitate a close examination of 16

17

18

19 20

21

Pio glosses: circumferuntur haec pro Ausonii carminibus passim et ubique: a quo nam hi versus editi sint, in medium relinquo, ‘these are always and everywhere circulated as poems by Ausonius; I would rather leave their authorship undecided’. Pio’s verses and the lines dedicated to him by Duccio are briefly examined by Hernández Lobato (2014c) 134–5 n. 40, who underlines how Pio and his milieu absorbed Sidonius’ style. For an overview of Pio’s writings in general, see Toste (2003). Trithemius (1462–1516) was a Benedictine who served as abbot of the monasteries of St Martin in Sponheim and St John in Würzburg. For a comprehensive analysis, see Hernández Lobato (2014c) , esp. 136–79. See Hist. Aug. Maxim. 27.5 Titianus orator dictus est simia temporis sui, quia cuncta imitatus est, ‘the orator Titianus was called the ape of his time, because he imitated everything’. Pio refers, for example, to a passage in Ausonius’ Gratiarum actio (7.31–2).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 546

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

547

parallels or sources that either are used by Sidonius or shed light on the text in question. The third, which seems particularly to engage Pio, concerns the historical interpretation of particular passages, comparing or assessing earlier readings, as is the case with Petrarch’s remarks. These three exegetical levels merge into a whole that sometimes acquires a distinctive and highly individual shape. Pio’s commentary is not, in fact, arranged according to a precise hierarchy, and the structure of individual sections is far from rigid. It is determined, rather, by the nature of the letter in question. If all the letters in Book 1 and most of those in Book 2 are accompanied by substantial notes that follow this pattern, then Book 3 sees a drastic reduction in the frequency and length of comments. These are now limited to purely explicative lexical glosses without any reference to parallel loci or to the history of the word in question, and showing nothing of the analytical depth and closeness of focus displayed in the first two books. The same is conspicuously true of the following books, until we finally encounter a greater number of annotations in Book 8.22 Here, Pio once again offers comments of a scholarly or antiquarian nature on allusions to mythology, on realia, and particularly on language and style. Notes on linguistic matters predominate, and are always designed to pinpoint the ancient usage and the modern significance of those elements that attract Pio’s attention or that are most in need of clarification. One highly notable aspect of Pio’s work is the frequent use of Greek, which is constant throughout the commentary, and is employed to explain the origin of various terms and to trace semantic analogies or differences. He often refers to Servius and other sources of a grammatical nature, showing mastery of a wide range of authors that he obviously knows in depth and quotes alongside Cicero, Varro, and Apuleius. As regards the ninth and final book of letters, it is striking that Pio does not even look in detail at the last letter, which contains important elements for the understanding of Sidonius’ prose style and closes with a reference to Horace’s Ars poetica. Instead, his focus is restricted to lexical elements and his notes become more concise and sporadic. Pio’s philological concerns are also displayed in the text of the poems, which, on the whole, however, are only sparsely commented.23 Here, Pio’s attention is mostly directed to the panegyrics and to Carm. 9, and his notes are almost all explicative or factual, aimed at clarifying recherché expressions or obscure mythological references. In his commentary on the poems, as with the letters, Pio cites the readings offered by earlier scholars, such as Angelo Poliziano, and refers, in particular, to Filippo Beroaldo.

1.2.4 Evaluation Overall, then, and particularly as far as the letters are concerned, Pio’s commentary is a highly accomplished piece of work, bearing witness to a deep study of Sidonius’ texts and a profound sensitivity to Sidonius’ manner. Pio’s work combines textual scholarship with both critical and creative reception; his prefatory verses (the Elegidion amatorium) and the prose of his dedicatory letter to Francesco Marliani show just how far he has assimilated Sidonius’ style. Pio’s edition was reprinted in the next century, among a considerable number of other commented editions of Sidonius, as we shall now see. 22

23

For an exact computation of the frequency and ratio of comments over the nine books of letters and the poems (illustrated by graphs), see Hernández Lobato (2014c) 166–79. As calculated by Hernández Lobato (2014c) 177–9, there are a total of 117 comments for the poems (39 of which cover the panegyrics and 22 of which concern Carm. 9 alone), compared to 104 for Book 1 of the letters alone.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 547

13/02/20 4:30 PM

548

LUCIANA FURBETTA

2 Sixteenth Century 2.1 The Reprints of Pio’s Commented Edition, 1542 and 1597 2.1.1 The 1542 Reprint The success of Pio’s commentary is proved by the appearance of a reprint in Basel in 1542. According to the frontispiece the publication aims to elucidate Sidonius, ‘rightly accorded a first place among the most outstanding authors by scholars on account of his devotion to refined literature and his knowledge of matters human and divine’, in order to ‘enrich, embellish, and improve the language, mind, and character’ of its readers.24 This edition is not an exact reproduction of the original. There are differences in the arrangement of its various elements, with Trithemius’ biographical notice now coming first, and in graphic layout, and it includes some additional materials: an index omnium memorabilium quae insunt autori et commentatori, placed after the letter to Francesco Marliani and followed by a list of errata, and, at the end of the volume, the brief life of Sidonius compiled by Crinitus which first appeared in his Libri de poetis Latinis (1505).25 The decision to include this text is significant, as it bears witness to the continuing philological and historical interest in the life and work of Sidonius, and reveals a desire to keep the reader up to date with the latest scholarly research.

2.1.2 The 1597 Reprint A further reprint, with errors corrected, is published by the same Basel printer in 1597. The order of the accompanying elements has again been changed. The two biographical notices coherently precede the text and commentary, while the message to the reader, the supplementary poems, and the indexes are placed together at the end of the volume: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

the dedicatory epistle to Francesco Marliani; the extract from Trithemius’ life of Sidonius; the biographical notice by Crinitus; the complete works of Sidonius with Pio’s commentary and the verses from Ausonius, again in the same order as the first edition; the short note to the reader; Pio’s Elegidion amatorium and Taccone’s Monosyllabi; the Index omnium memorabilium quae authori et commentatori insunt, followed by the errata.

2.2 Élie Vinet’s Edition, 1552 Élie Vinet’s 1552 edition, published in Lyon, contains the complete works of Sidonius.26 The text is preceded by a Catalogus scriptorum Sidonii which, under the heading accesserunt, also lists 24

25

26

Ob elegantiorum literarum studium, et humanarum divinarumque rerum scientiam, primo inter summos autores loco a doctissimis merito iudicati . . . linguam enim, mentem et ingenium locupletabunt, ornabunt et acuent. The life of Sidonius is the final entry in vol. 5 of the Libri de poetis Latinis. Crinitus’ interest in Sidonius is substantial and well documented, as evidenced by the first manuscript that he copied outside a scholastic context, i.e. Florence, BML, pluteus 90 sup. 8, dated to 1489/90 but perhaps written a year later, and modelled on Florence, BML, S. Marco 554 (= M), which contained all of Sidonius’ works and some astrological texts; see Marchiaro (2013) 30–1, and, for S. Marco 554, Marchiaro (2009). USTC 154182, FB 86332. The title is Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum Episcopi. Opera castigata et restituta, Lugduni apud Ioan. Tornaesium, MDLII. See Desgraves (1977) for a study of this important scholar, antiquarian, and humanist.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 548

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

549

the De itinere ad Andigavam civitatem, De Aegyrcio flumine, Epistola regis Avarum, and De septem sapientibus. This is immediately followed by a letter addressed to the reader, in which Vinet recalls the greatness of Cicero and the splendour of his style, which, so many centuries later, is still adopted as a model by those seeking to reverse the decline of Romanitas and the Latin language. Having underlined the barbarian threat under which Sidonius lived (and, consequently, his importance for classical culture), Vinet goes on to comment on his style with particular reference to Ep. 1.1, which he reads with great sensitivity. If, in fact, Petrarch misunderstood Sidonius’ reference to Cicero, Vinet traces analogies between the two authors, and shows that he has fully grasped Sidonius’ strategy of praeteritio for expressing his profound reverence for this unattainable model. To define the peculiar character of Sidonius’ prose, he paraphrases Sidonius’ own characterisation of his style in Ep. 8.16 as follows: ‘a style straightforward and terse, quite harsh on ears that are used to that eminently Roman polished one’.27 He finally states his aim of making for easy reading of ‘a good author who so far has been printed in such a mutilated and distorted way as to make him virtually unintelligible’.28 Vinet’s decision not to include any notes of commentary is probably due to this aim of disseminating the ancient text as such. This is also the first edition of Sidonius to give the letters and the poems numbers, forty-six years before Savaron. The letter is followed by the brief biographical notice by Crinitus, which, as we have seen, had already appeared in the first reprint of Pio’s edition a decade earlier (see section 2.1 above). From a textual perspective, Vinet draws predominantly, but not exclusively, on the codex Santonensis, as is revealed by his decision to publish some non-Sidonian material and by his final note. Relatively little is known of the codex Santonensis, but Vinet’s presentation of Sidonius’ text shows concordances with the manuscript branch connected with MS C, and his readings diverge in a number of places from both the editio princeps and Pio’s edition.29 In a final note, Vinet explains that the additional poems were transmitted along with Sidonius’ works in the codex Santonensis, ‘as if they were by Sidonius’ (tamquam si essent Sidonii).30 Vinet also left Annotationes in epistolas et carmina Sidonii Apollinaris which are preserved in Parisinus Latinus 2171B. Desgraves (1977) briefly comments on these notes, which Vinet clearly opted not to publish but which were found after his death.31

27 28 29

30

31

Sermo . . . simplex ille et aridus . . . auribusque non parum asper, quae polito illi et vere Romano assuetae fuerint. Bonus autor, qui adhuc tam mutilus et depravatus imprimebatur, ut vix quicquam in eo intelligi posset. E.g., Ep. 1.2.5 aut venanti monstres aut vianti (monstres as in CFPM1T1), 2.4.3 promitte promissas (promitte as in LMT), 4.7.2 tractabitur (as C2 ; retractabitur vulg.; Vinet’s reading is accepted by Woweren, Sirmond, and all subsequent editors), 4.17.2 apud ipsum limitem latina iura (ipsum codd.; om. L), 4.20.1 arma et armatum et armatos (as in MCFP), 5.7.7 cuius studio scire vos (om. factum), 5.14.1 Calenses (differently Savaron), 6.1.5 aegrotanti (arroganti codd.), 6.8.2 saepe fontem mercatoris (as in MFR), 8.6.5 consuli proxime proximus eram (as in VMPN1, and printed by Mohr), 9.1.5 tuus cui studium in caeteris rebus (as in FM1), 9.14 (prints addition in para. 6, not in 4, whereas Pio prints both); Carm. 2.88 fundit (as in C); 4.2 solveret (volveret codd.), 7.21 fronde (codd.), 7.96 quererer stricto (C), 9.165 rabidum (rapidum PTF), 15.14 limbi (C), 15.31 finxerat (CFP), 15.132 patrio (T), 15.144 vestri (vestit FPT), 22.46 brachia roscida (in the order of CPT), 22.129 vexatur (CFT), 23.87 ringitur (Vat. lat. 3421 = A, fingitur codd.), 23.132 vice (C), 23.196 constitisset (C), 23.376 favor (TC), 23.457 forma nobilitate dote censu. He prints them in the following order: (1) De itinere suo ad civitatem Andigavam (= Ven. Fort. Carm. 11.25), (2) Ven. Fort. Carm. 11.26.1–12, (3) De Aegircio flumine (= Ven. Fort. Carm. 1.21), (4) an extract from Corippus, Iust. 3.271–88, (5) De septem sapientibus, which is normally known as transmitted by Vatican City, Ottob. lat. 2013, f. 84v., a witness (turn of the twelfth/thirteenth century) that transmits not only Sidonius’ works but also the speech by Corippus. For the connections between this codex and the codex Santonensis, see Antès (1981) xcix. See Desgraves (1977) 122 n. 5. It was rumoured that Savaron used them without mention: Labadie (1909) 14–16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 549

13/02/20 4:30 PM

550

LUCIANA FURBETTA

2.3 Johann von der Woweren’s Edition, 1598, with Notes by Petrus Colvius In 1598, a year after the second reprint of Pio’s edition, a new edition of Sidonius was published in Paris and Lyon with a brief commentary by Johann von (der) Woweren (or: van (der) Wouweren, or: Woverius) and notes by Petrus Colvius, which is presented as a corrected and expanded edition in relation to its predecessors. In the dedicatory opening letter, Woweren declares his intention to present a critical edition of Sidonius supplemented by two sets of notes which include Colvius’ commentary. He also explicitly sets out his reasons for doing so: he has chosen an author that both he and his dedicatee love, for Sidonius shares their tastes and inclinations. Bringing out the relevance of Sidonius’ message and his enduring significance as a historical figure are, then, the editor’s prime motives.32 In the introduction, Woweren gives an important insight into his editorial procedures: he uses a text which he owns himself and thinks excellent (Plurimum praeter omnes mihi contulit liber meus, notae optimae, ex quo pleraque supplevi, et corruptiora restitui) as well as a manuscript sent to him by Ortelius, supplementing it with readings contributed by Pithoeus, Petavius, and Colvius from their various manuscripts. There follow the paragraphs of the text of Gregory of Tours Hist. 2 on Sidonius, and Sidonius’ epitaph in the form transmitted by MS C.33 This, in turn, is followed by a series of historical testimonies which, in Woweren’s view, help to flesh out Sidonius’ biographical profile by confirming or completing the known data. Finally he provides an index of the addressees of Sidonius’ letters and an ordo scriptorum C. Solli Sidoni Apollinaris where the texts appear in the conventional order with the poems in the sequence 1–24. Woweren’s edition of the text itself displays a number of distinctive features,34 which he explains in the brief technical notes on divergent readings which follow Colvius’ more extensive annotations. Colvius’ notes are both extremely concise and unsystematic, as he selects only a small number of loci for each letter, but they nonetheless constitute a modest commentary on the text. The lemma concerning Julius Titianus in Ep. 1.1 may serve as an example: Iul. Ticianus] Quaedam de Ticiano dixit B. Pius in suo ad hunc auctorem Commentario, quibus nos addamus ea quae apud Ausonium Gratiarum actione: quomodo Ticianus magister? sed gloriosus ille municipalem scholam apud Visontionem, Lugdunumque variando non aetate quidem sed vilitate consenuit. De eodem videtur sensisse epist. 16 ad Probum, quem Apologos Aesopi transtulisse dicit, sed praestat verba subiicere: Apologos Ticiani et Nepotis

32

33

34

USTC 199219/ FB 86334 and USTC 146656/ FB 86335, for the Paris and the Lyon editions respectively. See Deitz (1995) 138–9 for a critical take on Woweren’s sources (see also below, n. 38). On the text of the epitaph in MS C and on a new manuscript witness, see Furbetta (2015b). On the epitaph, see also, in this volume, van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2, and Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 10.7. Among the most significant (among them quite a few personal innovations) are Ep. 1.5.1 aut montes hominum, and 5 publicarum discretus obiectu, 1.11.5 magis quam patris fecerat and 16 ille reus (as in LNT), 2.2.5 ipsa vero concinentibus mensuris exactissima spaciositate quadratur inserted after imbricarentur, 5.5.2 quasi de Siagrio vetere novus Franco prorumpas (which Colvius found in the Clermont MS) placed after the loquacitatemque, 6.8.2 saepe fontem mediatoris anteferat (as in T), 9.14 only the addition to para. 6 (as do Vinet and Savaron). In the poems, Woweren only diverges from Vinet in a small number of places, the most significant being: Carm. 7.21 fronte, 23.132 incude and 196 constitissem.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 550

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

551

Chronica, quasi alios Apologos (nam et ipsa instar fabularum sunt) ad nobilitatem tuam misi et paulo post: . . .35 Colvius relies essentially on Pio’s commentary, summarising its main points, and adding a few notes of his own, pointing, in particular, to passages in other authors that Sidonius might have had in mind, in this case Ausonius. Compared to Pio, Colvius appears more closely focused on highlighting particularly pertinent parallels, which are almost always selected with a view to clarifying or justifying the syntactical and grammatical forms employed by Sidonius, rather than bundling together an excessive number of references and citations as Pio all too often does. Like Pio, Colvius often cites Apuleius, showing that he too seeks parallels and influences that suggest an archaising tendency on Sidonius’ part,36 but, over all, he highlights a wider range of models than his predecessor. The most widely cited are Ausonius, Martial, and Symmachus, cited more frequently than even Pliny the Younger. There are very few references, conversely, to Cicero. Indeed, Colvius does not even gloss the passage concerning Cicero in Ep. 1.1, which, as we have seen, Pio discusses at length. Woweren’s edition constitutes an important step in the history of Sidonius scholarship as it is presents itself as a genuine critical edition, with the editor amending the text with his own corrections and conjectures, having carefully collated a number of codices. Over all, Woweren’s edition appears closer than his predecessors’ to the modern idea of a commented critical edition, complete with a sort of critical apparatus (in the form of Woweren’s brief annotations) and with more extensive notes of commentary (by Colvius) designed to outline the essential characteristics of Sidonius’ style by pointing to parallel loci.

2.4 Jean Savaron’s Editions, 1598 and 1599 2.4.1 The 1598 First Edition Almost simultaneously with Woweren’s edition and with the second reprint of Pio, a new edition of Sidonius appeared in Paris in 1598, printed by Perier, and edited, without any notes of commentary, by the Clermontois magistrate and humanist Jean Savaron.37 Savaron prefaces his edition with a dedicatory letter addressed to Achille de Harlay, Seigneur de Beaumont, in which he refers briefly to Sidonius and to his exemplary value as a model for men of politics, like Harlay, who read his work. There follows a short note to the reader in which Savaron 35

36 37

‘Iulius Titianus] Pio has something about Titianus in his commentary on this author. Let me add the words from Ausonius’ thanksgiving speech: “How about [Maximinus’] tutor Titianus? For all his boastful assumption, while alternating between the provincial school of Besançon and Lyon, he fell into decline not through years but through light esteem”. Letter 16 to Probus [Auson. Ep. 9 Green] would seem to refer to the same, who – he says – has translated Aesop’s Fables, but it is best to cite the text: “I send your Excellency the Fables of Titianus and the Chronicles of Nepos as though they were further fables (for they, too, are like fairy tales)”, and somewhat further on . . . [where the same gift is described in poetical form and Titianus is dubbed ‘a word artist’, fandi artifex].’ This preference illustrates Ausonius’ significance as a model for French humanism in general. USTC 146657, FB 86336. Its title is Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi Opera Io. Savaronis studio et diligentia castigatius recognita, Parisiis in officina Plantiniana, apud Hadrianum Perier, via Iacobaea, MDCXVIII.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 551

13/02/20 4:30 PM

552

LUCIANA FURBETTA

lists the additional passages that he has found in Franciscus Nansius’ manuscript of Sidonius,38 which are absent from all the other manuscripts that he has consulted. It immediately precedes a detailed sketch of Sidonius’ life, accompanied by marginal notes pointing to the passages in Sidonius’ letters which corroborate Savaron’s account. Besides paraphrasing autobiographical passages in Sidonius’ correspondence, Savaron’s account draws on (and cites) other sources such as Gregory of Tours. This biographical notice is followed, and complemented, by the text of Sidonius’ epitaph and a section devoted to elogia.39 He then prints the text of Sidonius in the sequence established by the editio princeps and followed by Pio and all subsequent editors. Savaron’s text only rarely diverges from the editio princeps or other earlier editions.40 Like Vinet, Savaron then prints the additional texts from the codex Santonensis, and concludes with an alphabetical index on the Letters and his authorisation to publish cum privilegio regio.

2.4.2 The 1599 Second Edition with Linear Commentary Only one year later, in 1599, Savaron published a new edition.41 As the frontispiece makes immediately clear, this is no reprint or straightforward re-edition, but an entirely new edition furnished with an extensive commentary. The dedicatory letter is followed by the same biographical sketch that appeared in the edition of 1598, and by the text of Sidonius’ epitaph, which, however, unlike in the previous edition, is accompanied by marginal notes explaining and commenting on the epitaph itself and thus casting light on key passages in Sidonius’ life. As in the 1598 edition, the epitaph is followed by a chapter de Caio Sollio elogia veterum, quoting the same sources with some additions. Savaron next inserts the letter to the reader concerning the manuscript owned by Franciscus Nansius, the alphabetical index (which, in the previous edition, was at the very end of the volume), and a new letter addressed to the reader providing a list of the manuscripts that Savaron has consulted and used to correct and print the text of Sidonius. After these introductory materials comes the text of the letters followed by the poems. For each book of letters (except the first which, as one might expect, is preceded by the dedicatory letter for the whole edition), Savaron inserts dedicatory letters addressed to various characters – a novelty as compared to previous editors. At the end of the letters, each of 38

39

40

41

It has not been established precisely which manuscript was owned by Franciscus Nansius (1525–95) and was used by Savaron (liber Nanzii) and possibly by Woweren, offering, among other variae lectiones, three substantial additions to the text as it is normally found at Ep. 2.2.5 after imbricarentur, 3.8.1 after historia, and 7.5.2 after adventus tui. See Leo in his introduction to Lütjohann (1887) xxiii–xxiv, and Mohr (1895) 8–9. Deitz (1995) 138–9 is sceptical and supposes that Woweren may have simply plagiarised Savaron, whose edition appeared slightly earlier, or even dreamed up his sources. Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16, sect. 5.1 with n. 39, points to the lateness of this and other similar manuscripts, and is inclined to think of glosses or learned interpolations. Including testimonia not only by Claudianus Mamertus, Gennadius, and Gregory of Tours, but also by Hugo of Fleury and Guibert of Gembloux. Ep. 1.11.16 ipse ille meus amicus crebro (as in MCT2), 4.15.1 ita bonorum contubernio sedit ad te venitur quippe postquam (Pio printed (as Sirmond will later): ad te venitur ita bonorum contubernio sedit), 4.20.1 arma et animatos et armatos (like Pio 1498), 7.18.1 epistolarum produceretur (as in most codd.), 9.2.3 quid quod quoque arroganter (as in most codd.), 9.3.1 diserte in scriptis (MF), 9.11.6 autographas (correcting the codd.), 9.11.10 sed quorsum quam moris est (MCP), 9.14.4 only the addition in para. 6 (the editio princeps and Pio also printed the addition at para. 4). USTC 441262, FB 86337. It is entitled: Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera. Io. Savaro Clarom. in Montisferrandae subsidiorum curiae senator et vicecancellarius, multo quam antea castigatius quam antea recognovit et librum commentarium adiecit. Parisiis, ex Officina Plantiniana, apud Adrianum Perier, via Iacobaea, M.D.XCIX cum privilegio regis christianissimi. To my knowledge, Savaron’s edition is yet to be studied in detail; there is a brief overview in Meyniel (1906) 317–27.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 552

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

553

which is followed by substantial notes of linear commentary, he provides an index rerum and an index auctorum qui in hoc commentario lib. laudantur, explicantur, emendantur. Similarly after the text of the poems (which is preceded by a dedicatory letter addressed to Francisco Fratri) and accompanying notes of commentary, we find an Index rerum et verborum. The commentary is not only fuller and more detailed than that offered by Pio and Woweren/ Colvius, but, above all, adopts a more scientific and ‘modern’ approach in constantly seeking loci similes, in identifying auctores and demonstrating how Sidonius emulates them, and, finally, in detecting internal parallels in Sidonius’ own writings. Moreover, unlike Pio for example, Savaron offers a linear and lemmatic commentary on all the letters and poems. His comments are rigorously structured. Explicating a significant passage, he first analyses a lengthier extract or textual sequence, explaining its context and overall meaning. He then narrows his focus to comment on individual lemmata, devoting more concise notes to technical elements like the identification of similar grammatical or syntactical forms, parallel passages, or instances of imitation or emulation on Sidonius’ part, or, alternatively, citing the comments of previous editors or the readings in the various manuscripts consulted. When the text does not present particular difficulties, his commentary mostly focuses on an a few key phrases without listing an excessive number of similar loci or getting bogged down in over-technical grammatical or etymological explanations. His approach is best exemplified in his commentary on the passage in Ep. 1.1 where Sidonius cites Pliny the Younger and Symmachus as models and refers to Cicero and Iulius Titianus. Savaron’s note reads as follows: Quem nec Iul. Titianus etc.] Iulius Titianus temporibus Maximinorum vixit, Modestini I.C. coaetaneus, multi nominis orator, quo magistro usus est Maximinus imperator, Capitolinus in Maximino Iuniore, de quo Ausonius ad Gratianum Aug. et epist. 16 ad Probum Fandi Titianus artifex. Isidorus lib. 2 orig. de Rhet. Haec disciplina a Graecis inventa est Gorgia, Aristotele, Ermagora, et translata in Latinum a Tullio videlicet, Quintiliano et Titiano. Servius Aeneidos 10. Titianus et Calvus, qui thematum materias omnes de Vergilio elicuerunt et conformarunt ad dicendi usum. Eadem pene verba infigit Pomp. Sabinus. Titianus etiam laudatur a Servio lib. 2 de Amazonibus, has Titianus unimammas dicit, et ex Servio Isidorus l. 9 c. 2. Titianus de Agricultura citatur a Diomede lib. I. Pomponius Sabinus ad haec Legiferae Cereri l. 4. Non sine ratione hoc inventum est, mortales enim postquam fuere inventae fruges, legibus uti caepere. Et haec sunt Titiani fragmenta.42 Compared to the lengthy and discursive explanation in Pio, Savaron shows much greater precision in selecting and correlating sources which suffice in themselves to convey the sense of the passage and to explain the historical significance of Iulius Titianus. Essentially, then, 42

‘Quem nec Iul. Titianus etc.] Iulius Titianus lived at the time of the Maximini, being a contemporary of Modestinus, and a renowned orator, who served as a teacher to the emperor Maximinus, [as told by] Capitolinus in [his life of] Maximinus Iunior; about him, Ausonius ad Gratianum Aug. and Ep. 16 to Probus: fandi Titianus artifex, “the word artist Titianus”. Isidorus Book 2 on Rhetoric [2.2.1]: This discipline was invented by the Greeks Gorgias, Aristotle, and Hermagoras, and transposed to Latin by Cicero, of course, Quintilian, and Titianus. Servius on Aeneid 10: “Titianus and Calvus who derived all their thematic material from Vergil and adapted it to oratorical use”. Pomp. Sabinus employs almost the same words. Titianus is also cited by Servius in Book 2 on the Amazons: “these Titianus calls ‘single-breasted’”, and from Servius Isidorus Book 9 chapter 2 [9.2.64]. Titianus On Agriculture is cited by Diomedes Book 1. Pomponius Sabinus on this legiferae Cereri [“to law-giving Ceres”, Verg. Aen. 4.58]: “This has not been invented without reason either as humankind, after the invention of crops, began to live by laws”. These too are fragments of Titianus.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 553

13/02/20 4:30 PM

554

LUCIANA FURBETTA

Savaron lets the sources speak for themselves and concentrates instead on identifying hypotexts, without steering the reader too intrusively with personal interpretations. More generally, for all nine books of Sidonius’ letters, Savaron’s commentary is both more coherent and more consistent than Pio’s. Where Pio selected and focused exclusively on a small number of letters, leaving many others devoid of notes and, in particular, devoting less space to an exegesis of the poems, Savaron scrupulously comments on every text, while avoiding the extreme concision and over-technical approach of Colvius. Frequent references to Pio’s commentary reveal that it is Savaron’s most direct model throughout, and, in places, he explicitly compares or contrasts his own reading to his predecessor’s. One example may suffice: the passage in Ep. 2.2.3 where Sidonius introduces the description of the villa of Avitacum: Nisi quid tu fascinum verere, concordia est] Multa Pius hoc loco insubide et insipide deblacterat de Abitaco et Fascino, et ex ingenio suo non ex vett. libris pro Abitaco, Abidenum subtrudit omnino male, reiecto Pii commento, facilis est explicatio, boni ominis arcendique fascini gratia, haec praefari mos est, ne quis saevus et invidus concordiam nostram effascinet. Symmach. epist. 78 lib. 6. Nunc quoque nuntio si dictum nullus fortunae livor effascinet, in concordiam mecum sanitatem redire. Idem epist. 7 lib. 1. Nullo fascino foelicitas publica mordeatur. Idem epist. 42 Quis oculus fascinavit destinatam quietem.43 Pio is not, however, the only commentator cited in Savaron’s notes. He also refers to Woweren and Colvius.44 This attentiveness to earlier interpretations of Sidonius’ works is perhaps the most modern aspect of Savaron’s commentary. As regards his textual choices, Savaron generally employs the formula sic mss., especially where graphic variants or alternative lexical forms are concerned; in some more complex cases, however, he cites the various readings in the codices and justifies his own choice without systematically listing the readings adopted by previous editors.45 Savaron’s textual choices do not seem to vary from the first non-commented edition of 1598 to the enlarged reprint in 1609 of his commented edition.46 For the Carmina, Savaron differs strikingly from Pio in the sheer mass of data incorporated into his copious notes. Savaron comments on practically every verse of the Carmina, going on to examine individual lemmata in detail. Compared to Colvius, Savaron is more concerned 43

44 45

46

‘Nisi quid tu fascinum verere, concordia est] Pius here babbles a lot of nonsense and stupidity about Abitacum and Fascinum, and of his own invention, not from ancient manuscripts, comes up with Abidenum instead of Abitacum, which is absolutely false. If we reject Pio’s comment, the explanation is simple: “For the sake of a good omen and averting the evil eye, this is traditionally said first lest a ruthless and jealous person bewitch our harmony”. Symmachus Ep. 6.78 [6.77] “I now also notify you that (let’s hope Fortune’s jealousy won’t bewitch my words) health is again getting into harmony with me”. The same, Book 1 letter 7 [1.13.4]: “Let no evil eye bite the common good”. The same, letter 42 [1.48.1] “What evil eye bewitched your hoped-for tranquillity?”’ See e.g. Ep. 1.2.9 meditatum acroama (siding with Woweren), Carm. 5.309 Gaudentius (rejecting Colvius’ interpretation). This, in my view, is further proof that his primary model is Pio’s commentary, which does not indicate the codices used to construct the text. Savaron probably does not feel the need to highlight the readings selected by Pio, as his ‘dialogue’ with his predecessor plays out on an exegetical level, concerning commentary rather than choice of textual readings. Two exceptions can be quoted, for example: Ep. 2.2.5 the insertion of the phrase ipsa vero convenientibus mensuris exactissima spatiositate quadratur (from the codex Nanzii) after the verb imbricarentur as in the 1599 edition, and Ep. 4.20.1 where Savaron prints arma et armatos et animatos, inverting the order of the adjectives (this conjecture is justified in a lengthy note which takes into account the MSS as well as a parallel in Plautus Bacch. 942). The 1609 edition is ‘multis partibus auctior et emendatior’, according to its frontispiece.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 554

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

555

with presenting a comprehensive overview of each poem, even if he also proceeds more rigorously lemma by lemma rather than glossing longer sequences of text.

3 Seventeenth Century 3.1 Gerhard Elmenhorst’s Edition, 1617 Despite the relatively recent appearance of Savaron’s two editions, a new edition of Sidonius was published in 1617, prepared by Gerhard Elmenhorst and presenting itself in the dedicatory letter as a revision of Woweren with the help of new manuscript material.47 The dedicatory letter is followed by the dedicatio and proem from Woweren’s edition without any variations. In place, however, of the testimonies on Sidonius’ life from ancient authors, Elmenhorst prints the biographical notice prepared by Savaron for his two editions, complete with its accompanying notes. This, in turn, is followed by Sidonius’ epitaph (without notes) and the elogia printed in Savaron’s first, non-commented edition of 1598 (which, as we have seen, were subsequently expanded). As regards the text of Sidonius itself, Elmenhorst is very close to Savaron, to the extent that his edition seems less a revision and correction of Woweren than a reproduction of Savaron’s text coupled with Woweren’s notes. Elmenhorst’s text diverges from Woweren’s, in fact, at precisely the points where Savaron had proposed new readings. The most significant instance is Ep. 5.5.2, where Elmenhorst omits the addition that only Woweren inserts.48 Following the text of Sidonius, Elmenhorst prints the poems in the codex Santonensis, just as they appear in Vinet; he also prints Vinet’s final note, precisely as Savaron had done in his editions. Woweren’s notes of commentary are printed as in his original edition, but Elmenhorst does not reproduce the rest of the critical apparatus that contextualised them in Woweren. Elmenhorst does not print the lengthier and more explanatory notes by Colvius which form a substantial part of Woweren’s original edition. He seems, then, to be aiming for a synthesis of the text as edited by Woweren and the prefatory materials (biography and ancient sources) assembled by Savaron. He only appears to use and be familiar with Savaron’s first non-commented edition, without taking into account the extensive commentary in Savaron’s second, expanded edition, or, indeed, the very recent critical edition by Sirmond, which he had probably not been able to access.49 Woweren’s notes are followed by a Vita Sidonii ex ms. codice Abrahami Ortelii, presented without much further explanation. Elmenhorst then prints the glosses which he says are contained in this codex (veteres glossae in Sidonium ex eodem manuscripto cod.), with a supplement of extremely concise notanda in Vita Sidonii. The glosses serve only to elucidate minor matters. 47

48

49

Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera ex postrema recognitione Ioannis Wouwerii V.C. et quondam illustrissimi Principis Holsatiae Consiliarii Geverhartus Elmenhorstius edidit ex Vet. Cod. textum emendavit et indicem copiosum adiecit. Hanoviae Typis Wechelianis apud haeredes Ioan. Aubrii. M.D. CXVII. On Elmenhorst, see Bursian (1877). See above, n. 34. Other examples include Ep. 1.4.3 huius enim appetitus, 2.9.6 nunc iurulenta variaretur, 4.2.4 peccatis, 4.3.10 patuit, 4.7.2 retractabitur, 5.14.1 Calentes, 6.1.5 arroganti, 9.3.1 diserte in scriptis, 9.11.10 sed quorsum plura quam moris est; Carm. 4.2 volveret, 7.96 stricto quererer. Elmenhorst’s dedicatory letter is dated 1615 and the volume was printed in 1617; Sirmond’s edition was published in France in 1614.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 555

13/02/20 4:30 PM

556

LUCIANA FURBETTA

The volume ends with an alphabetical index to the letters (following the example of earlier editions) and an extensive index vocum in Sidon. Apoll. indicating the number of the book and of individual letters.

3.2 The Philological and Exegetical Contribution of Jacques Sirmond, 1614 and 1652 3.2.1 The First Edition, 1614 The seventeenth-century edition that was to have the greatest impact on the exegesis of Sidonius among the earliest critical editions is the commented edition published by the Jesuit scholar Jacques Sirmond (1559–1651) in Paris in 1614.50 3.2.1.1 Contents This edition is introduced by a dedicatory letter addressed to Cardinal François de La Rochefoucauld, followed by a life of Sidonius, which is much briefer than that found in Savaron, and is devoid of references or notes directing the reader to ancient sources or passages in Sidonius’ letters. After this biographical sketch, Sirmond informs us that he has found the text of Sidonius’ epitaph in an ancient Cluny MS, and prints it on the following page.51 To this he adds only Claudianus Mamertus’ comments on Sidonius and the chapter from Gennadius’ De viris illustribus. Here too, Sirmond’s approach appears extremely selective if one thinks of the much more substantial chapters of elogia in both Woweren’s and Savaron’s editions. In the main body of the volume, the text of Sidonius’ letters is preceded by an index listing the names of the addressees, and followed immediately by the text of the poems, concluded with a name index. Next comes the commentary section, preceded by a note addressed to the reader. Sirmond’s notes of commentary are followed by a lengthier self-standing note entitled coronis Sidoniana which provides a historical analysis of vv. 435–6 of the Panegyric of Avitus, where Avitus arrives in Toulouse on a diplomatic mission and is welcomed by Theoderic II and his brother Frederic. This note, in turn, is followed by a table of praetermissa with pictures of coins bearing the effigy of the emperor Anthemius. Finally, we encounter a name index and an index of cited authors. 3.2.1.2 Characterisation Sirmond’s text diverges at several points from earlier editions, though it is closest to Savaron, and, in many cases, has been adopted by later editors.52 Compared to Pio’s and Savaron’s, Sirmond’s notes of commentary are of a concise and strictly essential nature. They focus primarily on historical and prosopographical details, perhaps because Sirmond conceived them as a supplement to the exegesis supplied by 50

51

52

C. Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi Opera. Iac. Sirmondi Soc. Iesu. Presb cura et studio recognita, notisque illustrata. Parisiis, ex off. Nivelliana, sumptibus Sebastiani Cramoisy, via Iacobaea sub Ciconiis 1614. The text that Sirmond prints of the epitaph leaves no doubt as to the manuscript which he is using: MS Madrid, BNE, 9448 (C). Significant examples include: Ep. 1.2.4 pro ratione reverentiam (religione C Savaron), 2.2.5 ipsa vero convenientibus mensuris exactissima spatiositate (as in codex Nanzii and Savaron, correcting Woweren’s reading concinentibus), 3.3 printed in its entirety without the lacuna between paras. 7 and 8 found in the editio princeps and Pio, 4.2.4 si peccaris ultra reticendo (following Pio rather than Savaron, who prints peccatis as in the editio princeps), 4.3.10 tuam tubam totus

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 556

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

557

Savaron. Sirmond differs from his predecessors in prioritising the identification and explanation of historical events over linguistic and stylistic analysis. This is visible not only in his commentary on the letters but also, for example, in his notes on the panegyrics, where, nonetheless, he also proves attentive to Sidonius’ rhetorical strategies, to the refinements of his verse, and to metrical questions. Sirmond never comments on all the verses of a poem and, for the letters, follows a less rigorously lemmatic procedure than his predecessors. Compared to Pio’s and Savaron’s commentaries, Sirmond’s notes combine extreme concision with a finely balanced approach in analysing and defending his readings, indicating parallels with other texts and writers, and explaining historical data. One illustrative example may suffice (Carm. 5.590): Cum vestes Romam spoliis] Sic aliquot MSS. alii vesties. Quare aut metri legem neglexit, aut coniugationem mutavit, ut evenat Ennius apud Nonium, et fodent pro fodient, Fortunatus Lib. IX Versu proximo Cyniphium Bocchum figurate dixit Gensericum, qui Mauritaniam quoque Bocchi regnum tenebat.53 Like his predecessors, Sirmond sometimes cites poetical texts, historical sources, epitaphs, or letters by other ancient authors to support or to complement his explication of the text. In this, however, he always exercises great moderation, never over-extending a comparison or accumulating too many examples.

3.2.2 The Second Edition, 1652 Sirmond’s posthumous 1652 edition appears to be identical to the 1614 edition, with the exception of a small number of textual choices.54 The corrections to the Latin text and a few amendments to the notes bear witness to Sirmond’s continuing interest in and attentiveness to Sidonius’ text. This second edition would serve as a point of reference for the texts printed by Galland and Migne and for the translation prepared by Grégoire and Collombet. It would also provide the basis for Eugène Baret’s critical and textual choices in his edition of Sidonius.

53

54

qua patet orbis (following Pio), 4.7.2 comitate tractabitur (in place of retractabitur, printed by all editors except Vinet), 4.17.2 etsi apud limitem ipsum Latina iura, 4.20.1 arma et armatum et armatos (as in Pio’s first edition), 5.7.7 cuius studio scire (omitting factum), 5.8.2 quid illic inesse fellis (Sirmond is the only pre-modern editor to opt for the reading fellis, transmitted by LNVT, as opposed to mellis, which is preferred by all his predecessors, a sign that Sirmond does not exclusively follow C), 7.2.9 Milesiae (a correction of the MSS accepted by all subsequent editors), 8.6.5 proxime consuli proximis eram (essentially following N), 9.1.5 tuus cui studium in caeteris rebus (as in F), 9.3.1 diserte scribitis (following Woweren, later adopted by Loyen), 9.11.10 sed quorsum ista, quid morarum est (Sirmond’s own original reading), 9.14 omits both additions in paras. 4 and 6, in accordance with the manuscript tradition, a step followed by all subsequent editors; Carm. 1.25 Victore (a reading introduced by Sirmond; see Kelly’s analysis (2018)), 2.88 fudit (the first to follow MFPT, a reading adopted by subsequent editors), 4.2 volveret (in place of solveret in most codices), 5.447 sentit (only in M), 6.17 solae (as in FT, adopted by editors), 7.67 Samnitem Gurges (as in MT, omitting et, followed by Loyen), 9.165 rapidum (as in FPT, accepted by Lütjohann and subsequent editors), 23.376 fragor (instead of favor, and accepted subsequently). ‘Cum vestes Romam spoliis] Thus various MSS, others vesties. So he either neglected the metrical rule or changed the conjugation, like evenat (Ennius in Nonius) and fodent instead of fodient, Fortunatus Book 9 [Carm. 9.2.14]. In the next verse, he uses the metonymy Cyniphius Bocchus for Geiseric, who also ruled Mauretania, Bocchus’ kingdom.’ For instance, at Ep. 1.2.4 religione instead of ratione, 2.9.6 variaretur instead of varietur, 5.9.2 tenore instead of tempore, 5.14.1 Caienses instead of Calenses, 6.8.2 saepe fontem mercatoris (like Savaron, instead of medicatoris in edition of 1614), 7.9.17 claruit instead of floruit, 8.6.5 consuli proximis proximus eram; Carm. 7.96 stricto quererer instead of querer stricto, 22.129 versatur instead of vexatur.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 557

13/02/20 4:30 PM

558

LUCIANA FURBETTA

4 Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries 4.1 The Legacy of Sirmond’s Editions 4.1.1 André Galland’s Edition, 1774 The Oratorian priest André Galland (1709–79/80) includes the complete works of Sidonius in the tenth volume of his Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, published in Venice in 1774. The Latin text and accompanying notes are both extracted from Sirmond’s second edition of 1652, with only a small number of corrections and additions. Galland includes a biographical profile of Sidonius in the Prolegomena to the volume (pp. xxi–xxii), and concludes the Sidonius section (pp. 461–625) with the coronis Sidoniana, a chapter on names in the Middle Ages, the life of Sidonius, the epitaph, and the indexes of addressees and of the Carmina, precisely as presented by Sirmond. Sirmond’s notes are printed with occasional further notes from Galland at the foot of the page, pointing out disparities between Sirmond’s commentary in the first and second editions, or signalling where other editors disagree.

4.1.2 Migne’s Patrologia Latina, 1847 In 1847, Jacques-Paul Migne printed the works of Sidonius in volume 58 of his Patrologia Latina (reprinted in 1862), following Galland in using the commented text from Sirmond’s second edition. Sidonius’ works are preceded by Galland’s biographical profile of Sidonius and by the life from Sirmond’s second edition. From the latter, Migne also prints the text of Sidonius’ epitaph and the testimonia. In a note at the end of these prefatory materials, Migne states that, for ease of reading, he will (like Galland) print Sirmond’s notes at the foot of the text rather than in a separate section as they originally appeared. After the text and notes, again like Galland, Migne prints Sirmond’s coronis Sidoniana and his chapter on names. Essentially, then, Migne reproduces Galland’s work.

4.2 Grégoire and Collombet, 1836, and the First Editions with a Translation Continuing interest in Sidonius was not only evident in new presentations of Sirmond’s vital exegetic work (which, as we have seen, owed much to Savaron), but now extended to the translation of Sidonius into modern languages and to the study of the internal chronology of his texts, marking a new chapter in the history of Sidonius scholarship. A first attempt at translating Sidonius’ Latin into French is represented by the once untraceable volume Lettres de saint Loup, évêque de Troyes, et saint Sidonius, évêque de Clermont,55 containing a few letters of local interest translated by Canon Rémy Breyer, printed in Troyes in 1706. This partial translation is followed by the ambitious effort by Edme-Louis Billardon de Sauvigny, who published a translation of the letters in 1787 and of the poems in 1792.56 The first lasting attempt to translate and to comment on all of Sidonius’ works, however, is the 55

56

Neither Grégoire and Collombet nor Baret were able to trace it. According to the Catalogue collectif de France, it can now be consulted at the Médiathèque de Troyes (Fonds local cl. 12o 1909 among others). See also Green in this volume, ch. 19. Billardon de Sauvigny (1787, 1792). Grégoire and Collombet call Billardon de Sauvigny ‘a first traveller’ (‘un premier voyageur’) (1, xxxix). For a description of these two works, see Green in this volume, ch. 19.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 558

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

559

three-volume edition prepared by Jacques-François Grégoire and François-Zénon Collombet and published in Lyon and Paris in 1836.57 The text adopted by Grégoire and Collombet is Sirmond’s second edition. They observe the traditional subdivision of the letters into individual books, and print the original Latin and the French translation on facing pages. At the end of each book, there are extensive notes of commentary for every letter. Those on the poems in the third volume are rather more simple and concise, with a wider audience in mind. The commentary follows the same pattern in all three volumes. For each passage selected, the editors clarify the context, elucidate details that may be unclear, or identify historical figures mentioned by Sidonius. Their explanations are very clear and cogent, and often cite or summarise the comments of earlier editors. Less concerned with philological or linguistic aspects, they aim primarily to provide the reader with the necessary details and different interpretations of the same passage, and to identify sources and hypotexts. Here is an example from Ep. 2.12.3: Chironica magis quam Machaonica. – L’auteur ne veut point déprécier l’habileté de Chiron, mais il joue sur le double sens du mot Χείρων, Chiron, et χείρων, peior, deterior, pire: de semblables puérilités ne sont pas rares dans Sidonius; il est assez singulier toutefois qu’il se consume ici en pointes et en traits d’esprit. Diogène Laerce rapporte le mot suivant de Diogène le Cynique: ἰδών ποτε δύο κενταύρους κάκιστα ἐζωγραφημένους ἔφη· ‘πότερος τούτων Χείρων ἐστί;’ – ‘conspicatus aliquando duos centauros pessime pictos: “uter inquit, horum est Chiron?”’ C’est-à-dire peior et ineptior. Il s’agit du tableau seulement, et l’on joue sur le nom du centaure.58 Overall, the monumental labour of Grégoire and Collombet produces a completely different kind of work from their predecessors’, one which aims at a wider diffusion of Sidonius’ oeuvre, edited, translated, and equipped with notes that constitute a sort of summa. The lack of technical notes or of any critical or textual approach to Sidonius’ works places their edition in a literary marketplace which is more open to an educated readership whose interests are historical and literary rather than linguistic and philological, and where the aim is less the satisfaction of antiquarian curiosity than the greater enjoyment and wider appreciation of a difficult Latin text.59

4.3 Eugène Baret, 1878, 1887, and the First Critical Editions after Sirmond 4.3.1 The First Edition, 1878 Publiées pour la première fois dans l’ordre chronologique d’après les mss. de la Bibliothèque nationale, accompagnées de notes des divers commentateurs, précédées d’une introduction contenant une étude 57 58

59

Grégoire and Collombet (1836). See also Green in this volume, ch. 19. ‘Chironica magis quam Machaonica – Sidonius is not casting aspersions on Chiron’s abilities here but punning on Χείρων, Chiron, and χείρων, peior, deterior, worse: such puerile punning is by no means rare in Sidonius; it is nonetheless quite curious that he gives himself over to witticisms and wordplay at this point. Diogenes Laertius [Lives 6.2.51] recalls the following quip by Diogenes the Cynic: ‘Once seeing a bad picture of two Centaurs he asked: “Which is Chiron?”’. That is to say, peior and ineptior, the worst and silliest. He is referring to the painting alone and punning on the name of the centaur.’ Incidentally, Lütjohann (see below, sect. 4.4.1) used a white interleaved copy of Grégoire and Collombet for writing down his collation of the manuscripts (see picture at , ‘Lütjohann’s working copy’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 559

13/02/20 4:30 PM

560

LUCIANA FURBETTA

sur Sidoine Apollinaire avec des dissertations sur sa langue, la chronologie de ses œuvres, les éditions et les manuscrits.60 The lengthy subtitle to Baret’s 1878 edition of the Œuvres de Sidoine Apollinaire itself provides an excellent description of this work, which is structured in an original manner and aims to reach a wider (though still scholarly) public. Baret’s extensive introductory essay is the first, in fact, to provide the reader with a guide to the figure of Sidonius, to the historical context of his works, and to his reception. This is preceded by a concise preface which, besides constituting a vital key to Baret’s perspective and to the spirit pervading the work, also provides an insight into a distinctive aspect of his methodology: the constant comparison of East and West, contrasting the eastern empire and Byzantine society with the pars Occidentis and its greatest exponents (including Sidonius Apollinaris). Baret says that he first began to study Sidonius some twenty-five years previously, but only in a very partial manner in the context of a thesis entitled De Themistio sophista et apud imperatores oratore. He thus describes his critical edition of Sidonius as a sort of ‘corollary’ to this earlier work on the fourth century and the court of Theodosius. From a cultural perspective, it is important to note the parallels that Baret perceives between the fourth century and the fifth as reflected in Sidonius’ works regardless of transformations in historical and political circumstances and conditions.61 The preface is not only interesting for the light that it sheds on Baret’s personal motivation; it also reveals how he has chosen to publish the letters in chronological order within each individual book, and thus in a different sequence from Sirmond. He has decided, however, to preserve the division into books itself, as this was Sidonius’ own design. He thus states: ‘On this point, I have let history prevail over chronology.’62 This is the sequence which Baret constructed: • • • • • • • • •

Book 1: 1, 2, 6, 5, 3, 4, 7, 8–11 Book 2: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1, 3, 10 Book 3: 12, 10, 11, 13, 6, 9, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 2, 3, 14 Book 4: 4, 1, 8, 25, 18, 19, 20, 5, 2, 3, 6, 7, 21, 23, 24, 15, 16, 9, 13, 12, 11, 14, 17, 22, 10 Book 5: 20, 21, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 13, 3, 6, 7, 4, 2, 12, 14, 15, 5, 16, 8, 9, 1 Book 6: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 2, 9, 11, 8, 6, 10, 12 Book 7: 15, 13, 8, 5, 9, 2, 6, 10, 11, 3, 4, 1, 7, 14, 16, 17, 12, 18 Book 8: 1, 12, 6, 13, 14, 7, 3, 2, 10, 9, 4, 5, 15, 8, 11, 16 Book 9: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 3, 14, 11, 13, 15, 12, 16.

Baret’s explanation of his chronological reconstruction is very concise, but in its premises and approach it provides a model for the chronologies presented in all future editions, particularly Loyen (1970), who proceeds letter by letter.63

60

61

62 63

‘Published for the first time in chronological order following the MSS in the Bibliothèque nationale, accompanied by notes from various commentators, preceded by an introduction containing a study of Sidonius Apollinaris with disquisitions on his language, the chronology of his works, editions, and manuscripts.’ The publication date 1879 is also found for a reprint. See pp. v–vi. Baret goes on to acknowledge his debt to the monographs by Germain (1840) and Chaix de Lavarène (1866), and to an unpublished translation by a member of François Guizot’s family supervised by Guizot himself. Already Grégoire and Collombet had gratefully used this translation (though ascribing it to Guizot himself). On the importance of François Guizot, see van Waarden’s ch. 23, sect. 1.4.2, in this volume. ‘J’ai donc fait, sur ce point, céder la chronologie à l’histoire’ (p. vi). Loyen’s edition does not fall within the chronological limits of this chapter; Loyen’s introduction focuses on chronological reconstruction and on the historical and cultural context of Sidonius’ letters.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 560

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

561

Baret adopts a chronological order for the poems too, which he explains in a few brief pages. The order of printing is: Carm. 9, 6, 8, 7, 3, 4, 5, 13, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 16, 22, 23, 1, 2, 12, 24. A chapter of the introduction is devoted to the manuscript transmission of the works of Sidonius. It structurally pre-empts modern critical editions and constitutes the first attempt to present a recensio codicum and to compare the different codices. As Baret argues, the critical and exegetic contribution of Sirmond, taken in conjunction with Savaron’s commentary, leaves little work for future scholars to do. On this basis, his own notes of commentary are very concise and, as regards the letters, highly selective, elucidating only the most problematic or complicated passages. The notes all begin by indicating differing readings in the codices, then provide a concise explanation of the content of the passage, and finally indicate possible models. Baret is heavily indebted to Savaron’s commentary and, even more so, to Sirmond’s, both of which are extensively quoted. Altogether, Baret’s first edition achieves a well-balanced synthesis and revision of the two texts and commentaries that he considers the most reliable. His major original critical and exegetic contribution consists in his attempt to establish a new chronological sequence for Sidonius’ texts. Attention to the historical data that may be inferred and reconstructed from Sidonius’ texts would remain the focus of Baret’s scholarly attention in his second edition of Sidonius in 1887.

4.3.2 The Second Edition, 1887, with French Translation In 1887, Baret prepared a new edition of Sidonius for Nisard, accompanied by a French translation.64 Baret reprints the chapter on Sidonius’ life from the introduction to the first edition, omitting the footnotes and referring the reader to the more extensive 1879 edition for further details and a more in-depth study. He prints the Latin text of Sidonius’ work in the lower half of the page and the French translation in the upper, without any footnotes. The letters appear in a different sequence from the earlier edition and are numbered consecutively with no subdivision into books, as follows: 1.1, 1.2, 5.20, 2.2, 3.12, 4.1 2.12, 3.11, 2.14, 2.8, 2.4, 2.5, 3.10, 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, 1.6, 1.5, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.8, 1.10, 2.13, 5.11, 3.13, 5.17, 5.10, 4.8, 4.25, 4.18, 4.20, 5.6, 5.7, 4.24, 8.12, 8.6, 2.9, 1.11, 2.1, 5.3, 3.6, 5.19, 5.13, 6.1, 6.7, 6.3, 4.4, 6.4, 4.6, 2.3, 4.2, 4.3, 4.21, 4.23, 6.2, 6.9, 7.15, 5.2, 6.11, 7.13, 7.14, 4.9, 4.13, 4.12, 6.8, 7.5, 7.8, 7.9, 7.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.9, 9.4, 5.5, 7.10, 8.13, 8.14, 9.5, 3.9, 3.1, 3.4, 5.14, 7.1, 4.5, 3.7, 3.8, 4.11, 3.2, 3.3, 5.12, 6.12, 6.10, 5.16, 6.6, 7.7, 7.6, 4.15, 8.7, 2.10, 7.3, 3.14, 4.14, 4.16, 9.2, 5.15, 5.18, 8.9, 9.3, 4.17, 8.3, 4.22, 4.10, 5.8, 5.9, 7.17, 7.18, 5.1, 8.2, 7.16, 9.14, 9.11, 8.10, 8.4, 8.5, 8.15, 7.12, 8.8, 8.1, 8.16, 9.13, 8.11, 9.15, 9.10, 9.12, 9.1, 9.16. The poems are printed in the following order: 9, 6, 7, 8, 3, 4, 5, 13, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 16, 22, 23, 1, 2, 12, 24. This is followed by the same chapters on language, metrics, and the chronology of the letters as originally appeared in the introduction to the first edition, but obviously adjusted to the new order and Baret’s continuing efforts to establish a reliable chronology. 64

For an analysis of this edition, see Green’s ch. 19 in this volume; here I shall only consider how far it resembles or differs from the first edition.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 561

13/02/20 4:30 PM

562

LUCIANA FURBETTA

The new edition does not include the chapter on the manuscripts used, the most technical part of the first edition. In its place, we find a table of concordances and a section of notes in which Baret restricts himself to providing prosopographical information or very briefly elucidating difficult passages. In his note on ‘Julius Titianus’ in Ep. 1.1, for instance, instead of first comparing the readings transmitted by the codices or adopted in earlier edition, he now simply says: Julius Titianus. Auteur de plusieurs ouvrages mentionnés par Ausone, Servius, Cassiodore, etc. Ses lettres étaient des épîtres supposées dans le genre des Héroïdes d’Ovide.65 On the whole, Baret produces a handier, more manageable edition, which is useful for its French translation,66 the first after Grégoire and Collombet, and, above all, for its attempt at a further chronological reordering of the texts. It leaves the impression of a less specialised work than earlier editions, especially considering that it appeared in the same year as Lütjohann (1887), the first critical edition to employ truly scientific criteria.

4.4 The First Modern Critical Editions: Lütjohann, 1887, and Mohr, 1895 4.4.1 Lütjohann, 1887 The eighth volume in the Auctores antiquissimi series of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, published in 1887, contains the first truly scientific critical edition of Sidonius’ complete works. It was initiated by Christian Lütjohann,67 who is responsible for the recensio codicum, for the study of the manuscript tradition, and for establishing the text, which, however, he was not able to finish before his death in 1884. The edition was completed through the combined efforts of Friedrich Leo and other collaborators of Theodor Mommsen. Mommsen himself contributed the brief preface and the biography of Sidonius on pp. xliv–liii of the introduction.68 The introduction otherwise consists of Lütjohann’s description of the manuscripts and ordering of them into four families of codices (pp. vi–xxii), and of Leo’s reconstruction of the sections of Lütjohann’s work in note form and his proposal of a stemma codicum for the poems and letters. The introduction is followed by the text of Sidonius equipped with a comprehensive critical apparatus. The text is not accompanied by a translation or notes of any kind but is enriched by the index personarum and index locorum prepared by Eugen Geisler, who is also responsible for the important loci similes auctorum Sidonio anteriorum (still valuable and in use today for the wealth of parallels detected). These are followed by an index verborum et locutionum, prepared by Eduard Grupe.69

65

66 67

68

69

‘Julius Titianus. Author of several works mentioned by Ausonius, Servius, Cassiodorus, etc. His letters were fictional epistles in the manner of Ovid’s Heroides.’ Baret’s second edition has recently been republished in a revised version: Baret (2004). Lütjohann, not Luetjohann as in the MGH edition, is how Lütjohann himself and contemporaries spelled his name; see van Waarden on the Scholars page of the Sidonius website, . For Theodor Mommsen and his enterprise of organising the editing of late Latin texts for the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, see Croke (1990). The volume also contains an edition of the letters of Ruricius of Limoges and Faustus of Riez prepared by Bruno Krusch.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 562

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 15TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

563

4.4.2 Mohr, 1895 In 1895, Teubner published Paul Mohr’s critical edition, which is equipped with a more basic critical apparatus and by indexes, and again has neither commentary nor translation. Mohr’s is a very painstaking and critical text on the basis of (partly new) manuscript material justified in a dense introduction. These two editions initiate what we might call a new phase of textual scholarship, which is more strictly devoted to the study of the manuscript tradition and variants and the establishment of a reliable text.70 Translated from the Italian by Paul Barnaby

70

For their influence, see Condorelli’s chapter in this volume, ch. 18, sect. 2. For an assessment of modern editions and a fresh evaluation of the manuscript tradition, see Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 563

13/02/20 4:30 PM

18 SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP: TWENTIETH TO TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES Silvia Condorelli with contributions by Ágnes T. Horváth, Jerzy Styka, and Elena Litovchenko

1 Introduction

I

N 2003 IT FELL to me to sketch the outline of Sidonian studies over the last twenty years of the twentieth century,1 and I enthusiastically bore witness to a real renaissance: an author long neglected or read only in a selective way and with the baggage of prejudice was on his way back to becoming the object of lively interest, thanks both to perceptive interpretations, such as those of Consolino and Gualandri, and to the growth in studies of later Latin. I now find myself with a wider chronological span and with a bibliographical breadth that has seen the prophetic vision of my ‘Prospettive Sidoniane’ come true to an extent significantly greater than my expectations. It is now clearly necessary to consider the outcomes of the new approach, which has its roots in the two Clermont-Ferrand conferences (‘Sidoine Apollinaire et la culture de son temps’, November 2009; ‘Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire’, October 2010) and in the Wassenaar workshop of 2011.2 The latter took the first consistent steps towards the realisation of a ‘comprehensive commentary’ on Sidonius Apollinaris, the main aim of the project ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’, which has an important point of departure in Joop van Waarden’s introduction to the New Approaches volume.3 I leave it to the readers of this ‘history of scholarship’ to see whether this is the case. This chapter’s ambition, unfortunately doomed from the start, is to be as comprehensive as possible. Meanwhile, I should make it clear that the unquestionable point of reference currently is the website curated by Joop van Waarden, the bibliographical section of which aspires to completeness and is updated in real time: the pages that follow owe much to it.4

I would like to thank Joop van Waarden and Gavin Kelly for their careful attention to the revision of this chapter for the sake of clarity. 1 2

3 4

Condorelli (2003a). For the Wassenaar meeting, see the Acknowledgements in this volume. Its result, an expression of the state of the question and therefore an essential prerequisite for the Sidonius project itself, was the volume New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris, edited by van Waarden and Kelly (2013) (henceforth in this chapter’s text as New Approaches). ‘Sidonius in the 21st Century’: van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 3–19. .

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 564

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

565

A few prefatory remarks should be made: 1 2

3

4

I have taken into consideration studies specifically dedicated to Sidonius, while referring selectively to general works and encyclopaedia entries. The reasoned division into sections works well for publications taking a broad view, but less so in dealing with publications concerned with individual parts of Sidonius’ oeuvre: for example, an article on the poetic structure of poem 9 will be found not in section 3.5 ‘Rhetoric and Poetics’ but in section 3.7 ’Studies on the Carmina minora’. In this collection, I have not myself attempted to cover works in Hungarian, Polish, and Russian; these are, however, usefully indicated in the final section of this chapter, whose contributors are Ágnes T. Horváth, Jerzy Styka, and Elena Litovchenko respectively: my thanks go to them. The list of works below has been updated to and including 2017.

The plan of the chapter is as follows: 1 Introduction 2 Editions and Commentaries 2.1 Complete Editions 2.1.1 Anderson 2.1.2 Loyen 2.1.3 Bellès 2.1.4 Other 2.2 Partial Editions, Translations, and Commentaries 2.2.1 Carmina 2.2.2 Epistulae 3 Monographs and Studies 3.1 The Historical and Social Context 3.2 ‘In Search of Sidonius the Bishop’ 3.3 Philological and Literary Questions 3.4 Language and Metrics 3.5 Rhetoric and Poetics 3.6 Studies on the Panegyrics 3.6.1 Carm. 1–2, the Panegyric of Anthemius 3.6.2 Carm. 3–5, the Panegyric of Majorian 3.6.3 Carm. 6–9, the Panegyric of Avitus 3.7 Studies on the Carmina minora 3.7.1–3.7.10 deal sequentially with poems 9–24 3.8 Studies on the Epistulae 3.8.1–3.8.9 deal sequentially with the nine books of letters 3.9 Reception 3.10 Eastern Europe 3.10.1 Hungary, with Advice from Ágnes T. Horváth 3.10.2 Poland, by Jerzy Styka 3.10.3 Russia, by Elena Litovchenko

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 565

13/02/20 4:30 PM

566

SILVIA CONDORELLI

2 Editions and Commentaries 2.1 Complete Editions The nineteenth century closed with two monumental editorial projects, destined to have a lasting influence on Sidonius scholarship: the critical editions of Lütjohann and Mohr.5 These were followed, in the twentieth century, by three more complete editions: two volumes published in the Loeb series, edited by W.B. Anderson (the second volume was published after his death); three volumes in the Budé series, edited by André Loyen; and, finally, five volumes that make up the Catalan edition prepared by Joan Bellès. All three twentieth-century editions were accompanied by a translation.

2.1.1 Anderson Anderson’s first volume appeared in 1936 and contains the Poems and the first two books of Letters. The translation of the Poems was the first ever into English, whereas the Letters were already available in a translation by O.M. Dalton.6 A generous introduction sketches historical developments from 406 onwards as a background to Sidonius’ life and work. Anderson is unsympathetic to the ‘insipidity, absurdity, and futility’ of Sidonius’ derivative poetry (p. liii) and, in the Letters, finds ’a reductio ad absurdum of all the resources of rhetoric and a travesty of the Latin language’ (p. lxiii), albeit appreciating them as ‘an invaluable source of information on many aspects of the life of his time’ (p. lxiv). The translation is provided with essential historical and interpretive notes. The second volume was published in 1965, six years after Anderson’s death, by E.H. Warmington in collaboration with W.H. Semple, Anderson’s successor as Professor of Latin in Manchester. Anderson had left notes and a draft translation, which Semple, who had already published on Sidonius7 and had assisted in putting out the first volume, reworked into a stable version. Warmington took care of the explanatory notes and of the Latin text, based on Lütjohann’s and Mohr’s editions. In comparison to the first volume, the second pays greater attention to textual problems, as is evident from the concise critical apparatus. The volume is rounded off with a number of additional notes by Warmington on especially difficult passages.8

2.1.2 Loyen André Loyen’s edition saw the light in two stages. The first volume, containing the Poems, appeared in 1960 and is prefaced by a wide-ranging introduction, which provides a historical framework for understanding Sidonius and his work. The latter section, in particular, offers a noteworthy contribution, though not one which today receives complete assent, on the publication of Sidonius’ oeuvre, especially that of the shorter poems, sometimes called nugae (Carm. 9–24). Basically, Loyen postulates a first edition, around 461, of Carm. 9–21 (excluding 16); a second edition which also contained 16 (Eucharisticon ad Faustum) and 24 5 6 7 8

See in this volume Furbetta, ch. 17, sect. 4.4. See below, sect. 2.2.2, Dalton (1915). For translations of Sidonius see in this volume Green, ch. 19. See below, sect. 3.3, Semple (1930). The tradition of Sidonius studies at Manchester represented by Anderson’s and Semple’s activity was continued by Roy Gibson, based there from 1994 to 2018, with his contributions on the letter collection (see below, sect. 3.8).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 566

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

567

(Propempticon ad libellum), dating to 464–5; and a third edition, in 469, which was enlarged with Carm. 22 and 23.9 Loyen’s volumes 2 and 3, containing the Letters, were published in 1970. The introduction frames the letter collection by giving a broad historical panorama as background to Sidonius’ career both before and after his ordination as bishop (which Loyen dated to late 470). Part of the introduction is dedicated to the manuscripts on which the text constitution is based. Loyen identifies Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laudianus Latinus 104 (L) as the best witness to the text of the letters. Loyen’s starting point is Lütjohann’s edition, but he departs from it on several occasions, not always convincingly.10 The French translation facing the Latin is useful,11 and even more useful are the additional notes in each of the three volumes. The most notable element, however, is the dating of all the letters, which is corroborated in dedicated sections at the end of volumes 2 and 3. Loyen’s final verdict on Sidonius runs: ‘Sidonius Apollinaris, as the “last of the Romans”, in my eyes represents the almost inevitable conclusion of Latin literature and, as such, his very shortcomings are a treasury of fruitful observations for critics.’12

2.1.3 Bellès It took thirty years for yet another complete edition to be published; then, over a decade (1989–99), Joan Bellès published a five-volume edition with Latin text and Catalan translation. The first two volumes, containing the Poems, have full introductions on history and culture. On Sidonius’ profile as a writer, Bellès follows in Loyen’s footsteps, adopting the term ‘préciosité’ and reducing Sidonius to ‘un esteta della paraula’, a verbal aesthete.13 Perhaps somewhat boldly, however, he attaches greater importance to Sidonius’ literary than to his political achievement. One interesting section of the introduction deals with Sidonius as a man of the church (although almost all of the Carmina are an expression of his worldly side), while several other issues are studied at greater length in the introduction to the second volume. The Letters are divided into three volumes. The introduction discusses inter alia their chronology, in line with the results of current scholarship: the first seven books are seen as being published in 477. Bellès pays special attention to classifying the letters according to the social rank of their addressees and to their contents. His stylistic analysis is concerned with linguistic matters, among them the use of the first and second persons singular and plural for sender and addressee as indicators of a more personal or less personal tone. Bellès’ text is accompanied by an apparatus, but does not provide any novelties compared to preceding editions; moreover, the apparatus is not always unambiguous. The translation into Catalan14 is very accurate and is accompanied by essential explanatory notes, which are richest in the third volume.

9

10 11 12

13 14

For the ensuing discussion, see below, sect. 3.7, Schetter (1992) 351 n. 29; sect. 2.2.1, Santelia (2012), Hernández Lobato (2015); sect. 3.3, Consolino (2015) 81–3; also in this volume Kelly, ch. 3, sect. 3.2, and Consolino, ch. 10, n. 5. See in this volume Dolveck, ch. 16, sect. 1, p. 481. See in this volume Green, ch. 19, sect. 3, p. 624. Loyen (1970) 2.xlv: ‘Sidoine Apollinaire, en sa qualité de “dernier des Romains” représente à nos yeux l’aboutissement quasi fatal de la littérature latine et, à ce titre, ses défauts même sont pour le critique une mine d’observations fructueuses.’ See also below on Loyen (1943), where Loyen’s label of Sidonius’ ‘preciosity’ is central. Bellès (1989) 1.36–51 ‘Sidoni l’escriptor’. See in this volume Green, ch. 19, sect. 3, p. 624.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 567

13/02/20 4:30 PM

568

SILVIA CONDORELLI

2.1.4 Other In 2004, we encounter two different translations, which I mention here for completeness’ sake:15 one into French, Sidoine Apollinaire: Œuvres complètes, a somewhat mystifying revision of Eugène Baret’s 1887 translation, and another into Polish by Mieczysław Broz. ek, which testifies to the recent lively interest in Sidonius taken in eastern Europe, to be discussed below.16

2.2 Partial Editions,Translations, and Commentaries There exist quite a few partial publications from either Letters or Poems. Especially from the late twentieth century onwards, renewed interest in Sidonius has generated a considerable number of editions of the Epistulae or the Carmina, or of single books of letters or individual poems, in which the main focus is on systematic commentary on the text. Publications range from comprehensive ones with modest scholarly pretensions to others which are specialist and extremely detailed.

2.2.1 Carmina Scarcia (1971). An anthology by Riccardo Scarcia brings together the three panegyrics, including the accompanying poems (1–8 and 13), and a few poems from the correspondence (31 (from Ep. 4.18.5), 34 (from 8.9.5), and 41 (from 9.16.3)), accompanied by basic notes. The prose portrait of King Theoderic (Ep. 1.2) appears as an appendix. Faggi (1982). This is an anthology of short fragments from the Carmina translated by Vico Faggi, pseudonym of the poet and translator Alessandro Orengo. The preface explains his aim of recreating Sidonius’ formal elegance, which he sees as both an expression of a decadent sensibility and a proud affirmation of the Latin literary heritage to which Sidonius feels himself the legitimate heir. It is a work directed at book-collectors rather than scholars. Ravenna (1990). Giovanni Ravenna’s edition of the Epithalamium for Polemius and Araneola (Carm. 14–15) is the first to select individual poems for commentary, thus putting into practice Paul Mohr’s adage that Sidonius required explanation rather more than emendation.17 The author focuses on the literary aspects of these poems on the basis of an analysis of their language and literary sources, ‘investigating the reception and rendition of forms and contents of classical culture’,18 in an epithalamium that imitates Statius’ innovative take on the genre, enriched with elements from Claudian. Delhey (1993). A few years later, Norbert Delhey published a critical edition of Carmen 22 (Burgus Pontii Leontii) with a careful introduction and exhaustive notes, but without translation. Delhey offers a revised text and critical apparatus based on the work of all preceding editors. He opts for a conservative text, avoiding conjectures. The prose preface and epilogue of the poem are concerned with literary matters, especially the precedent of Statius: as Delhey shows, Statius is not simply the model for Carmen 22, but his status as model also poses a series of problems, such as the relationship with Horace’s poetical precepts and, above all, Sidonius’ conception of the epigram – questions that found resonance in subsequent studies to be discussed below.19 15 16 17 18 19

See further ibid., p. 621, n. 17. See below, sect. 3.10.2, Poland. Mohr (1895) vii: ‘Non tam emendatoris indigere Sidonium quam interpretis in dies me perspexisse libere profiteor.’ Ravenna (1990) 10 (my translation). See below, sect. 3.7.8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 568

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

569

In discussing the poem’s interesting introductory section about Apollo and Bacchus on their way to the Burgus, Delhey rejects a psychological interpretation where these deities would be symbols of the life of the poet, Apollo representing Sidonius’ private and Bacchus his political side (as proposed by A.M. Mesturini (1982); see below). Instead, Delhey relates the mythological element to the poem’s occasional character, in the tradition of Statius, and to the strong need to celebrate the Burgus’ owner. In assessing the poem’s style, and Sidonius’ literary production in general, Delhey adheres to Loyen’s opinion of Sidonius’ basic ‘preciosity’.20 Santelia (2002a). In Stefania Santelia’s edition of Carmen 24, the leave-taking poem of the Carmina minora collection, the text and a careful Italian translation are preceded by an accurate introduction which pays special attention to the ring-composed structure of the poem in its three sections. For style, Santelia identifies most of Sidonius’ usual models: Horace, Ovid, Martial, and, especially, Statius and Ausonius. In the commentary section, the notes on the cult of St Julian are of particular interest. Di Salvo (2005a). Lucia Di Salvo’s anthology is organised into thematical sections introducing and translating samples of late antique poetry. Sidonius is represented by the following fragments: in the section Vita in campagna e in città, two generous passages from Burgus Pontii Leontii (lines 101–57, 169–220) and the poem on the cathedral of Lyon (Carm. 27 from Ep. 2.10.4, lines 5–30); in the section Le opere dell’ingegno umano, there is the epigram for Queen Ragnahilda’s cup (Carm. 31 from Ep. 4.8.5). López Kindler (2005). In 2005, the first Castilian-Spanish translation of the Carmina was put out by Agustín López Kindler.21 The ample introduction to Sidonius’ life and activities contains interesting sections on the various barbarian peoples and on literary friendships in his milieu. In a section on the letter collection, López Kindler makes a subdivision into personal, artistic, and Christian letters. The panegyrics are printed in chronological order instead of the more usual manuscript order. There is no Latin text. Each poem gets a short introduction and is provided with scanty footnotes. López Kindler (2006). The next year, López Kindler published an anthology containing Carm. 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16 as well as two poems from the correspondence, namely the epitaph for Claudianus Mamertus (Carm. 30 from Ep. 4.11.6) and the collection’s final poem (Carm. 41 from Ep. 9.16). Rather than being a scholarly publication, this volume, with its perfunctory introduction and limited footnotes, is aimed at a general audience. Santelia (2012), Castelli (2012). Ten years after Carmen 24, Stefania Santelia published on another poem: Carmen 16, Sidonius’ Thanksgiving to Bishop Faustus. The introduction pays special attention to Sidonius’ profile as a Christian author, discussing the relationship between classical culture and Christian faith – an aspect that has received particular attention over the last years. Santelia asserts the sincerity of Sidonius’ faith, seeing, in his accession to the episcopate, an existential choice which modifies his cultural horizon without denying his past. In her analysis of the poem, composed of serial ‘blocks’ in Sidonius’ usual technique, she follows W.M. Daly’s lead in viewing the number eight as its cornerstone, symbolising either Christ’s Resurrection or the eight persons saved from Noah’s Ark – in either case, salvation and renewal through faith.22 Interestingly, in a section on dating the poem, bound up with the problem of the chronology of the collection, Santelia rejects Loyen’s theory of three stages in the edition,23 preferring 20 21 22 23

See Loyen (1943), discussed below, sect. 3.3. For this, I refer to Green, ch. 19 in this volume. Daly (2000); see below. See above, sect. 2.1.2, Loyen.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 569

13/02/20 4:30 PM

570

SILVIA CONDORELLI

one single publication in 469 of the entire collection as we have it, made up of materials of various dates; Carmen 16, in particular, is dated to around 468. Accompanying an Italian translation that seeks to be as literal as possible, Santelia’s commentary traces the interaction between Christian themes and classical stylistic and rhetorical principles, and unravels the complex web of intertextual connections. In an appendix,24 Emanuele Castelli sheds light on the doctrinal question, which is central to the poem, of the pre-existent Christ being called Spiritus. Filosini (2014a). Interest in the Carmina minora has been particularly deep in Italy. In addition to the editions discussed so far and a considerable number of articles which I will discuss below, and pending Santelia’s commentary on Carmen 23, we have, in 2014, Stefania Filosini’s edition of the Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia (Carm. 10–11). In the introduction, she does not offer a judgement on the origin of the collection of Carmina, albeit preferring Schetter’s hypothesis to Loyen’s.25 While 467 must be the terminus ante quem for the poem, prior to Sidonius’ departure for Rome and his urban prefecture, Filosini hypothesises that it might well be earlier than the Epithalamium for Polemius and Araneola, as the departure from convention in the latter presupposes a test of skills in the former, which would date it to before 460, if that is indeed the year of Polemius and Araneola’s wedding. Filosini further makes an important contribution to the analysis of the structure of the poem by identifying not only the obvious models of Statius and Claudian, but also Ovid.26 She also lucidly tackles the tormented issue of the text of the first lines, whose difficulty led Loyen to drop them entirely.27 Hernández Lobato (2015). In the wake of many articles and two monographs, one on Sidonius’ poetics, the other on his humanist reception,28 Jesús Hernández Lobato published a translation into Castilian of the Carmina. Appearing exactly ten years after López Kindler, this book takes a different, and entirely novel, approach to the collection, which is translated in a manner retaining all the intricacies of the original in order to bring out Sidonius’ peculiar aesthetics.29 The comprehensive introduction, apart from a richly annotated biography and sections on Sidonius’ poetics and on his reception based on Hernández Lobato’s earlier studies,30 provides a discussion of the collection’s structure. Unlike Schetter, Hernández Lobato argues that Carm. 16 was not part of the core collection, but was added later as an expression of Sidonius’ new Christian inspiration. Hernández Lobato interprets the definitive twenty-four-piece collection of 469 on the symbolic basis of the number eight:31 preceded by eight panegyrical items, the Carmina minora are articulated by a prefatory poem (9), a central one (16), and a conclusion (24). He sees Carm. 9, which lists everything the poet is not going to write about, as the clue to Sidonius’ ‘self-destructive’ and ‘negative’ poetry of ‘silence’.

2.2.2 Epistulae Dalton (1915). In 1915, O.M. Dalton published a two-volume translation of the Correspondence, arising from the need, as he himself says, to provide a translation of the letters into 24 25 26 27

28 29

30 31

Castelli (2012). Schetter (1992): see below, sect. 3.7; Loyen (1960): see above, sect. 2.1.2, with n. 9. That is, the Phaethon episode; see also below, sect. 3.7.2, Filosini (2014b). Filosini here works on the basis laid by Broz.ek (1991) and Ceccarelli (2009): see below, sects. 3.10.2 and 3.7 repectively. See below, sects. 3.5 and 3.9 respectively, Hernández Lobato (2012a, 2014c). See further Green in this volume, ch. 19. Hernández Lobato accounts for his principles of translation in Hernández Lobato (2010a). See below, Hernández Lobato (2006) to (2014). The idea stems from Daly (2000).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 570

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

571

English for the first time, as an important historical document of fifth-century Gaul.32 Given the focus of the translation, the notes are restricted to the basics. Ter Kuile (1976). An anthology of fourteen letters from the period 455 to 475, translated into Dutch, make up E.H. ter Kuile’s volume tellingly entitled De tijd van Rome’s laatste keizers, ‘The Time of Rome’s Last Emperors’. Köhler (1995). The year 1995 witnessed the first-ever edition of one single book of the Correspondence, Helga Köhler’s commentary on Book 1. She is attentive to a variety of issues: the author, the genre of epistolography, language, and the manuscript tradition as well as the scholarly assumptions underlying a commentary and a translation. Köhler’s attention to the text is particularly relevant, for which she takes Mohr’s Teubner edition as a starting point, revising on the basis of a new collation of what she deems the most authoritative manuscript, Laudianus Latinus 104 (L) from the Bodleian Library. The lack of indices is a gap filled some twenty years later in the New Approaches volume33 – a clear sign of the lasting importance of Köhler’s work. Amherdt (2001). The twenty-first century opens with yet another commentary, written by David Amherdt on Book 4. Its interpretations (there is no text or translation) stand out for their accuracy. The introduction provides a complete portrait of Sidonius, both as man of letters and man of the church, and then considers his epistolary output in relation to its literary models, rhetorical structure, and thematical layout, proposing a classification of the book’s twenty-five letters. The commentary proper contains, for each letter, notes on the addressee, dating, and contents, followed by a systematical and detailed explanation of the text, linguistic, literary, and historical. A central issue in this book is the epistolary ritual of literary friendship in all its aspects and formulations. Van Waarden (2010). In 2010, a book appeared which was to give a new and decisive impulse to Sidonius studies, Joop van Waarden’s commentary on the ‘Episcopal Letters’ (1–11) of Book 7. In addition to sections on Sidonius’ life and work, his historical and social context, and the church, the introduction pays special attention to epistolography and Sidonius’ prose style. Van Waarden advances a new interpretation of the use of the first and second persons singular and plural, thought to indicate changes in perspective, either nearness or distance, concerning the interaction of sender and addressee. Prose rhythm and the socially unifying function of stylistic mannerism are also among the innovative aspects of this study. In the detailed commentary section, each letter is preceded by a dedicated essay. All lemmata are provided with translations. The book is rounded off with a range of appendices, mainly about stylistic issues, and extensive indices for greater usability. Lucht (2011). Letter 2.9 to Donidius is the account of Sidonius’ stay with his uncles34 at their respective estates, and consequently bears on hospitality. Bente Lucht has written a commentary on it with an introduction (on antique epistolary theory, among other things, as a frame for the letter’s interpretation) and a translation. Köhler (2014). In 2014, Helga Köhler published the first complete translation of Sidonius’ letters into German, without the Latin text, but with basic notes on Realien.35 Van Waarden (2016a). In 2016, two more volumes of commentary saw the light, by van Waarden and by Giannotti. Van Waarden published the second volume of Writing to Survive, featuring the ‘Ascetic Letters’ (12–18) of Book 7. Besides continuing the themes broached in 32 33 34 35

See further in this volume Green, ch. 19, pp. 622–3. On pp. 304–47. See above, sect. 1, van Waarden and Kelly (2013). Mathisen in this volume, ch. 2, sect. 10.4, makes a case that they were Sidonius’ cousins instead of his uncles. See further in this volume Green, ch. 19, introduction.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 571

13/02/20 4:30 PM

572

SILVIA CONDORELLI

its companion volume, the book investigates the influence of the ascetic spirituality of Lérins apparent in these letters. Giannotti (2016). Filomena Giannotti’s commentary on Book 3 contains an introduction which is especially interesting for its attention to composition, showing that, apart from the ‘dossiers’ incorporated into the collection,36 there is symmetry at work between the first three and the last three letters. In an innovative section, Giannotti describes Sidonius’ reception from Ruricius of Limoges down to the trilogy by Giulio Castelli (2013).37 The Latin text is accompanied by a translation, both readable and accurate, the first into Italian of an entire Book. The commentary is principally geared towards language and style. Mascoli (2016a). Finally, there is Patrizia Mascoli’s 2016 selection of letters concerned with literary friendship, featuring the Latin originals, an Italian translation, an introduction, and basic notes.38

3 Monographs and Studies 3.1 The Historical and Social Context At the beginning of the twentieth century, Sidonius provoked mainly historical interest, his correspondence being read in particular to reconstruct his biography and contemporary events in Gaul. Coville (1904), Allard (1908–10). This is the aim of contributions like those by Alfred Coville, from the perspective of the history of Lyon, and by Paul Allard, in a series of articles subsequently collected and reprinted in 1910 as St. Sidoine Apollinaire, 431–489. Stevens (1933). A decisive impulse, however, to this type of research was given in 1933 by C.E. Stevens in a monograph, Sidonius Apollinaris and his Age, that was long to remain the basic point of reference for any historical reconstruction. Légier Desgranges (1937). The family of the Apollinares and their important place in Gallic history are the subject of a concise study from 1937 by Henry Légier Desgranges. Rutherford (1938). The next year, Hamish Rutherford published a comprehensive doctoral dissertation on the figure of Sidonius: ‘Sidonius Apollinaris, l’homme politique, l’écrivain, l’évêque’. Loyen (1942). A fundamental stage in historical research is represented by André Loyen’s 1942 Recherches historiques sur les panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire, a careful analysis of the historical background of the panegyrics. It is evident how much French scholarship, partly driven by national interest, has contributed to the knowledge of the history of Gaul in Sidonius’ times – a trait still characteristic of French research. France also witnessed a turn towards literary appreciation, again characterised by Loyen’s work: his L’esprit précieux en Gaule from 1943.39 Chadwick (1955). In her book on the literature of early Christian Gaul, Nora Chadwick contributes a detailed portrait of Sidonius and of his work. In line with classicist aesthetics, she criticises its artistic qualities, valuing instead its fundamental importance as a historical document.40 36 37 38

39 40

For this thesis by Ralph Mathisen, see below, sect. 3.8, Mathisen (2013a, 2014). For the latter, see in this volume Giannotti, ch. 24, sect. 4.2. The selection comprises twenty-six letters: 2.2, 2.9, 4.8, 4.21, 8.3, 1.1, 3.14, 8.6, 4.12, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 3.1, 8.10, 5.15, 5.16, 5.9, 4.16, 7.18, 9.11, 8.1, 9.13, 8.16, 9.1, 9.12, 9.16. See below, sect. 3.3. Chadwick (1955) 296–327, ch. XI, ‘Sidonius Apollinaris’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 572

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

573

Aymard (1964), Chianéa (1969). In the French tradition indicated above, we have pieces on specific questions, for instance Jacques Aymard on hunting, or Gérard Chianéa on Sidonius’ political ideas. Semple (1967). W.H. Semple’s ‘Apollinaris Sidonius, a Gallo-Roman Seigneur’ is tied up with his editorial work on Sidonius.41 Max (1979), Mathisen (1979a). Two studies from 1979 are concerned with the obscure events surrounding the end of Avitus’ reign and the rise of Majorian: Gerald Max’ piece, centred on the question of the coniuratio Marcell(ini)ana and Majorian’s reign, and Ralph Mathisen’s ‘Resistance and Reconciliation’: the latter prefers the lectio difficilior ‘Marcellana’ and identifies the originator with a certain Marcellus from Narbonne, and goes on to provide a detailed reconstruction of the events up to Majorian’s policy of reconciliation from 458 onward. Mathisen (1979b). Sidonius’ political versatility made it possible for him, a senator, to serve as poet laureate to Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius. This ‘political prudence’ is highlighted by Mathisen in ‘Sidonius on the Reign of Avitus’: Sidonius managed to completely avoid mentioning Avitus once Majorian had succeeded him. Reydellet (1981). Marc Reydellet’s comprehensive study on royal power in Late Antiquity starts out with Sidonius as a witness of the rise of the Visigothic kingdom at Toulouse and his portrait of Theoderic II. Bonjour (1983, 1984, 1988). In the 1980s, Madeleine Bonjour published on general issues like Sidonius’ attitude towards the empire and towards the barbarians (1983, 1984 respectively) or on more specific matters like the limited presence of women in his work (1988), due, in her view, not to misogyny but to aristocratic discretion, avoiding their exposure in social interactions. Teillet (1984). Suzanne Teillet dedicates chapter IV of Des Goths à la nation gothique (‘Sidoine Apollinaire admirateur raisonné du royaume de Toulouse’) to the relationship between Sidonius and Theoderic. Sivan (1989a). One of the most significant aspects of Sidonius’ milieu is his relationship with the barbarians in the empire. Many studies are dedicated to this issue, beginning with Hagith Sivan’s 1989 article in which she analyses the alliance of the Gallic aristocracy with Theoderic through a reading of Sidonius’ portrait of Theoderic in Ep. 1.2 and of the Panegyric on Avitus (Carm. 7). Carter (1990). The reconstruction of the social context is also guided by the numerous references to daily life in Sidonius’ work. John Carter dedicates an article to traditional sports, like ball games and archery, cherished by Gallo-Roman society, which offered opportunities of engagement with people of Germanic background. Harries (1992). A few years before her Sidonius monograph,42 Jill Harries published an important article on Sidonius’s position regarding the barbarians amid a ‘climate of treason’. Prévot (1993a, 1993b). In 1993, there appeared two contributions by Françoise Prévot: in the first, she sketches the panorama of historical events in fifth-century Auvergne, for which Sidonius is an indispensable source, although his views are constantly filtered by literary patterns. In the second, she announces the discovery of two fragments of Sidonius’ tombstone.43 Mathisen (1993). In 1993, Ralph Mathisen published a monograph that was to give a new direction to the study of the history of fifth-century Gaul: Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian 41 42 43

See also below, sect. 3.3, Semple (1930). See below in this section, Harries (1994). See below, Montzamir (2003, 2014). See also sect. 3.3, Furbetta (2015b).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 573

13/02/20 4:30 PM

574

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Gaul: Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition. From a historical point of view, it emphasises the impact which the barbarian appropriations in Gaul had on culture. It was these strategies which, in this part of the empire, were to guarantee the survival of the aristocracy. Harries (1994). More than sixty years after Stevens’ book, Jill Harries published Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome AD 407–485. A biography and historical essay combined, it brilliantly reconstructs Sidonius’ career. In the first part (‘Lyon and Rome’, pp. 23–166), Sidonius is still in Lyon, living among the refined Gallo-Roman aristocracy and celebrating three emperors. The second part (‘Clermont’, pp. 169–242) is focused on the existential turn that brought Sidonius to the episcopate and led him to oppose the Visigoths. Harries lucidly formulates Sidonius’ position as a witness at the crossroads: ‘For Sidonius, the conflict was not between Christianity and pagan classicism but between Roman culture, which he identified with the classical tradition, and barbarism’ (p. 3); the nobility acknowledged its own role as depository of Romanitas, on account of which it opposed the advance of the barbarians. Kaufmann (1995). The next year, Frank-Michael Kaufmann brought out a volume of historical essays, Studien zu Sidonius Apollinaris, whose guiding principle is the opinion Sidonius and his class held of the Germanic peoples. After a careful overview of Sidonius’ life and work, Kaufmann analyses Sidonius’ outlook on the Germani, which is founded on the tenor of his entire oeuvre, his ‘Romglaube’: Sidonius rejects the barbarians not so much because they are not Roman, but because of their lack of culture. The prosopographical section of the book (pp. 275–356), listing Sidonius’ addressees, deserves special mention and is a useful repertory alongside Martindale’s Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, volume 2.44 Harries (1996). Another interesting historical insight is due to Jill Harries, ‘Sidonius Apollinaris and the Frontiers of Romanitas’, about shifting frontiers, not only physical but also cultural: although the Romans may have been militarily unprepared against the barbarians, they continued showing their cultural superiority. Sivonen (1997). The representation of the pars Orientis in three Gallic authors (Ausonius, Sulpicius Severus, and Sidonius Apollinaris) is the subject matter of Pauli Sivonen’s article: for Sidonius, born some thirty years after Ausonius’ death, the political split between the eastern and the western empire is an established fact and the accession of the easterner Anthemius is seen as an expression of the harmony between both parts. Pérez Sánchez (1997). In this article, Dionisio Pérez Sánchez proposes viewing the attitude of the aristocracy towards the barbarians as the quest for a compromise between prejudice and political realism. Mascoli (2000). Little more than ten years after Bonjour (1988), Patrizia Mascoli again studies the role of women in fifth-century Gaul: as moral compass of aristocratic families, women embody the highest values of Roman tradition. Gualandri (2000, 2001). Isabella Gualandri studies Sidonius’ picture of the barbarians in two successive articles: ‘Figure di barbari in Sidonio Apollinare’ and ‘Immagini dei barbari in Sidonio Apollinare’. Gualandri emphasises the strong presence of a literary filter transposing reality: the resulting pictures correspond to Sidonius’ political intentions and betray his disdain for these uncultivated, inferior people. Chadwick (2001). Together with the testimonies of Salvian of Marseille and Caesarius of Arles, Henry Chadwick uses Sidonius’ to flesh out the attitude of the church in the face of the barbarians in a chapter of his book The Church in Ancient Society.

44

Martindale (1980). It should be used together with Mathisen (1982) and Heinzelmann (1982). See also Barnes (1983) 265.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 574

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

575

Le Guillou (2001). Jean Le Guillou’s Sidoine Apollinaire: L’Auvergne et son temps is a local historian’s personal take on Sidonius, sympathetic but not always informed by the latest literature. Mascoli (2001, 2002, 2003a). Picking up the theme broached by Légier Desgranges in 1937,45 Patrizia Mascoli, in three articles, delineates the profile of the Apollinaris family. She deals in the first with Sidonius’ son Apollinaris and the transmission of a cultural legacy that was becoming restricted not just to a social elite, but to specific families; in the other two she highlights Sidonius’ grandfather and father in order to define the role of the entire family in late antique Gallic culture. In 2010, Mascoli’s special interest was to result in a dedicated volume, Gli Apollinari.46 Frye (2003). In recent years, there have been several contributions on specific aspects of Sidonius’ activities, like David Frye’s article ‘Aristocratic Responses to Late Roman Urban Change’, which argues that authors like Ausonius and Sidonius, faced with the decline of building activity in Gallic towns in the third century, continue keeping alive the opposition of rural and urban, although Sidonius shows a preference for rural residences. Montzamir (2003). Confronting the text of Sidonius’ epitaph in the manuscript Madrid, BNE, 9448, formerly Ee. 102 (C), and the archaeological evidence of the fragments of the tombstone found in Clermont-Ferrand,47 Patrice Montzamir proposes a new reconstruction of the inscription. Prévot (2004). The profile of Sidonius’ son Apollinaris remains intriguing to historians. On the basis of the sources at our disposal, Françoise Prévot asks the question ‘Faut-il réhabiliter le fils de Sidoine Apollinaire?’, which she answers by suggesting a less negative portrayal than provided by Gregory of Tours. Hecquet-Noti (2005). Apollinaris junior is also central to an article by Nicole HecquetNoti: ‘Faut-il lire senem Arcadium dans la lettre 51 d’Avit de Vienne?’ Starting from this letter to Apollinaris, she describes the family ties between Avitus and his maternal uncle Sidonius, and argues that the ‘Arcadius’ mentioned at the end of the letter could be Apollinaris’ son. Hutchings (2009). Well aware that the literary bias of Sidonius’ work makes his use as a historical source problematic, Laura Hutchings considers a series of letters thematising late antique and early medieval travel and hospitality. Raga (2009). Emmanuelle Raga, in ‘Bon mangeur, mauvais mangeur’, sheds light on the ideology of fifth-century eating habits through the clues provided by Sidonius. In his aristocratic view, ‘good feeding’ distinguishes cultured persons from the unsophisticated, the convivium being an element of sociocultural fashioning, in accordance with the classical paradigm. Christian fasting is seen in the same perspective by Sidonius, as a sober alternative to the sumptuous banquet.48 Santos (2009). Diego Santos, in an article for a general audience, deals with the ideological position of the Gallic senators as witnessed by Sidonius: a privileged class united by a thorough knowledge of classical culture. Mascoli (2010, 2013). After several articles on aspects of Sidonius’ family (see above, Mascoli 2001, 2002, 2003), Patrizia Mascoli presents a reconstruction of his gens in Gli Apollinari: Per la storia di una famiglia tardoantica: not a comprehensive history like that written by Légier Desgranges,49 but one giving special attention to some of its members, followed by the sources with translations. This aspect of Mascoli’s Sidonius research is also present in an article which appeared a few years later (2013). 45 46 47 48

49

See above. See below. See above, Prévot (1993b), and below, Montzamir (2014). See also sect. 3.3, Furbetta (2015b). This research is part of the comprehensive ‘HospitAm’ project which investigates ancient Mediterranean hospitality . See above, Légier Desgranges (1937).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 575

13/02/20 4:30 PM

576

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Behrwald (2011). As a senator and court poet, Sidonius was a privileged witness of late antique Roman urbanism. In ‘Das Bild der Stadt Rom im 5. Jh.’, Ralf Behrwald analyses Sidonius’ two stays in Rome, one in 455, the other, extended by his city prefecture, in 467–9, by means of the panegyrics and the letters in the first Book. The picture of the city that emerges is coloured by literary reminiscences. Van Waarden and Kelly (2013). For the history and impact of this edited volume, New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris, see above, section 1. Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). A study day in 2009, followed, the next year, by an international conference, ‘Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire’, at the University of Clermont-Ferrand in collaboration with the Centre de Recherches André Piganiol, constitutes a crucial moment in Sidonius studies marking renewed interest in France. The conference papers were published in 2014 in the volume Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire, edited by the organisers Rémy Poignault and Annick Stoehr-Monjou, and are discussed below under the appropriate headings. The historical pieces in the book’s first section, dedicated to Sidonius and his times, include the following three: Mascoli (2014a), ‘Multum est quod debemus et matribus’, discusses the women in the Apollinaris family, including, among others, Sidonius’ daughter Alcima, mentioned by Gregory of Tours, and his great-granddaughter Placidina, mentioned by Venantius Fortunatus. Faure and Jacquemard (2014), ‘L’émergence du paludisme en Gaule’, introduces malaria epidemics in fifth- and sixth-century Gaul. There is a possible hint at malaria in Italy in the correspondence, during Sidonius’ second visit to Rome, but not in Gaul, whereas Gregory of Tours tells of malaria and plague in Gaul, testifying to the deterioration of the health situation there since the mid-sixth century.50 Squillante (2014a). Marisa Squillante resumes the theme of Sidonius’ relationship with the barbarians, embedding it in a broad discussion of fifth- and sixth-century culture. Montzamir (2014). In a short note, Patrice Montzamir sketches the problem of the authenticity of Sidonius’ tombstone.51 Franceschelli and Dall’Aglio (2014). The authors review Sidonius’ voyage to Rome (Ep. 1.5), pointing out that river navigation is a distinctive trait in Ambrose’s testimony from the fourth century. Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). The authors analyse the literary and symbolic dimensions, resulting in an idealised cartography, both of Sidonius’ first person account of this same voyage to Rome and of the route which he plots for his poetic libellus in Carm. 24.52 Delaplace (2014). In ‘Le témoignage de Sidoine Apollinaire: Une source historique toujours fiable?’, Christine Delaplace argues that Sidonius, our sole source, should be read critically concerning the cession of the Auvergne to Euric in the years 472–5. Delaplace (2015), a major and wide-ranging study of the Visigothic presence in Gaul in the fifth century and its relationship to the end of the Western empire, frequently relies on fresh interpretations of the evidence of Sidonius, especially in chapter IX, ‘455–477: Les Wisigoths durant la crise de l’Empire d’Occident’ (pp. 215–56). Furbetta (2015a). More than thirty years after Reydellet,53 Furbetta again takes up the problem of power in Sidonius’ times, discussing the emperor (by means of the portraits of Avitus and Majorian in the panegyrics), the king (the positive image of Theoderic II in Ep. 1.2 as opposed to Euric), and the despicable figure of the informer. 50 51 52 53

Sidon. Ep. 1.5.8, 5.3.3; Greg. Tur. Hist. 4.5, 4.31, 6.33, 9.21–2, 10.30, 10.23. See above, Prévot (1993b) and Montzamir (2003). See also sect. 3.3, Furbetta (2015b). Cf. below, sect. 3.8.1, Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2015). Reydellet (1981); see above, sect. 3.1.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 576

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

577

Poble (2016). Pierre-Éric Poble engages with the theme of territorial boundaries in fifthand sixth-century Gaul. Fioravanti (2017). Gianfranco Fioravanti uses Sidonius’ work to reconstruct the renaissance of philosophy in fifth-century Gaul. Mascoli (2017). Continuing her prosopographical studies of the family of the Apollinares, Patrizia Mascoli sketches the biography of Apollinaris junior.54 Roberto (2017). Umberto Roberto investigates how Rome, already badly afflicted by the Vandal Sack, according to some sources (John Lydus and John of Antioch), in 455 also suffered the loss of its bronze statues at the hands of the new emperor Avitus in order to pay off the Visigothic troops that had supported him and escorted him to Rome.

3.2 ‘In Search of Sidonius the Bishop’ Rousseau (1976). This section takes its motto from an emblematic article which investigated a crucial aspect of the study of Sidonius: his role and behaviour as a bishop – an aspect that had been strongly framed by Loyen’s trenchant judgement of the superficiality of Sidonius’ religious culture. This article, Philip Rousseau’s ‘In Search of Sidonius the Bishop’, collects the traces of this existential change in Sidonius’ works and gauges how it altered his aristocratic values. Consolino (1976). This watershed in Sidonius’ biography connects him to the broader group of senator-bishops in Gaul for whom secular and ecclesiastical power were aligned, as shown by another groundbreaking publication, Franca Ela Consolino’s Ascesi e mondanità nella Gallia tardoantica. Iovine (1985). Sidonius’ episcopate is put in its social context and characterised as the expression of a lack of religious fervour by Giovanni Iovine. Prévot (1995, 1997). Françoise Prévot studies Sidonius’ pastoral activities (Sidonius ‘pasteur d’âmes’) in two articles in which she revalues his religiosity in the light of his own work and of the religious enthusiasm which he soon kindled in others, in particular. Gotoh (1997). Concerning the elusive problem of Sidonius’ consecration as bishop, Atsuko Gotoh proposes a different interpretation from Harries’: no forced transition albeit in a complex political situation. López Kindler (2003). Agustín López Kindler paints a nuanced portrait of Sidonius the aristocrat, the man of culture, and the ecclesiastic. Pérez Sánchez and Rodríguez Gervás (2007). The authors examine Sidonius as a prime example of the late antique Gallic bishop, analysing, in particular, the social control he exercised, where caritas Christiana is not necessarily linked to the religious sphere. Grzywaczewski (2010a, 2010b). Two contributions by Józef Grzywaczewski outline Sidonius’ profile as a bishop who is emblematic for the church in fifth-century Gaul (2010a), and the transition from the life of a layman inspired by the values of Romanitas to that of a bishop with a predominantly Christian perspective (2010b). Bodart (2010). Marie-Gaël Bodart reads Sidonius’ letters as a privileged source for the transition from pagan to Christian culture, and the interaction of these cultures, interpreted as a process of assimilation. Van Waarden (2011a, 2011b). Joop van Waarden, who also occupied himself with Sidonius the bishop in Writing to Survive,55 investigates two different aspects in two articles from 2011, one on Sidonius as a poet and a bishop (2011a), the other on episcopal self-presentation

54 55

See above, Mascoli (2001, 2002, 2003a, 2010, 2013, 2014a). See above, sect. 2.2.2 van Waarden (2010, 2016a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 577

13/02/20 4:30 PM

578

SILVIA CONDORELLI

in evidence in Sidonius’ role in the episcopal election in Bourges (2011b). The former points out that our picture is inevitably one-sided because of the loss of much of Sidonius’ liturgical production; any traces of his Christianity in what is left are all the more important. The latter mines Ep. 7.5, 7.8, and 7.9 for Sidonius’ self-presentation as a bishop. Barcellona (2013). Rossana Barcellona takes Sidonius as an example of the dialectic between Christianitas and Romanitas in the transition from paganism to Christian culture. Becker (2014). Audrey Becker emphasises the civil engagement of fifth-century bishops in Gaul, with special attention to Sidonius. Viellard (2014). In Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire,56 Delphine Viellard discusses the episcopal elections in Chalon-sur-Saône in 469 and Bourges in 470, and the civic role of aristocratic bishops like Sidonius. Brocca (2014). In the same volume, Nicoletta Brocca, on the basis of the reference to the Wise Men of the East in Ep. 6.9.3, argues that Sidonius knew the Expositio in evangelium secundum Lucam by Ambrose and the Tractatus in Matthaeum by Chromatius of Aquileia. Mascoli (2016c). Patrizia Mascoli studies the marriage of Sidonius and Papianilla, in particular their continuing alliance after Sidonius’ elevation to the rank of bishop.

3.3 Philological and Literary Questions Brakman (1904), Holland (1905), Damsté (1905), Schuster (1905, 1906). The twentieth century opens in a characteristic way with a series of articles (Brakman, Holland, Damsté) that discuss individual points on a philological level, and with a dissertation in two parts by Moritz Schuster on the relationship between Sidonius and his models, in this case Horace. This search for literary sources, only recently succeeded by more subtle intertextual approaches, is the dominant theme in literary research, much more important than the occasional studies in text transmission and constitution. Merchie (1923). In this vein, Ernest Merchie suggests a number of passages that point to Sidonius’ reading of Apuleius’ Florida. Semple (1930). W.H. Semple, later to become Professor of Latin at Manchester and complete his predecessor Anderson’s Loeb, began his career with a book on Quaestiones exegeticae Sidonianae, descended from a thesis written under Housman’s supervision at Cambridge.57 Mossberg (1934). Karl-Åke Mossberg contributes numerous philological and lexical observations in Studia Sidoniana critica et semasiologica, based on the text in Mohr’s 1895 critical edition.58 Loyen (1943). A major point of reference for Sidonius’ literary profile is Loyen’s 1943 dissertation, Sidoine Apollinaire et l’esprit précieux en Gaule aux derniers jours de l’empire. A comprehensive study of Sidonius’ style and culture, it introduced the term ‘préciosité’, a definition of Sidonius’ aesthetics that was to catch on, viewing him in a tradition going back to Ovid, Statius, Pliny the Younger, Apuleius, and Fronto. Loyen (1956). In a later article, Loyen outlines Sidonius’ profile as a man of culture against the foil of the barbarian occupation: ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et les derniers éclats de la culture classique dans la Gaule occupée par les Goths’. 56 57

58

See above, sect. 3.1, Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). See above, sect. 2.1.1, Anderson. For further biographical details, see the Sidonius website, See above, sect. 2.1.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 578

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

579

Gualandri (1974). This article contains notes on the following four passages: Ep. 8.11.2 (about the verb ventilo), Ep. 8.8.1 (proposal to emend obtusi to obtundis), Ep. 3.13.9 (prefers area pectoris to arca pectoris, the lectio facilior), and Carm. 14 ep. 4 (emendation of pigmenta to figmenta). Colton (1976). This article by Robert Colton on traces of Martial in Sidonius is the first of a series of pieces on reminiscences of classical authors. Shackleton Bailey (1976, 1982). Inspired by the Loeb edition, D.R. Shackleton Bailey published ‘Notes, Critical and Interpretative’ on Sidonius’ poems and letters respectively, inclined to conjectures normalising an at times complex text. Pellegrin (1978). Élisabeth Pellegrin identifies the manuscript Leiden, UB, BPL 121 as the third part of a dismembered miscellaneous manuscript, a part containing Sidonius’ entire correspondence and a few scraps of his poetry (Carm. 1 and 2.1–51). Colton (1985a, 1985b, 1988). Colton continued his research on Sidonius’ models with publications on echoes of Martial in the poems and letters (1985a and 1985b, respectively), and of Persius (1988). Mathisen (1988a). In contrast to the widespread idea that Late Antiquity was an epoch of literary decline, Sidonius’ correspondence is a lively witness to the intense vitality of literary and cultural exchange, as shown by Ralph Mathisen in his article on literary decline in Gaul. Hebert (1988). Opposing the supposed absence of philosophical culture in Sidonius, Bernhard Hebert tries to reconstruct Sidonius’ sources for his descriptions of philosophers in conjunction with his passion for artistic ekphraseis. Nazzaro (1988, 1993, 1998). Vergil and Ovid are among Sidonius’ basic authors, as documented by Antonio Nazzaro in the Enciclopedia Virgiliana (1988) and Enciclopedia Oraziana (1998), the latter preceded by his 1993 article on Horace in Latin Christian poetry. Veremans (1991). The importance of Vergil in education explains the striking echoes found by Jozef Veremans. Privitera (1993). Tiziana Privitera draws attention to the technique of literary imitation in an article on Sidonius’ ‘glossographic memory’, supposing that Sidonius consulted collections of citations, while subsequently combining passages from memory. Blänsdorf (1993). Jürgen Blänsdorf studies the terms satira and satiricus, testifying to a moralistic outlook on reality. La Penna (1995a, 1995b, 1995c). In 1995, Antonio La Penna dedicated three contributions to Sidonius: ‘Gli svaghi letterari della nobiltà gallica’ (1995a) explores the frivolous traits of his aesthetics, dominated by what La Penna judges to be a bombastic rhetoric that goes back to Ausonius and Claudian. The second, on the portrait of Lampridius, will be discussed in the section on the Letters (1995b; see below, section 3.8.8). The third argues for the emendation of fulva to flava at Carm. 22.178. Tamburri (1996). Sidonius’ literary profile is outlined against the historical and cultural background of fifth-century Gaul by Stanislao Tamburri in his book Sidonio Apollinare: L’uomo e il letterato. An appendix provides an interesting overview of the stylistic and linguistic characteristics of Sidonius work, dubbed ‘manneristic’ and fundamentally decadent. Monni (1999). In line with an important piece on Claudianus Mamertus and archaism by Terenzio Alimonti,59 Alessandra Monni traces the archaisms in Sidonius back to Apuleius and 59

Alimonti (1975).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 579

13/02/20 4:30 PM

580

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Fronto, and to their origin in the comic poets, in Cato, and in Naevius. Sidonius’ archaisms are not an erudite habit, but a means of amplifying the expressive potential of language. Delz (1999). At Carm. 9.221–2, Josef Delz proposes to emend novum by means of tomum, retaining instead the original per, for which Leo conjectured post. Watt (1999). W.S. Watt suggests a range of conjectures in the text. Styka (1999). Jerzy Styka explores Sidonius’ ample testimony for reconstructing the literary culture in fifth-century Gaul. Gualandri (1999). The traditional mythological apparatus survives well into the Christian era. In ‘Gli dei duri a morire’, Isabella Gualandri shows, with particular attention to Sidonius, how mythological themes get more space in literary genres that are codified by pagan tradition, such as panegyrics and epithalamia. T. Horváth (2000). A statistical comparison between classical and Christian citations forms the basis of Ágnes T. Horváth’s study in ‘The Education of Sidonius Apollinaris in the Light of his Citations’, confirming once more the fundamentally classical stamp of his culture. Colton (2000). Continuing his line of research, Colton collects his systematic inquiries into the intertextuality with six Latin authors into one volume, Some Literary Influences on Sidonius Apollinaris. The first two chapters are dedicated to traces of Vergil’s Bucolics and Georgics; no fewer than seven chapters treat Horace, the Odes, the Ars poetica, and his other works, with a dedicated chapter for travelling in Horace’s Sat. 1.5 and Sidonius’ Ep. 1.5. The remaining chapters cover Propertius, Ovid, Ausonius, and finally Rutilius Namatianus. Piacente (2001). Among the lost works of Sidonius,60 there are surely also letters. One fragment can be reconstructed thanks to a quotation in a letter by Avitus to Apollinaris, as shown by Luigi Piacente. Montuschi (2001). Claudia Montuschi investigates two passages (Carm. 2.405–35 and 22.47–9) that have an Ovidian model, stressing, in particular, the assimilation of narrative structures typical of Ovid. Lucarini (2002). Carlo Lucarini proposes a series of conjectures for various passages in the letters and the poems. Malaspina (2002). Elena Malaspina gives an overview of Gallic poetry in the fifth and sixth centuries, advocating an elitist and aristocratic political reading of Sidonius’ poetry. Cam (2003). The presence of Vitruvius in Sidonius’ oeuvre, apparent from explicit references to and unmistakable echoes of De architectura, enables Marie-Thérèse Cam to reconstruct an important stage in the reception of this handbook. Piacente (2003). In ‘Libri e letture di Sidonio Apollinare’, Luigi Piacente pays attention to the reading that underpins Sidonius’ work: besides the explicit indication provided by the long Carmen 9, there are also consistent traces of his library in the correspondence. Mascoli (2004a). Exploring the writings of Sidonius that have not come down to us, Patrizia Mascoli returns also to the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, which, in her opinion, was a translation from the Greek, not a simple transcription.61 Castagna (2004). In this essay on Sidonius and the palliata, Luigi Castagna studies a few references to comedy. 60

61

At Ep. 7.3.1, Sidonius refers to sending his own collection of contestatiunculae; from Ep. 8.3, it is sometimes inferred that he made a translation (or was it just a transcription?) of the Vita Apollonii by Philostratus, for which see Cameron (2011) 546–54. See below, Mascoli (2004a); further, in sect. 3.8, Pricoco (1965a), and in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 3. See above, Piacente (2001) with n. 60, and below, sect. 3.8.8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 580

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

581

Santelia (2005a). Sidonius is actually the foremost representative of the cultural ferment animating Gaul in the fifth century, engendering debates, literary circles, and the circulation of books, as pointed out in detail by Stefania Santelia in ‘Storie di libri’. André (2006). Jean-Marie André finds Sidonius’ dedication to the otium litteratum inspired by the cult of the Muses62 a part of his pagan culture that is difficult to combine with his function as a cleric. Mondin (2008). One of the most important questions about Sidonius’ literary thinking is his concept of the epigram, and, in particular, the extension of the definition of epigramma to fairly long poems, notably Carmen 22. Luca Mondin investigates this aspect in an extensive article.63 Mratschek (2008). In ‘Identitätsstiftung aus der Vergangenheit’, Sigrid Mratschek argues that Sidonius’ continuous and consistent harking back to the past is not only a question of imitatio, but a way of constructing a real cultural identity, for which the era of Trajan, represented above all by Pliny, is an important point of reference.64 Styka (2008a). Returning to a theme which he discussed some years earlier (Styka (1999)), Jerzy Styka paints a comprehensive picture of fifth-century Gallic culture as the outcome of the convergence of Graeco-Roman tradition and Christian values. He draws especially on Sidonius’ poetry, with Sidonius’ aesthetics and poetics as a paradigm of contemporary literary culture. Formicola (2009). Crescenzo Formicola looks for echoes from Propertius, although Sidonius’ complex, contaminatory imitation technique sometimes makes the identification of the hypotext problematic. Squillante (2009a). Marisa Squillante reviews Sidonius’ numerous references to his readings and ‘library’, taking it both as a physical space and as an inner ‘place’ where the cultural heritage is stored. Squillante (2009b). In the same year, Squillante dwells on Sidonius’ references to the bathing resort of Baiae. Flammini (2009). In his careful examination of the dense presence of Horace in Sidonius, Giuseppe Flammini begins from the evocation of Horace’s work in Carm. 9.221–5 with its precise distinction between Epistulae and Sermones. Sidonius’ debt is primarily metrical, an aspect that is given special attention in connection with the asclepiads composed on a Horatian anvil, Horatiana incude, in Carm. 36 (in Ep. 9.13.2). Marchiaro (2009). After the important collation of manuscripts by Lütjohann and Leo in the MGH edition, a renewed study of the transmission has become more and more necessary, and has now been undertaken by Franz Dolveck for this volume.65 In this 2009 article, Michaelangiola Marchiaro shows that there exists no second hand in M (Florence, BML, S. Marco, 554) and that it should be dated to the second half of the eleventh century. Marchiaro identifies the presence of marginalia by Pico della Mirandola in this important MS, from which descends the Laurentianus plut. 90 sup. 8, written out by Pietro Crinito, a humanist who was a student of Poliziano. Squillante (2010a). Marisa Squillante points out Sidonius’ interest in geography: in contrast to the Fathers of the Church, who were loath to indulge in excessive interest in the world 62 63

64 65

The role of the Muses in Sidonius’ poetics is also discussed in André (2009): see below, sect. 3.5. On this question, see below, Franzoi (2013), Wolff (2014b), and Consolino (2015); see in this volume Consolino, ch. 10, sect. 8. See also, in this volume, Mratschek ch. 6 See ch. 16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 581

13/02/20 4:30 PM

582

SILVIA CONDORELLI

around them, Sidonius is attentive to geographical detail and to shaping a landscape, albeit in literary disguise. White (2010). In reaction to the emendations proposed by Shackleton Bailey in 1976,66 Heather White provides a number of explanations justifying the transmitted text. Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2011a). Starting from Ep. 2.9, Gaëlle Viard points to the technical importance of Sidonius’ testimony for describing libraries as physical spaces. Montone (2011a). Francesco Montone writes on Campanian toponyms in Sidonius, a consequence of the literary importance of Campania. Formicola (2011). Crescenzo Formicola, ‘Oltre l’archetipo’, shows how intertextuality can be a source of interesting philological and textual observations as an author, when using previous expressions and collocations, becomes part of the transmission of the text he imitates, not only of its literary reception. In this respect, the echoes of Propertius in Sidonius are particularly interesting. Ploton-Nicollet (2012). François Ploton-Nicollet focuses on the topos of the female deity nursing the laudandus in fifth-century encomiastic poetry and points to its origin in Statius’ Silvae. As to Sidonius, the motif occurs in two instances: Carm. 7.174 about Avitus and 23.204–7 about Consentius, both fostered by the Muses. Mascoli (2012). Patrizia Mascoli, examining the ten loci similes for Persius signalled by Geisler (1887), considers only two of them to be certain: Ep. 4.1.4 and 8.16.2. Stoehr-Monjou (2013). Annick Stoehr-Monjou, in an article in New Approaches, reconsiders Horace in Sidonius from the angle of the ‘art of memory’, carefully analysing a great number of passages and showing how Horace is present both as a poetical model and as an authority on theory. Goldlust (2013). Writing on the genre of silvae for an edited volume on the theme, Benjamin Goldlust identifies variety, the natural and spontaneous flowing of poetical themes, as the basis of this kind of poetry and finds Statius’ most tangible influence in Sidonius’ poetry. Consolino (2013). In the same edited volume, Franca Ela Consolino poses the question whether Sidonius himself meant his Carmina minora to be derived from Statius’ Silvae or this category was rather applied by humanist criticism. On closer inspection, Statius’ influence is undeniable, but he is one of the models, not the model on which Sidonius bases his entire collection. Furbetta (2013a). Luciana Furbetta investigates the various functions of myth: a literary disguise of reality as well as a carrier of political messages. Ample attention is paid to the use of myth in the panegyrics and to the function of the myth of Ulysses in Ep. 9.13 to Tonantius. Gerth (2013). In a monograph on ‘Bildungsvorstellungen’ in the fifth century, Matthias Gerth gives ample space to Sidonius (pp. 157–223), outlining his educational ideal in an environment where the figures of Claudianus Mamertus and Sapaudus stand out, and reconstructing his training as well as his perception of decline. According to Gerth, Christian religion is an aspect of culture to Sidonius, rather than a spiritual value. The final section is dedicated to the barbarian peoples that Sidonius mentions. Furbetta (2013b). Furbetta’s article ‘Les objets et les lieux’ analyses Sidonius’ epigrammatic technique by means of Carm. 18 and 19, composed for the villa of Avitacum, and the improvised quatrain for Philomathius in Ep. 5.17.10 (Carm. 32). Condorelli (2013a). In the same edited volume, we have a contribution by Silvia Condorelli on the funerary epigrams scattered throughout the correspondence, a subgenre 66

See above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 582

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

583

of its own with a special technique, the same which the anonymous author of Sidonius’ epitaph used. Franzoi (2013). In the same edited volume, Alessandro Franzoi also reconsiders the problem of the length and character of the epigrams of Sidonius and Avitus.67 Wolff (2014a). Étienne Wolff provides an overview of Sidonius’ epigrams written for epigraphic purposes. Squillante (2014b). In Présence de Sidoine,68 Marisa Squillante examines the attestations of water in Sidonius: references to mirabilia aquarum or, simply, to water as a geographical element kindle his imagination and, above all, show his ability to ‘play’ with his models. Taisne (2014). In the same volume, Anne-Marie Taisne takes a closer look at motifs from Statius’ Silvae and his two epic poems. Sidonius’ relationship of imitatio and aemulatio with Statius is inspired by the same taste for the rhetoric of amplification. Wolff (2014b). Étienne Wolff follows Colton and Franzoi69 (Colton limited himself to noting allusions and Franzoi focused on Carm. 3 and 4) with a study in words and phrases that definitely go back to Martial. Sidonius and Martial also share some themes and, importantly, Sidonius took his broad conception of epigramma from Martial. Styka (2014). One of the most interesting sides of Sidonius’ culture is his brilliant milieu, in which the philosopher and theologian Claudianus Mamertus played a leading role. Jerzy Styka outlines his profile as it emerges from Sidonius’ correspondence. Furbetta (2014a). One of the most interesting contributions to the textual transmission of Sidonius in the last decades is Luciana Furbetta’s ‘Un nuovo manoscritto di Sidonio Apollinare’. This manuscript, formerly in the Schøyen collection, now in a private collection (Paris, IRHT, Collection privée, 347) dates to the twelfth century and contains Sidonius’ entire oeuvre together with his epitaph, which, until now, was only known from the manuscript Madrid, BNE, 9448 (C) and two fragments of the original inscription. Furbetta describes the manuscript and presents a generous selection of telling passages from the correspondence as well as some notes concerning the Carmina. Her conclusion is that CP 347 is akin to C, but not an apograph. Its novelty resides not so much in the text itself as in the epitaph, where lines 10–11 and the date at the end differ from C.70 Montone (2014a). Francesco Montone analyses what Sidonius tells about his problem with satire in Arles (Ep. 1.11.2–4, 13–15) and, relating this to Carm. 12, identifies an allusion to Ovid’s situation as an exile forced to live among barbarians. Desbrosses (2015). Lucie Desbrosses’ article on ‘L’ancien monde chez Sidoine’ is dedicated to the pagan cultural heritage in Sidonius’ writings, especially the presence of myth and the pantheon of classical divinities in the Carmina. Wolff (2015a). Sidonius’ admiration for Martial can be viewed in the context of Martial’s general popularity in the fourth to sixth centuries, as demonstrated by Étienne Wolff in this article on Martial in Late Antiquity. Styka (2015). The theme of poetic circles, already present in Mathisen (1981a), reemerges in this article, which paints the lively panorama of culture and poetry of which Sidonius is our only witness. 67 68 69 70

Cf. Mondin (2008) above. See above, Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). See above, Colton (1976, 1985a, 1985b), and below, sect. 3.6.2, Franzoi (2008). For the date, see in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2 (1) with n. 12. For the latest evaluation of the relationship of CP 347 to the tradition, see in this volume Dolveck, ch. 16, sect. 6 (cf. van Waarden in this volume, ch. 1, sect 2 (1) with n. 10). See further below, Furbetta (2015b) on the epitaph.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 583

13/02/20 4:30 PM

584

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Schmitzer (2015). In a comprehensive essay on sterility and innovation in poetry, Ulrich Schmitzer shows how the application of the pagan mythological apparatus should be read as the expression of a clearly outlined poetical programme. Kaufmann (2015). Statius’ presence in Sidonius’ poetry is described by Helen Kaufmann within the wider context of Statius’ reception in Late Antiquity. Furbetta (2015b). This article is dedicated to Sidonius’ epitaph in the manuscript Paris, IHRT, CP 347.71 Consolino (2015). This article, ‘Le mot et les choses’, is a thorough analysis of the term epigramma in Sidonius. Franca Ela Consolino demonstrates the broad spectrum of this literary category in his poetry. She also discusses the prose preface of Carm. 22, arguing that the term epigramma is not applicable to this poem. Briquel (2016). There are sporadic references to the Etruscan tradition of divination in Sidonius, which Dominique Briquel unearths. Squillante (2016a). Statius in Sidonius is again highlighted by Marisa Squillante, who sees what she calls ‘free-floating creativity’ (‘creatività disimpegnata’) at the heart of Sidonius’ imitation of Statius. Pelttari (2016). Aaron Pelttari returns to the often-debated question of Sidonius’ references to Hor. Ars 14–23 (at Carm. 22 ep. 6 and at Ep. 9.16.4), where Horace advises straigthforwardness in poetry, in accordance with the principle of simplex et unum. Pelttari argues that Sidonius’ problematic and contradictory appeal to Horace’s authority is the result of the former’s consciously distancing himself from his classical model. Guipponi-Gineste (2017). In this article, Marie-France Guipponi-Gineste addresses the theme of literary otium and convivial poetry which is well attested in the letters. In this type of occasional poetry, the motif of improvisation is combined with the modesty topos. Newlands (2017). Carole Newlands’ investigation takes on the complex character of Statius’ Silvae as occasional poetry. They are important to Sidonius for creating a form of encomiastic poetry based on ekphrasis, in which realty is transfigured into myth.

3.4 Language and Metrics These two aspects are not often studied. After the important investigations of the end of the nineteenth century, a comprehensive monograph on Sidonius’ language is still lacking. However, many aspects of metrics in Sidonius have been studied in the last decades, throwing light on the key problem of his compositional technique. Merchie (1921). Ernest Merchie’s is a first, unsatisfactory attempt at interpreting Sidonius’ clausulae. It took until 2010 for Sidonius’ prose rhythm to be studied again by Joop van Waarden.72 Polara (1989). Metrical play is the subject of Giovanni Polara’s article on palindromes: the second of two palindromic pentameters in Ep. 9.14.4 would seem to be a clever creation by Sidonius, who, however, does not distinguish between palindromes and versus recurrentes.73

71

72

73

See above, Furbetta (2014a). For Sidonius’ tombstone, see above, sect. 3.1, Prévot (1993b) and Montzamir (2003, 2014). See van Waarden (2010) 60–1, (2016a) 49–61, and, comprehensively, in this volume, ch. 13. For an opinion of Merchie, see van Waarden (2010) 60 n. 109. See Henke (2007) below, sect. 3.8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 584

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

585

Banniard (1992). For Sidonius, the Latin language is a legacy to be conserved and defended: thus Michel Banniard in ‘La rouille et la lime’, who points out that purity of language is meant to be a barrier against the penetration of barbarism. Beltrán Serra (1993). Joaquín Beltrán Serra offers a sample of diachronical lexical research on lemmas concerning death and suicide. Beltrán Serra (1994, 1996, 1998). The first research on Sidonius’ metrics by Joaquín Beltrán Serra dates back to the 1990s.74 After an initial, general publication (1994), he concentrated on line-endings and caesurae in the hexameter poetry in two further articles (1996, 1998). Günther (1998). Sociopolitical terminology is analysed by Rigobert Günther. Köhler (1999). Helga Köhler discusses three occurrences of the historical infinitive (Ep. 1.7, 1.11, 7.2). Santelia (2000). Stefania Santelia highlights a special meaning of the term bybliopola, which is used by Sidonius to mean ‘secretary’, ‘copyist’, ‘librarian’. Condorelli (2001a). A comprehensive study of the hexameter in Sidonius’ panegyrics is offered by Silvia Condorelli, in a monograph covering problems of prosody and metrics. Sidonius’ expert verse technique keeps close to the classical tradition. Condorelli (2001b). In connection with Banniard (1992), Condorelli deals with the word barbarismus, which Sidonius uses not only in its ordinary, grammatical sense, but also in an etymological way to refer to a non-Latin language. Condorelli (2004a). In this comprehensive article, ‘L’officina di Sidonio Apollinare’, Condorelli weighs the theoretical thoughts scattered throughout the correspondence that throw light on the close and programmatically explicit links between metrics and poetics. Flammini (2006). Giuseppe Flammini discusses the metrical structure of the Phalaecian hendecasyllable in Sidonius, embedding this in a diachronical analysis,. Risselada (2013). By means of a series of test cases, applying pragmatic linguistics and narratology, Rodie Risselada explores Sidonius’ language in the correspondence, drawing conclusions as to its largely classical character as well as to its strongly interactional bend. Onorato (2014). Marco Onorato discusses the phrase tigrifer Niphates (Carm. 2.444) as a significant example of Sidonius’ studied expressiveness, combining a hapax (tigrifer) and an ambiguous term (Niphates). Longobardi (2014). Concetta Longobardi studies the rare noun memoratus, which Sidonius uses several times as a recherché term to mean ‘account’ of an experience or a voyage (for example, Ep. 1.5.1). Fry (2014). By means of an analysis of the opening lines of the Panegyric of Majorian (Carm. 5.1–39) and of the Epithalamium for Polemius and Araneola (Carm. 15.1–34), Carole Fry studies the concentration of spondaic sequences in the middle of the hexameter line, in relation to classical as well as late antique usage. Rexin (2015). Sidonius is a prime source in the tradition of Latin palindromes, as pointed out by Gerhard Rexin. Denecker (2015). Tim Denecker studies Jerome’s and Sidonius’ statements on language from a sociocultural perspective. Onorato (2017a). The Anacreontics in which Carm. 37 (in Ep. 9.13.5) is written are the subject of an article by Marco Onorato, who argues in favour of Anacreon as a (probably 74

See in this volume Condorelli, ch. 14.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 585

13/02/20 4:30 PM

586

SILVIA CONDORELLI

indirect) model for this poem75 and proposes a metrical analysis on the assumption that Sidonius treats the Anacreontic dimeter as a colon of the Phalaecian hendecasyllable. Condorelli (2017b). Silvia Condorelli traces the verb fringultio, an archaism from Apuleius that surfaces again in Claudianus Mamertus (Anim. 2.9) and twice in Sidonius (Ep. 7.9.3 and 9.2.2).

3.5 Rhetoric and Poetics Consolino (1974). The works that were destined to give a decisive turn to Sidonius studies include, without a doubt, Franca Ela Consolino’s long article ‘Codice retorico e manierismo stilistico nella poetica di Sidonio Apollinare’, which analyses the proems, beginning with the strange, programmatic Carm. 9, and pinpoints the manneristic reworking of stylistic features codified by tradition as the most notable trait of Sidonius’ poetics. Thus, the mirror game of references to Catullus and Martial, at the start of this poem, becomes an independent artifice. In the prefaces of the panegyrics, too, the formal, erudite apparatus itself becomes a poetical object. Form has become autonomous: the way the narrative is told is precisely what the narrative is about. Gualandri (1979). Only a few years later, Isabella Gualandri’s important volume of studies on Sidonius, Furtiva lectio, appeared. It is a comprehensive and systematic investigation of Sidonius’ compositional technique, directed towards the correspondence and its formal and stylistic aspects. The topics she discusses (Sidonius’ literary and political role in the fraught historical context, the literary disguise of reality, imitation technique, figurative language, the lexicon: Graecisms, archaisms, hapaxes) are nowadays the subject matter of many specialised studies, in which the theorical framework she provides is essential. Roberts (1989). On late antique poetics, Michael Roberts’ The Jeweled Style is fundamental. Sidonius takes up a central position in this period, and not only chronologically: his florid, ornate style and the marked aesthetic tendency bound up with visualisation nourish his verse as much as anything in late antique poetry. Gualandri (1993). One of the most interesting aspects of Sidonius’ complex poetics is the strong interaction between his activity as a militant poet and the theoretical reflexions found at several points in the letters. In an important essay ‘Elegi acuti’, Isabella Gualandri writes about the elegiac couplet, applied by Sidonius in the prefaces, above all, where an impressive apparatus of mythological erudition is put in evidence, derived from Claudian. This internal complexity of the elegiac couplets, in addition to their metrical form, is rendered by the phrase elegi acuti (Ep. 8.4.2).76 Styka (2002). Jerzy Styka identifies myth as one of the foremost components of Sidonius’ poetics, inspired by what he calls ‘post-neoteric mannerism’. Hernández Lobato (2006). Jesús Hernández Lobato proposes a numerical interpretation of the final edition of the Carmina in 469, structured by Sidonius in blocks of eight poems: the panegyrics and their associated poems (1–8), followed by the Carmina minora 9–24 in two equal parts with Carm. 16 as their centrepiece. Formisano (2007), Charlet (2008). Some general publications are indispensable for framing Sidonius’ poetics in its late antique context. This is the case with Marco Formisano’s essay ‘Towards an Aesthetic Paradigm of Late Antiquity’ and Jean-Louis Charlet’s ‘Tendances esthétiques de la 75 76

Cf. below, sects. 3.5 and 3.8 respectively, Condorelli (2008, 2013b). See above, sect. 3.4, Condorelli (2004a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 586

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

587

poésie latine tardive (325–470)’ (‘Aesthetic Trends in Late Latin Poetry (325–470)’). The former emphasises that Late Antiquity should not be seen as continuing the classical tradition, but rather as a rupture; hence the need to think up new interpretations able to decode the aesthetic paradigm of what he calls ‘Other Antiquity’. The latter, resuming an article of twenty years before,77 extends the period it covers from 410 to 470, and identifies a kind of ‘neoclassicism’ following the traumatic events of 410, a climate of revival with the prospect of a renovatio imperii. Condorelli (2008). In Il poeta doctus nel V secolo D.C., Silvia Condorelli aims to reconstruct Sidonius’ own opinion of poetry, following the thread of poetological indications that run through his work, more than in any other ancient author: in the prefaces of the panegyrics and of the Carmina minora, and in the correspondence. Sidonius emerges as an exceptionally doctus poeta, profoundly conscious of his own course between homage to the classical tradition and a strong tendency towards novelty. Henke (2008). Rainer Henke defines Sidonius’ work as an example of escapism, shaped by redundancy and mannerism. Buongiovanni (2009). In using epigrams as a preface, Sidonius goes back to Martial, as pointed out by Claudio Buongiovanni, who further compares Sidonius with his model Claudian, noting the similar tendency in both for the prefaces to become autonomous from the poems they accompany. André (2009). Jean-Marie André explores the role of the Muses,78 with all its symbolical overtones, as an expression of Sidonius’ profoundly classical and pagan culture. Ferguson (2010). Thomas Ferguson compares the invocations to the Muses in eulogies of emperors and senators (the panegyrics and Carm. 12), which become less explicit in the poem dedicated to bishop Faustus of Riez (Carm. 16). Squillante (2010b). Marisa Squillante gives a survey of what Sidonius has to say about hymns, in particular his ample praise, on metrical and stylistic grounds, of Claudianus Mamertus’ hymn (Ep. 4.3.8–9), and his own openness to writing hymns in his farewell poem (Carm. 41 in Ep. 9.16.3), which contains a short specimen dedicated to St Saturninus’ martyrdom. Verbaal (2011). Wim Verbaal offers a short introductory essay to Sidonius and his ‘inner dignity’ for a general audience. Hernández Lobato (2012a, 2012b). In 2012, Jesús Hernández Lobato published a groundbreaking monograph Vel Apolline muto: Estética y poética de la Antigüedad Tardía (2012a), which brings together numerous articles published since 2006, both general (‘Poéticas de lo banal’, 2012b) and concerning individual poems.79 Its methodological premise is that Late Antiquity is extremely similar to our times and can, consequently, be investigated according to modern interpretative schemes, like deconstructivistic criticism and poly-system theory. From this angle, the book sets out to interpret a number of key poems by Sidonius, among them Carm. 13 and 16. Gerbrandy (2013). Piet Gerbrandy offers an unorthodox reading of Sidonius’ poetry in his contribution to New Approaches,80 ‘The Failure of Sidonius’ Poetry’. A poet himself, the author acknowledges Sidonius’ historical value, but argues that Sidonius’ self-presentation is not coherent with the quality of his poetry, hence its ‘failure’. Rijser (2013). A different and equally novel perspective is represented by David Rijser’s piece in the same volume on ‘The Poetics of Inclusion in Servius and Sidonius’. 77 78 79 80

Charlet (1988). See above, sect. 3.3, André (2006). See further below. See above, sect. 1, van Waarden and Kelly (2013).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 587

13/02/20 4:30 PM

588

SILVIA CONDORELLI

His presupposition is that Sidonius’ excessive aestheticism must have met the expectations of his readers. Sidonius’ taste for redundant lists actually squares with what Servius was doing as a late antique reader of Vergil, an attitude which Rijser calls ‘the poetics of inclusion’: a strong tendency towards encyclopaedism resulting not from inability to select material, but from unwillingness to do so. Onorato (2016a). We are indebted to Marco Onorato for a vast study of Sidonius’ poetical technique: Il castone e la gemma. This volume provides a careful examination of both the structure and the lexicon of Sidonius’ poetry, its structure being characterised by progressive, controlled fragmentation, its extremely recherché lexicon of hapaxes fitting in with the structure like jewels in a setting, supported by effective versification. Hernández Lobato (2017). It is evident that Sidonius’ poetics has been widely, and ever more profoundly, studied since the first decade of the 2000s, so that its visibility and importance in the field of late antique scholarship have considerably increased, as evidenced by the latest publications in the field: Pelttari (2014) and Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017). The latter volume contains an article by Jesús Hernández Lobato on the ‘poetics of silence’, with considerable detail on Sidonius.

3.6 Studies on the Panegyrics81 The harvest of studies of Sidonius’ celebrative poetry is rich, including quite a few doctoral dissertations since the late 1990s: two on the Panegyric of Anthemius (Francesco Montone (2012a) and Lynette Watson (1997)), Tiziana Brolli (2005) on that of Majorian, and Luciana Furbetta (2010) on Avitus.82 Previously, the panegyrics had only sporadically attracted attention, for details or for historical problems. Günther (1982). Rigobert Günther investigates the panegyrics for the aspirations of the senatorial aristocracy to renovatio imperii. Bonjour (1982). Looking into the celebrative function of personification, Madeleine Bonjour elaborates upon the differences between the panegyrics: a vanquished Roma in the Panegyric of Avitus as opposed to the image of Roma bellatrix in the other two. Sidonius’ model is Claudian, reworked to suit a different historical and political context. Harrison (1983). A doctoral dissertation worth mentioning is Geoffrey Harrison on Sidonius’ panegyrics and the relationship between poetry and society. Newbold (1985). Ron Newbold considers Sidonius in his panegyrics, together with Eugippius and Nonnus of Panopolis, as exemplary of the concept of power in the fifth century and of the expectations of society concerning the role of the emperor. Brodka (1997). In the panegyrics, the image of Roma, inspired by the republican idea of the urbs aeterna, is a fundamental motif, as shown by Dariusz Brodka. Brodka (1998). A contribution on the topos of Rome’s imperium in the panegyrics is again due to Brodka. Watson (1998). Lynette Watson focuses on the so-called consular panegyrics for the accession of Avitus and Anthemius respectively, uncovering the constant tendency to reconcile the past glory of Rome with the present.83 81 82

83

For an ample, albeit selective, bibliographical review concerning the panegyrics, see Meyers (2008). Brolli and Furbetta are both preparing revised versions to be published as a result of the project ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’. Online, one can consult a detailed paper on the reuse of the poetical tradition by Sidonius in his panegyrics: Watson (1996).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 588

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

589

Zarini (2000). Vincent Zarini provides an important update on the rhetorical function of the prefaces to the panegyrics: they are true prolaliai through which the poet establishes contact with the audience by making smart use of the mythological apparatus. Santelia (2002b). The conceit of the apostrophe to the poem, felicitously represented by Carmen 24, is also found in Carm. 8 and 3, in the form of short propemptika to the panegyrics of Avitus and Majorian respectively. Stefania Santelia analyses their structure and dense intertextuality. Styka (2003). Jerzy Styka provides a comprehensive outline of the poetics of the panegyrics. Following Roberts’ paradigm,84 Styka draws attention to the use of amplificatio and especially personification, which shape a complex mixture of myth and historical reality. Schindler (2009). In her comprehensive monograph on late antique panegyrics, Claudia Schindler touches upon Sidonius’ panegyrics of Avitus (Carm. 7) and Anthemius (Carm. 2),85 which she carefully examines for their rhetorical structure and their adherence to the model created by Claudian. Alexandre (2009a). Renaud Alexandre presents a reading of the panegyrics on the basis of the mixture of pudor and libertas, ethical and poetic ideal. Although the constraints of the genre leave little room for the expression of the poet’s personal feelings, Sidonius succeeds in discreetly letting his own views be aired. Stoehr-Monjou (2009a). Written for the manual of a concours d’agrégation, this work offers a detailed contextualisation of the corpus of panegyrics in historical and literary terms; of the latter, particularly interesting are discussions of the place of rhetoric in the genre of verse panegyric. An analysis of the structure of the eight component poems of the collection results in a series of remarks on the interweaving of history and myth. There is a section providing a concise but useful summary discussion of the poems’ metrical structure. Stoehr-Monjou (2009b). In this article, Annick Stoehr-Monjou develops a complex reading of the panegyrics, attentive to their rich intertextuality as well as their recherché style. While there is an explicit tendency towards renovatio imperii, many indications betray concern for an aetas mundi senescentis. Hence, Sidonius’ ‘poétique de l’éclat’ is as much a poetics of ‘explosion’, of the end of the world, as of ‘brilliance’ and hope. The inverse chronological order of the panegyrics, meanwhile, must be Sidonius’ own invention (not of the manuscript tradition) to lend a poetic order to the collection. Wolff (2009). Étienne Wolff writes on wordplay in the prefaces of the panegyrics, connected with Sidonius’ preference for cryptic and recherché speech as an expression of modesty. Alexandre (2009b). In the same issue of Vita Latina (180, 2009), Renaud Alexandre stresses the limited freedom for the poet’s personal voice due to the formal constraints of the panegyrical genre: political propaganda by means of comparisons with the mythical and historical past.86 Álvarez Jiménez (2011). David Álvarez Jiménez explores the evocation of the historical conflict between Rome and Carthage for propagandistic purposes in the panegyrics: the clash with the Vandals of Geiseric, the new Hannibal, is framed as the ‘fourth Punic War’, bearing out the argument that this menace must be countered as forcefully as Carthage’s power was once brought down. Gillett (2012). Andrew Gillett describes the history of epic panegyric from Claudian to Sidonius Apollinaris from the viewpoint of political communication. 84 85 86

See above, sect. 3.5, Roberts (1989). Schindler (2009) 181–215. For a third piece from the same issue, see below, sect. 3.6.3, Gosserez (2009).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 589

13/02/20 4:30 PM

590

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Guillaumin (2013). History acquires a paradigmatic value in celebratory poetry, aimed at mapping the profile of the ideal emperor on to the exempla of the past. Along these lines, JeanYves Guillaumin draws attention to the ‘fresco’ technique of citing exemplary personages like Cincinnatus and Fabricius, or, conversely, negative models. Bruzzone (2013). Myth as an expression of Sidonius’ cultural project is investigated by Antonella Bruzzone, who points in particular to the mythological erudition in the three panegyrics as a cultural rallying point for Roman identity against the barbarians. Kelly (2013b). Gavin Kelly demonstrates the importance of Claudian as a model for the composition of Sidonius’ panegyrics, focusing in particular on those on Avitus and on Anthemius. Proof of how complex intertextuality can be is Kelly’s hypothesis that the Orpheus of the preface to the Panegyric on Avitus could represent Claudian.87 Montone (2014b). Montone focuses on the exemplum of the battle of Actium, which recurs in all three panegyrics: an intertextual analysis uncovers the contamination of various models from Augustan propaganda. Grzywaczewski (2014). The personification of Roma in the panegyrics draws its inspiration from pagan models, due to Sidonius’ education and the rhetorical rules for the genre, but the idealisation of Rome is compatible with Christian values. Consolino (2014). In Présence de Sidoine, Franca Ela Consolino discusses the three personifications of Roma,88 and the different combinations of their principal model Claudian with other hypotexts. Delattre (2014). In the same volume, Aurélie Delattre reconsiders the role of Geiseric and the Vandals: Sidonius combines the image created by Claudian with the tradition concerning Hannibal and the Punic enemy. Tommasi Moreschini (2014). Resuming a topic dealt with by Stoehr-Monjou and Guillaumin,89 Chiara Tommasi Moreschini reads the ‘historical sections’ of the panegyrics as clues to the present. Tommasi Moreschini (2015, 2016). Tommasi Moreschini investigates elements of political theology in the panegyrics. This intersection of religion and eulogy comes into its own both in the sacralisation of the emperor and in the providential prospects of the empire and the idea of Roma aeterna. The next year, she expanded this into a longer article on late antique panegyrics in general (2016). Dion (2016). After identifying numerous points of contact between Aratus’ Phaenomena and Vergil’s Georgics, Jeanne Dion goes on to prove Vergil’s influence on Sidonius’ panegyrics. Grzywaczewski and Knox (2017). The personification of the goddess Roma constitutes the unifying trait of Sidonius’ panegyrics, an ideological motif that becomes the supporting element of the praise of all three emperors, according to Józef Grzywaczewski and Daniel Knox.

3.6.1 Carm. 1–2, the Panegyric of Anthemius Schuster (1940). Moritz Schuster compares the description of the Huns in Carm. 2.239–69, which highlights racial characteristics, with Ammianus 31.2 and Jordanes Getica 24 and 35. Scarcia (1991). Riccardo Scarcia traces the influence of the image of spontaneous flowering at the passage of a hero from Claudian (Laus Serenae 70–7) via Sidonius (Carm. 2.102–14) 87 88 89

A similar hypothesis was earlier proffered by Stoehr-Monjou (2009b); see above. Cf. esp. above, Bonjour (1982). See Stoehr-Monjou (2009b), Guillaumin (2013).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 590

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

591

to Phocas in his Vita Vergilii; it subsequently met with huge success in Italian Renaissance poetry. Monfort (2009). After Schuster (1940),90 Marie-Laure Monfort studies the picture of the Huns in the Panegyric on Anthemius. As the practice of deforming the skull (lines 246–7) is not limited to the Huns, but applied by other barbarian peoples as well, Sidonius’ excursus, in her view, has more to do with folklore from literary sources than with reality. Montone (2011b, 2012b, 2013b, 2015). Starting in 2011, Francesco Montone dedicates a series of articles to the Panegyric of Anthemius, which was the subject matter of his doctoral dissertation (see also Montone (2013a) on the Panegyric of Majorian, section 3.6.2 below).91 In ‘“Lupi d’autore”’ (2011b), he explores the sources of the comparison of the Huns with wolves at Carm. 7.361–8. In the article of the following year, with a similar method, he unpicks the various literary strands combined in the simile comparing Geiseric to a wild boar (lines 88–98). Also in 2013, Montone focuses on Anthemius’ clash with the Huns (Carm. 7.236–69), a people whose dehumanising facial scars exalt Anthemius’ actions. In his 2015 article, Ricimer’s role in supporting the empire under Anthemius is greeted by Sidonius as a sign of hope for the pars Occidentis. Jolivet (2015). For Jean-Christophe Jolivet, in an intertextual analysis of the personification of Aurora at Carm. 2.407–35, the poetical representation of the pars Orientis, through the imitation of the Palace of the Sun in Book 2 of the Metamorphoses, shows the opposition of Ovidian and Vergilian poetics. Ploton-Nicollet (2016). François Ploton-Nicollet, for the crossing of the Danube by the Huns (Carm. 2.269–71), proposes the emendation siccas . . . lymphas instead of sectas . . . lymphas. Ferrari (2016). Carlo Ferrari offers yet another discussion of Sidonius’ description of the Huns in the Panegyric of Anthemius:92 it proves Sidonius’ ethnographical interest, providing a distinctive picture, different, in many respects, from that of Ammianus Marcellinus and Claudian. Boshoff (2016). Lynton Boshoff’s piece ‘Looking Eastwards’ considers the relationship between the pars Occidentis and the pars Orientis as gleaned from the Panegyric of Anthemius, in particular the praise of Constantinople (lines 30–7) and the encounter of Aurora and Rome (407–523). The conclusion is that the celebration of Anthemius’ homeland is ambivalent and hints at the praise of Romanitas. Oppedisano (2017). Fabrizio Oppedisano discusses the panegyric as a vivid testimony of the tensions which accompanied the ascent of the easterner Anthemius.

3.6.2 Carm. 3–5, the Panegyric of Majorian Loyen (1944). One of the most controversial points in Sidonius’ panegyrics is the passage in the Panegyric on Majorian which mentions a battle between Roman and Salian Franks near vicus Helena (Carm. 5.210–54).93 Sidonius is the only source for this episode. After weighing

90 91 92 93

See above. See above, the introduction to this section. See also Schuster (1940), Monfort (2009), Montone (2011b, 2013b), Ploton-Nicollet (2016). Loyen had already occupied himself with this episode in his Recherches historiques (Loyen (1942) 121–4). For further developments (apart from some interesting remarks in Gualandri (2001)), see below, Châtillon (1967), Le Bourdellès (1984), Capron (1994), Piazza (2006), Brolli (2014), Franzoi (2016).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 591

13/02/20 4:30 PM

592

SILVIA CONDORELLI

the various hypotheses as to the identification of vicus Helena since Savaron, Loyen argues that it must have been Arras, between Cambrai and Tournai. Châtillon (1967). Concerning the problem of vicus Helena, François Châtillon is unconvinced of the historical reliability of Sidonius’ account at Carm. 5.210–54. Bachrach (1968). Bernard Bachrach offers a brief note on the barbarian people of the Alites mentioned at Carm. 5.476. Le Bourdellès (1984). The problem of vicus Helena discussed by Loyen (1944) is reconsidered from a toponymic angle by Hubert Le Bourdellès. He argues that it is a Frankish name attested in a number of waterways and locations in northern France, and should be identified with Elnon-Saint-Amand, on the river Elnon. Capron (1994). After Les Bourdellès (1984), Éric Capron offers further etymological considerations concerning the toponym vicus Helena. Rousseau (2000). Although Carmen 5 marks the reconciliation of Avitus’ son-in-law Sidonius with his victor Majorian, Philip Rousseau notes that the poem’s tone is not as enthusiastic as in the Panegyric for Avitus. Apart from the poet’s personal connection, this is due to his belonging to the Gallic nobility who, with the accession of Avitus, had seen their aspirations realised. Brolli (2004). Tiziana Brolli highlights the figure of Majorian, described as a new Scipio (coupled with a reference to Books 1 and 4 of the Aeneid for the African danger), but the principal referent is Hannibal’s march across the Alps in Silius Italicus’ Punica Book 3.94 Piazza (2006). Further on the clash near vicus Helena between Romans and Salian Franks in Carm. 5.210–54, Emanuele Piazza offers a careful reconstruction of the historical situation and frames it as a crucial event thanks to which the Romans were able to arrest the advance of King Cloio/Chlodio’s Franks in northern France, turning them into allies. Franzoi (2008). Alessandro Franzoi occupies himself with the reuse of Martial, in particular epigrams 8.55 and 8.56, in Carm. 3 and 4, the dedication to the magister epistularum Petrus and the preface to the Panegyric of Majorian respectively.95 Montone (2013a). In a lengthy passage (Carm. 5.53–350), Africa, oppressed by the Vandals, asks Majorian for help. Montone identifies the Claudianic model, the numerous echoes of Vergil, and the historical strand of the Punic–Roman conflict. Brolli (2013). Brolli’s chapter in New Approaches96 is an important methodological contribution on writing commentary, ripened in working at her doctoral thesis on the Panegyric of Majorian and its revision.97 Perrini (2014). Gianluca Perrini describes in detail the events of Majorian’s reign. Brolli (2014). In Présence de Sidoine, Tiziana Brolli reconsiders the vicus Helena question at Carm. 5.210–54 for its poetical merits. Wolff (2015b). Étienne Wolff writes on the image of Augustus in Carm. 3 and 4, where the figure of the emperor is rather shadowy, masked by Maecenas. Franzoi (2016). Concerning the problem of the vicus Helena and the section on the Salian Franks in the Panegyric of Majorian, Alessandro Franzoi thinks that this testimony, unknown 94

95 96 97

There are two further articles on Sidonius’ poetry in Incontri triestini di filologia classica for 2003–4: see also below, sect. 3.6.3, Brocca (2004) on Carm.7, and sect. 3.8.9, Ravenna (2004) on the poem in Ep. 9.16. See above, n. 69. See above, sect. 1, van Waarden and Kelly (2013). See above, the introduction to this section.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 592

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

593

from historical sources, is not completely reliable and should be ascribed to poetic creativity in trying to extol Majorian. Bedon (2016). Robert Bedon focuses on the passage in Carm. 5.206–11 where Majorian’s venture of taking his troops across the frozen Loire is described; in a lengthy analysis, Bedon tends to accept the reliability, both geographical and meteorological, of Sidonius’ account.

3.6.3 Carm. 6–8, the Panegyric of Avitus Loyen (1933a), Macé (1933), Loyen (1933b). The early 1930s witnessed a skirmish about the meaning of Albis in Carm. 7.391, thought to be either the river Elbe or the Alve, a tiny tributary of the Meuse. The debate is evaluated in Byvanck (1935). Brocca (2004). Nicoletta Brocca points out that Sidonius’ poetical contribution to the political legitimisation of Avitus is based on Claudian’s Bellum Gildonicum overlaid by Rutilius Namatianus’ celebration of Rome. These hypotexts provide Sidonius with the idea (historically skewed) of Trajan, the imperator senex, as an anticipation of Avitus as optimus princeps. Kulikowski (2008). Michael Kulikowski, reading between the lines of Sidonius’ account of Avitus’ diplomatic mission to Toulouse, sees a reference to an internal Visigothic conflict between Theoderic II and his brother Frederic that is not elsewhere documented. Gosserez (2009). Laurence Gosserez points out the political significance – more than mere decoration – of the amplificatio effectuated by the mythological apparatus in the Panegyric on Avitus. Guipponi-Gineste (2010b). Marie-France Guipponi-Gineste points out the literary and rhetorical base on which the Panegyric of Avitus rests, firmly rooted in Claudian’s model. Consolino (2011a). Franca Ela Consolino stresses the aim of creating public consensus about the laudandus in works where praise is interwoven with political propaganda. In Sidonius’ case, this is evident in his treatment of Avitus’ relationship with the Visigoths and Theoderic II. Furbetta (2011). Almost simultaneously, two pieces were published on the preface to the Panegyric of Avitus. The first, by Luciana Furbetta, points out numerous points of contact between the preface and the panegyric proper, which it anticipates. Bruzzone (2011). The second, by Antonella Bruzzone, analyses the lines dedicated to Orpheus’ song. Having previously highlighted the reminiscences of Ovid amid the dense web of intertextuality,98 she now adds allusions to Horace, especially to Odes 3.4.37–68. Furbetta (2014b). In Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire,99 Luciana Furbetta offers sections of commentary on the Panegyric of Avitus (Carm. 6.25, 7.347–56, 7.400, and 7.405–10) from her forthcoming commentary.100 Stoehr-Monjou (2014). As shown by Annick Stoehr-Monjou in the same volume, the exemplum of Fabricius is employed to construct Avitus’ image in Carmen 7, especially for the values of paupertas and fides. Jolivet (2014). Also in Présence, Jean-Christophe Jolivet writes on Avitus and the barbarians: Avitus, the new Aeneas, and other images and situations from Vergil, together with daring wordplay, unite to shape the eulogy. 98

99 100

At the 2010 Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire congress: see above, the introductory section. and Poignault and StoehrMonjou (2014). See above, Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). See above, introduction to this section, for her doctoral dissertation and its reworking.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 593

13/02/20 4:30 PM

594

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Bruzzone (2014). Finally in Présence, Antonella Bruzzone, in a piece on the preface to the Panegyric to Avitus, taking as her starting point Sidonius’ core technique of layering different models, identifies Ovid’s motif of the Gigantomachy turned into a eulogy. Furbetta (2016a). Luciana Furbetta researches an aspect of Sidonius’ poetry that is not often treated, namely the influence of Lucan, concentrating on the Panegyric of Avitus. She discloses a complex system of allusions, sometimes clearly marked, sometimes more subtle, underpinning Sidonius’ own concept of Rome in difficulty. Green (2016). In a note of commentary on lines 519–24, Roger Green understands Getae as collective dative singular instead of nominative plural. This inverts the relations in the text to the effect that Avitus is maestus because the Gauls realise that they are subordinated to the Goths. Hanaghan (2017a). Michael Hanaghan’s article points out the traits whereby Sidonius characterises Avitus as an emperor: in confronting the barbarians, he relies not on ira, but on political and military auctoritas. Furbetta (2017c). Luciana Furbetta thematises brevitas in Sidonius’ epigrams, applying this to Carm. 8, which dedicates the panegyric to Priscus in an act of modesty expressed by its being light verse.

3.7 Studies on the Carmina minora Schetter (1992). Willy Schetter’s article is fundamental on Sidonius’ consecutive editions of the Carmina. Schetter argues that the twenty-four pieces originally did not constitute one single publication. The panegyrics (Carm. 1–8) are clearly separated from the rest (9–24). This second group, which belongs together as proved by its programmatic opening and concluding poems, nevertheless presents problems as to its textual and thematic coherence. The brevis charta announced in Carm. 9 does not tally with the length of 22 and 23, the latter two, moreover, being transmitted after the Carmina in some important manuscripts (P, F, and T).101 In addition, T also has Carm. 16 outside the final order. This led Loyen to suppose that there were three successive editions of the Carmina.102 According to Schetter, however, Carm. 16 belongs to the original edition, whereas Carm. 22 and 23, for chronological reasons among others, belong to a second edition.

3.7.1 Carm. 9, To Felix Prete (1984). Sesto Prete identifies a number of fourth- and fifth-century sources for Sidonius’ description of Hercules’ labours (Carm. 9.94–100, 13.1–14, 15.141–3). Santelia (1998, 1999a). Stefania Santelia dedicated two articles to the opening poem of the Carmina minora, Carm. 9. The first (1998) analyses the poem, dividing it into six sections: the first and the last forming a ring structure, the middle ones consisting of separate scenes. The second article (1999a) discusses the catalogue of pagan gods (lines 170–7), a literary commonplace which Sidonius rejects. Hernández Lobato (2010c). This article is one of two that Hernández Lobato published on the Carmina minora in 2010 (cf. section 3.7.3 on Carm. 12) and later incorporated into his book on poetics.103 He proposes an interpretation of the programmatic opening poem of the 101

102 103

For the manuscripts, see in this volume Dolveck, ch. 16; for Carm. 22 and 23, Kelly, ch. 3, sects. 3.1 and 3.2, Consolino, ch. 10, sects. 8 and 2.1 respectively. See above, sect. 2.1.2, Loyen, with n. 9. See above, sect. 3.5, Hernández Lobato (2012a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 594

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

595

Carmina minora, Carm. 9, as a rejection, in a deconstructivist way, of all possible poetical subjects and genres to the point of cancelling poetry itself.

3.7.2 Carm. 10 and 11, Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia .

Brozek (1991). In this short explanatory note, Mieczysław Broz. ek proposes retaining the transmitted text of one of the most complex passages in Sidonius, the beginning of Carm. 11.104 Styka (2007). Jerzy Styka highlights Sidonius’ poetical choice of following the classical and pagan tradition for his epithalamia. Looking back to the history of the genre and discussing Sidonius’ models Statius and Claudian, Styka identifies in Sidonius a process of neutralisation towards a merely rhetorical and literary scheme. In this, Sidonius differs from Paulinus of Nola, who, a few decades earlier, decisively dropped mythology in favour of a Christianised epithalamium. Ceccarelli (2009), Santelia (2010a). Within a year, two more proposals were published concerning the opening of Carm. 11. Lucio Ceccarelli concentrates on line 5, the problem of the transitive use of recurrentem (if referring to Maleam) and the problematic connection of Maleam with ructatum: he proposes emending Maleam to Maleae and considering ructatum as a noun corresponding with recurrentem. Stefania Santelia defends the text as transmitted (with a slight correction of orithyion to Orithyian) as, with the liberty of poetical geography, it can be explained as describing the Gulf of Corinth where Venus’ temple stands.105 Santelia (2011). Stefania Santelia analyses the composition of the Epithalamium,106 additionally pointing out reminiscences of Statius and Claudian, and stressing the innovative use of myth to celebrate, through the marriage of two scions of important Gallic families, the hope of survival for the threatened empire. Harich-Schwarzbauer (2014). Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer examines the form of the epithalamium in Sidonius by comparing Carm. 10–11 and 14–15 with Claudian’s piece for the marriage of Palladius and Celerina (Carm. min. 25): the Claudianic model is strongest in the Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia, whereas, in the poem for Polemius and Araneola, this model evolves to a different concept of Venus and marital love. Filosini (2014b). This is one of the articles on the Carmina minora in Présence de Sidoine.107 Stefania Filosini detects Ovid’s influence in the structure of Carm. 11, to which she returns in her commentary on this poem.108 Onorato (2016b). Marco Onorato focuses on the praise of Ruricius and Hiberia in Carm. 11, in the speeches of Amor and Venus, identifying varietas as the defining poetic element in both. Sidonius, compared to his model Statius, appears to rewrite the mythological material in an elegiac vein, thus striving for originality.

3.7.3 Carm. 12, To Catullinus Tschernjak (2003). Alexandr Tschernjak reconstructs the chronology and the historical and social background of Carm. 12 to Catullinus, probably composed in 461 during the occupation of Lyon by the Burgundians. 104 105 106 107 108

See also below, Ceccarelli (2009) and Santelia (2010a). See also above, Broz.ek (1991). A French version was published in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014): Santelia (2014). Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014); see above, sects. 1 and 3.1. See above, sect. 2.2.1, Filosini (2014a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 595

13/02/20 4:30 PM

596

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Smolak (2008). Kurt Smolak writes a contribution on Carm. 12 and the satirical reference to the Burgundians. Hernández Lobato (2010b). This article offers a reading of Carm. 12 as a poetic construction of the barbarian otherness of the Burgundians. Like Hernández Lobato (2010c), discussed in section 3.7.1 above, this article was incorporated into his book on poetics.109 Smolak (2011). Kurt Smolak writes again about Carm. 12,110 interpreting the poem as a satire masked as an epigram.

3.7.4 Carm. 13, To the Emperor Majorian Prete (1984). See section 3.7.1 above, Sidonius’ descriptions of Hercules’ labours (Carm. 9.94–100, 13.1–14, 15.141–3). Koster (1988). Carm. 3, 4, and 13, together with the panegyric proper, Carm. 5, are an indispensable tool for tracing the complex relationship which binds Sidonius and Majorian, here explored by Severin Koster. Santelia (2005b). In a comprehensive article on Carm. 13, Stefania Santelia provides a translation and interpretation of Sidonius’ appeal to the emperor Majorian. Hernández Lobato (2007, 2008). Distinguishing the two sections of Carm. 13 (1–20 and 21–40), Jesús Hernández Lobato suggests a metaliterary reading, supported by the play on names in lines 25–7. He takes his time for a discussion of histriones (19), which is normally emended (because unmetrical), assuming that synizesis makes it prosodically acceptable, while being essential to the interpretation of the poem. In a note of the following year, he returns to the question in reaction to a conjecture proposed by Santelia (2005b). Canobbio (2013). Yet another reading of Carm. 13, intended as a correction of previous ones,111 by Alberto Canobbio stresses the structural presence of Martial and sees the essence of this poem in its mixture of seriousness and wit.

3.7.5 Carm. 14 and 15, Epithalamium for Polemius and Araneola Speyer (1964). Wolfgang Speyer investigates the large section of the Epithalamium of Polemius and Araneola dedicated to the temple of Philosophy (Carm. 15.36–125), trying to identify the sources for this creation: apart from Censorinus, who, moreover, is mentioned in the poem’s prose preface, candidates include Seneca, for his distinguishing the various forms of essentia, and Augustine, for the historical succession of philosophers. Uggeri (1966). The scene of Lais cutting Diogenes’ beard to deride him (Carm. 15.181–4) is also present in an epigram by Luxorius (Anth. 374 R2) and had become commonplace, as Giovanni Uggeri shows. Prete (1984). See section 3.7.1 above, Sidonius’ descriptions of Hercules’ labours (Carm. 9.94–100, 13.1–14, 15.141–3). Holland Heller and Rebuffat (1987). Katherine Holland Heller and René Rebuffat argue that the textrinum mentioned at Carm. 15.126–84 and 22.192–203 is an indication of textile manufacturing in the houses of fifth-century high society in Gaul, as was already the case in the world of the Odyssey. Rosati (2003). Gianpiero Rosati focuses on Araneola and the poetic portrayal of her wedding with Polemius (Carm. 15), contextualised by the reception of the mythical 109 110 111

Hernández Lobato (2012a), discussed in sect. 3.5. See Smolak (2008) above. See Koster (1988), Santelia (2005b), Hernández Lobato (2007), Condorelli (2008) 126–32.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 596

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

597

personage Arachne, paradigm of weaving and of the impossible competition between men and gods (Ov. Met. 6.1–145). The intertextuality enhances Araneola’s feminine virtues, and Sidonius’ colourful poetical tribute to her fabric is a sophisticated allusion to the art of poetry as weaving. Barbieri (2004). Andrea Barbieri discusses the attribution to Cicero of the terms essentia and indoloria in the prose preface to the Epithalamium to Polemius and Araneola (Carm. 14) Styka (2007). A generic study by Jerzy Styka of the two Epithalamia: see section 3.7.2 above. Harich-Schwarzbauer (2014). Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer offers a comparative study of the two Epithalamia: see further section 3.7.2 above.

3.7.6 Carm. 16, Thanksgiving to Faustus Daly (2000). A long overdue fundamental appraisal of the Eucharisticon to Faustus (Carm. 16), a necessary condition for a revaluation of Sidonius’ Chistian culture, is provided by W.M. Daly’s substantial article on this poem. This poem is not a superficial gallery of figures and stories from the Bible (as Stevens and Loyen thought112), but an important proof of Sidonius’ Christian frame of mind, occupying a strategic position within the collection, which, according to Daly, is subdivided on the basis of the number eight. The entire first part of the poem, dedicated to the Holy Spirit, is a string of biblical references inspired by the allegorical exegesis of the Scriptures, originating in the Latin and Greek patristic traditions.113 Barcellona (2008). Rossana Barcellona dwells extensively on Carm. 16, its date, its place within Sidonius’ poetry, and, in particular, its monastic elements and Sidonius’ friendship with Faustus, of which it is the earliest attestation. Faustus is praised for being an important member of the monastic centre of Lérins, which provides Sidonius’ episcopate with a deep spiritual dimension. Hernández Lobato (2014a). Présence de Sidoine contains two pieces on Carm. 16. Jesús Hernández Lobato reads the poem as a metaphor, its first section culminating, through a dense web of references, in the death of Dido, signifying the symbolic death of pagan poetry and Christian resurrection. Amherdt (2014). David Amherdt, on the other hand, reads the poem primarily to identify elements of Sidonius’ Christian culture in the context of his spiritual growth as a bishop – a topic generally hard to pin down. Barcellona (2015). Rossana Barcellona again writes about Carm. 16, seeing how, in its introduction, the rejection of pagan myth makes room for Christian inspiration without any polemics. Furbetta (2017b). Luciana Furbetta compares Sidonius’ treatment of biblical episodes in Carm. 16 and Avitus’ take on the same passages in his De spiritalis historiae gestis. The difference – despite their common cultural horizon – is determined by Sidonius’ aim of praising Faustus on the one hand and Avitus’ taking the Bible itself for his subject matter.

3.7.7 Carm. 17–21 Mesturini (1981). Anna Maria Mesturini confronts the problem of Sidonius’ birthday, mentioned in Carm. 20, and hypothesises that the indication of the Nones of November in the epigram refers not to the poet’s birthday, which would fall in the preceding days, but 112 113

See e.g. Stevens (1933) 110–11, Loyen (1943) 35. See further above, sect. 2.2.1, Santelia (2012).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 597

13/02/20 4:30 PM

598

SILVIA CONDORELLI

another event, maybe his wedding anniversary, that was tied to his brother-in-law Ecdicius, the recipient of this invitation in verse. On the proposed link between Carm. 20 and 22, see section 3.7.8 below. Santelia (2010b). This article focuses on the invitation to dinner for Ommatius in Carm. 17, a sophisticated variant of a topos that has a long tradition going all the way back to Bacchylides.

3.7.8 Carm. 22, The Castle of Pontius Leontius Rebuffat-Emmanuel and Rebuffat (1978). In an article on Roman wall paintings, Denise Rebuffat-Emmanuel and René Rebuffat also touch upon the murals in the peristylium of Pontius Leontius’ villa (Carm. 22.150–68). Mesturini (1982). Mesturini advances the thesis that the two deities who appear in Carm. 22 (Dionysus and Phoebus) are two sides of Sidonius himself – a more problematic identification, it would seem, than Sidonius’ usual alter ego Phoebus. Holland Heller and Rebuffat (1987). See section 3.7.5 above on Carm. 15 (on the textrinum mentioned at Carm. 15.126 -84 and 22.192–203). Mathisen (1991b). In a detailed essay on nicknames in Sidonius’ literary circle, Ralph Mathisen, in Carm. 22 in particular, identifies Phoebus with Sidonius, and Dionysus with Pontius Leontius, the poem’s addressee. Di Salvo (2005b). Lucia Di Salvo proposes emending pendet to splendet at Carm. 22.140. Robert (2011). The poetic description of the Burgus Pontii Leontii as emblematic of a process of idealising reality is thematised by Renaud Robert, who points out that it is an occasion for recalling the cultural baggage that links the Gallic aristocracy to Roman tradition.

3.7.9 Carm. 23, To Consentius Verdière (1983). At Carm. 23.158–61, Raoul Verdière detects an indication of the reason for Ovid’s exile: the Caesarea puella mentioned by Sidonius should be identified with Terentia, both Augustus’ and Ovid’s lover before she married Maecenas. Pavan (2005). The analysis of the chariot race at Carm. 23.304–427, based on Statius, Theb. 6.238–549, leads Alberto Pavan to consider the poem’s literary genre. As Sidonius applies the metaphor of the charioteer to describe Consentius’ ability in wielding power, the rhetorical structure of Carm. 23 makes it a panegyric in hendecasyllables.114 Santelia (2008). Stefania Santelia discusses Carm. 23.263–303: despite the explicit prohibition of theatre games, and pantomime in particular, in the Christian sphere, Consentius junior is here eulogised for his qualities in pantomime. Santelia surmises traces of Lucian’s defence of this theatrical genre (Περὶ ὀρχήσεως). Wolff (2012a). Étienne Wolff, comparing Ausonius’ praise of Narbonne (Ordo 106–27) with Sidonius’ (Carm. 23.37–96), thinks that, despite elements in common, the two are not substantially related. Fernández López (2012). Conchita Fernández López supposes that Sidonius, at Carm. 23.23–5, uses puteum while meaning podium, ironically exploiting the ambiguous pronunciation by the people of Gabalum (Javols). 114

For another reminiscence of Statius, see Gärtner (2001): Theb. 10.909–10 as the hypotext of Sidonius’ Carm. 7.129–34.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 598

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

599

Riess (2013). At pp. 96–110 of his monograph on Narbonne, Frank Riess opines that Sidonius in Carm. 23 gives a kind of biography of the town. Santelia (2015). Stefania Santelia again treats the praise of Narbonne in Carm. 23,115 reading it in the tradition of laudes urbium: Sidonius’ political intentions are paramount, unlike in Ausonius. Santelia (2016). From the same poem, Santelia now analyses the long list of Greek and Latin authors whom Consentius senior surpasses. The Greek ones would seem to echo a system of disciplines, each indicated by a specific author, going back to Varro via Martianus Capella and Augustine. The Latin ones, too, reflect a school canon. Consequently, the whole seems to be an educational proposal inspired by traditional models. Onorato (2016c). Marco Onorato offers a discussion of the recherché lexicon of Carm. 23, assuming that, in referring to Consentius’ poem with the phrase multiplex poema, Sidonius envisages not only its metrical but also its stylistic variety: in response to the latter, Sidonius deploys his own stylistic multiplicitas.

3.7.10 Carm. 24, A Send-Off Poem for the Book Santelia (1999b). As a side-product of her commentary on the Propempticon (Carm. 24),116 Santelia writes about the reference in it to the tomb of St Julian at Brioude, the first literary testimony of the cult of this saint.

3.8 Studies on the Epistulae A prime source of information for the events which Sidonius was not only a witness to but often a participant in, his correspondence has over time inspired interest in various areas, historical, linguistic, and literary. Cameron (1965, 2016b). Tracing the limited reception of Pliny’s letters into Late Antiquity, Alan Cameron identifies Sidonius as an exception, although it is uncertain whether it was a rediscovery in an absolute sense. A revised version is Cameron (2016b).117 Mathisen (1981a). Ralph Mathisen undertakes a complex reconstruction of the family ties in evidence in the four most important fifth- and sixth-century letter collections, by Sidonius, Ruricius, Avitus, and Ennodius. Fernández López (1994). Conchita Fernández López has written a comprehensive study of Sidonius’ correspondence and the rhetorical classification of the letters. Following the system designed by Roman Jakobson, she distinguishes five categories of letters having the following functions: • • • • • 115 116 117

metaliterary: letters concerning the edition and presentation of books; phatic: letters of salutation and answering; expressive: letters of congratulation and salutation; impressive: letters of adhortation and admonition; declarative and poetic: letters that are descriptions. After Wolff (2012a) and Riess (2013): see above. See above, sect. 2.2.1, Santelia (2002a). For the intervening period, see Corke-Webster (2017).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 599

13/02/20 4:30 PM

600

SILVIA CONDORELLI

All the letters are then distributed according to their type and discussed in detail, following the scheme salutatio, captatio, narratio, petitio, and conclusio. Three interesting appendices contain (1) critical notes on the text of the letters in points where she deviates from Loyen’s text; (2) rhetorical figures and syntactical constructions; (3) addenda to Geisler’s (1887) list of loci similes. Zelzer (1995). Michaela Zelzer considers the rhetorical foundation of Sidonius’ correspondence, inter alia pointing out analogies with Ambrose’ correspondence. Zelzer and Zelzer (2002). Klaus and Michaela Zelzer defend the thesis that, in addition to Pliny, Ambrose was influential on the structure of the correspondence. Gioanni (2004). In an extensive article, Stéphane Gioanni stresses the formal elaborateness which all fifth- and sixth-century Gallic letter collections share, a marker of a cultural elite that defends its classical legacy and, at the same time, guarantees Christian values. Styka (2008b). Jerzy Styka traces the structure of school education in Late Antiquity on the basis of Sidonius’ letters. Overwien (2009a, 2009b). Oliver Overwien published two articles in 2009: the first explores the use of irony in the correspondence through a number of significant examples, while the second reads a series of letters in Book 8 as encrypted political messages. Gibson (2011). Roy Gibson’s 2011 article on the addressee of Pliny Ep. 1.1 has significant consequences for Sidonius too.118 Gibson notes that Sidonius begins his first book and ends his last book with addressees with the significant names of Constantius and Firminus (Ep. 1.1, 9.16). He suggests that this is an imitation of Pliny, building on Barchiesi’s observation that Pliny’s last addressee in Book 9, Fuscus (Ep. 9.40), bears a name with a sense opposed to that of Clarus: ‘dark’ and ‘bright’ respectively.119 The conclusion is that Sidonius read the cognomen Clarus in the first heading of Pliny’s first Book. Styka (2011). Jerzy Styka shows how Sidonius’ letters provide a solid testimony to the public offices and political careers open to the fifth-century nobility in Gaul. Wolff (2012b). Wolff’s contribution to La présence de l’histoire dans l’épistolaire120 concerns itself with the problem of history in Sidonius’ correspondence.121 Luceri (2012). Angelo Luceri provides a comprehensive overview of the correspondence in Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica. Gibson (2013a, 2013b). The third section of New Approaches is entirely dedicated to the Letters, and addresses some fundamental questions. To begin with, Roy Gibson tackles the essential issue of the Plinian model: rather than for wording and intertextuality, Pliny is decisive for structure and the grand arc of nine Books (Gibson 2013a). In an article from the same year (2013b), Gibson also explores the link with Pliny, identifying the corresponding names at the beginning and end of both collections.122 Mathisen (2013a). In the same New Approaches volume, Ralph Mathisen contributes an extensive article on methodological problems in dating the letters: apart from the letters that contain precise historical or biographical indications, some others can be dated on the hypothesis that the collection is made up of separate ‘dossiers’ or ‘dockets’ put together on various grounds by the author.123

118 119 120 121 122 123

See also below, Gibson (2013b). Barchiesi (2005) 330–2; see also Marchesi (2008) 249–50. Guillaumont and Laurence (2012). In the same volume cf. Näf (2012) and Stoehr-Monjou (2012) (below, sects. 3.8.4 and 3.8.5 respectively). See above, Gibson (2011). See below, Mathisen (2014).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 600

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

601

Prévot (2013a). In this article Françoise Prévot demonstrates how to build Sidonius’ prosopography by means of the correspondence.124 Mathisen (2014). The organisation of the letter collection follows complex criteria, a problem that intersects with the issue of the dating of the letters to which Ralph Mathisen draws our attention.125 Chronology is a criterion but only in a limited way; another partial criterion is the addressees (for instance, bishops in Books 6 and 7.1–11). Mathisen’s central hypothesis is organisation according to ‘dossiers’ from Sidonius’ personal or episcopal archives. Pietrini (2014). In an extensive article, Stefania Pietrini reconstructs the legal situation in fifth-century Gaul thanks to valuable evidence from Sidonius. Schwitter (2015). Sidonius’ correspondence is an important element in Raphael Schwitter’s monograph Umbrosa lux, where he investigates late antique collections of letters (also those of Ausonius, Avitus, and Ennodius) focusing on obscuritas as a peculiar trait in communication, aimed at creating a coded language with ideological and cultural functions. Mascoli (2016b). Patrizia Mascoli analyses Sidonius’ habit of rounding off his letters with a pun.126 Furbetta (2016b, 2016c). Two more articles by Luciana Furbetta in 2016127 include, first, an ample assessment of the strongly artistic character of the letters of Sidonius, who, although part of an established tradition, innovates and invigorates the genre, as shown in the final section on reception. The second article is about the allusion to Ausonius in the letters, a presence which is covered up by an overlay of other models and whose lexicon is absorbed into Sidonius’ expressive fabric. Furbetta also signals cases of ‘involuntary memory’ in various intertexts and sheds light on passages clearly influenced by Ausonius: Ep. 2.2, 8.12, and 9.13. Mratschek (2017). In a multi-author volume on late antique letter collections, Sigrid Mratschek writes on Sidonius’ correspondence, stressing the complexity of its composition and the recherché aestheticism of its style. She pays special attention to the inserted poems, in particular the programmatic closure in Ep. 9.16. Hanaghan (2017b). Michael Hanaghan investigates the complex allusive technique of the programmatic letters by showing how imagery of navigation describes literary activity.

3.8.1 Letters Book 1 Küppers (2005). Jochem Küppers re-examines the first book of letters for autobiographical elements. Letter 1.1 Kröner (1989). Hans-Otto Kröner’s article is one attempt among many at grasping the meaning of Symmachus’ rotunditas and Pliny’s disciplina maturitasque in Ep. 1.1.1. Gibson (2011). For the importance of the addressee’s name, Constantius, see Gibson (2011) in section 3.8 above. 124 125 126 127

Prévot is also the author, in the same year, of the prosopographical lemma ‘Sidonius 1’ in PCBE 4 (Prévot 2013b). Cf. above, Mathisen (2013a). This ‘epigrammatic structure’ is pointed out by Amherdt (2001) 165–6. See also above, sect. 3.6.4, Furbetta (2016a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 601

13/02/20 4:30 PM

602

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Letter 1.2 Köhler (1998). In the portraits of Theoderic II (Ep. 1.2) and of the parasite (3.13), Helga Köhler points out that Sidonius handles physiognomy as an expression of character. At first glance, this may seem to reflect the close correlation between soul and body advocated by Faustus of Riez, but Ep. 7.14 proves that Sidonius rather follows the neoPlatonic theory of the incorporeality of the soul supported by Claudianus Mamertus in De statu animae. Letter 1.5 Eigler (1997). Sidonius’ voyage to Rome in Ep. 1.5 is analysed by Ulrich Eigler for its Horatian reminiscences.128 Piacente (2005). Luigi Piacente focuses on Ep. 1.5, the account of the journey to Rome, which is filtered through literary reminiscences, above all (and clearly marked by the letter’s position129) by Horace Satire 1.5. Soler (2005). In her monograph on travel writing in Late Antiquity, Joëlle Soler, on pp. 340–7, interprets Ep. 1.5 as a symbol of Christian pilgrimage. Mazzoli (2006). Giancarlo Mazzoli shows that two epistles by Sidonius are, in fact, a rewriting in prose of Horatian satire: Ep. 1.5 alludes clearly to Horace’s travels to Brindisi, but Ep. 1.11 provides the most consistent reference by citing Sat. 2.1.82–3 about the prohibition of writing satire on somebody – a theme that pervades the entire letter. Wolff (2012c). This is yet another contribution on Ep. 1.5 and Sidonius’ (literary) voyage from Lyon to Rome. Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2015). Mauricette Fournier and Annick StoehrMonjou argue that the geographical description in Ep. 1.5 is ideologically determined. Wolff (2016). Étienne Wolff discusses Sidonius’ travels, and Ep. 1.5 in particular. Hanaghan (2017c). In a detailed reading of Ep. 1.5, Michael Hanaghan argues that its geography is in fact a dense web of literary reminiscences. The references to the war, in particular, should be understood as veiled criticism of the agreement between Anthemius and Ricimer sealed by the marriage between Anthemius’ daughter and Ricimer. Letter 1.6 Amherdt (2004). An exploration of ideas of rusticitas in Ep. 4.7, 8.8, and 1.6; see further at Letter 4.7 below (section 3.8.4). Letter 1.7 Grupe (1926). This article proceeds on the road begun with Grupe’s (1892) research on juridical language in Sidonius; among the letters discussed is 1.7 (the trial of Arvandus on a charge of maiestas); also discussed are 3.12, 4.23, 4.24, and 7.2. Vassili (1937). Lucio Vassili writes briefly on Ep. 1.7 and the Arvandus issue, arguing that the Greek emperor meant by Sidonius is not Anthemius, but the eastern emperor Leo. Pietrini (2015). Once more, Sidonius’ letters prove useful for the study of Roman law in Stefania Pietrini’s article on the trial of Arvandus in Ep. 1.7.130 128

129 130

See also above, sect. 3.1, Franceschelli and Dall’Aglio (2014) and Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014); sect. 3.3, Colton (2000). Cf. above, sect. 3.4, Longobardi (2014). For a fundamental doubt as to this position, however, see Kelly in this volume, ch. 3, sect. 1, p. 167, n. 11. See also above, sect. 3.4, Köhler (1999) about the historical infinitive in Ep. 1.7, 1.11, and 7.2.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 602

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

603

Letter 1.10 Furbetta (2015c). In a long article on the genre of letters of recommendation in fifth- to seventh-century Gaul, Luciana Furbetta pays attention to some letters by Sidonius (especially 1.10 and 6.4). Letter 1.11 Czúth (1983). Béla Czúth points to textual and interpretative difficulties at Ep. 1.11.5–6 where Sidonius mentions the controversial coniuratio Marcelliniana.131 Simons (2008). Roswitha Simons develops the notion of ridicule in Ep. 1.11.132

3.8.2 Letters Book 2 Montone (2017). Francesco Montone provides a structural analysis of Book 2, pointing to its grouping of letters by theme and signalling the main intertextual echoes which make the book into a sort of summa of classical culture. Letter 2.1 Frye (1994). David Frye proposes an uncommon interpretation of Ep. 2.1.4 seu patriam dimittere seu capillos: long hair should be understood as a symbol of liberty and, consequently, dimittere capillos as the loss of liberty. Fascione (2016). In the references to Seronatus (Ep. 2.1, 5.13), despised for collaborating with the Visigothic king Euric, Sara Fascione points out the comparison with the public enemy Catilina, which draws on Sallust, but in part also on Cicero’s Catilinarians. Letter 2.2 Housman (1900). The turn of the century is marked by a brief note by A.E. Housman on Ep. 2.2.2 and 6.8.2, following an article by A.N. St. John Mildmay from the preceding year.133 Delhey (1991). In a short interpretative note, Norbert Delhey identifies a type of marble described in Ep. 2.2.7. Visser (2014). Jelle Visser analyses in detail Ep. 2.2, the description of the villa at Avitacum, where the autobiographical element is handled in a sophisticated way through the model of Pliny.134 Morvillez (2017). In a comprehensive study of the role of landscape in Roman architecture, Éric Morvillez also discusses Sidonius’ descriptions of his Avitacum villa (Ep. 2.2) and those of Apollinaris and Ferreolus (Ep. 2.9). Letter 2.8 and Carm. 26 Mascoli (2003b). Ep. 2.8 and the epitaph in it of Philomathia (Carm. 26) are examined by Patrizia Mascoli, who points out that it offers a specific example of the fifth-century ideal of womanhood. Letter 2.9 Pricoco (1965d) points out a stance towards Rufinus that contrasts with Jerome’s in Sidonius’ admiration for Rufinus’ translation of Origen (Ep. 2.9.5). For others in this dossier of four articles, see on Ep. 8.3, 4.12, and 9.3. 131 132 133 134

See also above, sect. 3.1, Max (1979), Mathisen (1979a). See above, n. 130. St John Mildmay (1899) about 2.2.2, 5.3, 6.8.2, 9.1, and 9.14. Cf. Whitton (2013).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 603

13/02/20 4:30 PM

604

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Casado (2011). Pierre Casado dedicates an article to the toponyms Vorocingus and Prusianum in Ep. 2.9. Morvillez (2017). For this discussion of Sidonius’ description of Apollinaris’ and Ferreolus’ villas, see above at Letter 2.2. Letter 2.10 and Carm. 27 Schetter (1964). A reconstruction of the life and career of the Gallic poet Secundinus on the basis of Sidonius Ep. 5.8 and 2.10.3 (cf. ad Ep. 5.8). Santelia (2007). In a detailed discussion of the poem composed for the basilica of Patiens (Carm. 27 in Ep. 2.10.4), Stefania Santelia highlights the elevated stylistic and lexical levels of the inscription, which is vivid testimony to the role of bishops in fifthcentury Gaul. Hernández Lobato (2010d). A few years after Santelia, Jesús Hernández Lobato offers an interpretation of the same inscriptional Carm. 27 in Ep. 2.10.4 in the light of poly-system theory.135 He describes it as an aesthetic hybrid between figurative and poetical art because the poetry fuses insolubly with the artefact (of which it is, moreover, the only documentary source in the absence of archaeological evidence). Hecquet-Noti (2013). In the wake of Santelia and Hernández Lobato, Nicole HecquetNoti dedicates an article to the restoration of the basilica of Lyon by Patiens (Ep. 2.10), proposing a twofold reading: on a first, immediate level where the text interacts with the space for which is was written, and on a second, metaphorical level where the poem functions in an ideal and inward way. Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2014a). In Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire,136 Gaëlle Viard discusses two attestations of Christian buildings in epigrams within Sidonius’ correspondence, for the cathedral of Lyon (Ep. 2.10.2–4 with Carm. 27) and for the church of Martin of Tours (Ep. 4.18.4–5 with Carm. 31) respectively. Egelhaaf-Gaiser (2014). In yet another article on the epigram for the church in Lyon in Ep. 2.10, Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser demonstrates that the primary aim of the poem (to be read by the faithful) is doubled by the literary destination which Sidonius created by inserting it into the letter collection. Letter 2.13 Catarinella (2000). Francesca Catarinella recognises an echo of the preface of Augustine’s De civitate Dei in Ep. 2.13.2.

3.8.3 Letters Book 3 Giannotti (2001a). Filomena Giannotti identifies symmetry – among the letters, among their addressees, and among themes – as the organising principle of Book 3. See also Giannotti (2002) for discussion of Ep. 3.3 (and at Letter 3.3 below), and Giannotti (2001b) in section 3.8.4 below for observations on Book 4. Letter 3.3 Giannotti (2002) is concerned with Ep. 3.3, providing a rhetorical and stylistic analysis of this eulogy of Sidonius’ brother-in-law Ecdicius, who bolstered the opposition to the Visigoths.137 135 136 137

See above, sect. 3.5, Hernández Lobato (2012a). See above, sects. 1 and 3.1, Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). These articles are now incorporated into her commentary of Book 3 (Giannotti (2016); see above, sect. 2.2.2).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 604

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

605

Letter 3.12 Merchie (1922). Ernest Merchie makes a proposal on the interpretation of Ep. 3.12.2. Grupe (1926). This article proceeds on the road begun with Grupe’s (1892) research on juridical language in Sidonius; among the letters discussed is 3.12, for the discussion of the profanation of the tomb of Sidonius’ grandfather. Other letters discussed include 1.7, 4.23, 4.24, and 7.2. Henke (2012). Rainer Henke argues that Ep. 3.12, where Sidonius tells of the violation of his grandfather’s tomb and the writing of an epitaph for the new tombstone, is structured as a short story, modelled after letters by Pliny. Colafrancesco (2014). Pasqua Colafrancesco also analyses Ep. 3.12, paying special attention to the expressions related to the inscription of the epitaph which Sidonius has composed. Letter 3.13 Köhler (1998). Helga Köhler’s article includes a discussion of the physiognomy of the parasite in 3.13 as well as that of Theoderic II (Ep. 1.2), in the light of current debates on soul and body: see further above at Letter 1.2 (section 3.8.1). Condorelli (2012). In this contribution,138 Silvia Condorelli analyses the first part of Ep. 3.13 to Sidonius’ son Apollinaris, where Sidonius builds on the character of the parasite from comedy for the personage of the impudicus, held up as a forbidding moral example, conflicting with Rome’s entire ethical tradition. Pisano (2014). Carmine Pisano detects an echo of Persius, Satire 3.98–9, in Sidonius’ description of the glutton in Ep. 3.13.

3.8.4 Letters Book 4 Letters 4.2 and 4.3 Hirschberg (1992). Theo Hirschberg proposes identifying the Caesar mentioned at Ep. 4.3.6 not with Julius Caesar but with C. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus, Crassus’ interlocutor in Cicero’s De oratore. Mascoli (2015). Taking into consideration the only two letters by Claudianus Mamertus that have come down to us, one of them in Sidonius’ collection together with Sidonius’ reply (Ep. 4.2 and 4.3), Patrizia Mascoli points out the fact that Sidonius’ reply does not reflect on the content of De statu animae, but only on its style. Letter 4.4 Giannotti (2001b) makes some interesting observations concerning Book 4 in response to Amherdt’s commentary:139 wordplay at 4.4.3 changing the meaning from what is commonly held; the position of the stenographical letter 4.19; and the word conscripsi in 4.11, taken to refer to the carving on the tombstone rather than to the actual composition of the epitaph.140 Letter 4.7 Amherdt (2004). David Amherdt elaborates the concept of rusticitas by means of three letters: 4.7, 8.8, and 1.6; dedication to agriculture is opposed to political engagement, which is among Sidonius’ core values. 138 139 140

A French version, Condorelli (2014), appeared in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014); see above, sects. 1 and 3.1. See above, sect. 2.2.2, Amherdt (2001). For observations on Book 3, see Giannotti (2001a), discussed in sect. 3.8.3 above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 605

13/02/20 4:30 PM

606

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Letter 4.8 and Carm. 29 Cloppet (1989). In Ep. 4.8, Sidonius refers to a voyage from Lyon to the Auvergne. Christian Cloppet offers a reconstruction focusing on Realien. Percival (1997). Turning to Ep. 4.8 in the wake of Cloppet (1989), John Percival demonstrates the difficulty of disentangling reality from a heavily stylised letter. This is confirmed by similar letters such as 2.9 and 3.2, where aesthetic descriptions also make the account extremely elusive. Guipponi-Gineste (2014). Among the wonders that fascinate Sidonius, literary creations that are combined with products of figurative art take up a prominent place, like the poem embedded in Ep. 4.8 (Carm. 29), full of poetical implications, which is discussed by MarieFrance Guipponi-Gineste in Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire.141 Leatherbury (2017). Sean Leatherbury discusses the iconic character of the epigram to be carved on the basin for Queen Ragnahilda (Carm. 29 in Ep. 4.8.5). Becht-Jördens (2017). Gereon Becht-Jördens frames Ep. 4.8 as a nearly unique testimony of silversmith art and poetic art combined. His analysis of this letter underpins a symbolic reading of Carm. 29: by uniting the highest expressions, both artistic and literary, of classical civilisation, the basin for Queen Ragnahilda, in Sidonius’ ideological perspective, both expresses cultural identity and becomes an instrument of civilisation for the queen. Letter 4.11 Giannotti (2001b). See above at Letter 4.4. Letter 4.12 Pricoco (1965b) Pricoco points to the beginning of Ep. 4.12 as evidence for Sidonius’ knowledge of Greek: Sidonius and his son are reading Terence’s Hecyra and comparing it with its Greek model, Menander’s Epitrepontes. This is the second of four articles published together by Pricoco (for the others see at Letters 8.3, also about knowledge of Greek, 9.3, and 2.9, in sections 3.8.8, 3.8.9, and 3.8.2 respectively). Mascoli (2014b). Because of the verb ruminare at Ep. 4.12.1–2, Patrizia Mascoli traces the meaning of ruminare/ruminatio: literally ‘to chew over again’, figuratively ‘to think over, to muse’, and attested since Livius Andronicus, it became the specific term, in Christian parlance, to indicate the intimate and in-depth meditation of Scripture. Letter 4.14 Teitler (2011). Hans Teitler points out that Tacitus was still being read in Late Antiquity, as witnessed by Sidonius Ep. 4.14. Letter 4.18 and Carm. 31 Zarini (2002). Vincent Zarini compares the epigrams by Paulinus of Périgueux and Sidonius for the church of St Martin in Tours. Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2014a). On the description of the church of St Martin at Tours (Ep. 4.18.4–5 with Carm. 31) as well as that of the cathedral of Lyon (Ep. 2.10.2–4 with Carm. 27), see at Letter 2.10 above (section 3.8.2). Letter 4.19 See above at Letter 4.4, Giannotti (2001b). 141

Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 606

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

607

Letter 4.20 Fernández López (2006). After an overview of the epithalamic motifs in Sidonius’ poetry, Conchita Fernández López focuses on Ep. 4.20, which describes the parade of the Frankish prince Sigismer to his bride’s home, a procession of men in such refined armour that Sidonius says the pompa Martis was not inferior to the pompa Veneris. Letter 4.22 Cugusi (1990). Paolo Cugusi reads Ep. 4.22, a recusatio in prose, in the light of its epistolary predecessors in Cicero and Pliny the Younger. Condorelli (2003b). Silvia Condorelli engages in the discussion about Ep. 4.22 where Sidonius declines Leo’s request for a historical work;142 she argues that this is not a wholesale refusal of historiography, but a rejection of this specific subject, namely the deeds of Euric. Näf (2012). Beat Näf directs his attention to the refusal to write history in Ep. 4.22. Letters 4.23 and 4.24 Grupe (1926). This article proceeds on the road begun with Grupe’s (1892) research on juridical language in Sidonius; among the letters discussed are 4.23 – a plea for a son who fled his father, which seems to point to the existence of strict laws regulating the father–son relationship – and 4.24, a case of usury. Other letters discussed include 1.7, 3.12, and 7.2. Letter 4.25 Williams (1967). Schafer Williams points out that a substantial portion of Ep. 4.25 is quoted in Vaticanus Latinus 1341.

3.8.5 Letters Book 5 Letter 5.5 Frauenhuber (2007). Angela Frauenhuber’s article contains a series of notes to Sidonius’ two letters to Syagrius (Ep. 5.5 and 8.8), with text and German translation in an appendix. Letter 5.8 Schetter (1964). On the basis of Sidon. Ep. 5.8 and 2.10.3, Willy Schetter reconstructs aspects of the life and career of the Gallic poet Secundinus. Stoehr-Monjou (2012). Stoehr-Monjou discusses Ep. 5.8 about satire and the case of Ablabius, pointing out that Sidonius is unique in citing Ablabius’ jibe at Constantine, which he turns into an evocation of recent history. Letter 5.13 Fascione (2016). On the references to Seronatus (Ep. 2.1, 5.13), see further above at Letter 2.1 (section 3.8.2). Letter 5.19 Koptev (2004). Aleksandr Koptev makes a juridical analysis of Ep. 5.19 on the rape of the daughter of Sidonius’ nurse: Sidonius’ request that the man who eloped with her be freed aims at creating a bond of clientela rather than colonatus. 142

See above, Cugusi (1990).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 607

13/02/20 4:30 PM

608

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Grey (2008). Cam Grey reconsiders the abduction case in Ep. 5.19, interpreting it as consensual and focusing on the legal implications of becoming a cliens from an inquilinus and on Sidonius’ personal involvement. Demicheli (2012). Anna Maria Demicheli discusses legal issues arising from Sidonius’ Ep. 5.19.

3.8.6 Letters Book 6 Montone (2016). Francesco Montone provides a generous survey of the letters of Book 6, including a translation, the first into Italian. These letters belong to the initial phase of Sidonius’ episcopate and are a literary expression of his pastoral care. Letter 6.4 Furbetta (2015c). On letters of recommendation, with attention to Ep. 6.4; see further at Letter 1.10 above (section 3.8.1). Letter 6.8 Housman (1900). The turn of the century is marked by two brief notes by A.E. Housman on Ep. 2.2.2 and 6.8.2, following an article by A.N. St. John Mildmay from the preceding year. 143 Vercauteren (1926). Concerning the rare noun cataplus used by Sidonius in Ep. 6.8 and 7.7, Vercauteren points out, supported by Du Cange’s dictionary, that the meaning of the term tends to coincide with catabolus, ‘harbour’.

3.8.7 Letters Book 7 Letter 7.2 Grupe (1926). This article proceeds on the road begun with Grupe’s (1892) research on juridical language in Sidonius; among the letters discussed is 7.2, for a matrimonial contract: see also on 1.7, 3.12, 4.23, and 4.24.144 Letter 7.7 Vercauteren (1926). On cataplus used by Sidonius in Ep. 6.8 and 7.7, see further at Letter 6.8 (in section 3.8.6 above). Mratschek (2013). By means of a reading of Ep. 7.7, Sigrid Mratschek demonstrates that the historical exempla used have a strong charge of allusivity. Sidonius thereby creates a strong Gallo-Roman identity rooted in Roman history. Letter 7.14 Courcelle (1970). An attentive reading of Ep. 7.14 enables Pierre Courcelle to show that Sidonius is not averse to philosophical speculation, in particular to the spiritual, neo-Platonic teachings of his friend Claudianus Mamertus.145 143 144 145

St John Mildmay (1899) about 2.2.2, 5.3, 6.8.2, 9.1, and 9.14. See above, n. 130. See now van Waarden (2016a) 105–67.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 608

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

609

Köhler (1998). Helga Köhler uses Ep. 7.14 to understand Sidonius’ attitude towards physiognomy as an expression of the soul: see further at Letter 1.2 above (section 3.8.1).

3.8.8 Letters Book 8 Overwien (2009b). On a series of letters in Book 8 as encrypted political messages, see section 3.8 above. Letter 8.3 Pricoco (1965a). This is the first of four articles published together by Salvatore Pricoco, and focuses on the term translatio used by Sidonius in Ep. 8.3.1 for either his transcription or his translation from the Greek of the Vita Apollonii by Philostratus. Pricoco is inclined to accept the latter meaning, convinced that Sidonius knew Greek. Pricoco (1965b) also focuses on Sidonius’ knowledge of Greek (see at Letter 4.12 above, in section 3.8.4); for (1965c) and (1965d), see on Letters 9.3 and 2.9 respectively (sections 3.8.9 and 3.8.2). Prchlík (2007). Again on the question of the Vita Apollonii referred to in Ep. 8.3.1, Ivan Prchlík argues that the the work was translated by Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, against Pricoco, who holds that Sidonius translated it. Cameron (2011). In The Last Pagans of Rome, on pp. 546–54, Alan Cameron adduces a wealth of arguments to prove the term translatio used by Sidonius points not to a translation, but to an autograph copy of the Greek text of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius. An especially strong argument is the adjective opica, which should be understood as referring to errors in the Greek.146 Letter 8.6 Piacente (1998). Luigi Piacente discusses the copy of the Logistorici mentioned in Ep. 8.6.18, which is important evidence both for Varro’s reception and for Sidonius’ library. Squillante (2016b). Marisa Squillante studies Lucretius’ concept of superstitio at Ep. 8.6.14, where it is applied to the rite of human sacrifice by the Saxons when departing. Among other literary echoes the passage recalls the sacrifice of Iphigenia in Lucretius, which he blames on the foolishness arising from religio (1.101). Letter 8.8 Amherdt (2004). An exploration of ideas of rusticitas in Ep. 4.7, 8.8, and 1.6: see further at Letter 4.7 above (section 3.8.4). Frauenhuber (2007). Angela Frauenhuber’s article contains a series of notes to Sidonius’ two letters to Syagrius (Ep. 5.5 and 8.8), with text and German translation in an appendix. Letter 8.9 La Penna (1995b). Antonio La Penna sketches a portrait of Lampridius, especially from Ep. 8.9. As the oeuvre of this learned man was thematically and stylistically varied, it can be inferred that he embodied the ideal of the literary personality going back to Pliny the Younger. 146

For the problem of translation, see also above, sect. 3.3, Piacente (2001) and Mascoli (2004a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 609

13/02/20 4:30 PM

610

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Fo (1999, 2002). In two stages, Alessandro Fo analyses Ep. 8.9, importantly offering a fresh interpretation of what scholars have always considered to be a eulogy of Euric. Fo, however, detects a subtle intertextual stratagem in the allusion to Verg. Ecl. 1, which reverses the compliment into veiled criticism. Letter 8.11 La Ville de Mirmont (1909). In a series of articles, Henri de La Ville de Mirmont discusses astrology among the Gallo-Romans. Sidonius and the Lampridius affair feature in this instalment at pp. 301–13. Wolff (2015c). Étienne Wolff pays ample attention to Ep. 8.11, the eulogy of Lampridius, tracing its imitation of Pliny the Younger and elaborating the strong literary intention of its variety of tones.147

3.8.9 Letters Book 9 Letter 9.1 Condorelli (2015). In a reading of the programmatic opening letter of the last Book (Ep. 9.1), Silvia Condorelli points out that the dedication to Firminus, nominally based on his request, is in fact yet another act of homage to Sidonius’ model Pliny. However, the letter also shows traces of imitation of Symmachus. Letter 9.2 Alfonsi (1965). At Ep. 9.2.2, in the opposition between olorini cantus and anseres ravi, Luigi Alfonsi detects an echo of Propertius’ Elegy 2.34.83–4. Condorelli (2017a). On closer inspection, the motif of birdsong in this letter is an echo of Apuleius’ Florida, which further corroborates the importance of Apuleius for Sidonius’ stylistic archaism. Letter 9.3 Pricoco (1965c). Salvatore Pricoco analyses the eulogy addressed to bishop Faustus of Riez in Ep. 9.3, containing a hint at what he thinks is Faustus’ De spiritu sancto. This praise is also an attempt to make amends for having previously sided with Claudianus Mamertus in the debate on the nature of the soul. For the other items in this dossier of four articles see at Letters 8.3, 4.12, and 2.9 above (sections 3.8.8, 3.8.4, and 3.8.2 respectively). Letter 9.9 Blankert (1966–7). Marsilio Ficino once wrote in a letter that Democritus and Heraclitus could be seen in his gymnasium, one laughing, the other in tears. Blankert identifies Ep. 9.9.14 as Ficino’s inspiration, where Sidonius lists the portraits of philosophers painted per gymnasia, among them Heraclitus fletu oculis clausis, Democritus risu labris apertis, ‘Heraclitus with eyes closed through weeping, Democritus with lips wide open with laughter’. Neri (2011). Marino Neri revisits a question already posed by Pricoco,148 arguing that the imprecise reference in Ep. 9.9.10 is compatible with De ratione fidei and can be taken as an argument in favour of attributing the work to Faustus.

147 148

On the literary travesty at play, see also Mratschek (2017) 317–18. Pricoco (1965c); see above.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 610

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

611

Letter 9.13 and Carm. 36 and 37 Guillaume-Coirier (2000). Germaine Guillaume-Coirier suggests a symbolical reading of Carm. 37 in Ep. 9.13.5: the reference to Vergil in the description of the wreaths of flowers denotes the vitality and topicality of the poetical tradition. Consolino (2011b). Franca Ela Consolino discusses the poetical motif of recusatio in Carm. 36, where Sidonius refuses to write a convivial poem in Asclepiadeans. Consolino compares this poem to another poetic refusal, a century later, by Venantius Fortunatus (Carm. 9.7), pointing out its similarities and its differences, both doctrinal and literary. Condorelli (2013b). In New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris,149 Silvia Condorelli analyses Ep. 9.13, both its epistolary frame and the second poem it contains, Carm. 37 in Anacreontic dimeters.150 The recherché metre embellishes a letter that also contains a recusatio in Asclepiadeans (Carm. 36).151 Anacreon and Horace united are a metaphor for the practice of improvising poems at banquets. Onorato (2017a). In this article, Marco Onorato analyses the metrical and poetical technique of Carm. 37.152 Onorato (2017b). This article zooms in on Carm. 37.76–81 where, besides Horace as a model, an echo of Arnobius’ Adversus nationes 2.42.2 is discernible. Letter 9.14 and Carm. 38 and 39 Henke (2007). Ep. 9.14 to Burgundio is about the metrical artifice of palindromes.153 Rainer Henke argues that the first example (Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor) can be interpreted as criticism of the difficult times, where Roma stands for imperium Romanum. Letter 9.16 and Carm. 41 Ravenna (2004). Giovanni Ravenna presents a detailed analysis of Carm. 41 in Ep. 9.16.3, which closes the collection of letters, suggesting a parallel with Horace Odes 4.15. Egelhaaf-Gaiser (2010). Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser describes the last letter of the collection and the poetic ‘autobiography’ which it contains: written in constant reference to Horace, the poem is embedded in a letter which, in its programmatic function, recalls Statius and Pliny. The poetry acquires Prudentian, hymnic overtones since the only remaining artistic perspective for the bishop is singing hymns to the martyrs. Gibson (2011). Roy Gibson’s article points out the significant names of the addressees of the first letter of Book 1 and the last of Book 9 in both Sidonius and Pliny, and the parallels between them: see further at Letter 1.1 (sction 3.8.1) and in section 3.8 above.

3.9 Reception For a discussion of Sidonius’ reception, I refer to the relevant chapters in this volume.154 In what follows, I will only give a representative sample of scholarly works that deal with various aspects of this subject. 149 150 151 152 153 154

Van Waarden and Kelly (2013). See above, sect. 3.4, Onorato (2017a). See above, Consolino (2011b). See above, sect. 3.4. See above, sect. 3.4, Polara (1989). Chs. 20–4.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 611

13/02/20 4:30 PM

612

SILVIA CONDORELLI

Faral (1946). Taking for his starting point Loyen’s work on preciosity,155 Edmond Faral points to aspects of Sidonius’ style that were imitated in the Middle Ages, like the taste for describing and portraying followed by Geoffroy de Vinsauf in the thirteenth century. Fernández Lopez (1989). Among medieval attestations, Conchita Fernández López hypothesises that the expression used in the opening of Ep. 8.11 (recordatio iocorum tempore dolendi) is echoed by Dante in Inferno canto 5, where Francesca begins her story with Nessun maggior dolore / che ricordarsi del tempo felice / nella miseria. Gärtner (2002). Thomas Gärtner adds a piece to Sidonius’ reception in the twelfth century by identifying a follow-up of the lines dedicated to the Seven Sages (Carm. 15.42–96) in the Hypognosticon by Lawrence of Durham (5.463–94). Mastrorosa (2002). In the margin of the manuscript tradition, there is a telling example of Sidonius’ reception in an autograph letter by Enoch of Ascoli to Leon Battista Alberti, written in Roskilde in 1451, accompanying the text of Ep. 2.2 on Sidonius’ villa of Avitacum. Ida Mastrorosa provides the first edition of this letter.156 Condorelli (2004b). In the face of his professed contempt for Sidonius, Petrarch offers an echo of Sidonius’ poetical programme (Carm. 9.10–11) right at the beginning of his Rime volgari, as shown by Silvia Condorelli. Mascoli (2004b). Patrizia Mascoli starts from the discovery of Sidonius’ tombstone and the full text of his epitaph in the Madrid, BNE, 9448 (C), reading it as a proof of his immediate success as a man of letters and a bishop; she reviews the first attestations of Sidonius in authors like Gennadius, Ruricius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory of Tours.157 Aiello (2005). Orazio Aiello dates the Carmen de Philomela (Anth. Lat. 762 Riese) to about the eleventh century and identifies a literary model in Sidon. Ep. 2.2.14, which describes various bird sounds. Alciati (2008). Roberto Alciati shows the exemplary character of Sidonius’ correspondence by means of Ruricius’ letter collection: taking into account the vexed question of the codex St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 190 ,158 Alciati supposes that the first Book of eighteen letters was edited by Ruricius himself following Sidonius. Analogous reasoning leads him, in the remaining sixty-five letters of the second Book, to identify traces of another compository unit in Letters 21–40. Galand-Hallyn (2009). Perrine Galand-Hallyn finds a key to the assessment of Sidonius’ style and poetics in the way in which the Florentine humanist Angelo Poliziano read Sidonius’ work: Poliziano’s admiration for late Latin authors and their precious style makes him an insightful guide to understanding the concordia discors of late antique aesthetics. Chronopoulos (2010). Tina Chronopoulos directs attention to a series of short biographical notes on Sidonius, Symmachus, and Fulgentius written in twelfth-century England, testifying to their medieval impact. As to Sidonius, there are two of these: one is an epitome of the biography in Gregory of Tours (Hist. 2.21–4);159 the other is similar but pays greater attention to the letters and panegyrics.

155 156 157 158

159

Loyen (1943). See also above, Mastrorosa (2007). On Sidonius’ epitaph, see above, sect. 3.3, Furbetta (2014a). For an in-depth study of this miscellany codex, see Mathisen (1998), and in this volume Mathisen, ch. 20, sect. 3, and the somewhat different opinion of Dolveck, ch. 16, sect. 2, n. 20. For its manuscript, London, BL. Royal 4 B. iv; see also Chronopoulos in this volume, ch. 21, sect. 1.4.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 612

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

613

Evenepoel (2010). A case of present-day Sidonius reception is highlighted by Willy Evenepoel: Iain Pears’ novel The Dream of Scipio, where the Gallo-Roman senator Manlius Hippomanes is modelled on Sidonius. Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2011b). Venantius Fortunatus is an important instance of Sidonius’ reception in Antiquity, as shown by Gaëlle Viard, who analyses their villa descriptions. Condorelli (2011). Silvia Condorelli investigates the scope and character of the Sidonian model in Ennodius: whereas Ennodius does not mention Sidonius, unmistakable lexical echoes betray his presence, ranging from simple linguistic imitations to thematic affinity and careful contrast imitation. Hernández Lobato (2011a, 2011b, 2014b, 2014c). Preceded by essays on Sidonius in the Quattrocento and his reception by Petrarch and Salutati (2011a, 2011b, 2014b), Hernández Lobato’s monograph El Humanismo que no fue (2014c) is the most extensive study to date of Sidonius in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries.160 Hernández Lobato (2013). Jesús Hernández Lobato discusses the poem In refectorio by Martin of Braga, a sixth-century cento-style rewriting of Sidonius’ Carmen 17. Furbetta (2013c). After an extensive discussion of the structure and the literariness of the letter collection, Luciana Furbetta focuses on its immediate reception in the letters of Ruricius, Avitus of Vienne, and Ennodius, adding some remarks on its impact in the Middle Ages. Wolff (2014c). Étienne Wolff briefly traces the history of Sidonius reception from the sixth to the twentieth century. Hecquet-Noti (2014). An entire section of Présence de Sidoine161 is dedicated to Sidonius as seen by others. Nicole Hecquet-Noti discusses the lexical and thematic borrowings from Sidonius by Avitus of Vienne (including the rejection of myth in Carm. 16 and the introductory letter to Carm. 22), demonstrating that Avitus distances himself from Sidonius’ aesthetic excesses. Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2014b). In the same edited volume, Gaëlle Viard presents a reading of Venantius Fortunatus’ Carm. 3.12 in the light of Sidonius’ Carm. 22: with Sidonius’ poem in mind, Venantius rewrites it in a Christian style, for example removing the mythology that is so central in Sidonius. Gioanni (2014). Also in Présence de Sidoine, Stéphane Gioanni pays ample attention to an aspect of reception thus far neglected, the Florilegium angelicum, a collection of sententiae put together for didactic purposes in c. 1150 and known through thirty manuscripts. For the number of citations, Sidonius is second only to Jerome, an indication of his importance.162 Charlet (2014). In the next article, Jean-Louis Charlet gives an important assessment of Giovanni Battista Pio’s contribution to the reception of Sidonius, putting his 1498 edition in the context of the preference for archaic and archaising authors in Bologna. Baudoin (2014). A significant moment in the reception of Sidonius is represented by Chateaubriand, as shown by Sébastien Baudoin in Présence de Sidoine. Chateaubriand often cites Sidonius, and even rewrites/translates the passage on the Franks from the Panegyric on Majorian (lines 238–53) in Les Martyrs, Book 6. 160 161 162

On the same issue, see Hernández Lobato in this volume, ch. 22. Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). See in this volume Chronopoulos, ch. 21.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 613

13/02/20 4:30 PM

614

SILVIA CONDORELLI

De Palacio (2014). Marie-France de Palacio’s contribution to this volume focuses on Sidonius’ marked influence in French literature after 1870, when his precious style was linked to that of the decadent poets. Aranjo (2014). Finally in Présence de Sidoine, Daniel Aranjo presents four texts by modern poets on Sidonius, one by Tristan Derème, the others by Georges Saint-Clair. Furbetta (2015d). Luciana Furbetta highlights the reception of Sidonius in Late Antiquity by Gregory of Tours, who, in writing Sidonius’ hagiographic profile in Hist. 2.21–3, not only testifies to his admiration for the bishop and for his pastoral works that have not come down to us, but also, by the very selection of Sidonius among his authors, proves that the success of Sidonius’ letters was immediate. Barnaby (2017). Paul Barnaby traces echoes from Sidonius in John Buchan’s 1928 short story ‘The Wind in the Portico’. Situated shortly before the First World War, the story narrates the resurgence of pre-Christian Celtic elements. This is where the allusions to Sidonius fit in, who, albeit a Christian, in his work evokes the world of pagan deities. Furbetta (2017a). In an inquiry into the complex intertextuality of Avitus of Vienne’s poetry, Luciana Furbetta demonstrates that Sidonius is one of his principal inspirations, besides Prudentius. The tenuis cumba in the last line of De spiritalis historiae gestis, in particular, which echoes the central motif of turning towards Christian poetry in the concluding poem of Sidonius’ letter collection, can be meaningfully linked to Prudentius’ example. Furbetta (2017b). For yet another aspect of Sidonius’ reception in Avitus, see section 3.7.6 above.

3.10 Eastern Europe One of the most innovative sections in New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris163 is a geographical overview of Sidonius studies distributed according to languages. It includes Amherdt (2013) on Francophone countries, Köhler (2013) on German-speaking countries, and Santelia (2013) on Italy. In addition, van Waarden (2013), in his introduction, touches on Anglophone, Spanish, Dutch, and eastern European scholarship. In this chapter so far, I have laid out the importance of various European and American centres, whereas others have remained underexposed, in particular the spread of Sidonius studies in eastern Europe, where language makes interaction with traditional western European research complex, but certainly not impossible. In the above, I have discussed Hungarian and Polish publications available in the western European languages of scholarship. For the full picture, I would like to refer to the following sections.

3.10.1 Hungary, with Advice from Ágnes T. Horváth Let us begin with the study of Sidonius’ work in Hungary, where only a few scholars have paid attention to him.164 In addition to general articles on Sidonius’ biography and his work (Adamik (1996), T. Horváth (2001, 2002)), there are incidental contributions on single letters. In the 1960s, Béla Czúth highlighted Sidonius’ work as a historical source in connec-

163 164

Van Waarden and Kelly (2013). I am very grateful to Prof. Ágnes T. Horváth (University of Szeged) for her knowledgeable advice for this section and contributing to the bibliography. See the Sidonius website, , for her translations into Hungarian.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 614

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

615

tion with his research on the later Roman empire. One of his pupils, Ágnes T. Horváth, is the author of two relevant articles: T. Horváth (1999) on Sidonius in the wider perspective of letter=writing in Latin in the fourth and fifth centuries, and T. Horváth (2000) on his cultural education pieced together from his dense web of literary citations.165

3.10.2 Poland, by Jerzy Styka Polish studies on Sidonius Apollinaris have been rather limited in scope: despite his importance for the culture of late Roman Antiquity, the interest in Sidonius Apollinaris among Polish classicists and ancient historians was always rather marginal. 166 The first biography of Sidonius is to be found in Stanisław Łoś’ Roman Silhouettes: Łos´ (1958). Mieczysław Broz. ek (1911–2000) conducted some research on Sidonius’ poetic style in his paper on Carm. 11.1–6: Broz.ek (1991); he also published a popular paper discussing literary life in fifth-century Gaul as represented in the works of Sidonius: Broz.ek (1996). Broz.ek’s great contribution to Polish studies on Sidonius was the first Polish translation of the entire corpus of Sidonius’ poetry and letters, published posthumously: Broz.ek (2004). A few years earlier (but also posthumously), Broz. ek’s translation of Sidonius’ epithalamia was published as part of a collection of ancient wedding songs: Broz.ek (1999). A carefully considered characteristisation of Sidonius’ literary works was made available to Polish readers in the last volume of Maria Cytowska and Hanna Szelest’s History of Roman Literature: Cytowska and Szelest (1994). Finally, Antoni Swoboda analysed the ethical meaning of friendship in Sidonius’ letters in his comparative monograph on Sidonius and Paulinus of Nola: Swoboda (1995). Since the late 1990s, Jerzy Styka has published a variety of literary studies on Sidonius Apollinaris, resulting in a series of sixteen papers discussing various aspects of Sidonius’ poetic oeuvre and situating them in the contexts of the history and theory of literature, literary aesthetics, and hermeneutics. The culmination of these academic efforts was the first Polish monograph on Sidonius and the literary culture of fifth-century Gaul: Styka (2008a). This extensive monograph contains both an insightful interdisciplinary analysis of the literary work of Sidonius Apollinaris and a detailed overview of the cultural life in late antique Gaul. In Polish research on Sidonius there is one further trend, concentrating on the historical and cultural history of philosophical, religious, and political ideas. It is represented by the works of Józef Grzywaczewski on Sidonius and the ideas of Romanitas and Christianitas: Grzywaczewski (2005, 2010b); of Dariusz Brodka on the concept of Roma aeterna and on the commonplace of world domination in the panegyrics: Brodka (1997, 1998); and of Maksymilian Sas on the position and role of bishops in late antique Gaul: Sas (2009). The current state of Polish Sidonius studies opens up numerous possibilities for further research, especially in a literary and cultural-historical perspective.

3.10.3 Russia, by Elena Litovchenko The beginning of Russian research on Sidonius as literature came in the second half of the nineteenth century. 167 Thus, in 1862–15, Mikhail M. Stasyulevich published a three-volume 165 166

167

For the latter, see also above, sect. 3.3, T. Horváth (2000). I am very grateful to Prof. Jerzy Styka (Universities of Cracow and Warsaw) for writing this expert section and contributing to the bibliography. I am very grateful to Prof. Elena Litovchenko (Belgorod National Research University) for writing this expert section and contributing to the bibliography.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 615

13/02/20 4:30 PM

616

SILVIA CONDORELLI

anthology, History of the Middle Ages in its Sources and Contemporary Writers. The first volume includes translations from Sidonius’ correspondence as an illustration of life in the last days of the western Roman Empire.168 In 1855, Stepan V. Eshevskiĭ defended the thesis ‘G.S. Apollinaris Sidonius: An Episode from the Literary and Political History of Fifth-Century Gaul’, which was published fifteen years later: Eshevskiĭ (1870). This publication gave rise to a keen scholarly debate between him and Pëtr Kudryavtsev, launched in Kudryavtsev (1881). The former focused on the preservation of traditional elements of classical culture in the mind and works of Sidonius, while asserting the emptiness of his oeuvre. The approach of the latter is more medieval, with an emphasis on the origin of new attitudes, alien to classical Antiquity. It is worth mentioning two other researchers who showed interest in Sidonius in the early years of the twentieth century before the Russian revolution: Vasiliĭ Laty¯shev (Laty¯shev (1906)) and Lev Karsavin (Karsavin (1908, 1911)). The first was mainly interested in the images of Scythia and the Caucasus in Greek and Latin writers, not in Sidonius himself, whereas, by contrast, Karsavin focused on Sidonius’ worldview. Karsavin argued that the political views and activities of Sidonius were determined by his orientation towards the great past of the Roman Empire, and that his adherence to the ancient heritage merely reflects the stereotypes of late Roman aristocratic thinking and does not in the least contradict his Christian worldview. Due to the Marxist approach to history in the Soviet Union, there was practically no interest among historians in an individual who could not bear comparison with such major figures as Augustine of Hippo, and any attention paid only aimed at propagating the predominant ideology. Thus, excerpts from Sidonius’ letters and poems were translated by Alexandr Mishulin to focus attention on social struggle in Rome, in particular the revolt of Spartacus: Mishulin (1936). The dominant twentieth-century approaches to Sidonius’ oeuvre in Soviet historiography were historical and literary. Publications in the 1970s to 1990s on the history of classical and medieval literature included essays on and translations of Sidonius’ poems and letters . In an essay on Sidonius, Il’ya Golenishchev-Kutuzov leans towards the opinion that Sidonius was ‘not so much a pastor as a public figure’ (p. 40): Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1972). In ‘From Antiquity to the Middle Ages (5th–6th Centuries)’, Sergeĭ Averintsev, Mikhail Gasparov, and Roman Samarin postulate that the general spirit of Sidonius’ works remained unchanged throughout his life: Averintsev et al. (1984). The classical philologists Sergeĭ Osherov and Fëdor Petrovskiĭ contributed fourteen translations of Sidonius’ poetry and letters: Osherov and Petrovskiĭ (1982), Petrovskiĭ (1970, 1998).169 Historians involved in translating and interpreting Sidonius’ works include Ol’ga Mamina in the 1980s, and also Natal’ya Trukhina, Elena Litovchenko, Dmitriĭ Buyarov, Dmitriĭ Konkov, and Éduard Manukyan in the first decades of the twenty-first century. In her dissertation (Mamina (1989), Ol’ga Mamina aims to reconstruct Sidonius’ worldview, adding a touch of unambiguous social determination to Sidonius’ image: she counts him as a pagan author and explains his behaviour and way of life by means of his origin, upbringing, and education. 168

169

Ep. 1.2, 1.5, 1.9, 2.2, 3.13, 4.25, 5.17, 7.9, 8.3, 8.9. For download of these translations as well as the other ones listed in the footnotes below, see the Sidonius website, . Carm. 3, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24; Ep. 4.11, 5.12, 5.17, 8.6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 616

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS SCHOLARSHIP : 20TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

617

Natal’ya Trukhina is the author of translations into Russian of some of Sidonius’ letters, published in a reader for the history of ancient Rome: Trukhina (2004).170 Modern studies of Sidonius’ works first of all have an interdisciplinary nature, using the approaches and methods of not only historical knowledge, but also philology, cultural studies, and psychology. For example, Tat’yana Perfilova, exploring the cultural aspect of higher education in the Roman Empire, dwells on Ausonius’ and Sidonius’ memories of the teachers of the fourth- and fifth-century schools of Gaul: Perfilova (2003, 2004). Dmitriĭ Kon’kov is interested in Sidonius’ personality in the context of the study of Visigothic history in the fifth and sixth centuries: Kon’kov (2016a, 2016b).171 He analyses Sidonius’ text from a psychological and linguistic point of view, whereas Ekaterina Zakharova deals with philological aspects: Zakharova (2015). Dmitriĭ Buyarov’s research interest in Sidonius involves the attempt to understand him from the perspective of cultural and religious studies: Buyarov (2008a)-(2011). The study and translation of Sidonius’ letters by Éduard Manukyan (Manukyan (2014a)– (2016b)), Pikin and Manukyan (2016)) and Elena Litovchenko (Bolgov and Litovchenko (2008), Litovchenko (2007a)–(2017)) represent two sides of the same coin: Manukyan considers him as a representative of the highest ecclesiastical aristocracy and a spiritual leader, while Litovchenko focuses on the secular side of Sidonius’ life.172 Since the first decade of the 2000s, views of Sidonius’ identity have evolved from perceiving him as unequivocally a Gallo-Roman aristocrat and his work as a passive-eclectic combination of pagan and Christian elements, to the interpretation of his outlook as a ‘synthesis’ (Buyarov (2009a–e)): not eclectic, but an organic combination of secular and Christian, late antique and early medieval values. The dynamics of Sidonius’ identity are characterised by ‘sociocultural modernisation’, which can be seen as a reasonable balance between the changes taking place in society and the preservation of cultural traditions (Litovchenko (2017)).

170 171 172

Translations include Ep. 3.5, 3.9, 4.25, 5.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.8, 6.10, 6.12, 7.5, 7.6, 7.9, and 7.15. Kon’kov (2016a) includes a translation of Ep. 4.22. Manukyan’s translations include Ep. 6.1, 6.9, and 6.11 (the latter together with V. Tyulenev); Litovchenko translated Ep. 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 1.11, 2.8, 4.5, and 4.12.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 617

13/02/20 4:30 PM

19 TRANSLATING SIDONIUS Roger Green

T

this chapter is to give a rapid survey of the various translations that have been made of the poems and letters of Sidonius. It presents in chronological order the various translators and their work, critically examines their translations, and highlights various issues; it also takes a quick look at the future. Some forthcoming translations will be briefly mentioned, but translations of single poems, or of small selections, or of particular books of letters, will not be noticed except in the bibliography. In fact it is a remarkable feature of the history of translation that many scholars have taken upon themselves to translate all the letters and all the poems, with almost Herculean tenacity, and admirable determination, which seem not to be diminished by the discomfort with the style of Sidonius that some translators have highlighted. Over a period of some four hundred years the story of Sidonius translations may be seen as a trickle gradually increasing to a flood, and translations have appeared in many languages; the stream began, naturally, with French, was joined early in the twentieth century by English, and now includes translations into Catalan (by Joan Bellès) and Polish (by Mieczysław Broz. ek), on which I cannot comment directly, though the scale of their work evokes admiration in itself. There are recent translations into Spanish (the poems, by Jesús Hernández Lobato) and into German (the letters, by Helga Köhler), which have been well received, though inevitably not yet examined in depth.1 The emphasis in this chapter will be on the Poems (of which I am currently making a translation, or translations), rather more than the Letters. Since global, overall, comments are not always useful, and can be misleading, I have selected poems or extracts of poems of average difficulty to use as my sample throughout, in the interests of closer focus and greater precision than a general evaluation might give. These are Poem 4, the preface to the Panegyric of Majorian, and the early lines of Poem 5, the Panegyric on Majorian; for convenience, the Latin texts are presented in the Appendix to this chapter. HE AIM OF

1 The Eighteenth Century and Before The story begins in 1589 in Sidonius’ own Clermont, only to gain momentum in the eighteenth century (this is not unusual for an author not in the first rank; Sidonius, and indeed his period, were not well known). The first translation of any part of his works seems to be that of Letter 2.2 by the poet Pascal Robin du Faut, dedicated to the Clermont magistrate Jean Villevault and published in 1589 together with a patriotic Discours mémorable by the latter, glorifying Vercingetorix.2 Next we have a volume entitled Lettres de saint Loup, évêque de Troyes, et saint Sydoine évêque de Clermont, translated by Rémy Breyer, a canon of Troyes cathedral, and 1 2

For a regularly updated overview of translations, see the Sidonius website, . Robin du Faut (1903). The 1589 edition was published in Paris by Pierre Ramier.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 618

13/02/20 4:30 PM

TRANSLATING SIDONIUS

619

printed by N. DeBarry in Troyes in 1706.3 There are still some copies in Troyes, and these may now be the only ones in existence.4 Editors in the following century looked for the work in vain: Grégoire and Collombet, the editors of the 1836 edition, mention their futile searches in England and Italy as well as in France, and in his 1878 edition Baret echoes this when he speaks of its ‘extreme rarity’ (‘d’une excessive rareté’).5 This collection of Breyer combines Sidonius’ Letter 6.1, replete with fulsome praise of Lupus and typical self-disparagement, with a letter, purporting to be from Lupus, that praises Sidonius for his eminence in secular life and now his Christian office.6 Breyer is unlikely to have known, or even suspected, that this letter was not authentic; it was in fact produced in the seventeenth century by Jérôme Vignier, thinking, no doubt, to make good the loss of the letter to which Sidonius was obviously replying. Its inauthenticity was first exposed by J. Havet, in 1885.7 The other letters of Sidonius to Lupus (6.4, 6.9, 9.11) concern particular pastoral problems, for which Sidonius requires the help of his colleague; no attempt was made to reconstruct replies to these and attribute them to Lupus. The little book assembled by Breyer is of interest as an attempt to link two famous figures of central France, but has no pretence to exactitude, and more need not be said. Towards the end of the eighteenth century appeared a more weighty and ambitious work, in two volumes, offering a translation of both the Letters – or a large number of them (1787) – and the complete Poems, together with the Letters (1792), by Edme Billardon de Sauvigny.8 De Sauvigny was a man of remarkably wide interests, who among other things translated Sappho, wrote dramas in French on classical themes, and compiled numerous and various works of a historical nature pertaining to France.9 He was indeed, as the next translators were to describe him, with, one suspects, faint praise, an ‘indéfatigable écrivain’. In the preface to the second volume of his Sidonius10 he declares his astonishment that such interesting works had not yet been translated; they fascinated him because they helped to document ‘one of the most important revolutions that happened in the Gauls’. (He makes no mention of the political revolution currently proceeding in his homeland.) But in literary terms, he dismisses the fifth century CE as being ‘not one of taste’, and he considers the poems to be ‘entirely devoid of merit’. He is not impressed by the personality or the style of Sidonius, and indeed apologises to the reader, not for his own efforts, but because he finds Sidonius so deficient in these areas. If any reader was expecting a eulogy, de Sauvigny makes it clear that one would not be deserved; presumably the style is too manneristic. There is no Latin text, and de Sauvigny does not state which version of those available he used. It hardly matters. Although Amherdt says that Loyen (whom he often follows elsewhere) exaggerates the distance of his translation from the text,11 de Sauvigny’s work is rightly condemned by the next translators as ‘très incomplète et . . . [elle] manque de fidélité comme 3 4 5 6

7

8

9 10

11

Breyer (1706). See in this volume Furbetta ch. 17, sect. 4.2. Médiathèque de Troyes, Fonds local cl. 12o 1909 (among other copies). Grégoire and Collombet (1836) xxxix, Baret (1878) 169. See the Patrologia Latina edition of Migne (1862) 63–5. There is a further letter in Migne, under the names of Lupus and Euphronius, which concerns specific questions about the admissibility of bigamous clerics and others to the Christian festivals of Easter and Christmas. This is not used by Breyer. Havet (1885) 205–74 at 252–4 (where it is printed). Rahner (1935) discusses Vignier’s motives and methods in creating such letters. See in this volume van Waarden’s ch. 23. sect. 1.2, on reception of Sidonius in seventeenthcentury France. In the first volume his forename is Edme (Edme), in the second there are two: Louis Edme. There was also a brother, Étienne Louis Billardon de Sauvigny. . For this and the following details, Billardon de Sauvigny (1792) 2.113–14. See also in this volume Furbetta, ch. 17, sect. 4.2. Amherdt (2013) 27 n. 21.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 619

13/02/20 4:30 PM

620

ROGER GREEN

de correction’ (‘very incomplete, and lacking in fidelity and correctness’) and as all too liable to fall into unspeakable blunders (‘des ineffables balourdises’)’.12 It is difficult not to agree, although, as will become clear in this study, translators are prone to condemn their predecessors even after making much use of them. In Poem 4 de Sauvigny may be forgiven for not appreciating the details and nuances of the poet’s appeal to the imperial patronage given in times past to Vergil and Horace, in a situation supposedly similar to the one in which Sidonius found himself, but there are grave problems of other kinds. De Sauvigny misunderstands the couplet 7–8, with its conceit based on a contrast between the respective gifts of Phoebus Apollo, patron of poetry, and Caesar Augustus, when he speaks of them both simply piling up their benefits for Tityrus/Vergil. Four lines later, with his hasty translation ‘mes craintes sont dissipées’, he misses the point that Majorian had exhorted Sidonius to be of good cheer. Line 16 he omits entirely, probably not understanding the reference to terra Sabella (Horace’s Sabine farm). The laboured rendering of the neat pointe made by Sidonius in the last two lines of the poem takes de Sauvigny forty-six words to reproduce, as opposed to the original’s twelve. The same applies to the orotund opening of Poem 5, where five Latin words require sixteen in de Sauvigny’s French, which is resonant indeed but also inaccurate and misleading: ‘Nobles Républicains, prêtez une oreille attentive; je vais chanter des triomphes qui ont illustré la Patrie’ (but that is not what the poem is about).13 Perhaps the interest of de Sauvigny today lies less in his translations than in the influence of the turbulent circumstances in which he wrote, if it could be studied. But a start had been made.

2 The Nineteenth Century The next translation, that of Jacques-François Grégoire and François-Zénon Collombet, is accepted by Amherdt as the first trustworthy translation of Sidonius, notwithstanding ‘inexactitudes which would not be accepted now’.14 It presents the Letters in two volumes, and the Poems in a third. Collombet was involved in the translation of numerous Patristic prose-writers, as was Grégoire, but he also translated the Greek poet Anacreon and contributed to editions of Greek lyric. Their verdict on de Sauvigny has been quoted above, but their translation does not escape adverse comment from Baret after them, who warns that their translation must be read with extreme distrust (‘défiance’) and is full of mistranslations (‘plein de contre-sens’).15 Later Anderson (1936) will call it a ‘contemptible’ translation.16 But they do improve on their predecessor, and avoid many of the problems he left. At Poem 4.4 their interpretation ‘n’avait pu résister’ (‘[the emperor] could not resist’) is imaginative but not unreasonable, and closer than de Sauvigny’s version of that line, ‘il désarmoit la colère de César-Auguste’ (‘he disarmed the anger of Caesar Augustus’). (The Latin literally means ‘his anger did not hold fast’). In line 7 they are closer to the point, but ignore the notion of recompense when they translate ‘Le don du poète (Phoebeia dona) n’était pas inférieure à celui du monarque.’ Unlike their predecessor they understand the simple syntax of lines 11–12, and so translate it reasonably. Horace is not occluded in line 16. The poem’s final couplet is reduced to thirty-three words, on which later writers found it hard to improve substantially. 12 13 14

15 16

Grégoire and Collombet (1836) xxxviii. There is perhaps a Shakespearian touch in ‘prêtez une oreille’: compare Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2, line 74. Amherdt (2013) 27. For François Guizot’s contribution to it, see van Waarden in this volume ch. 23, sect. 1.4.2. See also in this volume Furbetta, ch. 17, sect. 4.2. Baret (1878) 171. Anderson (1936) 1.lxx.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 620

13/02/20 4:30 PM

TRANSLATING SIDONIUS

621

A search through Poem 5 reveals infelicities, especially if one counts style as important. Grégoire and Collombet make something (it is not difficult) of the wordplay palma/palmata in line 5, with ‘palme’ ‘palmée’; but no attempt is made to recuperate the alliteration of the contrasting words luxu and lege in line 4. There is a minor problem of anachronism (which a literal translation would have avoided) in their words ‘d’être appelé au trône’ (‘to have been called to the throne’) for regnum mereri (line 11), which is even more unsuitable to Majorian than most emperors; and their ‘you had defended’ (“tu avais défendu”) for defendenda putasti in line 12 is at least better than de Sauvigny’s wild suggestion: ‘dont vous aviez étendu les limites’ (‘of which you had extended the limits’). In general, on reading further into Poem 5, one finds a strange mixture of misplaced fidelity to de Sauvigny and competent improvement. Sometimes Grégoire and Collombet follow him exactly – this accounts for their failure to translate parts of lines 22 (crasso . . . metallo) and 51 (fecunda maritat), which are not in themselves problematic. They take over almost verbatim his versions of lines 49–56 (on some marvellous rocks in Spain) and lines 72–6 (on Scaevola); but his almost free composition of lines 76–80 is fully and competently revised. The point of the wordplay (or rather the double sense of the word cado ‘fall’) in 5.72 is surely missed; it is not the bridge that falls, but Cocles, who although he falls together with the broken bridge did not fall fatally, cado being often used of death in battle. Some fifty years later, in 1887, there issued a translation of the Letters and Poems by Eugène Baret (misspelt Barret on the title page of the whole work), combined with translations of Ausonius (that of F. Corpet, first published in 1842–3) and Venantius Fortunatus (one produced by M.C. Nisard with M.E. Rittier) in a single large volume of Collections Nisard.17 Baret had already produced a new text of Sidonius (printed in 1878 and then 1879), with learned introductions on history and on style. His translation, especially of the Poems, is a considerable improvement, notwithstanding the mordant (and grossly exaggerated) comments of Loyen.18 Loyen’s allegation – the only one of his criticisms mentioned by Amherdt – that the translation bears the marks of excessive haste is a little surprising given the fact that Baret had already produced editions of the text; and the fact that he died in the year 1887 suggests illness. But what exactly Loyen meant is unclear. He also criticises his predecessor for dodging difficulties too often, and for the translation’s numerous errors, and brands him as ‘déçevante’ (‘disappointing’), ‘fade’ (‘insipid’), and ‘ennuyeuse’ (‘annoying’). These are vague evaluations, and difficult to pin down, but perhaps the annoyance was caused by some surprises in the presentation. The letters are given in one continuous order, and the division into books altogether ignored; finding a particular letter is not easy. The letters are classified by date, whether this is exact or conjectured.19 The collection of poems begins with what is in all other editions, and in the manuscripts, Poem 9, to Felix, a poem that may or (more likely) may not relate to the whole collection. Poem 8 becomes 4 (that is, it is made to precede the Panegyric to Majorian); and Poems 4 and 5 become 6 and 7. On a smaller scale, Baret’s translation of poem 4 (6!) begins by mentioning the reactions and forgiveness of Caesar rather than starting with Tityrus and his pastoral poems, as if Baret wanted to give immediate help to any readers who might miss the literary allusion. If that was his purpose, it weakens the poem, and he perhaps underestimates his readers’ knowledge. To begin with the wide-spreading tree of Vergil’s first Eclogue seems essential. 17

18 19

Baret (1887). See in this volume Furbetta, ch. 17, sect. 4.3. For a not fully perspicuous 2004 re-edition (Baret (2004)), see Amherdt (2013) 30 n. 37 and the Sidonius website at , item [Baret 2004]. Loyen (1960) 1.xlv. Questions of date are studied in the present volume by Gavin Kelly in ch. 3.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 621

13/02/20 4:30 PM

622

ROGER GREEN

Loyen’s strictures against Baret for his lack of accuracy may have been based on his own experiences as he worked (one assumes) with Baret before him, but it is possible that the judgement may also be influenced by an important article by Semple.20 This article – it could indeed be called a short monograph – works through the letters and poems of Sidonius, treating in all almost two hundred problematic passages. Naturally, Semple consults Baret’s translation as one of the most recent, and is not afraid to be candid (as the custom was, especially in A.E. Housman’s Cambridge) from time to time, using such words as ‘wrong’ or ‘wrong-headed’, but these judgements, given the size of the whole Sidonian corpus, are proportionately infrequent. Indeed, in his preface (p. iv) Semple says of Baret’s translation of the Poems that ‘on the whole it is a good rendering’, and that it was ‘the translation on which I have placed most reliance’. In sum (disregarding the criticism from Loyen, who, notwithstanding, pays the compliment of borrowing from him), Baret’s translation is a great improvement on what had gone before, in accuracy as well as expression (though not always, as in 5.12 and 5.71, which have been mentioned above). Finally, two small but significant points concerning style may be mentioned. In Poem 4.10 the word auctor occurs once, but is in syllepsis; it goes with both carminis and veniae. Ideally, one would find a word (perhaps ‘source’ in English or French) which could fulfil the same double function. Baret requires two separate words, but at least provides assonance, translating auctor first as ‘auteur’, then as ‘inspirateur’; Loyen is less adroit, using only the second of these words, so missing the concinnity, as well as being arguably inaccurate (‘l’inspirateur de tes vers fut aussi qui t’accorda la grâce’; ‘the inspirer of your verses was also he who granted you pardon’). In Poem 5.75–6 Baret makes a neat contrast, writing ‘moins effrayé de la main qui frappe que de la main qui brûle’ (the Latin is non tam feriente fugatus / quam flagrante viro), but Loyen the weaker and less stylish ‘mis en fuite moins par les coups du guerrier que par ses brûleurs’. In his jeremiad against Baret, Loyen had complained, viciously but ridiculously, that ‘Qui a lu Baret, n’a pas lu Sidoine’ (‘if you have read Baret, you have not read Sidonius’). But to allow readers to ‘read Sidonius’, a translator ought surely to take some account of his style. Loyen, in his own translation, may not have given any thought to that, and indeed it is a distant, if rewarding, goal for anyone. Before the story of the end of this century ends, mention must be made of the work of Thomas Hodgkin, who in his ample work Italy and her Invaders offered useful and attractive translations of several passages from the letters, including some of the poems within them, and of one of the poems (12). It is noteworthy that some of these attracted interest in America, under the rubric of ‘Roman Provincial Life’.21

3 The Twentieth Century and Beyond Two main works of translation dominate the century, those in the highly respected Loeb Classical Library, and the Budé series, by William Blair Anderson and André Loyen respectively, but one must not forget the very capable translation of the Letters by Ormonde Maddock Dalton from 1915,22 highly regarded for fifty years but perhaps overlooked somewhat because of the austerity of its format or the lack of a Latin text. There are short notes in the second volume, pertaining to both volumes. Besides various works on classical art and archaeology

20 21 22

Semple (1930). Hodgkin (1892). Some of these translations have also been published in [Hodgkin] (1901) and [Hodgkin] (1904). Dalton (1915) in two volumes.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 622

13/02/20 4:30 PM

TRANSLATING SIDONIUS

623

(which were his speciality: he worked in the British Museum), Dalton, turning to Sidonius, produced a plain but very serviceable translation. He knew of Hodgkin’s translations but without sacrificing accuracy adopts an effective style and idiom of his own. In the words of one reviewer,23 ‘it may be doubted if more care and good sense have gone into the production of any modern translation of a classic’. As a rule, Dalton prefers shorter sentences than Sidonius favours, with the result that readers might not notice that they were dealing with a highly individual writer of Latin prose; but he keeps antitheses (though he sometimes finds them ‘glaring’ (p. cxxviii)), and certain features such as the typically Sidonian long strings of carefully balanced short phrases. He complains of ‘similitudes extraordinary to our taste’, and sometimes tones them down, as in Ep. 6.6.2, where the words adeps and arvina (literally ‘fat’ and ‘lard’ respectively: Anderson will have ‘mystic fat’ and ‘spiritual lard’) are much reduced in vividness; but Dalton also complains of Sidonius’ uses of metaphor being familiar and ‘worn down’ (p. cxxx). Dalton’s translations were praised by another reviewer (a historian) for being ‘clear and readable, which is saying much when his author’s style is considered’.24 The historian’s views and needs are paramount here; the style is just a barrier. According to Anderson, Dalton’s work was ‘justly welcomed by students of Sidonius’, though Anderson’s conjoined remark that ‘it does not profess to follow the Latin closely’ says more than is warranted, and seems a little disparaging. The two Loeb volumes appeared in 1936 and 1965, the earlier one containing the Poems and the first two books of letters, and the second the remaining seven books. The second volume did not appear until six years after Anderson’s death in 1959; a sad note by Anderson at the end of letter 9.11, dated 29 May 1948, states that ‘this letter was the last to be translated’. Five remained, but there was much to be done by way of deciphering his notes on the earlier material. As is explained in the Loeb editor’s introduction to volume 2, the task was taken over by Semple, who carefully explains in footnotes how he has dealt with the uncertainties and conjectures that Anderson had scribbled down. In these marginalia one can see Anderson’s mind at work, critical and careful, as in the expression of scholarly aporia at 6.9.2: ‘this can’t be right: what does it mean?’ In this case Semple altered Anderson’s provisional version, to bring out what he thought must be the right understanding of the Latin. Such a dialogue between two outstanding scholars is most instructive, and enhanced the quality of translation in many passages. One must not forget the contribution of the series editor, E. H. Warmington, who in his preface to the second volume modestly describes his editorial activity and his contributions to the notes. Anderson’s translation of the Poems, as already indicated, had emerged almost thirty years earlier. They are done into prose that has some literary pretentions; alliteration and wordplay are sometimes reproduced. The standard of accuracy and fidelity is high: ‘Anderson’s translations are sometimes complicated, but then so is Sidonius’, as an appreciative reviewer pointed out, also praising Anderson as ‘un vrai savant’ and ‘un érudit plein de finesse et de distinction’.25 But Anderson’s strikingly and unremittingly archaic style, especially in the panegyrics, make his work very difficult to follow or enjoy today, and it is reported to be unwelcome to students for that reason. To some extent, too, it has moulded readers’ conceptions of Sidonius, as a young man who gave undue importance to rhetorical display. Anderson went further than translators of Vergil, for example, of the same date; their style has some archaic elements, but in moderation. (For example, at 5.11–12 Anderson has ‘thou 23 24 25

Souter (1915) 54 (he means that Sidonius received as much care as a classic might have attracted). Baynes (1916) 216. Loyen (1937) 392–6.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 623

13/02/20 4:30 PM

624

ROGER GREEN

wert loth that thy victories should benefit thee, and with overmuch modesty wert grieved that thou didst deserve the throne’.) Sidonius is not in fact a writer with a strong affection for archaic (as opposed to merely old) words and phrases. A new English version must be very different. The reviewer mentioned above was Sidonius’ other main benefactor at this time, André Loyen, whose three-volume Budé edition (the Poems are in volume 1) came out in 1960 and 1970, the fruit of long study. Loyen was primarily a historian, whose first contribution (Loyen 1942) consisted of his historical researches on the panegyrics, to which, naturally, the commentary regularly refers. It was quickly followed by Loyen (1943), a more ambitious study of Sidonius as letter-writer and the ‘precious’ style in late imperial Gaul. This adjective has stuck, though it was not greatly elucidated by Loyen; the book’s value has been principally as an introduction to the Letters. On the stylistic front Loyen sees Sidonius as the natural development of certain features of classical literature, which are more to the fore in the book than Sidonius’s actual stylistic peculiarities. In his translations, too (as hinted above), Loyen is not very attentive to style. The French scholar Jacques Fontaine, when still at the threshold of a distinguished career, gave tentative examples in his review of how Loyen might have chosen more expressive words: ‘briser’ rather than ‘abolir’ for frangi at 5.124; ‘noyer sous’ rather than ‘inonder’ for obruta, at 5.276.26 Small touches like these, and indeed more forceful ones, can make a notable difference, especially in the Poems. But Loyen’s translations are certainly very competent, neat, and, especially in the Letters, fluent; to Amherdt, naturally a better judge of these things than the present writer, they are ‘accurate, not shirking difficulties’ (as Loyen accused Baret of doing), and ‘a pleasure to read’. Perhaps Loyen cuts a few corners sometimes, but it is difficult not to do so if reasonable brevity is a goal. Close to the end of the century came the translation into Catalan of Joan Bellès, a generally reliable translation, with some similarity to Loyen and perhaps to Anderson, and one which attempts to convey the ‘preciousness’ of Sidonius’ style. The Polish translation of Broz. ek represents the style of the Gallic author very well; on the other hand, the style of the translation of the Poems perhaps errs on the side of literalness. Both these editions, like most of the others mentioned in this chapter, have a plenitude of introductory and ancillary material. The translation of the Poems into Castilian by López Kindler is in some ways close to Loyen, though there is no Latin text, and the notes are less compressed. In places the translation follows Loyen (naturally enough: who would not use Loyen?), and is generally reliable and readable.27 A very different approach has been followed by the Spanish scholar Jesús Hernández Lobato, whose translation of the Poems was published in 2015. In a short but important essay,28 Hernández Lobato forcibly put forward the thesis that translations should try to bring out the features of Sidonius’ style, rather than just giving an account of what the works say. Building to some extent on Loyen (1943) and Gualandri (1979),29 he gives us a powerful list of such features, which, to translate and summarise them quickly, fall into the classes of ‘extreme formal preciosity’, ‘taste for exotic and recherché language’, ‘metaphorical density’, ‘conceptual or polyphonic games’, ‘clever combinations of words’, 26 27

28 29

Fontaine (1961) 337. An exception is in line 5.38, where the noun caute (‘rock’), for which no exact equivalent occurs in Loyen’s translation, is unfortunately translated ‘timidamente’, against the metre. Hernández Lobato (2010a). Gualandri (1979) 105–42.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 624

13/02/20 4:30 PM

TRANSLATING SIDONIUS

625

and ‘oxymora and paradoxes’. The translator conscious of all these things has a lot to look out for, although there is no suggestion that each feature needs to have an exact counterpart at the point where it occurs, and there are passages in the poems where these features may be scarce. This is all a challenge, especially if a translator also seeks, as Hernández Lobato has done, to represent the metres of Sidonius in some way, and reproduce the order of the Latin words and their places in the line. These two translations offer a remarkable contrast, one a careful translation into prose in the traditional manner, the other in verse form and highly experimental, following the goals just mentioned. Without further comment, I offer the translations of a small passage (5.21–30), first by López Kindler, and then by Hernández Lobato (whom I thank for his permission to quote a little of his translation). López Kindler: Un escudo resplandeciente cubre con espacioso circulo su costado izquierdo; en su macizo metal se pueden ver fundidas las grutas de Rea y la loba nutricia: con sus fauces abiertas, infundía terror incluso la idea de aplacarla, por más que ella misma, en la pintura, temía devorar a los hijos de Marte. El primer plano representa el Tíber: extendido sobre una agrietada roca de toba, exhalaba éste de su boca verdosa los sonidos de un sueño húmedo; cubre su pecho con un manto que ha tejido su esposa Ilia. Ésta, acostada sobre la liquida cama, se afana por suprimir el ruido de las aguas y asegurar el sueño de su fluido esposo. Tales son los adornos del escudo. Hernández Lobato: Tras él destellante apuntala en su círculo inmenso el izquierdo costado un escudo; fundidas se ven en sus gruesos metales las grutas de Rea y la loba nutricia, que, a fauces abiertas, hasta acariciar aterraba, por más que ella misma temiera aun pintada engullir a los hijos Marte. La escena siguiente el Tíbris refleja: manando so un pómez de toba cuarteada exhala un mojado sopor a través de su glauca garganta; el pecho le cubre un mantón, que tejiérale Ilia, su esposa. (ésta, adentrada en el líquido lecho, desea el murmullo del agua acallar, por salvar de su undoso marido el descanso). Todo eso centella en su escudo . . . Finally, I offer tentatively (as was suggested to me) and modestly two versions of my own of the passage that follows (lines 31–9). The first is in prose, the second, more experimental, in blank verse of twelve syllables, broadly following the practice of English poets from Dryden to Browning. My translation is very much a work in progress, and the eventual choice may be a compromise between the two. These subjects glitter on her shield; with a shaft of ivory her spear stands erect, drunk with human slaughter. Nearby, Bellona raises a trophy and bends down an oak tree with a burden of captive plunder. The throne rises up with rocks hewn and hauled from the reddish mountain of Ethiopia, where the native purple breathes upon rocks dried out by the everpresent sun. Combined with this is marble of Synnada, and the marble of the Numidians

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 625

13/02/20 4:30 PM

626

ROGER GREEN

is also apparent, marble that emulates ancient ivory; and, finally, there shines among them a green seam of grass-coloured marble from Spartan stone. Such splendours sparkle on the shield; with ivory shaft Rises a spear, with enemy blood inebriate. Close by, Bellona builds a trophy, with the weight Of spoils bending an oak-tree down. Rome’s throne arises With rocks hewed and brought down from the Ethiopians’ Red mountain, where a natural purple breathes on cliffs Burnt by the sun’s close presence. Here is Synnadan stone, There ivory-like Numidian stone; Laconian crags Interweave a shining seam of marble green as grass. Readers may wish to make their own judgements on the relative potential of these prose and verse translations, and, more importantly, between the various approaches to Sidonius outlined in this chapter.

4 Further Reading Lucid introductions to the perennial question in translation theory of whether a translation should primarily bring out the style of the original or its contents, and – more generally – whether it should be work- or reader-centred, can be found in Lawrence Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility (2008) and Susan Bassnett’s Translation Studies (2014).

Appendix: Poems 4 and 5.1–39 Poem 4 Tityrus ut quondam patulae sub tegmine fagi volveret inflatos murmura per calamos, praestitit adflicto ius vitae Caesar et agri, nec stetit ad tenuem celsior ira reum; sed rus concessum dum largo in principe laudat, caelum pro terris rustica Musa dedit; nec fuit inferius Phoebeia dona referre: fecerat hic dominum, fecit et ille deum. et tibi, Flacce, acies Bruti Cassique secuto carminis est auctor qui fuit et veniae. sic mihi diverso nuper sub Marte cadenti iussisti invicto, victor, ut essem animo. serviat ergo tibi servati lingua poetae atque meae vitae laus tua sit pretium. non ego mordaci fodiam modo dente Maronem nec civem carpam, terra Sabella, tuum. res minor ingenio nobis, sed Caesare maior; vincant eloquio, dummodo nos domino.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 626

5

10

15

13/02/20 4:30 PM

627

TRANSLATING SIDONIUS

Poem 5.1–39 Concipe praeteritos, respublica, mente triumphos; imperium iam consul habet, quem purpura non plus quam lorica operit, cuius diademata frontem non luxu sed lege tegunt meritisque laborum post palmam palmata venit; decora omnia regni accumulant fasces et princeps consule crescit. personat ergo tuum caelo, rure, urbibus, undis exultans Europa sophos, quod rector haberis, victor qui fueras. fateor, trepidaverat orbis dum vis non vicisse tibi nimioque pudore quod regnum mereare doles tristique repulsa non moderanda subis quae defendenda putasti. Sederat exserto bellatrix pectore Roma, cristatum turrita caput, cui pone capaci casside prolapsus perfundit terga capillus. laetitiam censura manet terrorque pudore crescit, et invita superat virtute venustas. ostricolor pepli textus, quem fibula torto mordax dente forat; tum quidquid mamma refundit tegminis, hoc patulo concludit gemma recessu. hinc fulcit rutilus spatioso circite laevum umbo latus; videas hic crasso fusa metallo antra Rheae fetamque lupam, quam fauce retecta blandiri quoque terror erat; quamquam illa vorare Martigenas et picta timet; pars proxima Thybrim exprimit; hic scabri fusus sub pumice tofi proflabat madidum per guttura glauca soporem; pectus palla tegit, quam neverat Ilia coniunx, liquenti quae iuncta toro vult murmura lymphis tollere et undosi somnum servare mariti. ista micant clipeo; cuspis trabe surgit eburna. ebria caede virum. propter Bellona tropaeum exstruit et quercum captivo pondere curvat. consurgit solium saxis quae caesa rubenti Aethiopum de monte cadunt, ubi sole propinquo nativa exustas adflavit purpura rupes. iungitur hic Synnas, Nomadum lapis additur istic, antiquum mentitus ebur; post caute Laconum marmoris herbosi radians interviret ordo.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 627

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

13/02/20 4:30 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 628

13/02/20 4:30 PM

Part VI Readers of Sidonius from Antiquity to the Present

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 629

13/02/20 4:30 PM

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 630

13/02/20 4:30 PM

20 SIDONIUS’ EARLIEST RECEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION Ralph W. Mathisen

I

of letters and poems, Sidonius often mentions the circulation of his writings, usually by himself, meaning that his works, like those of his friends, were selfpublished.1 Sidonius did not provide each of his friends with a full-blown copy of his volumes of poems or letters. Generally, single copies of one or more books of letters would be passed from one reader to another, and, by a process of ‘chain publication’, recipients were expected to make their own copies if they chose to. One of Sidonius’ poems, Carm. 24, even describes the route taken by a collection of his poems as it wended its way south from Avitacum to Narbonne, travelling from one of his friends to the next. Not everyone was happy about this. Sidonius had to conciliate the distinguished and elderly bishop Lupus of Troyes, who was offended because Sidonius sent a copy of his letters ‘not to him but through him’. Sidonius tried to placate Lupus with some clever arguments: N HIS COLLECTIONS

On account of the little book which you considered to have been sent through you rather than to you . . . I suspect that that other person has not yet had the opportunity of reading it whereas you already have had much opportunity for copying. He will not regard those as holograph pages if he in fact receives a copy that you previously corrected. In sum, it certainly seems clear that the ownership (proprietas) has been transferred to you, to whom the usage (usus) has been transferred without a fixed time period.2 Lupus was thus expected to make his own copy; Sidonius assured him that the next person on the transmittal list would be just as happy to receive Lupus’ copy as Sidonius’ original. The evidence of Sidonius himself thus indicates that during his lifetime Sidonius’ poems and letters were well distributed around post-Roman Gaul. We are also particularly fortunate to have a good amount of external evidence, from other literary remains, for how Sidonius’ letters continued to be transmitted and used after his death, and what follows will present three case studies of this phenomenon.3 1

2

3

For the circulation of Sidonius’ letters, see Mathisen (2013a, 2014); for the circulation of late antique letter collections writ large, see, inter alios, Starr (1987), Gibson (2012), Sogno et al. (2017b), Mathisen (2018a). Sidon. Ep. 9.11.1 Propter libellum, quem non ad vos magis quam per vos missum putastis . . . 6 . . . ille . . . necdum ad facultatem legendi, ut suspicor, venit, cum iam diu ipse perveneris ad copiam transferendi. aio, tamquam non sit autholographas membranas arbitraturus, si tamen quod ante percurreras vel exemplar acceperit . . . nempe ad extremum palam videtur etiam tibi transmissa proprietas, cui usus absque temporis fixi praescriptione transmissus est. For a discussion of Sidonius’ earliest reception, see also Furbetta (2013c) 41–65.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 631

13/02/20 4:30 PM

632

RALPH W . MATHISEN

1 Sidonius’ Letters to Ruricius of Limoges First of all, the evidence of Ruricius, a putative relation of the aristocratic Anician family of Rome:4 Ruricius became bishop of Limoges in 485 and served until his death around the year 510. A letter collection also survives for Ruricius, preserved in but a single manuscript, St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 190, copied in the early ninth century CE. The Sangallensis also preserves a host of other unica, including the letter collection of Desiderius of Cahors; most of the letters of Faustus of Riez; two letters written to women c. 400 CE; a curious bee benediction; and a letter written by the abbot Evantius around the mid-seventh century.5 Ruricius’ letter collection contains eighty-three letters, in one organised book of seventeen letters followed by a disorganised farrago of sixty-six letters.6 One might speculate that at some point before his death Ruricius, in the style of Sidonius, assembled a formal book of letters that he may or may not have circulated, and that the other sixty-six were what happened to be in his writing chest when he died. As a young man Ruricius was a good friend of Sidonius. Ruricius also had other connections to Clermont, for his wife Hiberia was the daughter of the Arvernian senator Ommatius, a descendant of a patrician family and the recipient of an invitation to a birthday party from Sidonius (Carm. 17). Sidonius even wrote the epithalamium for Ruricius’ and Hiberia’s wedding (Carm. 10–11). Ruricius corresponded with Sidonius: he received three surviving letters from Sidonius, Ep. 4.16, 5.15, and 8.10, and three of Ruricius’ own extant letters, Ep. 1.8, 1.9, and 1.16, were addressed to Sidonius. In a letter to a young rhetor, Hesperius, also a friend of Sidonius, Ruricius quoted two of these Sidonian letters, Ep. 4.16 and Ep. 8.10.7 There also are a large number of other verbal reminiscences of the latter letter. Ruricius thus not only possessed some of Sidonius’ letters but also made use of them. Other evidence likewise indicates that Ruricius had some of Sidonius’ works. In a letter to Sidonius, Ruricius confessed that he had copied a work that Sidonius had lent to Ruricius’ brother Leontius (Ep. 1.8.3–4): I affirm to you that I am guilty of a theft, and I proclaim that, with you unaware, I have illegally taken advantage of your loan. But in order that I might commit this act, you yourself, either putting my greed to the test or desiring to educate one who is unlearned, provided the opportunity for perpetrating the deed. For I confess that I have copied the book that you asked me to recover from my brother Leontius.8

4 5

6 7

8

For Ruricius’ letter collection, see, in general, Mathisen (1999a, 2001a). For Sangallensis 190, see Mathisen (1998, 1999a); discussion recapitulated e.g. in Alciati (2008) and Furbetta (2013c). For a digital reproduction of the manuscript, preserved in the Stiftsbibliothek in St Gallen, see . For its description, see Dolveck’s list of manuscripts in this volume, ch. 16, #105. For Ruricius’ letters, Engelbrecht (1891), Krusch (1887), Demeulenaere (1985). Ruric. Ep. 1.4 (to Hesperius) recepi apices . . . tam sale quam melle respersas, ‘I received your letter full of salt and honey’, cf. Sidon. Ep. 4.16.1 (to Ruricius) accepi . . . paginam vestram, quae plus mellis an salis habeat incertum est, ‘I received your letter; one could not say whether it has more honey or salt’; Ruric. Ep. 1.4 materia . . . ingenii . . . . ieiuno . . . caespite . . . glebarum . . . fecundat, cf. Sidon. Ep. 8.10.2 (to Ruricius) ingeniorum . . . fecundi . . . materiae . . . arida caespitis . . . glaeba ieiunat. Furti me vobis reum statuo et depositum vestrum me, ignorantibus vobis, inlicite praesumpsisse pronuntio. quod ut tamen committerem, occasionem perpetrandi facinoris vos dedistis, aut temptantes cupidum aut indoctum erudire cupientes. 4 codicem namque, quem de fratre meo Leontio me recipere iusseratis, transtulisse me fateor.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 632

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS ’ EARLIEST RECEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

633

This may have been something written by Sidonius himself, which could explain Ruricius’ need to apologise for copying it. And in a letter to Sidonius’ son Apollinaris, Ruricius mentioned a work of Sidonius that he had loaned to Apollinaris and received back again (Ep. 2.26.3): I have in fact received to be read our lord and shared father Sollius, which I said that I gave to Your Exaltedness to be transcribed. Just as reading him restores my past affection for him, it likewise, because of the obscurity of his locutions, does not fire my own talent.9

2 Gregory of Tours’ Use of Sidonius’ Letters Ruricius was not the only Gaul with connections to Clermont who made use of Sidonius’ letters. A century later, Sidonius’ fellow townsman Georgius Florentius Gregorius, a native of Clermont and later bishop of Tours, in several instances mentioned using this or that letter of Sidonius.10 For example, in section 3 of his Vitae patrum, dealing with Abbot Abraham of Clermont, Gregory comments: In fact, the blessed Sidonius wrote the epitaph of the saint, in which he anticipated several of the things regarding which I spoke. And sure enough, a comparison of Gregory’s account with Sidonius’ Ep. 7.17 to Volusianus reveals several similarities.11 More strikingly, sections 24 and 25 of the second book of Gregory’s Histories present three stories in sequence drawn from Sidonius’ letters. Section 24 begins, ‘But at the time of Bishop Sidonius a great famine oppressed Burgundia’, and relates how in the early 470s Ecdicius, Sidonius’ brother-in-law, had provided famine relief, and then goes on to add: But Bishop Patiens of Lyon is also known to have provided relief to the people in this same famine: there is extant among us today a letter of the blessed Sidonius in which he rhetorically praised him. This reference is to Sidonius’ Ep. 6.12 to Patiens, which verbal parallels suggest Gregory may have had in front of him when he was writing about Ecdicius.12 This hypothesis is also 9

10 11

12

Sollium enim nostrum domnum patremque communem, quem transcribendum sublimitati vestrae dedisse me dixeram, legendum recepi. cuius lectio sicut mihi antiquum restaurat affectum, ita prae obscuritate dictorum non accendit ingenium. For Sidonius in Gregory’s Histories, see also Furbetta (2015d). Abraham . . . super Euphratis fluvii litus exortus est . . . pro Christi nomine affectus verberibus, in vincula conicitur . . . per quinque annos . . . laxatur . . . mirae virtutis, fugator daemonum . . . huius vero sancti epitaphium beatus Sidonius scripsit in quo aliqua de his quae locutus sum est praefatus; cf. Sidon. Carm. 33 (Ep. 7.17.2) 1–12 Abraham . . . natus ad Euphratem, pro Christo ergastula passus . . . quinquennali vincula laxa fame . . . virtutum . . . daemonas ire iubes exul in exilium. See also van Waarden (2016a) 222–43. Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.24 Burgundiam fames oppressit . . . populi per diversas regiones dispergerentur . . . invalescente fame, misit . . . inopia vexabantur . . . famem . . . sanctus Patiens Lugdunensis episcopus simile huic in ipsa fame populis praestitisse perhibetur beneficium. exstat exinde hodie apud nos beati Sidonii epistola in qua eum declamatorie conlaudavit; cf. Sid. Ep. 6.12.5 (to Patiens) inopiae communi per desolatas Gallias . . . misisti; cum tabescentibus fame populis nimium . . . angustas tuis frugibus vias . . . impleveras horreum. In Carm. 27 (Ep. 2.10.4 to Hesperius) 1–2, moreover, Sidonius observes: Quisquis pontificis patrisque nostri / conlaudas Patientis, ‘All you who here admire the work of Patiens, our bishop and father’, suggesting that Gregory had seen this letter as well and picked up the word conlaudare, which does not appear in Ep. 6.12, there.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 633

13/02/20 4:30 PM

634

RALPH W . MATHISEN

suggested by the similarity between Gregory’s refectione pauperum and Sidonius’ defectionem pauperatorum from an earlier section of the same letter to Patiens. In the same passage, Gregory adds: Many recall that this Ecdicius had a miraculous quickness, for it is written that on a certain occasion he put to flight a multitude of Goths with ten men. This story is drawn from Sidonius’ Ep. 3.3, to Ecdicius himself.13 Gregory, who may have been quoting it from memory, exaggerates a bit: rather than having Ecdicius merely escape from several thousand Goths with eighteen men, as in Sidonius, he has him putting to flight a multitude of Goths with only ten men. Then, in the next section of book two, Gregory tells of the so-called ‘persecution’ of Christians by the ‘Arian’ Visigothic king Euric, noting: Regarding this matter, there exists even today a letter of noble Sidonius himself to Bishop Basilius that says that these things are so. Here, then, is an allusion to Sidonius’ Ep. 7.6 to Bishop Basilius of Aix.14 Gregory also quotes directly from Sidonius’ letters. For example, in the Liber de virtutibus sancti Iuliani he writes: Furthermore, our Sollius, writing to this same Mamertus, provides testimony for this work. And Gregory quotes a passage, almost verbatim, from Sidonius’ Ep. 7.1 to bishop Mamertus of Vienne.15 Another direct quotation, different only in the verb tenses, is found in Gregory’s discussion of Bishop Cautinus of Clermont, where Gregory cited Sidonius’ Ep. 2.1, again to Ecdicius.16 So far, then, the discussion indicates that Gregory cited at least six of Sidonius’ letters, as summarised in Table 20.1.

13

14

15

16

Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.24 quem Ecdicium mirae velocitatis fuisse multi commemorant: nam quadam vice multitudinem Gothorum cum decem viris fugasse perscribitur; cf. Sidon. Ep. 3.3.3 (to Ecdicius) cum interiectis aequoribus in adversum perambulatis et vix duodeviginti equitum sodalitate comitatus aliquot milia Gothorum non minus die quam campo medio, quod difficile sit posteritas creditura, transisti, ‘in the middle of both the plain and the day, accompanied by the comradeship of scarcely eighteen cavalrymen, you passed through so many thousands of Goths that it will be difficult for posterity to believe it’. Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.25 rex Gothorum . . . Christianis . . . truncabat . . . perversitati suae . . . clericos . . . sacerdotes . . . exsilio . . . gladio trucidabat . . . ipsos sacrorum templorum aditus spinis iusserat obserari . . . raritas . . . fidei . . . Novempopulanae, geminaeque Aquitaniae urbes . . . exstat hodieque et pro hac causa ad Basilium episcopum nobilis Sidonii ipsius epistola, quae haec ita loquitur; cf. Sidon. Ep. 7.6.6–10: regem Gothorum . . . Christianis . . . suae sectae . . . Burdegala, Petrocorii, Ruteni, Lemovices, Gabalitani, Hulusani, Vasates, Convenae, Auscenses, multoque maior numerus civitatum summis sacerdotibus ipsorum morte truncatis . . . 7 . . . fidei . . . 8 basilicarum aditus hispidorum veprium fruticibus obstructos . . . rarescunt . . . 9 clericus . . . exsilii. Greg. Tur. Virt. Iul. 2.2 tibi soli concessa est in partes orbis occidui martyris Ferreoli solida translatio, adiecto nostri capite Iuliani; cf. Sidon. Ep. 7.1.7 to Mamertus: tibi soli concessa est . . . in partibus orbis occidui martyris Ferreoli solida translatio, adiecto nostri capite Iuliani. Greg. Tur. Hist. 4.12 ut Sollius noster ait: ‘nec dabat pretia contemnens nec accipiebat instrumenta desperans’ (‘as our Sollius said: “Spurning it, he would not pay the price, and deeming them useless, he would not accept the contracts”’); cf. Sidon. Ep. 2.1.2 nec dat pretia contemnens nec accipit instrumenta desperans

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 634

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS ’ EARLIEST RECEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

635

Table 20.1 Gregory of Tours’ use of the letters of Sidonius Sidonius’ letter

Recipient

Work of Gregory of Tours

Ep. 2.1

Ecdicius

Hist. 4.12

Ep. 3.3

Ecdicius

Hist. 2.24

Ep. 6.12

Patiens of Lyon

Hist. 2.24

Ep. 7.1

Mamertus of Vienne

Virt. Iul. 3

Ep. 7.6

Basilius of Aix

Hist. 2.25

Ep. 7.17

Volusianus

VPat. 3

In the cases of both Ruricius of Limoges and Gregory of Tours, one has evidence for the circulation, preservation, and use of Sidonius’ letter collection in the context of a local aristocratic circle based on Clermont. And the use of Sidonius as a model also continued elsewhere, for Gregory reported that in the early 580s Bishop Ferreolus of Uzès ‘wrote several books of letters, in imitation of Sidonius’.17 It is a pity that Gregory failed to collect and circulate his own letters.

3 The Letters of Sidonius in the Codex Sangallensis 190 This brings us to the third case study. As already noted, Ruricius’ letters survive in only a single manuscript, the Sangallensis 190, dating to c. 800 CE, which commences with an index of the contents.

3.1 The Index and Its Actual Contents The letters connected to Ruricius begin on pp. 66 to 83 with five letters to Ruricius from Bishop Faustus of Riez. Pages 84 to 130 then include eight letters of other bishops addressed to Ruricius, and pp. 132–277 contain the letters of Ruricius himself (Fig. 20.1). There are a number of discrepancies between the index and the contents. For one thing, the index omits a long letter of Faustus of Riez (Quaeris a me) on pp. 92–111. In addition, and more to the point, on line 7 of p. 130, a letter of Sedatus of Nîmes suddenly breaks off mid-sentence with the words ne omnino, and is followed without any break by a fragment of Sidonius’ Ep. 2.1 to Ecdicius beginning at Ep. 2.1.1 quique etiam and continuing to the end of the letter, as if it were the conclusion of Sedatus’. The index also lists, between the last of the letters to Ruricius and Ruricius’ own letters, twenty-four individually cited letters of Sidonius, identified by their recipients; none of these twenty-four letters appears in the manuscript.18 Table 20.2 transcribes the contents of the index relating to the letters of Ruricius, Sidonius, and Desiderius, supplemented by material that appears in the manuscript but not in the index.

17

18

Greg. Tur. Hist. 6.7 eo tempore Ferreolus Ucecensis episcopus, magnae vir sanctitatis, obiit, plenus sapientia et intellectu; qui libros aliquos epistularum, quasi Sidonium secutus, composuit. Fully discussed in Mathisen (1998, 1999a); also Alciati (2008) and Furbetta (2013c).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 635

13/02/20 4:30 PM

636

RALPH W . MATHISEN

Table 20.2 Partial Contents of Codex Sangallensis 190 Description in index (items not reported in the index in *bold*)

Sangallensis pages

Epistulas quinqu[a]e Fausti episcopi ad Ruricium episcopum Epistulaa Graeci ad Ruricium Epistula Victurinib ad Ruricium Epistula Taurencii ad Ruricium Epistulas Sedati ad Ruricium duas Epistula Eufrasii ad Ruricium *Letter of Faustus of Riez ‘Quaeris a me’* Epistula Fausti ad Paulinum Epistula Caesarii ad Ruricium Epistula Sedati ad Ruricium *Fragment of Sidonius Ep. 2.1 to Ecdicius* Epistula Sidoni ad Constantium Alia Sidonii ad Eucerium alia Sidonii ad Tetradium alia Sidonii ad Asperum; al. Sidonii ad Proculum al. Sidonii ad Domnolum al. Sidonii ad Nymphidium al. Sidonii ad Simplicium al. Sidonii ad Taumastum al. Sidonii ad Ruricium al. Sidonii ad Papianillam alias Sidonii ad Lupum episcopum ii alia Sidonii ad Censorium Al. Sidonii ad Pacientem alia Sidonii ad Mamertum Alia Sidonii ad Agroecium episcopum Alia Sidonii ad Sulpicium Alia Sidonii ad Ruricium alia Sidonii ad Gothumd al. Sidonii ad Principium episcopum alia Sidonii ad Remegium.episcopum alia Sidonii ad Faustum episcopum alia Sidonii ad Heresium Habet in sequenti epistularum libros ii. domni Ruricii episcopi Deinde epistularum librum unum Domni Desiderii episcopi Item epistulas diversorum ad eundem domnum Desiderium

66–83 84 85–6 86–9 89–91 91–2 92–111 111–26 126–8 128–30 130–2 132–277 278–300 300–28e

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 636

Number in Sidonius

2.1 3.2 3.8 3.10 4.21 4.23 4.25 5.2 5.4 5.7 5.15 5.16 6.1, 4 (?)c 6.10 6.12 7.1 7.5 7.13 8.10 8.12 8.14 9.7 9.9 9.12

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS ’ EARLIEST RECEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

637

Sangallensis pages are as numbered in the MS, with p. 11 omitted. Punctuation is here omitted and spacing regularised; abbreviations and ligatures have been expanded. A number of spellings of proper names differ from modern conventions: of the correspondents of Sidonius one might note the spellings of Eucherius, Domnulus, Thaumastus, Patiens, and Remigius; the only two that may come from a different tradition are Asperum for Ap(e)rum and Heresium for Oresium. a

In nine consecutive entries u in epistula has been overwritten to an o by a later hand using rather darker ink. Here and throughout, the index offers the nominative epistula, though one would expect epistulam for consistency with epistulas. b The u has been overwritten to an o by a later hand using rather darker ink. c These two letters to Lupus are cited as a set, in their proper sequence; which two of the three letters to Lupus in Book 6 are meant is uncertain (see below). For ‘ii’, Krusch (1887) lxx wrongly reads ‘v’. In a few cases Krusch also omitted the ligature for ‘epm’. d See the following discussion for suggestions as to the meaning of Gothus. e A stray letter by Desiderius appears on p. 311.

Figure 20.1 Codex Sangallensis 190 pp. 2–3 (©Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 637

13/02/20 4:30 PM

638

RALPH W . MATHISEN

These twenty-four individually cited letters of Sidonius, identified by their recipients, represent a subset of about 16 per cent of the author’s nine books and 147 letters. Given their position in the manuscript, one might suggest that these letters were preserved in the same milieu, or archive, as the letters to and from Ruricius that are listed before and after them. They may even have been preserved in Ruricius’ own archive, as suggested by the inclusion among them of two of the three letters that Sidonius wrote to Ruricius, Ep. 5.15 and 8.10.19 Moreover, by matching up the names of the addressees with the recipients of letters in Sidonius’ full corpus, book and sequence numbers can be assigned to the letters, and a striking pattern emerges: the letters appear in the index (as in Table 20.2) in the same order as in the full corpus. Once this pattern is clear, it becomes possible to assign exact book and sequence numbers to letters even in cases where an individual received more than one letter: Ep. 3.2, 3.8, 3.10, 4.21, 4.23, 4.25; 5.2, 5.4, 5.7; 5.15, 5.16; 6.1, 6.4, 6.10, 6.12; 7.1, 7.5, 7.13; 8.10, 8.12, 8.14; 9.7, 9.9, and 9.12.20 Two uncertainties remain. First, the two letters addressed to Bishop Lupus of Troyes come from Book 6, which has three letters to Lupus, numbers 1, 4, and 9. As the other two letters included from Book 6 are 10 and 12, there is no way to know which two of these three letters are referred to in the Sangallensis index. Second, between Ep. 8.10 to Ruricius and Ep. 8.14 to Principius is a letter addressed ad Gothum, that is, to a person either named or nicknamed Gothus or identified as ‘the Goth’. In the surviving collection, the three intervening letters, Ep. 11–13, are addressed to Lupus, a rhetor of Périgueux; Trygetius, a native of Bazas; and Nunechius, bishop of Nantes. Now, in the letter to Lupus, Sidonius discussed nicknames, how he was called ‘Phoebus’ and his friend Lampridius was called ‘Orpheus’.21 Ruricius himself also wrote to this same Lupus, who lived a mere 100 km from both Ruricius’ see of Limoges and estate at Dégagnac, and likewise played with classical allusions: You add, moreover, that just as Patroclus is with Achilles, or Theseus with Hercules, or Pirithous with Theseus, you likewise ought to be associated with me.22 Given Lupus’ apparent fondness for nicknames, it may be that Ruricius’ nickname for him was Gothus, ‘the Goth’, and that this nickname made its way into Ruricius’ archived copy of the letter. Since Périgueux was under Gothic rule, one can speculate that some kind of dealings with the Goths made this an appropriate nickname. By contrast there is no evidence that Ruricius was a friend of either Trygetius or Nunechius.23 All this would suggest that a compiler had a complete collection available and used some selection process to pick out letters exactly in sequence, just as someone like Lupus of Troyes might have done when making their own copy. But a remaining anomaly is that the twenty-four Sangallensis letters come only from Books 3 to 9 of the extant collection. Various patterns can be identified in the letters listed in the index.

19 20 21 22

23

This, however, would raise the question of why Ep. 4.16, also to Ruricius, was not included. For these letters, see also Furbetta (2013c) 61 n. 116, 63 n. 122. See Mathisen (1991b). Ruric. Ep. 1.10.3 addidistis etiam, sicut Achilli Patroclum aut Herculi Theseum vel Theseo Pirithoum, ita vos mihi debere sociari. Alciati (2008) suggests that the addressee is Lupus of Troyes, but the literary allusions seem more appropriate for a rhetor than for an elderly ascetic bishop from the monastery of Lérins. However, Sidonius’ comparison of Trygetius to Hercules (Ep. 8.12.2) might suggest that Trygetius was likewise involved in the nicknaming game. For an earlier identification of ‘Gothus’ with Trygetius, see Mathisen (1999a) 66 n. 12.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 638

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS ’ EARLIEST RECEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

639

Except for Books 5 (five letters) and 6 (four letters), three letters were chosen from each book. Furthermore, the selections do not seem to have been entirely random, as most of the groups of letters from each book are numerically close and are comprised of alternating (or nearly so) letters. Did a compiler page through a complete edition of Sidonius’ letters and make copies of representative samples in an effort to provide some cross-section of the entire collection? But why were three letters, usually, chosen from each book?24 Apart from the selection process, it is even more curious that none of these twenty-four letters actually appears in the manuscript. The conventional explanation for this has been that when the index was created the twenty-four letters actually were in the manuscript, and that at a later time one or more folios or quaternions containing the Sidonian letters dropped out and thus were missing in subsequent copies that merely repeated the existing, now incorrect, index.25 But, as will be seen shortly, there are also other possibilities. As mentioned above, the third letter of Sedatus of Nîmes to Ruricius abruptly breaks off and is followed, without any indication of a lacuna, by a fragment of Sidonius’ Ep. 2.1 to his brother-in-law Ecdicius. This letter, which is not cited in the index, then continues to its end, to be followed immediately by the collection of letters written by Ruricius.26 The presence of Ep. 2.1 demonstrates that in some earlier manifestation, the collection actually did contain at least one letter of Sidonius, which, in turn, suggests that it also contained the twenty-four letters cited in the index. And if the selection of approximately three letters per book is valid, then the index of Sidonius’ letters is probably missing not just the letter to Ecdicius, but perhaps three letters from Book 1, and two more from Book 2. The failure of any letters from Books 1 and 2 to appear in the index suggests that, aside from the fragment, any such letters had already vanished when the index was created, and the letters from Books 3–9 still remained.

3.2 The Creation of the Collection Using these observations, one might hypothesise a simplified process not only for the evolution of the Sidonius letters in the Ruricius collection but also for the creation of the entire collection. First of all, given the close physical connection in the manuscript between the Sidonius letters and the letters to and from Ruricius of Limoges, including the presence of two of the three letters that Sidonius sent to Ruricius, one might hypothesise that an archetype of some form existed in Ruricius’ own archive – as loose copies, as dossiers of material, or as loose quaternions – that in due course was listed in an index or catalogue of contents or included in a master copy that had already lost the beginning of the letter to Ecdicius and any other material from Books 1 and 2. By that time, there was nothing to suggest that the conclusion of the Sedatus letter was actually Sidonius’ letter to Ecdicius, and the only Sidonius letters cited in the index were those from Books 3–9. Then, before or during a subsequent stage of copying, perhaps for the Sangallensis copy itself, the texts of the twenty-four Sidonius letters dropped out, but remained as ghost entries in 24

25 26

There were some curious choices. For example, Ep. 8.14 to Principius was selected instead of Ep. 9.8, which would have matched Ep. 9.7 addressed to Principius’ brother Remigius. It does not seem likely that these twenty-four letters began as loose individual letters, for that would not explain how the compiler knew what their proper manuscript order was. As Krusch (1887) lxx. In the margin, at the point where Sidonius had written ‘indicit ut dominus’, ‘makes declarations like a lord’, a scribe has cleverly written, ‘ego autem in domino’, ‘I, however, [make declarations] in the Lord’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 639

13/02/20 4:30 PM

640

RALPH W . MATHISEN

the index. One might suggest several possibilities for how this might have happened. Perhaps, as hitherto suggested, at some later point an entire quaternion was lost, one that intervened between the end of the Sidonius letter to Ecdicius and the beginning of the letters by Ruricius.27 Another possibility might be that the compiler only intended to include letters to and from Ruricius of Limoges, which indeed precede and follow the Sidonius letters in the index, and thus deleted the Sidonius letters, although this hypothesis would need to explain why the two letters of Sidonius to Ruricius were also deleted. Or perhaps the Sidonius letters were omitted from a subsequent copy because the copyists already had a full set of Sidonius’ letters. It would also be tempting to speculate that at least the second phase of transmission proposed here, and perhaps the first as well, occurred in the archive of Desiderius, bishop of Cahors from 636 until 655, given that (1) Ruricius’ own family estate of Decaniacum (Decize) was in the territory of Cahors, (2) Sidonius appears to have been connected to the family not only of Ruricius, as seen above, but also of Desiderius,28 and (3) the two books of letters written by Desiderius and sent to Desiderius occur in the manuscript immediately after the letters of Ruricius.29 It may be that the literary legacy of Ruricius ended up in Desiderius’ archive, where a now lost exemplar, with an index, dating to the second half of the seventh century, was created that included both Ruricius’ and Desiderius’ letter collections. The Sangallensis 190, which seems not to have been copied at St Gallen itself but to have been transported there at some later time, would have been copied from this exemplar not long afterwards.30 All this might serve to remind one that letters and letter collections were preserved in many different ways: sometimes as entire collections, sometimes as selections, sometimes as individual letters tacked on in unused spaces at the end of quaternions. These varied preservation methods can have an effect on textual transmission. Indeed, closer investigation suggests that the fragment of Ep. 2.1 might have consequences for our understanding of the manuscript tradition of Sidonius’ letters. For a long time, this fragment – the oldest surviving manuscript witness to Sidonius’ letters – eluded Sidonius scholars. 31 Curiously, but apparently randomly, one of the passages of Sidonius cited directly by Gregory of Tours comes from this very section of Ep. 2.1.32 More importantly, the fragment incorporates a number of readings that are different from those of all the manuscripts cited in the apparatuses of Lütjohann, Mohr, Anderson, and Loyen (indicated below by ω). Some of these variant readings are orthographical in nature and not particularly significant.33 Other differences from the readings of all the other manuscripts (ω) are more substantial:34 27 28

29 30 31

32

33

34

Krusch (1887) lxx. In the early sixth century, Sidonius’ daughter and daughter-in-law, Alcima and Placidina, were exiled to Cahors: Greg. Tur. Hist. 3.12 Placidina . . . et Alcima . . . comprehensae, apud Cadurcum urbem rebus ablatis exsilio condemnatae sunt, ‘Placidina and Alcima were arrested, robbed of their possessions, and condemned to exile in the town of Cahors’; and Desiderius’ sister was named Avita, recalling the Aviti of Clermont, to whom Sidonius was related. For full discussion see Mathisen (1998, 1999a, 2013b); and note also Schwitter (2013). For the history of the manuscript, see Mathisen (1998, 1999a). See Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16, n. 21 and #105. Lütjohann does not mention it, although Leo does in the addenda (Lütjohann (1887) lxxv–lxxvi); it goes also unmentioned in Mohr, Anderson, Loyen, and Bellès. See n. 16 above for Gregory’s text. The three versions are consistent but for Gregory’s verbs in the imperfect, and the Sangallensis’ accepit for the vulgate accipit. E.g. 2.1.1 furtunasque, 2 calomniatur, 3 precia, 4 palpetantium, praesole. Other minor variants: 2 initiatis [-us ω], 3 accepit [accipit ω], carceris clericos [carceres clericis ω] insultansque Roma corr. m.2 in Romanis, incidi [incide ω], veris [vires ω]. Note also some variations in the spelling of proper names, e.g. Teudoricianasque P, Theudericianasque C, Theodicianasque T, Theodotianasque F.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 640

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS ’ EARLIEST RECEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4

641

hic ex asse misceret ω] hic om. S non cessat simul furta vel punire vel facere ω] futura vel facere vel punire S inludens praefectis conludensque numerariis ω (munerariis R)] conlaudansque numm[. . .]ariis S Theodoricianasque ω, Theodoricianas S moras tuas citus explica ω] citius S si nullae quantum rumor est Anthemii principis opes ω] ante principes S

In two places small words are missing (2.1.1 [hic], 2.1.4 Theodoricianas[que]), and in four other instances significantly different readings are given. In 2.1.2, the Sangallensis text changes both meaning and the word order, offering non cessat simul futura vel facere vel punire as opposed to the traditional reading, non cessat simul furta vel punire vel facere. Whereas the replacement of the apparently correct reading furta with futura can be attributed to a scribal error, it is more difficult to explain away the changed word order in this way. In 2.1.3, rather than the conventional ‘having secret understandings (conludens) with the account keepers (numerariis)’, the Sangallensis reads, ‘commending (conlaudans) along with those who have been bribed (nummariis)’.35 Digital enhancement reveals smudge marks around the two a’s in conlaudansque. While these may just be stray stain marks, they might be corrections, in the case of the second a of an originally correct e, but what the first a was correcting is completely uncertain. The word nummariis has most certainly been edited, for there is an erasure that would have held one or two letters, with the preceding and following word fragments connected by a sublinear join. The m in num also has a macron over it, indicating numm. The word as it stands was thus meant to read nummariis (‘those involved in monetary matters’), a classical word, rather than the late Latin word numerariis (‘account keepers’) of the other manuscripts. Another alternative reading coupled with possible corrections appears at 2.1.4. The reading ante principes (‘in front of princes’) is notably different from the traditional, and undoubtedly correct, reading Anthemii principis (‘of the emperor Anthemius’). There may be an erasure after ante, perhaps by a reader flummoxed by what Anthemii meant. A final variation, missed by Leo, could also be significant. In the traditional reading, Sidonius says to Ecdicius: ‘Quickly – citus – untangle your hindrances’, whereas, in the Sangallensis, Sidonius is more dynamic, preferring, as is typical of late Latin, the more intensive comparative adverb, citius. Here, the Sangallensis reading may well be correct. The hesitations and different or potentially different readings found in this short fragment, coupled with the consideration that this is the earliest extant manuscript testimony for the letters of Sidonius, could suggest that the Ecdicius letter represents a different manuscript tradition from that on which the standard editions are based.36 This tradition, then, originated in the literary circle of Ruricius of Limoges, surviving only in the tiny fragment preserved in Sangallensis 190 – a hypothesis consistent with the unique nature of many of the other documents preserved in the manuscript.

35

36

Lewis (1890) s.v.; note Cic. Att. 1.1.16 insectandis vero exagitandisque nummariis iudicibus, ‘chasing and tracking down bribed judges’; Cic. Verr. 3.131 ecquod iudicium Romae tam dissolutum, tam perditum, tam nummarium fore putasti, ‘did you think there would be any tribunal in Rome so lax, so depraved, so bribed; Suet. Dom. 8.1 nummarios iudices cum suo quemque consilio notavit, ‘he degraded jurors who accepted bribes together with their aides’. For a slightly more reserved view of the stemmatic consequences of the Sangallensis manuscript, see Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16 n. 20.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 641

13/02/20 4:30 PM

642

RALPH W . MATHISEN

4 Further Reading For an overview of the earliest reception of Sidonius, also covering Ruricius of Limoges, Avitus of Vienne, and Ennodius of Pavia, see Furbetta (2013c), and note also Alciati (2008). For the circulation of Sidonius’ letters, see Gioanni (2004) and Mathisen (2013a, 2014). For the Sangallensis 190, a good starting point is Mathisen (1998). For a selection of translated texts, see Mathisen (2003a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 642

13/02/20 4:30 PM

21 GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES Tina Chronopoulos

1 Introduction

T

HE INTEREST ACCORDED to Sidonius’ letters in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is mostly based on the fact that he left detailed eyewitness descriptions of life, politics, and culture of fifth-century Gaul and Rome. But what was his appeal to medieval readers? Not much work has been done to answer this question satisfactorily. Over one hundred and thirty years ago, the classical scholar Robinson Ellis published the glosses on Sidonius’ letters in MS Digby 172 in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.1 On folios 143ra–150vb (a and b representing two columns), this composite manuscript contains a running commentary on the letters written out in about 1200. In essence, Ellis’ edition constitutes a transcription of the lemmata but lacks a discussion of their purpose, composition, or even appearance as a running text without the letters. About a century later, Tony Hunt revisited the commentary in Digby 172, though his interest lay chiefly in the vernacular glosses.2 Since then the attention paid by medieval scholars to the letters of Sidonius has largely gone unnoticed by their modern equivalents. Given the lack of scholarship on this topic, I present in this chapter an examination of some medieval glosses on his letters, preceded by a brief sketch on the knowledge of Sidonius in the medieval period.

1.1 Early Manuscripts of Sidonius’ Letters A catalogue from Lorsch indicates that a Liber epistolarum Sidonii ad diversos was available there in the ninth century.3 The manuscript evidence supports this: the earliest manuscript of Sidonius’ letters, written in Caroline minuscule, locates and dates the emergence of his work to the beginning of the ninth century at the palace school of Louis the Pious (814–40).4 A second manuscript from the first half of the ninth century may have originated from the Saône valley, namely Reims, Bibliothèque Municipale, 413.5 But it was not until the twelfth century that

I am grateful to Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden for inviting me to contribute to this volume, for their meticulous reading of the resulting chapter, and for their many suggestions for improvement. I am equally indebted for their eagle eyes to Carlotta Dionisotti, Franz Dolveck, and Daniel Hadas – all three of them went well above and beyond the bounds of friendship when I turned to them for help. Jeanette Paterson provided assistance with French vernaculars and Hildegund Müller an enthusiastic sounding board. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. 1 2 3 4

5

Ellis (1885). On Ellis as a scholar see Blakiston, rev. Stearn (2004). Hunt (1979). Manitius (1935) 259, citing Becker (1885) 109. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laudianus latinus 104 + Erlangen Universitätsbibiothek, MS 2112 n. 7 (#37 in Dolveck’s census in this volume, ch. 16). #56 in Dolveck, ch. 16 in this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 643

13/02/20 4:30 PM

644

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

Sidonius’ letters became the flavour of the day, especially in northern France, as attested to by medieval library catalogues from the period: he was known at Cluny, Angers, Angoulême, Bec, Mont-St-Michel, and Limoges, as well as in England.6 His letters were continuously copied into the thirteenth century, although the greatest number of manuscripts was produced during the twelfth, accounting for about one third to one half of the surviving witnesses.

1.2 Knowledge of Sidonius’ Letters by Medieval Authors The list of medieval authors who include titbits from his letters in their own writings or refer to him by name is long. It begins with Flodoard of Reims, who incorporated Ep. 9.7 into his Historia Remensis ecclesiae (written between 948 and 954). Manitius, and following him Stratmann, speculated that Flodoard may have had in front of him Reims 413, although that manuscript now lacks Book 9.7 According to Manitius, Burchard of Worms (d. 1025) alludes to Ep. 4.2.4 in the greeting of a letter addressed to Alpert of Metz, but I am not certain that one can deduce from this that Burchard had this letter to hand.8 Another author who appears to have known Sidonius is Embrico of Mainz (d. 1108/12), who was a camerarius at the cathedral.9 The references to Sidonius become especially plentiful in the twelfth century, with authors active in northern France and in England displaying knowledge of his letters.10 The Florilegium Angelicum (FA) provides further evidence for the appeal of Sidonius in the twelfth century. It survives complete in nine manuscripts and all the twelfth-century witnesses originate from France. Its compiler, perhaps Nicolas of Montiéramey (also known as Nicolas of Clairvaux, d. 1176/8), excerpts sentences from the letters not only for their stylistic and rhetorical beauty but also for their moral value. Recently, Patricia Stirnemann argued that the FA originates from Troyes, rather than the Orléanais as previously suggested by Richard and Mary Rouse.11 Another important, and much larger, compilation produced at the same time as the FA is the Florilegium Gallicum. This collection of both prose and verse texts survives in at least twelve manuscripts12 and originates from near Sens/Auxerre. Stirnemann showed that

6

7 8

9

10 11 12

Nortier (1971) 228: Le Bec = Paris, BNF, Lat. 13774, s. XII (#103 in Dolveck). Mt-St-Michel = Avranches BM, 242, s. XII (#1 in Dolveck). Manitius (1935) 259: Cluny, Libri epistolarum Sidonii episcopi Arvernensis ad diversos et opus eiusdem metrice compositum. See Chronopoulos (2010) 265–7 for England. Manitius (1923) 161, Stratmann (1998) 8. Manitius (1923) 280. Burchardus . . . Alperto, speciali suo, gratiae integritatem et plurimam salutem, ‘Burchard sends Alpert, his special friend, all his love and a warm greeting’ (Pertz (1841) 701.30); Sidon. [Claud. Mam.] Ep. 4.2.4 cur egomet specialis atque intumus [tuus] nihil ab speciali meo fructi feram, ‘[to debar] me, a special and intimate friend, from getting some profit from my own special friend’. The vita auctoris appended to his Vita Mahumeti reads: noverat auctores maiores atque minores / . . . quem si vidisset quondam, Naso coluisset, / prosa Sydonium, carmine Virgilium, ‘he knew the authors, major and minor . . . Had Ovid seen him in his lifetime, he would have revered him, since he was a Sidonius in prose, a Vergil in verse.’ Cambier (1957) 469. Rotter and Staab (1994) 128 suggested that Suidonium is a corrupt reading for Suetonium, against the correction – Sydonium – in the Berlin manuscript, but Sidonium scans while Sve¯to¯nium does not. The Reims manuscript transmits Sydonium. I have not seen the manuscripts that transmit this text (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, MS Phillips 1694, s. XII, added on a sheet of parchment after folio 111v; Reims BM, MS 1043 (743), s. XIII, f. 164v, immediately following the end of the Vita Mahumeti). Rotter and Staab (1994) 127–36 propose that Embrico wrote the poem between 1072 and 1090; Tolan (1996) 30 opts for the early twelfth century but cites no specific reasons for doing so. On Embrico, see also Hernández Lobato in this volume, ch. 22, n. 17. A trawl through Manitius (1923, 1931) is a good starting point, but see ch. 22 by Hernández Lobato in this volume. Rouse and Rouse (1976) 66, 101–14, Stirnemann and Poirel (2006) 174–5. Rouse (1979) 135.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 644

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

645

it was put together by John of Salisbury for the use of his archbishop, Thomas Becket, and the associated chancery while he was in exile in France around 1165.13 The inclusion of Sidonius in florilegia thus chimes with the growing interest in his letters during the twelfth century and would probably profit from further study.14 The letters (and poems) of Sidonius did not feature among the authors typically read at school during the medieval period.15 However, and exceptionally, towards the very end of the twelfth century or the very early 1200s his letters appear in the reading list in the Sacerdos ad altare by Alexander Neckam (d. 1217).16 Eberhard the German (fl. between 1213 and 1280) includes Sidonius in his Laborintus, a treatise on grammar and poetics.17 Sidonius’ descriptions of beauty and ugliness, as exemplified by the handsome Theoderic in Ep. 1.2 and the unsightly Gnatho in Ep. 3.13 served as models for authors such as Geoffrey of Vinsauf. In his Documentum de arte versificandi (written after 1213) Geoffrey writes: recurrite ad secundam epistulam Sidonii, ubi describit regem Theodoricum.18 Meanwhile, as Faral noted, the description of Gnatho inspired the portrayal of Geta in the Amphitrion by Vitalis of Blois (written 1125–35), of Davus and Beroe in the Ars Poetria by Matthew of Vendôme (written c. 1175), and of Spurius in the Alda by William of Blois (written 1167–9).19 If Sidonius is not being read at school until the early thirteenth century, what reasons are there for reading his letters, other than for his evocative descriptions of people? Aside from the fact that he was a highly mannered stylist and a ‘glossographic’ treasure trove,20 the answer is probably that his letters were useful templates for harried bureaucrats in increasingly ambitious chancelleries, both worldly and ecclesiastical, in twelfth-century France. Sidonius corresponded with a sizeable assortment of people from different walks of life – bishops, emperors, military and political leaders, and so on – making him an ideal model for how to conduct a correspondence. Given the relatively narrow tradition for Cicero’s letters,21 the only Classical 13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20 21

Stirnemann and Poirel (2006) 174, 179. Munk Olsen (1979) 47–121. Despite Hernández Lobato’s and indeed Manitius’ (1923, 1931) lists of authors who cite and/or refer to Sidonius, it seems to me that Sidonius is still rather rare as a curriculum author. He appears in some reading lists in the second half of the twelfth century, but not before, and not in many to begin with. There may well be echoes and references to him in Alan of Lille and others, but they are not especially expansive or plentiful, which leads me to think of him more as a recherché author read in private rather than at school, although there may well be exceptions and the evidence is not complete. I am not sure I can agree with Hernández Lobato or Wolff (2014c) 254 that Alan furthered Sidonius’ literary reputation – he may have praised him to the skies, but short of tracing the influence of that passage (Anticlaudianus 3.240–7) on Alan’s readers, it does not tell us much of how later authors thought of Sidonius. Of course, the Anticlaudianus did receive a commentary relatively quickly by Ralph of Longchamp, so one could argue on the basis of this that Sidonius did make it into the schoolroom, at least in the thirteenth century. Ralph’s commentary, written at the beginning of the thirteenth century, is known from at least nine manuscripts (Sulowski (197) xxi–xxii) and has this to say on Sidonius: episcopus fuit Arverniae et optimas composuit epistolas, quarum una dicit de quodam Romano, qui fuit tamquam a stomacho Fortunae nauseantis exputus, ‘He was a bishop of Auvergne and wrote very good letters, one of which describes a certain Roman man, who was just like someone spat out from the stomach of nauseous-feeling Fortune’ (Sulowski (1972) 173); this refers to Ep. 1.7.12 [Arvandus] . . . a rebus humanis veluti vomitu fortunae nauseantis exsputus. See McDonough (2010) 175.33. Sidonius stands at the end of the list, which starts with easy reading, such as Donatus and Theodulus’ Eclogue, followed by Vergil’s Aeneid, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and so on. This text survives in only one manuscript so its influence was seemingly limited, at least for spreading knowledge of Sidonius. Lines 645–6: Faral (1924a) 359. ‘Turn to Sidonius’ second letter in which he describes king Theoderic’; see Faral (1924b) 273. Faral (1946) 569–70. Gualandri (1979) 103, van Waarden (2010) 52–66, and Schwitter (2015) 16, 149, 228–36 for notes on style. Rouse in Reynolds (1986) 135–42.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 645

13/02/20 4:30 PM

646

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

Latin authors widely available as epistolary style guides were Pliny the Younger, Symmachus, and Sidonius. Out of these three, Sidonius held a particular appeal: first, he was French. Second, he was from Clermont, an important episcopal seat in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, where Pope Urban II convened the Council of Clermont in 1095.22 Third, he was a Christian and a bishop who frequently corresponded with others of his rank. Finally, Sidonius features as a miracle-working saint in Gregory of Tours’ Decem libri historiarum.23

1.3 William of Malmesbury and Sidonius’ Letters Supposing that William of Malmesbury (d. after 1142) did indeed write a short bio-bibliographical sketch on Sidonius, as I have argued elsewhere, the epistolographer’s appeal to a scholar such as William can be explained through their shared interests:24 Sidonius names a great number of classical authors alongside the titles of works they had written,25 he makes references to historical events, and he comes across as an intellectual who takes pleasure in reading the Classics and showing off with his knowledge of Latin. One of the manuscripts preserving William’s sketch also contains Sidonius’ letters and poems (MS Royal 4 B. IV, held at the British Library in London). In this manuscript the letters have been glossed very extensively, with interlinear and marginal glosses throughout. A close study of these glosses can help to determine more precisely what drew medieval scholars to his letters.

1.4 Glosses on Sidonius’ Letters in London BL MS Royal 4 B. IV. London BL MS Royal 4 B.IV. (= B) contains three originally separate volumes that were written and eventually combined at Worcester, the first two during the first half of the century, the last during the second quarter of the twelfth century.26 The second part (ff. 120r–202vb) contains the glossed letters of Sidonius (ff. 120ra-180va) and the poems (ff. 182ra-202b). Lütjohann noted that B shares peculiarities in terms of the letter order with Paris BNF lat. 9551 (F), not surprising perhaps, given that the latter was written out in England during the first quarter of the thirteenth century.27 The marginal and interlinear glosses on Sidonius’ letters in B appear to be contemporaneous with the writing out of the letters themselves – at least two hands seem to have been involved in writing out the glosses. They range from one word to whole paragraphs and are, on the whole, relatively constant throughout the collection, although not every single letter has been glossed. Books 5, 6, and 7 have relatively few annotations, but things pick up again in the last two books, evidence that this was a sustained and deliberate undertaking. In the discussion that follows, I decided to take B as a case study, in part because this manuscript was easily accessible and available to me, but I have attempted to cross-check its 22 23

24 25 26

27

Aubrun (1997), although Lyon or Poitiers were more significant in central France at the time; see Fray (1997) 20. On Sidonius’ treatment by Gregory, see Mathisen in this volume, ch. 20, sect. 2. Sidonius does not have an entry in the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina. Chronopoulos (2010). See the loci similes compiled by Geisler in Lütjohann (1887) 351–2. Chronopoulos (2010) 274. In that article I referred to the manuscript by the siglum R; B is here used for consistency with the rest of the volume, where R is the established siglum for Reims, BM, 413, already mentioned. And not, following Gioanni (2014) 491, from the beginning of the twelfth century and from Burgundy; #49 in Dolveck, ch. 16 in this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 646

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

647

glosses against some of the earliest manuscripts of the letters that also contain glosses.28 As far as the evidence goes, all of the glossed manuscripts dating from the tenth to the twelfth centuries originate from France or have been written in a French hand, with the exception of B. I present material from the glosses in the ensuing order: Greek words (section 2); sources used by the glossator (section 3); the glossator’s knowledge of Sidonius’ letters (section 4) and the nature of the commentary in B (section 5); vernacular glosses in B (section 6); and a conclusion (section 7).

2 Glossing Greek Words Sidonius’ letters are truffled with Greek words, many of them used just by him.29 As such, his letters present a treasure trove for someone interested in enlarging his (Greek) vocabulary. It is noticeable that there are many more Greek words that do not receive a gloss than those that do and the explanations for this are manifold: (1) the glossator’s interests extend beyond the lexicographical; (2) he did not necessarily have to hand the kinds of utensils needed for interpreting Greek-origin words, such as a Greek–Latin glossary or a bilingual Psalter; (3) he ran out of steam. When the glossator does comment on a Greek-origin word he proceeds according to the same technique every time: the word is broken down into its constituent parts, the meaning for each is given, and then the two are combined to provide the resulting meaning in Latin. This is done in the manner of John the Scot.30 Sometimes such a literal translation works, and sometimes it does not. In Ep. 2.9.4 Sidonius is relating his visit to the estates of Ferreolus and Apollinaris. In the dense and detailed description, Sidonius lays out the scene he sees as he enters the vestibules of either house: et ecce huc sphaeristarum contrastantium paria inter rotatiles catastropharum gyros duplicabantur.31 GLOSS: cata iuxta, stropha conversio, inde catastropha sphera que versatur in manibus.32 Sidonius seems to be discussing some sort of ball-playing game and takes the opportunity to really pile up the Greek words, leading Anderson to point out that ‘the meaning [here] is uncertain’.33 The glossator homes in on catastropharum (used once more at Ep. 5.17.7, describing another ball game, where it is glossed id est conversione, ‘that is, turning around’, f. 156vb). He divides the word into its two constituent parts, providing the meaning for each, before explaining that it is a ball (sphera) which is held in the hands. Strictly speaking, this is not 28

29 30

31

32

33

In roughly chronological order: Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Vat. Lat. 3421, s. XI, Aquitaine (#71 in Dolveck, ch. 16 in this volume); Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. Lat. 412, s. XII1, French (#66 in Dolveck); Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. Lat. 216, s. XIImed, French (#65 in Dolveck); Vatican City, Bibl. Vat., Reg. Lat. 166, s. XIIex, Île-de-France? (#61 in Dolveck); Oxford, Bodleian, Auct. F. 5. 25, s. XI2 (less probably XII1), French hand (#35 in Dolveck). The general view (see e.g. Loyen (1968)), is that Sidonius knew some Greek, but was by no means fluent. Annotationes in Marcianum 14.9, (Lutz (1939) 23): CAECAUMENIS Καῦμα Greci dicunt ardorem, κακόν autem malum, caecaumenis ergo quasi κακοῦ καύματος, id est mali ardoris intellige, ‘CAECAUMENIS: Kauma is Greek for heat, kakon for harm, so caecaumenis means something like kakou kaumatos, that is the harm done by heat’. ‘And, look, on this side equal numbers of opposing ball-players were being bent over among the whirling movements of their bodies turning over.’ ‘Cata near to (or ‘along with’), stropha a turning around, thus catastropha a ball that is turned in the hands.’ On f. 132va. Anderson (1936) 1.452, who leaves catastropharum untranslated.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 647

13/02/20 4:30 PM

648

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

consistent with the Greek. The glossator’s interpretation is not altogether nonsensical since it does lead to a translation that works, but it is not correct. The translation would be: ‘and, behold, on this side equal numbers of opposing ball-players were being bent over among the whirling movements of balls’. The literal and standard meaning of catastropha (from the Greek καταστροφή) is ‘a change of fortune’. Given the context, this cannot be what Sidonius means, but, as the TLL lexicographer (Maurenbrecher) writes, the sense could be de corporis conversione vel casu, ‘in the course of playing the game’.34 In other words, Sidonius observes ball-players turning around and falling over as they try to catch the balls. As already mentioned, this is the meaning provided for the second occurrence of catastropha on folio 156vb. In the next section of that same letter, Sidonius relates how he and his hosts discussed a treatise they thought had been written by Origen and translated into Latin by Turranius Rufinus: 2.9.5: sermocinabamur, cur [Origenes] a quibusdam protomystarum tamquam scaevus cavendusque tractator improbaretur.35 GLOSS: proto primus, mista secretum, inde prothomista persona dicitur mistica intelligens primarie.36 The glossator breaks down the word into its basic parts, provides the meaning for each, and thence deduces its meaning, namely a person who understands secret matters above all others. The noun protomysta (from the Greek πρωτομύστης, ‘one just initiated’) is a hapax legomenon, used only twice, namely by Sidonius in this letter and at 4.17.3.37 In the latter, he is referring to Lupus of Troyes and Auspicius of Toul, two bishops. In the former, he is referring to authors (such as Jerome, according to the TLL) who saw Origen as an ‘inept and dangerous expositor’. Given the context then, a protomysta is someone who interprets theological texts. Ep. 9.11, addressed to Lupus (bishop of Troyes), is an extended apology to Lupus for having inadvertently offended him. In 9.11.6 Sidonius imagines what he might say if he were defending his actions, such as ‘X is still waiting to read my work while you have had the chance of actually transcribing it.’38 Then comes this: aio, tamquam non sit autholographas membranas arbitraturus, si tamen, quod ante percurras, vel exemplar acceperit.39 This is a difficult sentence to begin with, as can be seen from Lütjohann’s apparatus and the notes in Anderson.40 Sidonius seems to be making a point about the activity of copying a manuscript (autholographas membranas) in which the text has been looked through first (quod ante percurras). The text in B adds another level of difficulty, namely the fact that it reads autolografus instead of autholographas. The gloss, in turn, is based on yet another reading, namely the word antolografus, probably the result of mistaking the ‘u’ of auto for anto in another manuscript. 34 35

36 37 38

39

40

TLL 3, 598.50–4, s.v. catastropha. ‘We were discussing why [Origen] was being condemned by some theological commentators as a deviant author who must be guarded against.’ ‘Proto first, mista secret, thus prothomista is used for a person who knows secrets of the highest order.’ On f. 132vb. TLL 10.2, 2289.75–2290.6, s.v. protomysta. Anderson (1965) 2.549: ‘It may be that Sidonius sent his liber to Lupus for reading and passing on to another person; and perhaps Lupus had felt hurt by this request and had written accordingly.’ ‘I say [“copying”], as though he would consider the pages not to have been copied by the same hand, unless he had received what you had previously corrected or a copy.’ Lütjohann (1887) 160 reports ante percurras FPM1, a te percurras CM, percurreras Lütj. Anderson (1965) 2.554–5.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 648

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

649

GLOSS Antolografus ponitur ubi fere totum per scripture textum diversus aut multiplex est sensus. Anti contra, olon totum, graphia scriptura. Inde antolografus ‘contra totam scripturam’. Et est sensus: quod si antolographus scrupulositatem fortassis aliquam saltem exemplar {acceperit ut in eo marginaliter scribatur quod scilicet exemplar} merito ante legendo percurras quam signum difficultatis apposueris, non sit tamen ob hoc antolografus arbitraturus, id est, exiguturus, membranas extrinsecus ut, quasi videlicet sensuum multiplicitas [multiplicatas MS] aut difficultas non possit in margine, in membranis et quaternionibus extra glosuletur. Poterit enim antolografus si vel exemplar acceperit cum omnibus que exigit exemplari in solo glosulari.41 First the glossator explains that an antolografus is a critical sign, on the model of Isidore’s Etymologiae 1.21.1 (De notis sententiarum). The Greek etymology is done in the manner of John the Scot. However, neither ant- nor the meaning thus obtained matches the context. The second explanation assumes that an antolografus is a person, a corrector or glossator. This depends, as already pointed out, on reading –us as in B, in agreement with arbitraturus. The glossator is working on the assumption that the word is indeed antolografus. He takes a proactive approach, analysing it into two different explanations. A similar occurrence can be seen in John the Scot’s commentary on Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis, prompting him to interpret the word Anie as best he can, first bringing in Greek etymology, then working it into the context, when it turns out that the correct reading is Uranie instead.42 The text in curly brackets in the extract above is an addition in the margin next to the gloss, which is the result of copying: the copyist jumped from the first occurrence of exemplar to the second and thus left out the intervening text (eye-skip or saut du même au même). Note also that the glossator picks words from the text, which I have underlined above, in his explanation. Given that the glossator is doing precisely what he is describing, this is a neat instance of self-referentiality. The kinds of explanations the glossator provides for the Greek words reveal him to be an astute and original thinker, even if he makes the occasional mistake. He displays an awareness of John the Scot’s method of glossing Greek words and must have had access to some kind of glossary or handbook, or been taught by someone who did.

3 Sources Used by the Glossator At the end of Ep. 2.12.3, in which Sidonius describes how his daughter Severiana is suffering from an illness and how the family is going to move from the city to the country to help her recovery, he points out that Justus, a personal friend, will be allowed to visit: sane contubernio nostro iure amicitiae Iustus adhibebitur, quem, si iocari liberet in tristibus, facile convincerem Chironica magis institutum arte quam Machaonica. 41

42

‘An antolografus is put wherever throughout a written text the sense is discordant or complex. Anti against, olon whole, graphia writing. Thus antolografus “against the whole written text”. And the sense is: if the antolografus perhaps on account of some scruple has only received a copy so that there should be writing in its margins, a copy that one would rightly first read through before adding a mark/sign of difficulty, the antolografus will not on this account reckon, that is, demand, further pages as if the multiplicity or difficulty of meanings could not be glossed in the margin but in extra pages or notebooks. For the antolografus, provided he has received a copy, will be able to gloss with all that it requires in one copy.’ On f. 176v. Annotationes in Marcianum 8.1 (Lutz (1939) 12); De nuptiis 1.7 (Willis (1983) 4).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 649

13/02/20 4:30 PM

650

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

GLOSS: Chiron citharista fuit magister Achillis, vel aliter Cronus tempus interpretatur inde cronica (cronaca a.c.) dicuntur historie que de rerum gestis in temporibus fiunt. Mechaon [sic] medicus fuit. Unde Ovidius de remediis ‘qui timet ut sua sit, ne quis si detrahat illam, / ille Machaonia vix operis (add. MS) ope sanus erit (Rem. 545–46).’43 The glossator homes in on the words chironica and machaonica – as Anderson explains, Sidonius may be differentiating between veterinary and human medicine, although chironica could also be a play on χείρων (‘worse’, ‘the art of making worse’).44 The glossator provides two explanations for chironica: first, Chiron was Achilles’ teacher. That Chiron reared and educated Achilles is already recounted in Ancient Greek sources,45 but the account of their relationship that was most important for the medieval period is that by Statius in his Achilleid. Second and alternatively, chironica is linked to time, via the Greek noun χρόνος (cronus), and thus to chronicles (cronica). This explanation does not actually clarify the meaning of chironica in the sentence. The explanation provided for machaonica is a little more helpful since the glossator elucidates that Machaon, the son of Aesculapius, was a doctor and then furnishes as an example two verses from Ovid’s Remedia amoris. Ovid uses the adjective Machaonius twice, once in the Ars amatoria 2.481, and once in the Remedia. Its use in both illustrates the adjective’s meaning (‘belonging to Machaon, surgical’). Given that this is a relatively rare word, the commentator’s ability to pluck out an appropriate example from a text by Ovid is impressive, although an intermediate source cannot be ruled out.46 The quotation also fits the context in the sense that both Ovid and Sidonius are talking about a puella, although in the former a lover fears that his girlfriend might be won over by a rival, while the latter is afraid his daughter might be snatched away by her illness. In Ep. 4.3.5, Sidonius is praising the learning of Claudianus Mamertus’ treatise De statu animae by listing a number of famous men alongside the instrument indicating their respective field:47 tenere non abnuit cum Orpheo plectrum cum Aesculapio baculum, cum Archimede radium cum Euphrate horoscopium, cum Perdice circinum cum Vitruvio perpendiculum.48 GLOSS: perdix iuxta Ovidium circini repertor fuit.49 The glossator zooms in on the phrase cum Perdice circinum and explains that Perdix was the inventor of the compass, according to Ovid. Indeed, the only time Ovid uses the word perdix occurs at Met. 8.236–59. There the poet tells the story of how Daedalus throws his nephew

43

44 45 46 47 48

49

‘Indeed, Justus will be admitted to our company by virtue of our friendship, and, if one may joke in sad times, I could easily convince you that he is better trained in the craft of Chiron than in that of Machaon.’ GLOSS: ‘Chiron, the cithara player, was the teacher of Achilles, or differently, Cronus is interpreted as time, thus chronica is the name given to histories which are made from events in chronological order. Mechaon was a doctor. Hence Ovid from the Remedies: “the man who fears that the girl is no longer his, lest someone wins her away from him, will hardly be cured by Machaonian (surgical) work.”’ On f. 134vb. Anderson (1936) 1.472. Mackie (1997). Rackley (1986) 103. RAC 3, 169–79, s.v. ‘Claudianus Mamertus’. ‘He does not refuse to hold the plectrum with Orpheus, the staff with Aesculapius, the measuring rod with Archimedes, the instrument for calculating the horoscope with Euphrates, the compasses with Perdix, and the plumbline with Vitruvius.’ ‘Perdix was the inventor of the compass according to Ovid.’ On f. 143vb.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 650

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

651

off a cliff because he is jealous of the boy’s inventiveness, and of how the boy is turned into a perdix, ‘partridge’, halfway through the flight. Lines 247–9 relate Perdix’ invention of the compass, but Ovid notably avoids using the noun circinus in his account. It could be that the mention of Perdix in Sidonius makes the glossator think of Ovid’s telling of the story. Ep. 6.1, addressed to Lupus of Troyes, is a long(-winded) meditation by Sidonius on his inadequacy and unworthiness compared to Lupus’ extraordinary virtue. In 6.1.3 he asks (rhetorical) questions about Lupus’ willingness to associate himself with the lowest of the low (for example, ultimos calones and extimos trahariorum50): tu nihilominus hastatorum antesignanorumque paulisper contubernio sequestratus ultimos calones tuos lixasque non despicis et ad extimos trahariorum, qui per insipientiam suam adhuc ad carnis sarcinas sedent, crucis diu portatae vexilla circumfers. GLOSS: Traharii pauperes dicuntur, qui precio conducti naves trahunt vel omnia alia. Aliter dicuntur traharii, scilicet qui a carnis sue desideriis trahuntur. Unde Virgilius ‘trahit sua que [sic] voluptas’ [Ecl. 2.65]. Sydonius ergo se dicit traharium qui propter uxorem suam ad carnis sarcinas adhuc moratur.51 The glossator provides two explanations for trahariorum, a hapax legomenon, derived from the noun traha (‘a vehicle without wheels, a drag, sledge’). The first focuses on the nature of the traharius’ job of hauling things. The other explanation is linked to the context, namely the carnis sarcinas, leading the glossator to explain that a traharius is not someone who drags but who is dragged by the desires of the flesh. He supports this with a commonly cited quotation from Vergil.52 The glossator then applies this to Sidonius, specifically the relationship with his wife, despite her absence in the letter. At Ep. 5.7.7, Sidonius compares Chilperic II, king of the Burgundians,53 and his unnamed wife to Lucumo (Tarquinius Priscus or Tarquin the Elder) and his wife Tanaquil: sane, quod principaliter medetur afflictis, temperat Lucumonem nostrum Tanaquil sua et aures mariti virosa susurronum faece completas opportunitate salsi sermonis eruderat. GLOSS: Lucumonem] Chilpericus GLOSS: In Macrobio Saturnaliorum ita legitur: Tarquinius Superbus quem alii Lucumonem nominaverunt et cetera. Totum hyronice dicit, loquitur acerbe [de] Fredegunde Chilperici uxore.54 50 51

52

53 54

‘Lowliest batmen and sutlers’ and ‘the meanest of the sledge-men’ in Anderson (1965) 2.249. ‘Nevertheless, you do not despise your lowliest drudges and sutlers, having been separated for a short while from the company of the soldiers who fight on the front line and the standard-bearers, and you carry around to the outermost of baggage-men, who still cling to the burdens of the flesh through their stupidity, the flag of the cross born for a long time.’ GLOSS: ‘Traharii means the poor, they drag ships or many other things having been hired for a price. Alternatively they are said to be traharii because they are being dragged by the desires of their flesh. Thus Vergil “each one’s delight draws him along”. Accordingly Sidonius calls himself a traharius because he is still lingering with the burden of the flesh on account of his wife.’ On f. 157vb. Found in authors such as Donatus, Augustine, Bede, Rabanus Maurus, Aelred of Rievaulx, Geoffrey of Clairvaux, Peter of Blois, and Gerald of Wales. PLRE 2, 286–7 (Chilpericus 2). ‘Indeed, and this chiefly heals the afflicted, our Lucumo is moderated by his Tanaquil and, after her husband’s ears have been filled with the pernicious scum of the whispers, she clears them with the timely intervention of astute talk.’ GLOSS: ‘Lucumo] Chilperic.’ GLOSS: ‘In the Saturnalia by Macrobius the following can be read: “Tarquinius the Proud whom others have called Lucumo and so on.” This entire thing he says ironically, he speaks harshly about Fredegunde, Chilperic’s wife.’ On f. 154vb.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 651

13/02/20 4:30 PM

652

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

The glossator clarifies that Lucumonem refers to Chilperic. He then cites Macrobius’ Saturnalia as an example for the use of the name Lucumo to refer to Tarquinius Superbus. However, at Sat. 1.6.8 Macrobius is clearly talking about Tarquinius Priscus rather than Tarquin the Proud (Tarquinius Superbus), who was his son/grandson.55 Even though the glossator has mistaken one Tarquin for another, this quotation from Macrobius is distinctly impressive since it is the only instance in the seven-book Saturnalia where Tarquin the Elder’s name is given as Lucumo. The glossator goes on to impress with his ability to deduce that tetrarcham nostrum, used at the beginning of Ep. 5.7, refers to Chilperic, who is not otherwise referred to by name in this letter. How has he done this? To answer this question we need to step back and consider the relationship between letters 5.6 and 5.7. The former is addressed to Apollinaris, a Gallic senator and probably Sidonius’ uncle.56 The latter is addressed to Thaumastus, Apollinaris’ brother (1.6.1 Thaumastum, germanum tuum). In the two letters, Sidonius is writing about the same topic: a plot against Apollinaris. In Ep. 5.6.2 Sidonius relates how Thaumastus is worrying about rumours being whispered into the ears of Chilperic about Apollinaris’ attempts to turn the people of Vaison against the Burgundians so they support the Roman emperor instead. In Ep. 5.7.1 Sidonius tells Thaumastus that he finally knows who is making such accusations against Apollinaris at court – the name of the ruler in both instances is Chilperic. Finally, the glossator points out that the comparison between Tarquin and Tanaquil and Chilperic and his wife is ironic. Why is that so? Because, according to the glossator, Chilperic’s wife is Fredegunde. Her name is not mentioned in the letter and, in fact, the name of Chilperic’s wife is not attested anywhere. What has happened? The glossator is confusing Chilperic, king of the Burgundians, with Chilperic, king of Neustria (561–84). The latter did indeed have a wife named Fredegunde. The main source for her life is Gregory of Tours’ Histories, in which she is depicted as a bloodthirsty manipulator whose favourite activity was political murder. Indeed, Sigebert of Gembloux, for example, writes that she was responsible for her husband’s death.57 The reason the glossator thinks this is ironic is that the idea of someone like Fredegunde restraining her husband from some kind of retaliatory action against Apollinaris seems ludicrous. This gloss throws into relief the glossator’s careful scholarship: he puts two and two together when he comes across the name Lucumo, citing Macrobius’ Saturnalia. He then works out that the person under discussion is Chilperic, unaware perhaps or unable to work out that there were in fact two kings of more or less the same geographical region with an identical name. His historical knowledge, gained perhaps from authors such as Gregory of Tours, allows him to deduce that Fredegunde is Chilperic’s wife. In the beginning of Ep. 1.9.1, Sidonius praises Paulus, his host, for his culture:58 deus bone, quae ille propositionibus aenigmata, sententiis schemata, versibus commata, digitis mechanemata facit!59 The phrase digitis mechanemata is the fourth in a list of ‘things’ Paulus makes, all of them described by Greek loan-words: aenigmata (allegories), schemata (rhetorical figures), commata 55

56

57 58 59

Macrobius Sat. 1.6.8 sed postea Tarquinius, Demarati exulis Corinthii filius, Priscus quem quidam Lucumonem vocitatum ferunt, rex tertius ab Hostilio, quintus a Romulo, de Sabinis egit triumphum, ‘but after that Tarquinius triumphed over the Sabines – Tarquinius Priscus, the son of the Corinthian exile Demaratus, called Lucumo according to some, the third king after Hostilius, the fifth after Romulus’. PLRE 2, 113–14 (Apollinaris 2). (For the argument that he was Sidonius’ cousin, see Mathisen in this volume, ch. 2, sect. 10.4.) Chronica, anno 586 (Bethmann (1844) 319): Chilpericus rex Francorum immissu uxoris suae Fredegundis perimitur. PLRE 2, 855–6 (Paulus 36). ‘Kind heaven! With what ingenious subtleties he sets forth his theme! What apt figures adorn his thoughts, what nicely measured phrases divide his verses, what works of art he creates with his fingers!’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 652

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

653

(verse), and mechanemata. The first three have to do with literary activity but it is not quite clear what the fourth refers to; Anderson translates ‘what works of art he creates with his fingers’. It leads the glossator to write an extensive note about the relationship between words and philology/philosophy. GLOSS: Statuerunt philosophi inter Mercurium, id est verbum [MS vebum] philologiam matrimonium quoddam quasi legittimum eo quod verbo, quod per Mercurium intelligitur, philosophie secreta rimantur et aperiantur [apiriantur a.c.] convenientius, unde et Marcianus de Mercurii nuptiis et philologie [MS philogie] librum composuit. Quecunque igitur preter Mercurium qui maritus est legitimus, id est extra verbum philosophie copulantur ac federantur mechanemata, id est adulteramenta secundum hoc translative dici possunt veluti signa digitorum que per articulos in lune compotum et artis musice consonantias laudabiliter tamen indicant [MS indicantur].60 The glossator explains that, according to philosophi, a common term to describe teachers and especially commentators, words are used to understand philosophy, specifically by using them to uncover hidden meanings. This depends on an identification of Mercury as standing in for verbum, ‘the word’, or perhaps language or discourse, and draws on the idea that the marriage of Mercury (eloquence) and Philology (wisdom) underlies the liberal arts. As an example of this the glossator refers to Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, an allegorical encyclopaedic text on the liberal arts widely read at school and commented on extensively by authors such as William of Conches and Bernard Silvestris.61 The glossator goes on to say that whatever is joined together outside of the framework set up by Martianus – that is, whatever aside from words is linked with philosophy – is a mechanema and thus an adulteration (adulteramenta). This explanation is based on a false etymology from the Greek μοιχός (‘adulterer’), which works rather well here since it creates a contrast with the legitimate marriage between Mercury and Philology. This association of mechanema with adulteration can be seen in the writings of twelfth-century authors such as Alan of Lille or Hugh of St Victor. The latter, active during the first half of the twelfth century, uses the two words in close proximity four times in his Didascalion, in the context of discussing Martianus’ De nuptiis. I think it is plausible that the glossator had to hand a commentary on Martianus’ treatise or perhaps the Didascalion, although this gloss needs more attention than I have given it here before anything can be said with certainty. The word mechanema itself is used only twice in extant literature: once by Sidonius and once by Augustine in his De civitate Dei (21.6), where it describes mirabilia (‘marvellous things’) made by humans and demons. The glossator ends by giving an example of a misguided use of words, namely the use of fingers for calculating out loud the date of Easter (determined by when the full moon occurs 60

61

‘The philosophers established a certain, so to speak lawful wedding between Mercury, i.e. the Word, and philology, because by the Word, which is understood by Mercury, the secrets of philosophy are laid open and may be uncovered more suitably. Whence also Marcianus wrote a book about the wedding of Mercury and Philology. Therefore, aside from Mercury who is a lawful husband, i.e. beyond language, whatsoever is coupled and associated with philosophy can, according to this, be metaphorically called tricks, i.e. adulterations, like signs of the fingers, which however commendably indicate the agreements in the computation of the moon and of musical art through the knuckles.’ On f. 125r. Note the mistakes and annotations in the Latin, indicating this has been copied. Rimantur is deponent but along with aperiantur seems to have passive force. Hicks (2012).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 653

13/02/20 4:30 PM

654

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

after the northern spring equinox) and musical scales. Maybe he thinks that Paulus wrote about fingers as mnemonic devices or had himself devised a system, both of which would be non-verbal tools of reasoning, which goes against the idea that words, and words only, open up the world of knowledge. 62 In Ep. 4.15.3, Sidonius describes traversing difficult terrain in order to visit his friend Elaphius’ castle: nos tamen deo praevio per tuorum montium latera confragosa venientes nec subiectas cautes nec superiectas nives expavescemus, quamvis iugorum profunda declivitas aggere cocleatim fracto saepe redeunda sit.63 GLOSS: ‘coclee sunt alte et rotunde turres, et dicte coclee quasi ciclie quod in eis tanquam per circulum orbemque conscendatur.’ Unde et in hoc loco cocleatim dicitur quasi cicliatim id est circulariter. Vel cocleatim id est cavatim a concavitate coclee.64 The glossator homes in on the adverb cocleatim, attested nowhere else but here. He begins his explanation with a (silent) quotation from Isidore’s Etymologiae that hinges on cochlea (‘a snail’, ‘spiral’) in a section about public buildings (De aedificiis publicis, 15.1.38). Based on Isidore’s explanation that coclee are towers that are like circles (ciclie, spelled cycleae in the Isidore edition) and are thus ascended in spirals (per circulum orbemque), the glossator then offers cicliatim as an alternative spelling for cocleatim. Then he provides circulariter (‘in a circle or circles, round about’) as a synonym.65 This adverb, not attested in Classical Latin or late antique authors, is used by authors such as John the Scot to describe the movement of the stars. Based on the available evidence, it was very common in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, especially in works about Aristotle. An alternative explanation, introduced by vel, is written out after a second paragraph mark next to the first. It offers another adverb, cavatim, that is otherwise not attested. The glossator derives this from the noun concavitas (‘hollow, cavity’) of the shell. The quotation from Isidore and the virtual pile-up of definitions do help to visualise the zigzag windings of the road up the mountainside.66 There are four historiographical sources that are mentioned by name in the glosses. They are Suetonius, Orosius, Gregory of Tours, and Eusebius the Chronographer. I have already discussed the first three elsewhere,67 so it is opportune to examine Eusebius here. The account of Arvandus’ trial for treason in Ep. 1.7 includes a sentence in which Sidonius imagines the well-put-together Arvandus being thrown into quarries or the workhouse: quis enim super statu eius nimis inflecteretur, quem videret accuratum delibutumque lautumiis aut ergastulo inferri? (1.7.11).68 62

63

64

65 66

67 68

The hand was used as a mnemonic device to learn the musical scale and to determine the date of Easter, amongst other things: Berger (1981). ‘However, with god leading the way, I am travelling across the rough sides of your mountains and will fear neither the crags below nor the snow above, although the steep slope of the ridges with its broken mass of stones requires that one often walk back in spirals.’ ‘Coclee are tall and round towers, and they are called coclee just as circles, because one ascends inside them just as through a circle and a ring. Thus also in this place cocleatim is used like cicleatim, that is in circles. Alternatively cocleatim means cavatim, from the hollowness of the shell.’ On f. 149rb. DMLBS s.v. circulariter. The glossator has relied on Isidore’s Etymologies at least another twelve times, scattered through Books 1, 2, 4, and once in Book 8. Chronopoulos (2010) 283–9. ‘For who would be very much affected at the position of the man whom he sees being taken to the quarry or the workhouse, carefully wrought and anointed?’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 654

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

655

GLOSS: lautumium ‘supplicii genus ad verberandum [MS: adverberandum] aptum inventum a Tarquinio superbo ad poenam [MS: nomen] sceleratorum’. Nam sic legitur apud Eusebium Cronographum: ‘Tarquinius superbus’ vii anno imperii sui ‘excogitavit vincla taurea fustes lautumias carceres compedes cathenas exilia metalla.’ Dicitur autem et latumium lautumii et lautumie lautumiarum aliter vincula.69 The glossator explains that a lautumium is a form of punishment suitable for hitting the person to be punished, when in reality lautumiae is a quarry in which prisoners were forced to work. This explanation is taken from Isidore (Etym. 5.27.23), who, given the context, clearly thinks that the word refers to an implement for beating. The glossator then furnishes a quotation from Eusebius Cronographus, explicitly referencing it as such, in which both the implement and its inventor are mentioned. He ends by giving two forms of the word, namely lautumium, not otherwise attested, and lautumiae. The quotation indicates that the noun is feminine (lautumias is accusative plural) but the form in Sidonius, being in the dative plural (lautumiis), obscures its gender, while it is neuter in Isidore. According to the glossator, the quotation comes from the Chronicon of Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339 CE), Book 2 of which was translated into Latin by Jerome. However, it actually comes from Paul the Deacon’s Historia Romana, a continuation of Eutropius’ Breviarium.70 What has happened? The glossator cannot have been using Eusebius’ chronological tables since they do not include the kind of detail present here. He must have had in front of him a copy of Paul’s Historia, which was perhaps bound with or attached to a copy of Eusebius’ chronicle or attributed to Eusebius.71 Whatever happened, this is a neat instance of the glossator assembling two related sources and showing himself to be a meticulous and eagle-eyed researcher/scholar.72 *

*

*

The glossator employs an impressive array of sources, making sure in most cases to name both the author and the title of the work. What was their availability in the eleventh to twelfth centuries? The earliest sources date from the classical period and include Ovid, Vergil, and Suetonius. Vergil held the status of the Classical Latin poet par excellence, whose poetry was part of the school curriculum from Late Antiquity onwards, making it impossible to determine how or where exactly the glossator came across his works. In any case, the phrase cited is quoted in plenty of other texts so that direct knowledge cannot be established. Ovid’s

69

70

71 72

‘Lautumium is a kind of punishment apt for beating, invented by Tarquin the Proud for the punishment of wrongdoers. For thus it can be read in Eusebius the Chronographer: “Tarquin the Proud”, in the seventh year of his reign, “thought up taurean bands, cudgels, quarries, prisons, fetters, shackles, exiles, mines.” Moreover the word occurs as lautumium, lautumii and lautumie, lautumiarum, alternatively fetters.’ On f. 124v, and also in Auct. F.5.25 and Vat. Lat. 3421. Historia Romana 1.8 (Droysen (1879) 8.30): L. dehinc Tarquinius Superbus septimus atque ultimus regum invasit imperium. . . . iste primus excogitavit vincla taurea fustes lautumias carceres compedes catenas exilia metalla, ‘then Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh and last of the kings, took power. . . . He was the first to think up taurean bands, cudgels, quarries, prisons, fetters, shackles, exiles, mines.’ Sidonius himself mentions Eusebius in Ep. 8.6.18 (Eusebium chronographum misi). The overlap between Isidore and Paul is too close to be a coincidence, so that one can assume the latter was inspired by the former. Short of examining the manuscripts of Paul that the glossator might have used, it is impossible to say whether he made the connection independently or whether his copy of Paul included a reference to Isidore (or the other way round).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 655

13/02/20 4:30 PM

656

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

Remedia amoris survives in a handful of manuscripts from before the twelfth century, while Richard Tarrant pointed out that ‘the tradition of the Metamorphoses is remarkable for the total absence of extant complete manuscripts before the second half of the eleventh century’. An exploration of the early transmission of both poems in the earliest witnesses might prove useful in determining where the glossator was located.73 Suetonius’ De vita Caesarum survives in one ninth-century manuscript from Tours and, while difficult to trace in the tenth century, reappears in terms of manuscript evidence during the eleventh century in France and Germany. As pointed out by Winterbottom, knowledge of the text ‘is centred in a relatively limited area’.74 The authors from Late Antiquity are (in chronological order) Donatus (see below, section 4), Orosius, Macrobius, Martianus Capella, Isidore of Seville, and Gregory of Tours. Paul the Deacon in the guise of Eusebius the Chronographer brings up the rear. Donatus’ Ars grammatica was a staple of the schoolroom and enjoyed a broad transmission during the Carolingian period, with four surviving manuscripts from the eighth century, and twentysix from the ninth.75 Orosius’ Histories had a significant presence before the millennium and its pre-Carolingian witnesses indicate that it was known in England, France, Germany, and Italy.76 Macrobius’ Saturnalia was not a rare text but not exactly very popular either. The ‘tradition was centered in France until at least the end of the first millennium’.77 Meanwhile, Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis survives in over two hundred and forty manuscript copies, testament to the fact that he ‘was the ancient authority on the liberal arts from the ninth to the end of the twelfth century’.78 A good number of ninth-century manuscripts exist, mainly from France and Germany.79 The list of manuscripts in Lindsay’s edition indicates that Isidore’s Etymologiae were well known in Carolingian Francia, while the earliest manuscripts originate from eighth-century Francia, Italy, and Spain.80 Gregory of Tours’ Histories were so popular ‘in the land of the Franks’ that an exploration of their transmission is not necessary.81 Next to Orosius, Paul’s was the most popular Roman history during the Middle Ages and, like his predecessor, Paul was not a school author.82 His continuation of Eutropius’ Breviarium gained popularity after the millennium, although the manuscript evidence shows that it was known in ninth-century Italy, as well as in Germany and in France beginning with the tenth.83 At first sight, these authors do not have much in common, although it is noticeable that the majority of them can be classified as historical. As my necessarily brief sketch of the transmission of these authors indicates, some of them were more popular than others. Further study of the early transmission of Macrobius, Ovid, and Suetonius might yield clues as to the geographical location of the glossator, especially if this can be cross-tied with the date and origin of the earliest glossed manuscripts. 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Tarrant in Reynolds (1986) 260, 262 for Remedia, 277 for Metamorphoses. Munk Olsen, (1995) 76–7. Winterbotton in Reynolds (1986) 401–2. Holtz (1981) 354–95. Mortensen (2000) 107, 119–57 Kaster (2010) 5. Tibbett in Reynolds (1986) 224, 234. Hicks (2012) 308. Winterbottom in Reynolds (1986) 244. Lindsay (1911) vol. 1, vii–xi. Contreni (2002) 423. Mortensen (2000) 106. Mortensen (2000) 165–200.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 656

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

657

4 The Glossator’s Knowledge of Sidonius’ Letters A number of small but important instances betray the glossator’s in-depth knowledge of and acquaintance with the content of the letters. For example, in Ep. 2.12.2 Sidonius writes to Agricola about the illness of his daughter: Severiana, sollicitudo communis, inquietata primum lentae tussis impulsu febribus quoque iam fatigatur. . . . certe ego vel tua soror inter spem metuemque suspensi credidimus eius taedium augendum si voluntati iacentis obstitissemus.84 GLOSS: Severiana] filia mea. Soror] Papianilla. (f. 134vb) The glossator deduces that Severiana is Sidonius’ daughter from the fact that it is her parents (ego vel tua soror) who are worrying about her as she is ill. Tua soror refers to Sidonius’ wife Papianilla, who was indeed the sister of Agricola. The only letter in the collection addressed to Papianilla is 5.16 (Sidonius Papianillae suae salutem); in that letter Sidonius tells his wife that her brother Ecdicius has been made a patrician and speculates that this honour for her brother will please her more than his own promotion, referring to her as both uxor bona with reference to himself and soror optima with reference to Ecdidius.85 Once again the glossator can be seen to use the evidence from the letters to construct a (historical) context for the characters mentioned therein. In Ep. 8.11.5 Sidonius is describing the poetry of the orator and poet Lampridius.86 faciebat siquidem versus oppido exactos tam pedum mira quam figurarum varietate . . . elegos vero nunc echoicos, nunc recurrentes, nunc per anadiplosin fine principiisque conexos. GLOSS: Per litterarum conversionem ut in hoc versiculo ‘Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor.’ Anadiplosis est congeminatio dictionis ex ultimo loco precedentis versus in principio sequentis. Ut ‘pulcherrimus Astur, Astur equo fidens’.87 Sidonius highlights two characteristics of Lampridius’ elegiac verses, namely that they are recurrentes (lit. ‘running back’) or linked to each other per anadiplosin (‘by the repetition of the same word’). The glossator explains the word recurrentes by furnishing an example to illustrate the point (Roma tibi . . .). This verse is used by Sidonius at Ep. 9.14.4, where he explains what he means by the word recurrentes: igitur interrogas per pugillatorem, quos recurrentes asseram versus, ut celer explicem, sed sub exemplo. hi nimirum sunt recurrentes, qui metro stante neque litteris loco motis ut ab 84

85 86 87

‘Severiana, our common care, was at first afflicted by the attack of a tenacious cough and is now also being tormented by a fever. . . . Certainly your sister and I, suspended between hope and fear, believed her suffering would be increased if we opposed the wish of the patient.’ The coniunx Papianilla mentioned in poem 24.37 is the wife of Tonantius Ferreolus. PLRE 2, 656–7 (Lampridius). ‘Indeed he composed exceedingly accurate verses with an extraordinary variety both in metre and in figures of speech . . . elegiacs now resonant, now palindromic, now connected at the beginning and end by reduplication.’ GLOSS: ‘Through the inverting of letters as in this line: Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor. An anadiplosis is the doubling of a phrase from the last position of the preceding verse into the beginning of the following, as pulcherrimus Astur, Astur equo fidens.’ On f. 171va.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 657

13/02/20 4:30 PM

658

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

exordio ad terminum, sic a fine releguntur ad summum. sic est illud antiquum: ‘Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor.’88 The word recurrentes in this sense only occurs in these two letters and the glossator has made a connection between them. He elucidates the word anadiplosin by using the explanation given by Donatus in the Ars maior. There, Donatus provides an example from Vergil’s Aeneid (10.180–1), which is reproduced here.89 Note that the glossator does not explicitly name his source. The glossator’s ability to remember and connect the only two instances of recurrentes in Sidonius’ letters (once at 8.11.5 and once at 9.14.4) is impressive, even in a period when retaining large amounts of information by memory was commonplace, and is an indication of how deeply he is immersed in the text he is working on. The same is true of his skilful inference that Papianilla is Sidonius’ wife, mentioned only once at Ep. 5.16, and that Severiana is their daughter.

5 The Nature of the Commentary in B In Ep. 9.9.14 Sidonius writes about Faustus of Riez’ philosophical works being used in the name of the church, and points out that Faustus does not sport the usual attributes of the philosopher: sentiet . . . tum praeterea non caesariem pascere neque pallio aut clava velut sophisticis insignibus gloriari aut affectare de vestium discretione superbiam. GLOSS: pallium et clavam sophistica vocat insignia sicut in supradictis glosulavimus.90 The commentator refers the reader back to an earlier instance of pallium et clavam, namely in Ep. 4.11.1, where Sidonius explains that Claudianus, even though he was a philosopher, spurned the cloak (pallium) and the staff (clava), both of which identify the philosopher.91 In that place above (in supradictis) – that is, about twenty folios prior – a substantial gloss treating the two words can indeed be found.92 This is a neat example of the glossator talking about 88

89 90

91

92

‘Then you ask through a letter carrier that I explain right away, but with an example, which verses I’d say are palindromic. They are doubtless palindromic which, with the metre remaining as it is and the letters staying in their place, are read from beginning to end just as they are read again from the end to the beginning. In this way that old saying goes: Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor.’ Ars maior 3.5, GLK 4.398. In Donatus the verb sequitur, missing here, precedes the quotation from Vergil. ‘Then, moreover, he will observe that you do not let your hair grow nor do you boast the cloak or staff as sign of the philosopher or strive after haughtiness derived from the difference in attire.’ GLOSS: ‘He calls the cloak and the staff philosophical tokens, just as we have annotated with a gloss above.’ On f. 176rb. et licet crinem barbamque non pasceret, pallium et clavam nunc inrideret, nunc etiam execraretur, a collegio tamen conplatonicorum solo habitu ac fide dissociabatur, ‘although he did not let his hair and beard grow long, and although he sometimes ridiculed, sometimes even execrated the philosopher’s cloak and cudgel, it was only in his dress and in his religion that he parted company with the Platonic brotherhood’. F. 147ra: Pallium occultat. Clavis dicitur quod ea que clam sunt referat. Unde et quidam philosophantes pallium et clavem gestabant, quasi ceteris eminentius clausa reserassent. Vel pallium et clavam intellige occultum, id est subtile et magni roboris argumentum quo partis adverse machinamenta sicut monstra Hercules conquassare solebant, ‘The cloak conceals. The word “key” is used because it refers to those things that are secret. And so certain philosophers were carrying a cloak and a key, as if they had revealed secrets more eminently than others. Or take the cloak and the cudgel to stand for something secret, i.e. a subtle argument of great force, with which they used to vanquish the stratagems of opposing (rhetorical?/philosophical?) elements, just as Hercules vanquished monsters.’ The word clavam has an interlinear gloss that reads vel clavem, hence the glossator’s discussion of both words in the marginal gloss.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 658

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

659

what he is doing (glosulavimus) and making a correct reference back (sicut in supradictis), thus indicating that this commentary, in this instance at least, is the work of one person or was conceived of, if not executed by, one person. B shows signs of having been diligently corrected all the way through. Given that Lütjohann only used six manuscripts to establish the text of the letters, it is perhaps futile to try and work out on the basis of these corrections where B falls in the tradition, but the following can at least help provide an insight into the kinds of corrections that have been made.93 For example, there are tiny corrections, such as thalalsia, which has been corrected to thalassia (Ep. 1.5.10, following MCF against LT, which read Thalassio, thalasia P) or Epiguri, corrected to Epicuri (Ep. 1.6.5). The corrector also supplies missing letters, such as in the case of spulchra, which has been corrected to sepulchra at Ep. 3.3.8, or expectatine corrected to expectatione at Ep. 4.8.3. At Ep. 6.12.4 the text reads Formianorum, which has been corrected to Fotinianorum. This is an easy mistake to make, because the ‘t’ could be read as an ‘r’, and the ‘in’ as an ‘m’, but it is not quite so easy to emend. There are a small number of instances where the corrector of B seems to be following readings presented by manuscripts of a certain branch of the tradition. The one that crops up most often is F.94 In addition to the gloss on autholographas/antolografus (9.11.6), which shows that the glosses in this manuscript were copied from another manuscript, there is one more piece of evidence to support this hypothesis. Ep. 3.9 is addressed to Riothamus (Sidonius Riotamo suo salutem, so in B).95 The gloss explaining who this is has been copied thirteen lines above the salutation on f. 139va, in the margin next to the end of the preceding letter (3.8), without any indication that it actually belongs to the next letter (3.9). The explanation thus floats about a bit uselessly and lost in the margin. As a general rule, whoever copied the marginal glosses in B took great care to key them to the lemmata in the text by using various combinations of dots. The annotation reads: Iste Iotamus [sic] princeps Britannorum fuit circa id temporis quo primum de insula in Cornucallie transvecti partem Amarice regionis concedentibus Francorum regibus obtinuere.96 The spelling of Riothamus’ name has been garbled, even though it is correct in the salutatio in B. The glossator explains that Riothamus was a leader of the Britons at the time when they had obtained the region of Armorica from the Frankish kings, after having landed at Cornucallia. This noun refers to a region in Brittany, located to the southwest of Armorica, not to be confused with the region known as Cornwall in the southwest of England.97 Both the glossator and Hugh of Fleury take it to refer to a region in the northwest of France. The spelling of Amarice (regionis) is an unusual and in fact erroneous alternative for Armoricae or Aremorica, 93 94

95 96

97

LMTCFP; see Lütjohann (1887) xxv. See now Dolveck in this volume, ch. 16. For example, 5.13.2: interpellantum] vel interpellantium (also in F); 7.3.1: muneraremur] vel emularemur (also in F; 7.13.5: exscripsit] vel expressit (exscripsit M, expressit s.l. add M1); 5.15 retractum corrected to retractatum (retractatum LMTFP, retractum C). This closeness to F fits with Dolveck’s conclusions on the English family of MSS (γ), in this volume, ch. 16, sect. 4, and suggests that the corrections are likely to be against the exemplar. PLRE 2, 945 (Riothamus). Lütjohann prints Riothamo from CL, while Riotamo is supported by MTFP. ‘This Riothamus was the leader of the Bretons at around the time when for the first time they sailed from the island to Cornucallie and obtained a part of the region of Armorica after the kings of the Franks had conceded it.’ On f. 139va. Hugh of Fleury, in his Modernorum regum Francorum actus ch. 4 (Waitz (1851) 382), explains that anno vero incarnacionis dominicae 931, Britones in Cornu Galliae constituti, adversus Normannos, quibus subditi erant, insurgentes, ducem illorum interemerunt, ‘in the year 931 of the Incarnation of the Lord, the Bretons, who lived in the Horn of Gaul, rebelled against the Normans whose subjects they were, and killed their commander’. William of Malmesbury writes in his Gesta regum Anglorum 2.134.6 (Mynors and Thomson 1998–9): Inde digressus in Occidentales Britones se convertit, qui Cornewalenses vocantur quod in occidente Britanniae siti cornu Galliae obliquo respitiant, ‘departing from there he turned towards the western Britons who are called Cornwallians because they live in the west of Britain at an angle opposite the Horn of Gaul’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 659

13/02/20 4:30 PM

660

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

‘the northern provinces of Gaul, Bretagne, with some of Normandy’, and possibly another indication that this gloss was copied.98 The only author besides Sidonius to mention Riothamus by name is Jordanes.99 But neither the historian nor Sidonius provides the kind of specific geographical information presented in the gloss. Sidonius does mention Britanni as a group of people over whom Riothamus has power in the letter, so the glossator may have just drawn on his knowledge of French geography. What is curious is the reference to the kings of the Franks granting the Britons Armorica upon their arrival there from Britain, for which I have so far been unable to find a parallel. As the above discussion reveals, the glosses in B are a copy and were, in some parts at least, conceived of by one person. However, there are indications that the glosses may have been added to the letters in successive stages: two early manuscripts, Vat. Lat. 3421 and Auct. F.5.25, share only one gloss with B of those discussed so far (namely on lautumiis, 1.7.1). The gloss on autholographas/antolografus (9.11.6) can be divided into two explanations, the first taking it to be a critical sign, the second a person.

6 Vernacular Glosses The first book of letters features seven glosses that include Old French (three of them concentrated in Ep. 8). There are another two in Book 1, one in Book 4, and none for the remaining books. I have already discussed two of these glosses elsewhere so here I will examine a few more.100 In Ep. 1.3.2, Sidonius describes how Gaudentius delivers speeches that make the ears of his former detractors (oblatatrorum) ring: ille obiter stertentum oblatratorum aures rauci voce praeconis everberat.101 GLOSS: sternuto, -as, id est sternuer. sterto, -is, id est frunger. (f. 121v) The glossator is differentiating between sternuto (‘to sneeze’) and sterto (‘to snore’), but without clarifying that stertentum comes from the latter. Stertentum is a participle (genitive plural), found only in Sidonius (the form stertentium, while also rare, is more common). ‘To sneeze’ would normally be esternuer on Old French, while frunger appears to be an alternative spelling for fronchier, which does indeed mean ‘to snore’.102 In Ep. 1.7.11, Sidonius sets out the immediate result of Arvandus’ having been found guilty of treason: confestim privilegiis geminae praefecturae, quam per quinquennium repetitis fascibus rexerat, exauguratus et, plebeiae familiae non ut additus sed ut redditus, publico carceri adiudicatus est.103 GLOSS: desapoestez (or desapoestet?). (f. 124va) 98

L&S s.v. Armoricae. Getica 45.237–8. Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica Anno 470 (Bethmann (1844) 311), also mentions Riothamus, but derives his information ultimately from Jordanes. 100 Chronopoulos (2010) 285. 101 ‘He meanwhile makes the ears of the snorting railers ring with the voice of a noisy crier.’ 102 Hindley et al. (2000), s.v. esternuer, fronchier. Godefroy 4, s.v. fronchier. Godefroy 9, s.v. esternuer. 103 ‘Without delay he was officially stripped of the privileges of the double prefectship which he had held for five years through repeated appointments and he was turned over to the public prison, not like someone degraded, but like someone handed back, to a plebeian family.’ 99

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 660

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

661

Exauguro is a relatively rare verb and specifically refers to the action of ‘desecrating a building, place or a person’. Here it seems to describe the act of officially relieving Arvandus of the privileges of the double prefecture (privilegiis geminae praefectura). Aposté is listed by itself in Godefroy (vol. 1) as ‘abominable’, as well as ‘hateful’ in Hindley et al. (2000). The des- does not seem to negate the stem as one might expect. Ep. 1.8. features two vernacular glosses on nouns: 1.8.1: morari me Romae congratularis; id tamen quasi facete et fatigationum salibus admixtis.104 GLOSS: curteisies. (f. 124vb) Already in Classical Latin the noun sal (salt) could refer to ‘intellectual acuteness’ or ‘wit’ (L&S, s.v.). The glossator provides the French curteisies, an alternative spelling for cortoisie, which means ‘courtliness’, ‘courtly gesture’, ‘courteousness’, etc.105 A little further on Sidonius describes the delights of Ravenna: 1.8.2: quod te Ravennae felicius exulantem auribus Padano culice perfossis municipalium ranarum loquax turba circumsilit.106 GLOSS: taun. (f. 125ra) A taun (also taon) is a gadfly or horsefly. It may well have been used for gnats and midges too as a generic word for flies, since culex is ‘a gnat or midge’.107 It is difficult to see what function these glosses have or what they have in common other than to point out that they focus on verbs and nouns. They do not really fall under the remit of domestic terms with which a reader might have been more familiar so as to allow the glossator to draw on his reader’s vernacular knowledge. The fact that they are concentrated mostly in Book 1 suggests the intention may have been to provide more. What these vernacular glosses can help with is determining the origin of the glossator, or rather, the fact that his native language was French. They do not provide enough information to determine whether he was active in Norman England or in France. However, the absence of an indication that the language is Gallice or Romanice rather than Anglice suggests that this was not necessary, thus in turn pointing to a context that was entirely Frenchspeaking, which is supported by the origin of the early glossed manuscripts. Even though B was copied out in England, the vernacular glosses were not updated or expanded to include English words, while the vernacular glosses in Digby 172 add English words and differentiate between Anglice and Romanice.108

7 Conclusion The glosses in B represent the first sustained commentary effort on Sidonius’ letters, predating the academic interest accorded to him by early modern scholars by about three hundred 104

105

106

107 108

‘You are congratulating me on remaining in Rome; but you do it as if joking and with added witty remarks of banter.’ Tobler – Lommatzsch 2, 922, s.v. cortoisie (‘höfische Bildung/Gesittung, Gefälligkeit, Artigkeit’). Hindley et al. (2000), s.v. cortoisie. ‘Since the talkative crowd of municipal frogs hops about you, exiled as you are more happily at Ravenna, your ears having been pierced through by the midges of the Po.’ Hindley et al. (2000), s.v. taon. L&S, s.v. culex. Hunt (1979) 132.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 661

13/02/20 4:30 PM

662

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

and fifty to four hundred years.109 Indeed, the glosses and annotations in B are the work of an individual with an excellent knowledge of Sidonius’ letters and access to a good library of classical and other authors. They range from corrections and single-word explanations to lengthy explications. As such this commentary functions as a basic aid for understanding the letters: the commentator identifies names and places, furnishes historical information on individuals, concepts, and events, explains expressions and difficult terms. The one thing he does very little of is pay attention to aspects of language such as grammar, syntax, and morphology. This, I think, is an indication that the commentator wrote out the glosses and annotations not so much for the schoolroom as out of personal academic interest, in order to expand his vocabulary and knowledge about Sidonius’ world; but more work needs to be done before this can be certain. Thus, a scholar is at work here, an individual who draws chiefly on historical sources and who enjoys the craft of the historian, who is interested enough in the people Sidonius mentions to go off and seek out historical texts in which they are referred to. A good example of that is Ep. 2.10.3, where Sidonius mentions the poet Secundinus. The glossator refers the reader to Gregory of Tours’ Historia, where Secundinus is mentioned only once.110 There are many more glosses than I have been able to study here and they survive in more than one manuscript. A cursory glance indicates that the earliest glossed manuscripts of the letters originate from France, and that the glosses were copied enthusiastically and even augmented in the twelfth century. The presence of some Old French (and the absence of a differentiation between French and English) points to a French speaker active in a French context, even if B is English. As I have shown, the glosses in B are a copy and not the original. Among the secondary sources used, I think that the transmission of Macrobius’ Saturnalia would benefit from closer study in connection with the glosses, as would Ovid and Suetonius. In any case, the glossator is operating out of a well-stocked library or had access to libraries close by. The urge to wrap things up tidily is strong, but I am afraid that what I have been able to offer here is just a snapshot. Let me finish with a gloss that may yield a terminus post quem. Ep. 8.14 is addressed to Principius. The titulus reads: Sidonius Domino Papae Principio Salutem (‘Sidonius says a greeting to the Lord Bishop Principius’). The gloss explains: iste Principius Suesionensis episcopus fuit et frater sancti Remigii Remensis.111 According to the gloss, Principius was the bishop of Soissons and his brother was Remigius, bishop of Reims (c. 458–532).112 None of this information is available in Ep. 8.14, or in Ep. 9.8, which is also addressed to Principius. Sidonius did write a letter to the Remigius in question (Ep. 9.7, Sidonius Domino Papae Remigio Salutem, ‘Sidonius sends a greeting to the Lord Bishop Remigius’), but again, it does not make a reference to his brother Principius. Having said that, at the beginning of Ep. 8.14.2 Sidonius relates how a bishop named Antiolius visited and told him about Principius and his brother. The only printed text I have found in which this information is made explicit is Sigebert of Gembloux’ Chronica: clarent in Galliis Remigius Remensis et Principius frater eius Suessonum episcopus.113 Sigebert died in 1112 and wrote his chronicle during the last decade of his life, relying on many other chronicles and historical works.114 The life of Remigius (BHL 7155) by 109

110 111 112 113

114

See Hernández Lobato (2014c) 136–79 on Giovanni Battista Pio’s commentary from 1498 and Amherdt (2013) 25–7 on Jean Savaron’s linear commentary from 1599. See also in this volume, Furbetta, ch. 17, sects. 1.2 and 2.4, and Hernández Lobato, ch. 22, sects. 5 and 6. Chronopoulos (2010) 286. ‘This Principius was a bishop of Soissons and the brother of St Remigius of Reims.’ On f. 172vb. PLRE 2, 938 (Remigius 2). Anno 486 (Bethmann (1844) 312). ‘Remigius of Reims and his brother Principius, bishop of Soissons, were renowned in Gaul.’ There are at least forty-two surviving manuscripts, including one autograph. See MGH edition, p. 284.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 662

13/02/20 4:30 PM

GLOSSING SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES

663

Hincmar of Reims, who finished writing it in 878, does mention his brother Principius, but omits the detail of Reims and Soissons as the places associated with the two brothers.115 I do not have the space here to consider how well known Remigius was during the period in question – he was above all a local and royal saint, said to have baptised King Clovis at the end of the fifth century.116 But from the moment that Adalbero of Reims crowned Hugh Capet king of the Franks in 987,117 everyone, or at least the educated, would have known of Remigius’ connection to Reims, where his relics were located.118 Given the above, it is difficult to say with certainty where the glossator found the information that appears in the gloss. I think it more likely that it comes from Sigebert since his is a historical work and more suited as a work of reference, but this is of course not conclusive. After lying dormant for several centuries, Sidonius’ letters surface in Carolingian Francia and thus mirror the reappearance of many other classical and late antique authors in the same period. It is perhaps notable that he did not have an immediate impact until several centuries later, especially given the keen interest Carolingian scholars had in lexicographically rich authors. As Dolveck notes in chapter 16 of this volume, the greater part of the surviving (fulltext) manuscripts was written out during the twelfth century, with about fifteen dating from before. The glosses I have examined point towards an individual or private reading rather than a reading in the context of the schoolroom.119 If the tentative terminus post quem of 1112 (Sigebert’s death) and the date of Auct. F.5.25 are anything to go on, then the initial glossator was active at the beginning of the twelfth century, antedating Alan of Lille’s enthusiastic assessment of Sidonius by about fifty years. It is also worth noting that the glosses as they are transmitted in B point to an intentional and sustained effort. This effort required their author to carry out extensive reading of and research on Sidonius’ letters, including a vast array of secondary sources. In order to carry out this project he must have had access to a well-stocked or well-connected library, probably located somewhere in northern France. At this stage, it is impossible to say where exactly the glossator was active, but a careful examination and study of the other early glossed Sidonius manuscripts may well provide the answer. In sum, much more needs to be done before the study of Sidonius in the medieval period can be laid to rest, but I hope my comments illustrate the interest of the glosses themselves and how important it is to keep returning to the manuscripts.

8 Further Reading While the study of the reception of Sidonius’ letters (and poems) in the medieval period still awaits its author, the following will provide at least a sense of the topic’s scope. Faral (1946) presents an initial foray into the influence of Sidonius’ style, in both his letters and 115

116 117 118 119

Vita Remigii episcopi Remensis (Krusch (1896) 260). The life survives in over eighty manuscripts, including seventeen from before 1100. Principius is mentioned in Remigius’ testament, p. 336. Principius of Soissons has one account to his name, BHL 6925, but neither the BHL nor its supplement provide any tangible information. The first mention of his veneration does not appear until the twelfth century, at least according to Muzerelle’s recension of medieval liturgical calendars: . Depreux (1992) 117. Glenn (2004) 89. Depreux (1992) 114–17. The inclusion of the letters in school-related texts, e.g. Alexander Neckham’s Sacerdos ad altare, seems to be connected to the rise of the Poetria nova, and linked specifically to Sidonius’ elaborate descriptions of Theoderic and Gnatho.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 663

13/02/20 4:30 PM

664

TINA CHRONOPOULOS

poems, on twelfth- and thirteenth-century authors. Chronopoulos (2010) studies the biobibliographical introductions on Sidonius, among others, in some twelfth-century manuscripts, and proposes William of Malmesbury (d. in/after 1142) as a plausible candidate for their authorship. Furbetta (2013c) discusses the early transmission and reception of Sidonius’ letters, with extensive notes.120 Gioanni (2014) examines a florilegium put together in France in around 1150. It contains numerous extracts from Sidonius’ letters, chosen not only for their style but also for their ethical value, thus demonstrating that Sidonius’ letters were put to practical use. Wolff (2014c) provides a swift but helpful overview of knowledge of Sidonius, starting with his epitaph and reaching all the way into the modern period.

120

See also, in this volume, Mathisen, ch. 20.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 664

13/02/20 4:30 PM

22 SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE Jesús Hernández Lobato

of Sidonius Apollinaris’ death (479 CE or later) his epitaph1 unproblematically boasted that he was ‘unknown to none’ (nulli incognitus) and that his sophisticated works were set to become the toast of future generations (scripsit perpetuis habenda seclis). He was simply a ‘must read’ (legendus orbi). Today, more than fifteen hundred years later, we can see that this posthumous prophecy was too optimistic: although a distinct literary voice in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Sidonius’ role was narrowed down to being a fixed point of reference for sixteenth- to eighteenth-century scholarship, while definitely becoming a minor influence after that. In recent years, the renewed interest and critical appraisal of his work among classicists and medievalists have made relevant again the question of what made him important – and controversial – to readers in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and what cultural and historical transformations ultimately steered him outside the mainstream. This chapter aims to provide a critical overview of this complex and nuanced issue.2

B

Y THE TIME

1 The Early Middle Ages: A Living Memory Three episodes of Sidonius’ success during the time immediately after his death are explored in this volume by Ralph Mathisen.3 Sidonius soon became the flagship author for a whole generation of writers: Avitus of Vienne, Gelasius, and Ruricius of Limoges found in Sidonius’ epistles their constant point of reference and sometimes even their principal stylistic model;4 Ennodius composed his dictio for Epiphanius (Carm. 1.9) in imitation of Sidonius’ Carm. 16, indulging in an extreme intertextual play that teeters on the brink of plagiarism;5 it has recently 1

2 3 4 5

I use the well-known version of the epitaph from the Madrid manuscript, BNE, 9448 (C) (#25 in Dolveck’s census of manuscripts in this volume, ch. 16). On Sidonius’ epitaph see in this volume van Waarden, ch. 1, sect. 2 (1), and Mathisen, ch. 2, sect. 10.7. Recently, a new version of the epitaph has been discovered in Paris IRHT, Collection privée 347 (#53 in Dolveck), published and commented by Luciana Furbetta (2015b). It suggests a different date of death (as early as 479: (CP 347) Zenone consule, instead of (C) Zenone imperatore) and even makes it doubtful whether Sidonius is meant! Instead of (C) haec inter tamen et philosophando / scripsit perpetuis habenda seclis, it reads: (CP 347) hec inter tamen et facundus ore / libris excoluit vitam parentis. The following pages summarise, update, and reassess the conclusions of Hernández Lobato (2014c). In ch. 20. See also Mascoli (2004b). On the early influence of Sidonius as an epistolary model see Furbetta (2013c), See particularly Ennod. Carm. 1.9.12–13 (Phoebum et ter ternas dixerunt esse sorores, / Castalium laticem, varias quoque Palladis artes, ‘they said that Phoebus exists and the thrice three sisters, the Castalian spring, and the various arts of Pallas’), ll. 18–19 (sperne, fides: magis ille veni nunc spiritus, oro, / cuius . . . , ‘eschew this, lyre/faith: rather come now you great spirit, I pray, whose . . .’) and ll. 36–7 (da solvere grates, / quas debere iuvat, ‘grant that I may pay the thanks which it is a pleasure to owe’), respectively modelled on Sidon. Carm. 16.1–2, 5–6, and 68–9. On this intertextual relationship see Consolino (2006) and Condorelli (2011).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 665

13/02/20 4:30 PM

666

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

been suggested that a substantial part of the prologue of Fulgentius’ Mythologies is deliberately modelled on Sidonius’ programmatic poem (his Carm. 9);6 Gregory of Tours enthusiastically praised his literary talent and his outstanding ability to improvise verses (Hist. 2.22–3);7 Venantius Fortunatus modelled his depiction of the castellum of Nizier (Carm. 3.12) on Sidonius’ description of the burgus of Pontius Leontius (Carm. 22); Arator may have mentioned him in his Epistola ad Parthenium as one of his newly discovered favourite authors, though the text is questionable;8 Jordanes compares his portrait of Attila (Get. 24.35) with a passage of Sidonius’ Panegyric on Anthemius (Carm. 2.245); last but not least, Gennadius of Marseille’s short portrait of Sidonius in chapter 92 of his De viris illustribus further proves his early fame not only as a bishop but also and especially as a writer.9 Quite characteristically, it was precisely the baroque intricacy of Sidonius’ writings (which had brought a man as cultured as Ruricius of Limoges humbly to confess his difficulties in understanding them)10 that was his greatest asset in becoming a cult writer.11 A quite bizarre example of this early admiration for Sidonius’ works can be found in sixth-century Spain. Bishop Martin of Braga composed and had inscribed on the walls of his refectory at Dumium a poem with a striking peculiarity:12 almost eight of its ten lines are taken practically unchanged from Sidonius’ Carm. 17, originally dedicated to the senator Ommatius. This curious piece of poetry, which I have analysed in a recent paper,13 actually borrows lines 5 (with some minor changes), 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16 (with the modification of three letters only)14 of Sidonius’ original, thus adapting its source material to a different purpose. Though not so radical in its mise en scène, the catalogue of peoples contained in another short poem by Martin of Braga – entitled In basilica – is also redolent of Sidonius’ writings. During the next three centuries Sidonius’ works left little imprint on literature,15 though his memory as a saint and as a writer continued to be honoured and transmitted from generation to generation. Thus, it is not strange that in the first half of the tenth century he was still remembered by bishop Flodoard of Reims (893/4–966) as ‘a most cultured man, as renowned for his birth as he was for his piety and his eloquence’.16 This brief remark, part of Flodoard’s 6 7

8

9

10

11 12 13 14

15

16

Hernández Lobato (2017) 295–304. On the presence of Sidonius in the works of Gregory of Tours see Furbetta (2015d) , and Mathisen’s ch. 20, sect. 2, in this volume. In fact, the reading Sidoniana chelys (l. 48) in the editions by Migne (PL 68), McKinlay (1951), and Orbán (2006), though plausible and probable, is merely conjectural, the transmitted text being niana cęles. See on this Deproost (1990) 27–8. Sidonius, Arvernorum episcopus, scripsit varia et grata opuscula et sanae doctrinae. Homo siquidem tam divinis quam humanis ad integrum imbutus, acerque ingenio, scripsit ad diversos diverso metro et prosa compositum epistolarum insigne volumen, ‘Sidonius, bishop of the Arverni, wrote various attractive works, which are of sound doctrine. Being a man deeply imbued with both divine and human matters, and sharply intelligent, he wrote an important volume of letters addressed to a variety of persons in a variety of metres and prose.’ See Ruric. Ep. 2.26.3 Sollium enim nostrum domnum patremque communem . . . legendum recepi. cuius lectio sicut mihi antiquum restaurat affectum, ita prae obscuritate dictorum non accendit ingenium, ‘I received our common lord and father Sidonius for reading. 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.’ See Gualandri, ch. 8 in this volume. On the taste for stylistic obscurity in late antique epistolography, see Schwitter (2015). This poem, known as In refectorio (CPL 1087), has been edited by Barlow (1950) 283. See Hernández Lobato (2013). The poem transforms the cavernas of Sidonius into the strange hapax gavessas. For a detailed discussion of this term see Hernández Lobato (2013) 80–3. An exception to this is Aldhelm of Malmesbury (c. 639–709), who imitated Sidonius’ high style; cf. Dempsey (2015). Historia Remensis ecclesiae 1.12: Sydonii Arvernorum episcopi, viri eruditissimi et tam genere quam religione ac sermone clarissimi.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 666

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

667

History of the Church of Reims, was immediately followed by the full text of Sidonius’ letter 9.7, which further proves the uninterrupted circulation of his works in early medieval France. In the eleventh century, his presence can be traced in the writings of the Ravenna-born cardinal Peter Damian (1007–72) and the scholar Embrico of Mainz. The latter’s Vita Mahumeti17 is sometimes accompanied by an introductory poem in praise of its author (entitled Vita auctoris) which bears witness to the undisputable centrality of Sidonius’ epistles as a model for prose, only comparable to that of Vergil in the realm of verse: ‘Had Ovid seen him [sc. Embrico of Mainz] in his lifetime, he would have revered him, since he was a Sidonius in prose, a Vergil in verse.’18

2 The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: Sidonius’ Golden Age The twelfth century, characterised as a whole by a widespread revaluation and an unprecedented reflowering of late antique aesthetics, became a genuine golden age for the circulation, vindication, and imitation of Sidonius’ writings, which were held to be authoritative models in their own right. His presence in the school curriculum and in the hugely influential literary canons by Alexander Neckam (1157–1217) and Eberhard the German (first half of the thirteenth century)19 confirms his undisputed relevance for the twelfth-century cultural scene.20 As Curtius remarks:21 For the twelfth century Sidonius and Horace had equal weight as teachers of rhetoric. When Sidonius taught: ‘Natura comparatum est ut in omnibus artibus hoc sit scientiae pretiosior pompa quo rarior’ [‘it is a law of nature that in all the arts the splendour of attainment rises in value as it becomes rarer’] (Ep. 2.10.6), this could not but have the force of a binding legacy of antique aesthetics, could not but strengthen the modern poet’s pride in his hard-won skill in an ornate Latin. Even where – or indeed precisely where – Sidonius misunderstood Horace, he exercised an authoritative influence. This revival of the interest in Sidonius was particularly apparent in the unprecedented flowering of manuscripts of his work, including anthologies and glosses, as shown in this volume by Tina Chronopoulos.22 The prestigious School of Chartres, which marked that century’s intellectual life, proved to be particularly receptive to this wave of Sidonian fervour.23 Examples

17

18

19

20 21 22 23

The editor of the Vita Mahumeti, Guy Cambier (1957), attributes this work to Embrico, dean of Mainz, born c. 1010, who became bishop of Augsburg in 1064 and died in 1077. Other scholars like Southern (1962) 30, Rotter and Staab (1994), and Tolan (1996) 30 find Cambier’s arguments unconvincing and opt for a slightly later Embrico, who was treasurer of Mainz from 1090 until his death c. 1112. According to Rotter and Staab (1994), this second Embrico must have written the verse introduction to his work in the late eleventh century, between 1072 and 1090. The question remains open. Vita auctoris 13–14 quem si vidisset quondam, Naso coluisset, / prosa Sydonium, carmine Virgilium. The poem is reproduced along with a French translation in Cambier (1957) 469. See also Chronopoulos in this volume, ch. 21, n. 9. Eberhard the German, Laborintus 645–6: Sidonei regis qui pingit proelia, morem / egregium calamus Sidonianus habet, ‘in drawing the battles of the king of Sidon [Apollonius of Tyre?], Sidonius’ pen is superbly qualified’. The text of this long didactic poem was edited by Faral (1924a). On Sidonius as a curriculum author see Curtius (1953) 48–54. See also Haskins (1909). Curtius (1953) 539. See ch. 21. On the aesthetic thinking of the School of Chartres and other related schools of the twelfth century, see the classic Tatarkiewicz (2005) 203–13.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 667

13/02/20 4:30 PM

668

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

abound. The scholastic theologian Peter of Poitiers (c. 1130–c. 1215) praised Sidonius as a ‘restorer of ancient eloquence’ (echoing Claudianus Mamertus’ old dedication to Sidonius himself)24 in his welcoming poem to the new abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable (c. 1092–1156), who was a native of the Auvergne.25 In turn, Peter quoted an invective by his fellow countryman in one of his epistles26 and even invoked him – as if he were some kind of ‘Arvernian Muse’ – in a poem Adversus calumniatores, celebrating both his skills as a panegyrist and his mordacity against slanderers.27 The philosopher Peter Abelard (1079–1142) quoted one passage of Sidonius’ poem 24 (ll. 39–43) in two different works: the seventh letter to his beloved Héloïse and his influential Theologia Christiana.28 Twelfth-century historians also felt irresistibly attracted to Sidonius, not only as a source of information but also as a fully fledged literary model. The chronicler Sigibert of Gembloux (in Brabant; c. 1030–1112) produced a curious verse rendition of Sidonius’ prose coda to his Carmen 22, thus paying tribute to one of Sidonius’ most idiosyncratic statements on style.29 Another chronicler, Rahewin (or Ragewin) of Freising (in Bavaria; d. c. 1175), went so far as to reproduce almost word for word Sidonius’ Ep. 1.2 (the portrait of Theoderic) at the end of the second book of his continuation of the Gesta Friderici Imperatoris (originally written by his master, Bishop Otto of Freising). This famous portrait, hugely influential in the medieval genre of the mirrors for princes (also known as specula principum or Fürstenspiegel), was thus applied to the description of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa with no mention whatsoever of its original author (Sidonius), who was simply referred to as ‘someone’ (quidam). Something similar occurred with the chronicler Ralph de Diceto (d. c. 1202), archdeacon of Middlesex and dean of St Paul’s Cathedral: he did not indicate Sidonius’ Ep. 1.7 as the source for the story of Arvandus contained in his Ymagines historiarum, even if he does name Sidonius elsewhere.30 Also in England, the Gesta regum Anglorum by the historian William of Malmesbury (c. 1080–1142) is peppered with borrowings from 24 25

26

27

28

29 30

De statu animae praef. (CSEL 11.20.17): veteris reparator eloquentiae. Panegyricus ad Petrum Venerabilem 71–72: arva tuis scriptis vernant Arverna, Sidoni, / et veteris linguae tu reparator eras, ‘Auvergne’s fields bloom with your writings, Sidonius, and you were the restorer of ancient speech.’ I take the text from Baret (1878) 104 n. 2. Cf. also PL 189.49B. Ep. 4.17 (= 111): Inde bonus et doctus vir Sidonius Arvernus episcopus, quorumdam vicia mordaci reprehensione irridens, inter alia quibus in eos invehitur: Procedunt, inquit, albati ad exequias, pullati ad nuptias, ostendens eos in tantum moribus et actu confusos, ut apparatum funereum nuptiali nuptialem funereo, perverso ordine permutarent [Sidon. Ep. 5.7.4], ‘then the good and learned Sidonius, bishop of the Auvergne, carping at the faults of some with biting criticism, among other things inveighs against them thus: “They go in white to funerals, in mourning to weddings”, showing them to be so muddled in mind and deed that they wantonly exchanged funeral for nuptial apparel, and nuptial for funeral.’ For the text see PL 189.334D. According to Wolff (2014c) 251 n. 10, an identical passage is found in Ep. 129 of Bernard of Clairvaux. Since Bernard and Peter the Venerable were contemporary, it is not obvious who wrote first and who copied whom. See PL 189.1010A: Iam decus Arvernum, quam [sic] tot virtutibus ornas, / nobis Sidoni, sancte vocate, veni, / et referens laudes quas sanctis exhibuisti, / more tibi solito perfida corda feri, / quae nobis laudes audent grunnire negandas / quando virtutis exigit has meritum, ‘come now at my bidding, holy Sidonius, ornament of the Auvergne, which you adorn with so many virtues, and, repeating the praise which you extended to the saints, in your accustomed way strike the treacherous hearts of those who dare deny me the praise which my exemplary merit deserves.’ I take this notice from Wolff (2014c) 251. See respectively Pagani (2004) 462 and Theologia Christiana 2.106: Ad hoc et illud Sidonii pertinet in Propenticon ad libellum suum ita loquentis: Qualis nec Tanaquil fuit nec illa / quam tu, Trecipitine, procreasti, / qualis nec Phrygiae dicata Vestae / quam contra satis Albulam tumentem / duxit virgineo ratem capillo [Sidon. Carm. 24.39–43], ‘to this also pertains what Sidonius says in his Envoi to the volume: “[a good wife, sharing her husband’s cares,] a woman surpassing Tanaquil and the daughter of Tricipitinus, and that votary of Phrygian Vesta who against the fiercely swelling waters of Tiber dragged the ship by her maiden hair”’. For the text of this poem see Curtius (1953) 539. Cf. also Sigibert’s De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 46. For further details, see Wolff (2014c) 252 n. 14.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 668

13/02/20 4:30 PM

669

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

Sidonius’ letters and Panegyric of Anthemius,31 much in the same way as the Policraticus and the Metalogicon by the English man of letters John of Salisbury (c. 1115–80),32 who, having studied in Paris under Peter Abelard, would end his days as bishop of Chartres. Historians like Guibert of Nogent (c. 1055–1124),33 Gerald of Wales (c. 1146–c. 1223),34 and Helinand of Froidmont (c. 1150–after 1229), or canonists like Stephen of Tournai (1128–1203), were also assiduous readers and occasional imitators of Sidonius. As convincingly proved by Faral (1946), Sidonius had an outstanding role in the literary theory of the time, particularly in Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s hugely influential treatises Poetria nova (in verse) and Documentum de arte versificandi (in prose). Both works propose Sidonius as a useful model for human descriptions (particularly for the descriptio a capite ad pedes, exemplified in his Ep. 1.2) and as a source of inspiration for all kind of enumerative rhetorical devices, such as congeries, versus recurrentes, versus applicati, etc. As a result, the portraits of Theoderic in Ep. 1.2 (laudatory) and of the parasite Gnatho in Ep. 3.13 (derogatory) were ceaselessly imitated in both Latin and vernacular medieval literatures,35 thus contributing to the consolidation of Sidonius as an undisputed master of style. But undoubtedly it was the poet Alan of Lille (before 1128–1202) who most furthered Sidonius’ literary reputation. Leaving aside a minor statement about Alan’s indebtedness to Sidonius’ writings (which presents some textual uncertainties),36 it is the third book of his renowned Anticlaudianus37 that transmits one of the most accurate and subtle depictions of Sidonius’ peculiar style: Illic Sidonii trabeatus sermo refulgens sidere multiplici splendet gemmisque colorum lucet, et in dictis depictus pavo resultat. Nunc tenuem gracili meditatus harundine Musam, nec tamen exanguis sermo ieiunia luget, nunc medium, nec in imma ruens, nec in ardua turgens, nunc tonat altiloquis describens seria verbis, nunc tamen inflato tumidus crepat ille boatu. 31 32

33

34 35

36

37

240

245

For a detailed account, see Wolff (2014c) 252 n. 11. See e.g. the quotation from Sidonius’ Ep. 7.9.5 in his Metalogicon 2.29: ut enim ait Sidonius, non est maior gloria dixisse quod noveris, quam siluisse quod nescias, ‘as Sidonius says: “It is quite as great a glory to be silent where you don’t know as to be vocal where you do know.”’ More references can be found in Wolff (2014c) 252 n. 12. Cf. e.g. his Historia quae inscribitur ‘Dei gesta per Francos’ 2.2: Annus itaque incarnati Verbi millesimus nonagesimus septimus properabat evolvi, cum presul idem valde frequens acceleravit convocare concilium, cui tandem in urbe Arvernica, scolasticissimo omnium presulum Sidonio gloriosa, dedit locum, cui tamen immutatae Claromonti constat esse vocabulum . . . Erat ibi spectare quam serena gravitate, ponderosa comitate presideret et, ut prefati Sidonii verbis utar, quam piperata facundia ad obiecta quaelibet papa disertissimus detonaret, ‘The year 1097 of the Incarnate Word quickly approached as the same bishop hastened to convene a very extensive council which he finally based in the town of Arvernum, famous for the most learned of all bishops, Sidonius (it is now generally called Clermont). It could be seen how he presided there with serene earnestness, impressive friendliness, and, to use the words of the above-mentioned Sidonius, with what “peppered fluency” [Sidon. Ep. 5.8.2] the eloquent prelate refuted every objection.’ See Wolff (2014c) 252 n. 13. A good example in vernacular is provided by the Spanish fourteenth-century Libro de buen amor (The Book of Good Love) by Juan Ruiz, the archpriest of Hita. According to Lida de Malkiel (1940), the description contained in its stanzas 1485–9 is clearly modelled on Sidonius’ portrait of Theoderic. I refer to Anticlaudianus 2.357: ut Soldius implicat, ‘condenses like Soldius’. Apparently, manuscripts offer three different readings of this personal name (Soldius, Solidius, and Solidus), none of which matches any specific historical personage. One gloss has Solinus, but it would be unmetrical (just like Solidius and Solidus). Sheridan (1973) 83 n. 78 holds that ‘the reference is most probably to Sidonius Apollinaris’, whose full name was Gaius Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius. The question remains open and unresolved. Anticlaudianus 3.240–7. My reference edition is that of Bossuat (1955).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 669

13/02/20 4:30 PM

670

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

The gleaming discourses of Sidonius, in consular dress, flash forth with many a star, and glitter with gems of colour and the painted peacock finds an echo in his words. Now he exercises his delicate Muse on a slender reed; yet it is not an anaemic discourse bewailing its hunger. Now he holds a middle course, neither falling to the depths nor swelling to the heights; now he thunders, as he treats serious matters in high-flown words; now in bombast he rumbles with loud, windy noise.38 Quite frequently, Alan indulged in an exercise of direct imitation – or even amplification – of Sidonius’ elaborate style. A good example is the unending enumeration of intellectual skills – each one listed together with its greatest ancient exponent – contained in Anticlaudianus 2.343–62, which clearly emulates and expands the famous catalogue of Sidonius’ letter 4.3.5–6:39 Ut Zeuxis pingit chorus hic, ut Milo figurat, ut Fabius loquitur, ut Tullius ipse perorat, ut Samius sentit, sapit ut Plato, quaerit ut Hermes, dividit ut Socrates, ut Zeno colligit, instat ut Brisso, studet ut Crisias, speculatur ut Argus, temporis excursus ut Caesar cogit, ut Athlas sydera perquirit, ut Zetus pondera librat, tanquam Chrysippus numerat, metitur ut alter Euclides, canit ut Phoebus, citharizat ut Orpheus, circinat ut Perdrix, ut Daedalus erigit arces, fabricat ut Cyclops, ut Lemnius arma monetat, instruit ut Seneca, blanditur ut Appius, urget ut Chato, succendit ut Curio, velat ut alter

38 39

345

350

355

This translation is adapted from Sheridan (1973) 102. I reproduce it in this note to allow quick comparison: Ad hoc unica singularisque doctrina et in diversarum rerum assertione monstrabilis, cui moris est de singulis artibus cum singulis artificibus philosophari, quaeque, si fors exigit, tenere non abnuit cum Orpheo plectrum cum Aesculapio baculum, cum Archimede radium cum Euphrate horoscopium, cum Perdice circinum cum Vitruvio perpendiculum quaeque numquam investigare destiterit cum Thalete tempora, cum Atlante sidera, cum Zeto pondera, cum Chrysippo numeros, cum Euclide mensuras. 6 Ad extremum nemo saeculo meo quae voluit affirmare sic valuit. Siquidem dum sese adversus eum, quem contra loquitur, exertat, morum ac studiorum linguae utriusque symbolam iure sibi vindicat. Sentit ut Pythagoras dividit ut Socrates, explicat ut Platon implicat ut Aristoteles, ut Aeschines blanditur ut Demosthenes irascitur, vernat ut Hortensius aestuat ut Cethegus, incitat ut Curio moratur ut Fabius, simulat ut Crassus dissimulat ut Caesar, suadet ut Cato dissuadet ut Appius persuadet ut Tullius, ‘In addition, we find here a learning peerless and unique, able to hold its own with distinction in many fields, a learning that is wont to reason about the several arts with their several masters, not declining, if need be, to hold the quill with Orpheus, the staff with Aesculapius, the rod with Archimedes, the horoscope with Euphrates, the compasses with Perdix, the plummet with Vitruvius; a learning that has never ceased to investigate times with Thales, stars with Atlas, weights with Zethus, numbers with Chrysippus, and measures with Euclid. (6) Lastly, no one in my age has shown the ability of my friend to establish points which he wished to prove; for when proceeding to refute an opponent he claims with good right the joint resources of his character and of his acquaintance with Greek and Latin lore. He makes judgements like Pythagoras, distinguishes like Socrates, unfolds like Plato, and enfolds like Aristotle; he cajoles like Aeschines and storms like Demosthenes, luxuriates like Hortensius, and seethes like Cethegus; incites like Curio, holds back like Fabius, simulates like Crassus and dissimulates like Caesar, advises like Cato, dissuades like Appius, and persuades like Cicero.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 670

13/02/20 4:30 PM

671

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

Perseus, ut Crassus simulans, ut Iulius alter dissimulans, ut Soldius implicat, explicat idem ut Naso, vernat ut Stacius, ut Maro dictat. Concipit, exponit, imitatur, gestat, adimplet Mercurii sensus, nostri Demosthenis iras, Ovidii flumen, Lucani fulmen, abyssum Virgilii, morsus Satyrae, Solonis asylum.

360

This band paints like Zeuxis, shapes like Milo, speaks like Fabius, perorates like Tullius himself, gives opinions like the Samian, philosophises like Plato, catechises like Hermes, makes distinctions like Socrates, draws conclusions like Zeno, perseveres like Brisso, studies like Critias, keeps watch like Argus, corrects time discrepancies like Caesar, investigates the stars like Atlas, balances like Zethus, deals with numbers like Chrysippus, measures like another Euclid, sings like Phoebus, plays the harp like Orpheus, draws circles like Perdix, constructs citadels like Daedalus, forges like Cyclops, fashions arms like the Lemnian, teaches like Seneca, flatters like Appius, insists like Cato, inflames like Curio, conceals like a second Perseus, pretends like Crassus, disguises like a second Julius, condenses like Soldius [Sollius?], explains like Naso, blooms like Statius, composes like Maro. It understands, explains, imitates, assumes, completes the capacities of Mercury, the rage of our own Demosthenes, the flow of Ovid, the flash of Lucan, the depth of Virgil, the sting of Satire, the refuge of Solon.40 The text continues with a series of congeries41 and versus applicati42 clearly redolent of Sidonius’ modus operandi. This further proves that Alan’s imitation of Sidonius was not an occasional exercise, but a central feature of his own style. But Alan of Lille was not alone. As Étienne Wolff has recently pointed out, the Spanish thirteenth-century writer Juan Gil de Zamora can also be ranked among the medieval admirers of Sidonius, whom he mentioned in a sequence in honour of the Virgin Mary as one of the five living incarnations of Rhetoric, together with Cicero, Quintilian, Symmachus, and Justinian – ‘une liste très proche de celle d’Alain de Lille’.43 It follows that even a century after Alan’s death the literary primacy of Sidonius remained largely undisputed.

3 The Fourteenth Century: Sidonius and the Emergence of Humanism After some eight hundred years during which his visibility varies but the remarks of readers are overwhelmingly admiring, the first half of the fourteenth century marked a significant change

40 41

42

43

This translation is adapted from Sheridan (1973) 80–3. See l. 359: concipit, exponit, imitatur, gestat, adimplet, ‘understands, explains, imitates, assumes, completes’; l. 365: ordinat, iniungit, iubet, imperat, orat, ‘arranges, charges, bids, commands, begs’; l. 369: terre spacium, mare, nubila, sydera, celum, ‘the extent of the earth, the sea, the stars, the clouds, the heavens.’ On Sidonius’ penchant for congeries, see Hernández Lobato (2012a) 384–9. See l. 367: corpore, mente, fide, studeat, desudet, anhelet, ‘should immediately, in body, in mind and faithfulness, enthuse, sweat, pant.’ On the impact of Sidonius’ versus applicati on medieval poetic practice, see Faral (1946) 12–14. ‘A list very close to that by Alan of Lille’: Wolff (2014c) 255.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 671

13/02/20 4:30 PM

672

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

in the history of Sidonius’ reception, brought about by the progressive emergence of a new attitude towards the legacy of classical Antiquity – the far-reaching cultural movement known as Italian humanism. This new attitude was prone to call into question the suitability of certain authors as legitimate literary models. The key figure of this cultural transformation, Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch; 1304–74), was the first author to openly challenge Sidonius’ authority. Given that Petrarch’s ambivalent stance towards Sidonius has already been explored in depth by Silvia Condorelli (2004b), here I shall limit myself to summarising her conclusions and to suggesting some new interpretations of the textual material that she provides us with. The key text in this respect is the first of Petrarch’s epistles (Fam. 1.1.32), in which the humanist condemned the unintelligibility of Sidonius’ over-elaborate style and denounced his alleged derision of Cicero, Petrarch’s most admired epistolary model. Nam Sidonii temeritatem, fateor, admirari vix sufficio, nisi forte temerarius ipse sim, qui temerarium illum dicam, dum sales eius, seu tarditatis meae, seu illius stili obice, seu fortassis – nam unumquodque possibile est – scripturae vitio non satis intelligo. Unum utique non me fugit, irrisum et a Sidonio Ciceronem . . . ille tamen adducit nescio quem Iulianum Titianum et nescio quos Frontonianos suae irrisionis auctores. For I confess that I struggle to admire the boldness of Sidonius, unless it is I who am bold in calling him bold without completely understanding his witticisms, either through the dullness of my understanding or the obstacle of his style, or perhaps – as is equally possible – through flaws in his own writing. One thing, in all events, is clear to me: that Sidonius mocked Cicero . . . he nonetheless exhibits a certain Julianus Titianus and some Frontoniani or other as authorities for his mockery. Curiously enough, Petrarch utterly misunderstood the only passage of Sidonius’ works which he was sure of having fully comprehended (sales eius . . . non satis intelligo. Unum utique non me fugit, irrisum et a Sidonio Ciceronem). In fact, Sidonius’ prefatory letter did not deride Cicero as an epistolary model, but merely stated the futility of any attempt at emulating his unbeatable and inimitable style.44 Equally curiously, this misunderstanding triggered a centuries-long controversy on the interpretation of this passage, which immediately became a stumbling block for many of Europe’s most accomplished intellectuals.45 But Petrarch’s dismissal of Sidonius’ writing was more apparent than real. As Silvia Condorelli has convincingly proved, the humanist not only was acquainted with Sidonius’ texts but even imitated them within important programmatic contexts. That is precisely the case

44

45

The text implicitly discussed by Petrarch corresponds to Sidon. Ep. 1.1.1–2: Diu praecipis, domine maior, summa suadendi auctoritate, sicuti es in his quae deliberabuntur consiliosissimus, ut, si quae litterae paulo politiores varia occasione fluxerunt, prout eas causa persona tempus elicuit, omnes retractatis exemplaribus enucleatisque uno volumine includam, Quinti Symmachi rotunditatem, Gai Plinii disciplinam maturitatemque vestigiis praesumptuosis insecuturus. (2) nam de Marco Tullio silere melius puto, quem in stilo epistulari nec Iulius Titianus sub nominibus illustrium feminarum digna similitudine expressit. propter quod illum ceteri quique Frontonianorum utpote consectaneum aemulati, cur veternosum dicendi genus imitaretur, oratorum simiam nuncupaverunt. After the praise of Symmachus’ and Pliny’s style in para. 1, para. 2 translates: ‘Marcus Tullius, indeed, I think I had better not mention, for even Julius Titianus in his fictitious letters of famous women failed to produce a satisfactory copy of that writer’s epistolary style, and for his pains was called “ape of the orators” by all the other disciples of Fronto, who were, as might be expected, spiteful towards this member of their own school for copying an outworn mode of writing.’ On this polemic, see Hernández Lobato (2014d). Cf. also Köhler (1995) 106.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 672

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

673

of Petrarch’s aforementioned prefatory epistle and even of the first sonnet of his Canzoniere, both intertextually modelled on a famous passage of Sidonius’ Carm. 9.46 Although this deliberate and undisguised use of Sidonius’ texts47 might seem a blatant contradiction of what Petrarch advocated, it actually matched his sophisticated theory of imitation, as set out in Fam. 22.2.12–14. According to this text, minor authors were more likely to be imitated verbatim by Petrarch than the big names of Roman classicism, whose words were so deeply ingrained in his mind that he was virtually unable to distinguish whether they were his or theirs and therefore felt absolutely free to modify them at will. As DellaNeva remarks in this regard, ‘this passage [Fam. 22.2.12–14] seems to indicate that Petrarch – and presumably other Renaissance authors – may make a more studied and calculated use of secondary models, whom he might choose to imitate deliberately, than he does of major models, whose works and words he has thoroughly assimilated or “digested”, to use his own image’.48 Sidonius’ works were also known and even appreciated by several contemporaries of Petrarch’s, such as his Veronese correspondent Guglielmo da Pastrengo, probably born in the last decade of the thirteenth century. In fact, Guglielmo did not hesitate to list Sidonius within the commented catalogue of all-time literary luminaries contained in the first and most voluminous part of his De originibus rerum (composed at some point before 1350).49 Sidonius’ influence during this period is also traceable outside Italy. The English bibliophile Richard de Bury (1286–1345) possessed a copy of his works in his well-furnished library,50 whereas the Avignon-based intellectual Giovanni Colonna bears witness to Sidonius’ enduring presence in fourteenth-century France,51 a country which had witnessed the peak of his medieval glories. The second half of the Trecento was both culturally and politically dominated by a new key figure, whose not inconsiderable acquaintance with Sidonius’ works further confirms the persistence of the latter’s traces in that time’s cultural scene: Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406), chancellor of the Republic of Florence and probably the greatest living exponent of the incipient humanistic erudition. We know for a fact that he possessed an exemplar of Sidonius’ complete works by 1385. It was Salutati himself who in his Ep. 6.3, written around that year,52 46

47

48 49

50

51

52

See respectively Condorelli (2004b) 601–2 and 605–8 (including a discussion on the possible influence of Sidonius’ so-called ‘poetical will’, contained in his Ep. 9.16, on Petrarch’s famous prefatory sonnet). For instance, his use of the metaphor of the ape (simia) in Fam. 23.19.13–14 is clearly redolent of Sidonius’ Ep. 1.1.2, as shown by Condorelli (2004b) 601–2. On this metaphor, coined by Sidonius, and its success during the Middle Ages (from John of Salisbury to Dante), see Curtius (1953) 538–40. DellaNeva (1989) 451. Though he makes a passing reference to Sidonius’ poems, he seems to be much more acquainted with Sidonius’ letters, on which he states: SYDONIVS Arvernius episcopus Epistolarum grande volumen ad diversos strabo [sic: lege scabro] sed erudito sermone condidit [f. 68 apud Sabbadini (1996) vol. 1, 10], ‘Sidonius, bishop of Clermont, composed a comprehensive volume of letters to various persons in a rough but erudite language.’ See Philob. 474 (apud Sabbadini (1996) vol. 1, 8): Restat ergo ut ignoratis poesibus ignoretur Hieronymus, Augustinus, Boetius, Lactantius, Sydonius et plerique alii quorum letaniam prolixum capitulum non teneret, ‘[details are essential to the whole:] So, to round up, neglecting their poetry we won’t mention Jerome, Augustine, Boethius, Lactantius, Sidonius, and several others, a complete list of whom would exceed even a large chapter.’ According to Sabbadini (1996) vol. 2, 54–5, Sidonius’ letters (perhaps also his poems) were among Colonna’s scarce first-hand readings, unlike Horace, Ovid, Pliny the Younger, Plautus, Persius, Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, Solinus, Macrobius or Maximianus, who are not even mentioned in his Liber de viris illustribus. Many other relevant authors, though listed in this work, seem to have been only indirectly known through external references, not directly read by Colonna. On the exact dating of this letter, see Novati (1891–1911) vol. 2, 141, inconclusively questioned by Ullman (1955).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 673

13/02/20 4:30 PM

674

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

had requested his friend Bernardo da Moglio to provide him with a volume of Sidonius’ oeuvre, which he was eager to read in its entirety: Id quod ante omnia volo Sidonius, Ennodius et Symmachus sunt.53 But Sidonius was already occasionally quoted in Salutati’s letters fourteen years before he came into possession of that manuscript. These early appearances were always linked to the humanist debate about the need (or not) to postulate the existence of ‘two Senecas’, on which Salutati consistently invoked the authority of Sidonius Carm. 9.54 Later on, Sidonius’ testimony would be used to justify Salutati’s condemnation of the medieval form of address vos to the detriment of the classical tu in his private correspondence.55 Apart from these philological debates, the chancellor’s interest in Sidonius himself increased and grew wider over time, as he got to know the intricacies of his oeuvre better. Salutati’s attitude towards literary imitation had always been eclectic.56 Indeed, he held in high esteem what he called the dictatores medii, that is, the writers subsequent to Cicero and prior to the High Middle Ages, a vast group of auctores spanning from Livy until the seventh-century ecclesiastic Julian of Toledo.57 This made him exceptionally receptive to Sidonius and many of his contemporaries, who were perceived as legitimate continuators and even restorers of Cicero’s unbeatable eloquence: Hieronymus, Augustinus, Ennodius, Sidonius, . . . et alii quamplures redivivam quodammodo facundiam reduxerunt; sive . . . continuatam . . . tenuerunt (‘Jerome, Augustine, Ennodius, Sidonius . . . and very many others in a sense brought back and resuscitated eloquence, or rather . . . continued and perpetuated it’).

53

54 55

56

57

‘What I desire above all are Sidonius, Ennodius, and Symmachus.’ Ten years after this letter – in 1395 – Salutati again addressed his friend da Moglio (Ep. 9.10), asking him to complete certain passages lacking in his copy of Sidonius’ works: Video quod Sidonium habes: michi vero parum deficit. Deprecor ergo te quatenus complementum diligenter manu tua scriptum in membranulis et spacio iuxta mensuram incluse cartule, in qua capitulum et ultima voluminis mei carmina scripta sunt, mittere non graveris, ut beneficio tuo quod michi desit accedat, ‘I see you have a Sidonius. Now my copy is slightly deficient. I therefore beg you not to mind sending the missing parts, carefully written in your own hand on nice parchment, and with a margin in accordance with the layout of the attached copy in which the heading and the last poems of my book have been written, so that by your kindness what I lack may be added.’ See Salut. Ep. 3.8 (written in 1371) and 5.18 (dated to 1383). Salut. Ep. 8.10: miratus sum quod me fueris pluraliter allocutus. . . . Dic, queso, quem antiquorum adduces, qui non amicum dicam vel pares, sed etiam dominos et mundi principes non singulari numero compellaverit? . . . Lege Gregorium atque Sidonium; lege fontem eloquentie Ciceronem Pliniumque Secundum; . . . quem dabis qui pluralitatis adulationem exhibeat?, ‘I was puzzled that you addressed me in the plural. Tell me whom of the ancients you can adduce who did not address not only a friend or his equals, but also his masters and the rulers of the world, in the singular? Read Gregory and Sidonius; read the source of eloquence, Cicero, and Pliny the Younger; whom can you point out for using the adulatory plural?’ Cf. e.g. a 1405 letter of his in response to Leonardo Bruno’s Ep. 10.5, who had reproached Salutati for not having observed the classical epistolary rules: Sed antiquitatem sic semper censui imitandam, quod pura non prodeat, sed aliquid semper afferat novitatis. Scis me non ignorare morem nostri celeberrimi Ciceronis, meque libenter verbis uti suis. Sed aliud est referre, aliud imitari. Habet aliquid imitantis proprium imitatio, nec totum est eius, quem imitamur; relatio vero totum solet exprimere quem referimus, ‘I, however, have always opined that Antiquity should be imitated in such a way that it does not come out simple, but should always bring something new. You know that I’m well aware of the style of our famous Cicero, and that I like to use his words. But citing is one thing, imitating another. Imitation always contains something of the imitator, and is not identical with whom we imitate. The idea of citation, on the other hand, is that it reproduces to the letter whom we cite.’ The text is taken from Novati (1891–1911) vol. 4, 148. On this threefold periodisation of Latin literature (divided into dictatores prisci, dictatores medii, and late medieval authors) see Salutati’s epistle 9.9, from which the following texts, corresponding to Novati (1891–1911) vol. 3, 76–91, are taken.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 674

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

675

According to Salutati’s Ep. 9.9, Cicero and Sidonius were deemed to belong to the same cultural fabric. It was only well after the end of Late Antiquity that Salutati detected the existence of a radical split (tanta . . . iactura) or transformation (mutatio), which made medieval authors incomparably worse than their prisci or medii counterparts: post quos tanta rei huius iactura facta est tantaque mutatio, ut Maronico versiculo liceat conqueri quod, ex illo fluere ac retro sublapsa referri [Aen. 2.169] eloquentia visa sit; . . . non decet tamen ipsos priscis vel mediis illis dictatoribus comparare, a quibus tamen longe magis stilo quam temporibus discesserunt (‘after them there occurred such a loss and such a change that one can rightly complain with Vergil’s line, that eloquence seemed “from then on to slip and to be carried backwards” [Vergil, Aen. 2.169 speaking about the hopes of the Greeks] . . . it is inappropriate to compare these to the ancients or those authors in between; rather they are far more distant from the latter in style than they are in time’). Thus, it is no surprise that a distinctively Sidonian flavour – enriched with occasional borrowings from his works – pervaded many of Salutati’s epigrams of illustrious men decorating a room of the Palazzo Vecchio, particularly those in praise of Cicero and Claudian.58 Similarly, Sidonius’ Carm. 13, which equates the emperor Majorian with Hercules himself, was continuously quoted in Salatuti’s last treatise, meaningfully entitled De laboribus Herculis.59 Last but not least, the chancellor’s Ep. 9.10 is better understood as an exercise of stylistic imitation of Sidonius’ letter 4.3, addressed to Claudianus Mamertus.60 Salutati himself clearly declared his intention of imitating that letter (Nec minor sit hec domini nostri laus quam Arvernatis illa commendatio, ‘this encomium of our lord [cardinal Reatino] is hopefully not inferior to that homage by the Arvernian [to his friend, the priest Claudianus]’) and confessed his admiration for the three main features of Sidonius’ controversial style: its Asianist profusion (tam effuse), its lexical and stylistic poikilia (tam floride), and its formal exuberance (tamque exuberanter).61

58

59

60 61

Epigrams 20 and 9, respectively. All these poems accompanied portraits in fresco of the corresponding uiri illustres. On the iconographic programme see Rubinstein (1987). On the epigrams see Hankey (1959) and Guerrini (1993). For a detailed analysis of Sidonius’ presence in these poems, see Hernández Lobato (2014c) 69–80. See De laboribus Herculis 3.8.4–5 (Ullman (1951) 185–6): Et Sidonius ait: ‘Et licet in nuda torvus confregerit ulna ille Cleonee guttura rava fere’ (Sidon. Carm. 13.3–4). “Rava” dixit, id est “rabida” vel “fulva”. Maro vero noster: ‘Tu Cresia mactas prodigia et vastum Nemee sub rupe leonem’ (Verg. Aen. 8.294–5), ubi Servius inquit Nemeam esse silvam iuxta Thebas, in qua Hercules interfecit leonem. Et Ovidius scripsit: ‘His elisa iacet moles Nemea lacertis’ (Ov. Met. 9.197) . . . Ex his ergo patet Herculem duos interfecisse leones, Theumesium scilicet et Cleoneum sive Nemeum, et hunc ultimum non armis sed nuda manu confectum, ut innuit Cordubensis, Sidonius, atque Naso; 3.9.3 (Ullman (1951) 192): Sydonius autem cum prima Ovidii traditione concordat inquiens: ‘Et quamquam ardenti gladio vix straverit Ydram, cum duplices pararet vulnere mors animas’ (Sidon. Carm. 13.5–6); 3.18.2 (Ullman (1951) 271): Nam et Sidonius scribit: ‘Captivumque ferens silva ex Erimanthide monstrum exarmata feri riserit ora suis’ (Sidon. Carm. 13.7–8); 3.18.7 (Ullman (1951) 273): Nam ferens Hercules ad Euristeum aprum exarmatum, ut Sidonius inquit (in allusion to Sidon. Carm. 13.7–8), humeris propriis, ut Boetius ait, quid aliud significat nisi virum sapientem non solum mente talis passionis vitium superasse sed id operum evidentia demonstrare? For an analysis, see Hernández Lobato (2014c) 87–90. Novati (1891–1911) vol. 3, 96: Ut quicquid cum Sidonio de prelibati nostri domini [sc. cardinal Reatino] virtutibus predices et scientia membratim et particulariter spatieris, totum sine dubitatione sub iuris prudentia comprendatur. Nec minor sit hec domini nostri laus quam Arvernatis illa commendatio, qua tam effuse, tam floride tamque exuberanter in sui Claudiani presbiteri Viennensis laudationibus evagatur, ‘Consequently, what you say with Sidonius about the virtues of our lord, whose acquaintance you made, and eruditely expand upon, piecemeal and in detail, belongs no doubt entirely to jurisprudence. Nor, hopefully, is this praise of mine of our lord inferior to that homage by the Arvernian, in which he elaborates so profusely, so floridly, and so exuberantly upon the praise of his friend Claudianus, the priest of Vienne.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 675

13/02/20 4:30 PM

676

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

4 The Fifteenth Century and the Revival of Late Antique Literature The fifteenth century opened up a promising era in the history of Sidonius’ reception. His ever-increasing influence was particularly apparent in the works of the Tuscan humanist Angelo Poliziano (1454–94), whose personal poetics was very close to that of late antique writers such as Ausonius or Sidonius Apollinaris. He was in a sense the Renaissance ‘reinventor’ of late antique literary aesthetics62 – his cult of variation and imitative eclecticism, his constant use of irony and negative catalogue, his tireless search for lexical rarities, his taste for minor and mixed genres, and his obsessive attention to the detail to the detriment of the inner coherence of the whole can be easily understood as a revival of the peculiar modus operandi of the period. This undisguised enthusiasm for the aesthetic legacy of Late Antiquity cannot only be deduced from his literary praxis; it is also explicitly vindicated in some of his theoretical writings. ‘We should not rush to call worse what is simply different’ (neque autem statim deterius dixerimus quod diversum sit), he boldly states in one of his thought-provoking manifestoes.63 After all, it is not a matter of corruption or decadence (non tam corruptam atque depravatam illam [sc. eloquentiam]), but simply the result of an enriching stylistic transformation (dicendi mutatum genus). Poliziano even goes so far as to maintain that it is not rarely that late authors are even better (priora in his aliqua multoque potiora) than their classical counterparts, thus indulging in an open praise of all those stylistic features in which the audacious ‘baroqueness’ of late antique literature excels Classicism: ‘There is certainly more refinement in later writers, more frequent enjoyment, many aphorisms, many adornments, no laboured reasoning, no complex structures; all in all, they are not only correct, but also powerful, energetic, lively, and full of blood and colour.’64 Although Sidonius was not exactly one of Poliziano’s favourite authors, the former’s presence did pervade almost every single facet of the latter’s writing, most particularly his philological treatises, his epistolary prose, and his Latin poems. A good example of Poliziano’s philological interest in Sidonius can be found in the later writer’s Miscellaneorum centuria prima65 and secunda,66 in which passages from Sidonius’ works are constantly quoted and discussed as reliable sources for linguistic, lexical and literary issues. As for the letters, it is highly significant that Poliziano decided to model nothing less than his programmatic epistle on Sidonius’ two main literary programmes: on the one hand, on Sidonius’ Carm. 9, whose controversial negative enumeration of everything that the reader was not going to find is here ingeniously

62

63

64

65

66

For general overviews on late antique aesthetics and poetics see Roberts (1989), Hernández Lobato (2012a), Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017). The texts quoted in this paragraph correspond to Poliziano’s laus Quintiliani and are taken from Garin (1952) 870–1. Maior certe cultus in secundis est, crebrior voluptas, multae sententiae, multi flores, nulli sensus tardi, nulla iners structura, omninoque non tantum sani quam et fortes sunt omnes et laeti et alacres et pleni sanguinis atque coloris. See, for instance, the last part of ch. 30 of his Miscellanearum centuria prima, meaningfully entitled Vocabula inventu rara nec tamen singularia: cucuma, proseucha, scruta, ‘Rare but not unique words I came across: “cauldron”, “an oratory”, “trash”’ (I take the text from Gruytere (1602) 44): Sed et scruta dixit Horatius quidem semel in hoc versiculo: Vilia vendentem tunicato scruta popello [Hor. Ep. 1.7.65]. Dixit iterum quantum videam Sidonius Apollinaris libro epistularum septimo per haec verba: Nunc quaedam frivola, nunc ludo apta virgineo scruta donabat [Sidon. Ep. 7.2.6, ‘he would give her from time to time some trifles or some frippery suitable for a girl’s amusement’]. See esp. chs. 36 (Deoia et deosis) and 48 (Uxor Statii).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 676

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

677

adapted and imitated;67 on the other hand, on Sidonius’ Ep. 1.1, whose apparent derision of Cicero’s letters is explicitly vindicated from Petrarch’s harsh criticism:68 Occurret aliquis forsitan, qui Ciceronianas [sc. meas epistolas] esse neget, huic ego dicam (nec sine auctore tamen)69 in epistolari stilo silendum prorsus esse de Cicerone . . . Optaret alius, ut oratorem Plinium saperem, quod huius et maturitas et disciplina laudatur.70 Ego contra totum illud aspernari me dicam Plinii saeculum. Sed et si Plinium cuiquam redolebo, tuebor ita me, quod Sidonius Apollinaris, non omnino pessimus auctor, palmam Plinio tribuit in epistolis . . . Symmachum si cui referre videbor, non pudebit, ut cuius et brevitas celebretur et rotunditas.71 Perhaps someone will come forward to tell me that [my letters] are not Ciceronian. To him, I shall say (and not without an author to back me up) that, where epistolary style is concerned, it is better to preserve an absolute silence about Cicero . . . Someone else would wish me to savour of Pliny the orator, since his maturity and learning are praised. I, on the contrary, shall contend that I utterly disdain Pliny’s age. But if there should happen to be someone for whom I smack of Pliny, then I shall defend myself in the following manner: by citing Sidonius Apollinaris, by no means a tawdry author, who, in the epistolary genre, awards the palm to Pliny . . . If someone finds that I resemble Symmachus, I shall not feel shamed, he being an author whose concision and rounded style were celebrated. Last but not least, Sidonius occasionally inspired Poliziano’s Latin poetry, as in the case of his poem Manto (also known as Silva in Bucolicon Vergilii enarratione pronuntiata), structurally, metrically, and intertextually modelled on Sidonius’ panegyric on the emperor Anthemius and its preface (Carm. 1 and 2).72 It is as if Poliziano had wished to demonstrate that the praise of a late antique emperor composed by the most baroque and anti-classical of all Latin authors could be easily transformed into the praise of the very incarnation of Roman Classicism: Vergil. These playful exhibitions are indeed in accordance with Poliziano’s own ideal of an imitative eclecticism.73 Poliziano’s vindication of Sidonius contributed in no small measure to Sidonius’ popularisation in the Quattrocento scene. Traces of his work can be found in poets like Girolamo Carbone (c. 1465–post 1527) and Teofilo Folengo (1491–1544).74 Sidonius’ works also raised 67

68

69

70 71 72

73 74

In fact, much in the same vein as Sidonius’ Carm. 9, Poliziano’s programmatic letter (Ep. 1.1) is playfully conceived as an ironic negative catalogue, mockingly refusing (though praising at the same time) all imaginable Greek and Latin epistolary models – he mentions Cicero, Pliny, Symmachus, Sidonius, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Cassius Dio, Brutus, Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, Alciphron, Julian, Libanius, Lucian, Seneca, Dionysius, and Artemon. This deliberate paradox, while paying homage to Sidonius’ highly unconventional masterpiece, ultimately suggests the idea of a non-sectarian eclectic imitation, indefatigably pursued by Poliziano himself. There is an interesting re-enactment of this discussion in Gilles Ménage’s writings (1613–92), on which see van Waarden, ch. 23, sect. 1.2, in this volume. In clear allusion to Sidon. Ep. 1.1.2 nam de Marco Tullio silere melius puto, ‘Marcus Tullius, indeed, I had better not mention.’ Cf. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.1 Gai Plinii disciplinam maturitatemque, ‘Gaius Plinius’ highly developed artistry’. Cf. Sidon. Ep. 1.1.1 Quinti Symmachi rotunditatem, ‘Quintus Symmachus’ rounded style’. For more on the presence of Sidonius in this poem, see Bausi (1992), Galand-Hallyn (2009) 313–14, Hernández Lobato (2014c) 101–5. Poliziano’s stance on imitation has been studied and contextualised by McLaughlin (1995) 187–216. On their occasional debts to Sidonius see Hernández Lobato (2014c) 106.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 677

13/02/20 4:30 PM

678

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

the philological interest of scholars like Aulo Giano Parrasio (1470–c. 1521)75 and were kept on the shelves of the prestigious Florentine library of San Marco.76 Other relevant figures in possession of Sidonius’ works include the humanist and bishop Francesco Pizzolpasso (c. 1375–1443),77 Pope Nicholas V (1397–1455)78 and his erudite agent Enoch of Ascoli (c. 1400–c. 1457),79 the Carmelite reformer Battista Mantovano (1447–1516), the author of the famous Oration on the Dignity of Man Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1470–1533),80 and others. Sidonius’ success outside Italy is confirmed by his prominent appearance in the extravagant Visión deleytable, a Sidonius-style ‘encyclopedia in the form of an allegorical novel’ – as Curtius ((1953) 542) puts it – written in a florid Spanish by Alfonso de la Torre. In this 1440 text, Sidonius and Vergil, considered equally authoritative, appear side by side as the two principal models for poetry. In fact, they are the only two poets to be included in the literary canon contained in chapter III (‘On rhetoric and its inventors’).81 This peculiar interest in Sidonius’ poems rather than in his prose seems to derive from medieval sources, most particularly Alan of Lille.82 Even humanists officially opposed to Poliziano’s eclecticism had begun to pay attention to Sidonius’ works. That is the case of the Venetian philologist Ermolao Barbaro (1454–93), apparently sympathetic to the emerging Ciceronianism. In his Castigationes Plinianae, he shows a perfect mastery of the works of Sidonius, whom he ‘would not call a bad Latin writer, despite his ignorance of Greek language’ (quem non dicam . . . Latinitatis malum auctorem fuisse . . . sed Graecas litteras nescisse).83 This in-depth acquaintance with Sidonius’ oeuvre allows the Venetian humanist to detect several metrical mistakes in Sidonius’ scansion of Greek words,84 which should be carefully avoided by future imitators.85 Nevertheless, Barbaro openly recommends 75

76

77 78

79

80

81

82 83 84 85

See, for instance, the use of Sidonius’ authority – following Poliziano’s debate on the term scruta – in a passage of Parrasio’s De rebus per epistolam quaesitis, posthumously published in 1567. The text is reproduced in Hernández Lobato (2014c) 101. Namely, Florence, BM, San Marco 554 (olim 949) (#16 in Dolveck’s census in this volume, ch. 16), on which see Branca (1983) 115 and 181 n. 37. See Sabbadini (1996) 120–2. The pope was in possession of the codex Vaticaus Latinus 1661 (#69 in Dolveck’s census in this volume, ch. 16), containing Sidonius’ complete works, as shown by Manfredi (1994) 445. See Mastrorosa (2000, 2002). The influence of Sidonius on Leon Battista Alberti, who was sent a copy of Sidon. Ep. 2.2 by his friend Enoch of Ascoli, is much more questionable. See on this Mastrorosa (2002) 209–18. Anyway, this episode clearly points to an independent circulation of Ep. 2.2 among certain humanistic circles. Mantovano left a written record that he had borrowed an exemplar of Sidonius’ epistles from his friend Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. For further details, see di Santa Teresa (1955). ‘Allí los cantares de Sidonio tanta tenían de dulçura que paresçía otra ruyseñor entre las aves menudas. Allí el vaticinio e florido eloquio de Virgilio, tanto exçedía en ornato e apostura a los otros cantares, que senblava otro pago en la exçelençia de la pintura e otro çisne en la modulaçión de las aves.’ (‘There the songs of Sidonius held so much sweetness that he appeared like a new nightingale among the lesser birds. There the prophetic and florid eloquence of Vergil so excelled other songs in adornment and elegance, that it seemed like a new field in the excellence of painting or like a new swan in the musical scale of birds.’) The text is taken from García López (1991) 127. On the presence of Alan of Lille in the Visión deleytable, see Crawford (1913). Castigationes Plinianae 1.4.184. The text is taken from Pozzi (1973) 275. On Sidonius’ metrics, see Condorelli in this volume, ch. 14. See in particular his Castigationes Plinianae 1.6.114. I take the text from Pozzi (1973) 506: Primam in Ctesiphonte Sidonius Apollinaris corripuit, homo aetate sua mediocriter doctus acutusque si litteras Graecas paulo plus novisset, etiam si rythmos comicos et Menandri fabulas in manibus habuisse praedicet, ‘With [the scansion of] Ctesiphon, Sidonius Apollinaris committed his first error – a reasonably educated and intelligent man in his times, if he had known Greek literature a little better, although he professes having had to hand the rhythms of comedy and Menander’s plays’ [Ep. 4.12.1]: Haec tessera castris in Ctesiphonta datur. Totum hunc tibi cessimus axem [Carm. 2.450–51]; nec in

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 678

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

679

reading Sidonius’ books, attributing their occasional mistakes to the cultural limitations of the time when they were composed, not to lack of talent of their author, ending an indictment of prosodical shortcomings with the words: ‘Well, do I think this should be corrected and deleted? Absolutely not. He must be read entirely, not approved of entirely. These are obviously the flaws of his times, not of the man: we must forgive them, not condone them.’86

5 The Turn-of-the-Century Crisis: The Battle for a New Literary Standard The unprejudiced vindication of the late antique authors fostered by Angelo Poliziano found its most radical expression in the School of Bologna, which dominated the humanistic scene during the last decades of the fifteenth century. The heart of this intellectual movement, called ‘Apuleianism’ by modern scholars because of its preference for the flowery – and sometimes even cryptic – Latin of Apuleius and other later authors, was undoubtedly Filippo Beroaldo the Elder (1453–1505), whom Carlo Dionisotti rightly considers the greatest Italian humanist after the death of Poliziano.87 The most audacious, talented, and ambitious of Beroaldo’s disciples, the Bolognese philologist Giovan Battista Pio (c. 1475–1540),88 would become in a few years the champion of Sidonius’ cause and the very centre of a crucial humanistic dispute, on which the literary reputation of Sidonius would depend. Pio’s love affair with Sidonius must have started quite early, most probably during his time as a student at the University of Bologna. In 1496, after one year as a lecturer at his alma mater, the twenty-one-year-old humanist decided to move to Mantua, in order to try his luck at the flourishing court of the Gonzagas. There, he was immediately appointed to the post of private tutor of the marchioness Isabella d’Este, who was utterly fascinated by Pio’s bombastic Latin style, full of exotic terms, recherché vocabulary, and picturesque turns of phrase, in the best Sidonian tradition.89 The same year saw the publication of his Annotationes priores, a philological miscellany in which he announced that he was preparing an edition with commentary of the complete works of Sidonius Apollinaris: ‘Sidonius calls a dozy and weak style “outworn” in the first book of his epistles, a beautiful and elegant work that I will shortly be publishing with an abbreviated version of my commentary.’90

86 87 88 89 90

hoc uno tantum labitur, sed in illo: Quicquid Pythagoras Democritus Heraclitusque [Carm. 2.171]; item illo: Quae vel Aristoteles partibus membra loquendi Argumentosis dat retia syllogismis [Carm. 2.174–5]; item illo in Claudiani morte: Psalmorum modulator et phonascus [Ep. 4.11.6 (= Carm. 30) v. 13]; item illo: Sic placidam Paphiem servare diastema quintum [Carm. 15.64]; in Heraclito producitur penultima, ut in paraclito: Ἡράκλειτος, παράκλητος, in syllogismo corripitur secunda, συλλογισμός; in phonasco producitur prima; in diastamate penultima: dicitur enim διάστημα. Est et in Ioanne quem Graeci Charitonymon interpretantur litera ‘o’ longa: Ἰωάννης, quo nomine utuntur et Iosephus [AI 11.147; 297–302 etc.] et Cornelius Tacitus [Hist. 5.12] et L. Appuleius [Apol. 90]; ipse tamen Sidonius brevem facit eam syllabam: Qua nunc Helias, nunc te iubet ire Ioannes [Carm. 16.99]; non sic alii poetae Christiani (de receptis loquor). Sed nec in Latino castus ei plane sermo est, ut qui dicat: Nam famae pelagus sidere curro suo [Carm. 3.6]; et alibi ad hunc modum et prosa et vorsa oratione praeceps. Quid igitur? in ordinem redigendum abolendumque ducimus? Minime vero, minime; sed legendus totus, probandus non totus; nam vitia saeculi videntur esse, non hominis: ignoscenda sunt, non ferenda. Castigationes Plinianae 1.6.114 (quoted at length in the preceding note). Dionisotti (2003) 71–2. On Apuleianism see D’Amico (1984). On Pio’s life see del Nero (1981). On his professional profile see Dionisotti (2003) 70–113 and Benedetti (2004a). On this curious relationship, see Luzio (1887). On Pio’s teaching methods, see also Benedetti (2004b). Apud Gruytere (1602) 358: Veternosum dicendi genus somnulentum et ignavum Sidonius Apollinaris appellat in epistolarum libro primo, quem libellum graphicum et lepidissimum propediem cum epitome interpretationis nostrae sumus edituri.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 679

13/02/20 4:30 PM

680

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

The next year Pio left his pleasant life in Mantua to move to Milan, a more suitable location for producing and distributing printed works. It was there that he conceived and developed the most ambitious and radical project of philological renewal of the time, aimed at vindicating peripheral and non-classical Latinity as a legitimate expression of the language’s richness and variety. The three pillars of this risky venture were Pio’s commented editions of Sidonius Apollinaris (1498), Fulgentius (1498), and Plautus (1500), generally excluded from the Renaissance canon as exponents of marginal and second-rate writing. The project was completed with the edition of three ancient lexicographers (namely Varro, Nonius Marcellus, and Festus) and of Apicius’ famous cookbook, which provided a huge number of technical, archaic, or simply unusual terms to be returned to the inexhaustible treasure of the Latin language. What Pio was trying to achieve with this ambitious editorial project was to lay the foundations of a new literary canon, based on the complicated, recherché, and baroque Latinity of the archaic and late authors, traditionally disregarded as unworthy of study and imitation.91 But the issue at stake was also Pio’s own position as a humanist: if he succeeded in canonising Sidonius and Fulgentius, he would automatically become a member of the cultural elite entitled to decide what literary works were to be cherished, preserved, and emulated during the following centuries, and which ones should be merely consigned to oblivion.92 It was a matter of power and the young Bolognese philologist was ready to go for broke. That is why from that moment on Pio’s personal fate was inextricably linked to the reception of Sidonius, with whom he will be constantly associated and even identified, like two sides of the same coin. Pio’s commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris has been studied in detail in my book, to whose conclusions I refer.93 As proved by the revealing omission of Ep. 3.3.7–8, Pio took Sidonius’ text – with some minor amendments94 – from Nicolaes Ketelaer and Geraert van Leempt’s editio princeps, published in Utrecht before 1474. Despite his youth, Pio’s commentary is extraordinarily full of interesting emendations to the transmitted text, references to several humanistic debates (including Petrarch’s criticism of Sidonius’ stance towards Cicero), traces of a solid background in philosophy, Greek, and Hebrew, and all kinds of erudite digressions on history, mythology, realia, and most particularly lexis. However, a statistical analysis has revealed that Pio’s zeal for glossing the text was progressively running out of steam, probably due to his rush to have the whole of his project finished on time and himself finally consecrated as a fully fledged humanist.95

6 The Early Sixteenth Century: Sidonius Sidelined The irruption of Pio’s bold proposals into the intellectual panorama of the late Quattrocento triggered a series of conflicting and often vicious reactions which were destined to mark decisively the further history of Sidonius’ reception. After his long and fruitful

91 92

93 94

95

Hernández Lobato (2014c) 129–35. This is what Hernández Lobato (2014c) 130–2, borrowing the theoretical frame of Even-Zohar’s poly-system theory, describes as a process of ‘double canonisation.’ On this theory, see Even-Zohar (1990). Hernández Lobato (2014c) 136–79. He restored, for instance, an omitted elabitur to Carm. 2.295 and si te tibi tota to Carm. 7.546 with no mention in his commentary. For Pio’s edition of Sidonius, see Charlet (2014). For these early editions, see in this volume Furbetta, ch. 17, sects. 1.1 and 1.2, and Dolveck, ch. 16, sect. 6, p. 500. See Hernández Lobato (2014c) 162–79.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 680

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

681

stay in Milan, Pio returned to the University of Bologna, where he lectured from 1500 until 1511. During this period, he reached a position of professional and intellectual maturity as a philologist, enhanced by the publication of some of his major contributions to the history of humanism. This is the case of his hugely influential commentary on Lucretius’ De rerum natura (1511), the first one since the rediscovery and publication of that work, which had been lost – and therefore unstudied – for centuries until 1417.96 During this decade back in Bologna, Pio had the chance to calmly reflect on his Milanese project in a self-critical and dispassionate manner. In his Annotationes posteriores (published in 1505) he confessed to having written his youthful commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris too hastily, struggling to meet the strict deadline that he had imposed on himself. This had resulted in several flaws and inaccuracies, which he now sincerely regretted.97 Pio’s undisguised unease about this youthful work of his did not stem from a rejection of its subject matter (Sidonius’ works): what he actually regretted was not having been able to devote enough time and intellectual energy to this challenging and demanding task (non ad unguem fuit exploratum . . . nec . . . in decimum annum repositum, ‘it had not been worked out to the full . . . nor . . . set aside for ten years’), due in part to his youthful impetuousness and his eagerness to gain a foothold in the competitive world of humanists. Sidonius deserved much more, and Pio knew it.98 The ubiquitous presence of Sidonius’ works in the Annotationes posteriores further proves that Pio’s early interest in Sidonius, far from having faded, had even increased over time. In these years of intellectual maturity, Pio developed much more nuanced ideas on literary imitation, in the wake of Poliziano’s eclecticism. Pio made the claim that the most treasured feature of the Latin language was its overwhelming variety of styles and registers (Romanum eloquium disparibus dicendi characteribus exornatum splendet), greatly similar to a vast meadow enhanced by the myriad varieties of flowers it contains (sicuti viridissimum et amoenissimum pratum diversicolori flore fit illustrius). Therefore, restricting oneself to the imitation of a single author, however good he may be, involved a considerable impoverishment of the language’s expressive capacity and of the range of moods and ideas that it could convey. Neither Sidonius nor Cicero had to be excluded from the literary canon (faveo Ciceroni . . . non eo tamen fine ut ceteros explodendos ducam, ‘I am in favour of Cicero, but not to the point that I think others should be booed off the stage’), since each of them represented a different and complementary facet of the

96

97

98

For a general introduction to this pioneering commentary, which has produced a huge amount of bibliography, see the classic study by Raimondi (1972) 101–40. See Gruytere (1602) 415: Sidonium Apollinarem in communem studiosorum utilitatem cum quibusdam nostris interpretatiunculis promulgavi, cum habitarem Mediolani. Sed opus illud non ad unguem fuit exploratum, nec uti Fabius Quintilianus admonuit in decimum annum repositum. . . . Nec id tam mutilum, tam denormatum opusculum in animo fuerat edere. Sed id mihi et Musis meis cecineram. Ceterum quid opus est mihi bono consilio si non datur uti? Dum animi gratia rusculum inviso, amicus meus . . ., me omnia potius quam hoc cogitante, dedit nescio cui Biliopolae [sic] invulgandum, exemplo Ambrosii quem temeritatis accusat Origenes quod se nesciente quaedam opera sua secreto edita, quae haeresin sapiebant, publicaverit. Ego hoc aegre, ut debui, tuli . . . At facta infecta fieri non possunt. Hac te tanquam palinodia monitum volo, si quid bene dictum in Sidonianis interpretationibus invenis, . . . illud subito casui adscribas . . . Si quid incogitate, perperam, inexaminate celeritudinis venia in me licet utare, tum quod non sciens prudensque peccavi . . . Defuit et scriptis ultima lima meis [Ov. Trist. 1.7.30], et ut a livore tutus Ovidiano versiculo finiam, emendaturus si licuisset eram [Ov. Trist. 1.7.40]. Quare inter abortiva numeretur non autem inter fetus hic commentariolus, nec pro meo recognoscatur, qui ante diem lustricum hoc est, antequam in nomen familiae meae transiret evolavit. See also Pio (1511) f. 26r: In expositione cuius dictionis in commentariolo nostro in Apollinarem mirum dictu quam mihi non satisfacio, ‘I am utterly dissatisfied with my presentation of that expression in my Sidonius commentary.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 681

13/02/20 4:30 PM

682

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

centuries-old mosaic of Latin literature (cuique suum dicendi modum peculiaremque stylum a natura comparatum).99 This attitude conflicted quite strongly with the assumptions of a new humanistic faction which – precisely in those days – was beginning to gain dominance: the so-called Ciceronians.100 The clash between Giovan Battista Pio, figurehead of the School of Bologna and champion of Sidonius’ cause, and the self-assured and increasingly powerful Ciceronians was only a matter of time. The result of that humanistic controversy would have a considerable impact on western literature and on the destiny of Sidonius’ works. The battlefield was not Bologna, but Rome, where Pio had been called by Pope Julius II to hold a chair of Latin at the Sapienza University.101 This prestigious appointment proved very soon to be a poisoned chalice. During his two-year stay in the eternal city (from 1512 to 1514), Pio would be the victim of a smear campaign which totally undermined his credibility as a first-rate humanist.102 This period’s Roman cultural life was profoundly marked by the 1512 dispute about imitation between Giovan Francesco Pico and Pietro Bembo,103 which revived the already classic debate between Angelo Poliziano and Paolo Cortesi. Although Pio cautiously refrained from participating in this controversy and the anti-Ciceronian Pico the younger did not even mention him, to avoid being directly associated with his extreme eclecticism, he bore the brunt of Pico’s defeat, particularly after the death in February 1513 of his only Roman defender: Pope Julius II. The next pope, Leo X, definitively enshrined the triumphant Ciceronianism by appointing its two principal representatives, Bembo and Sadoleto, as his personal secretaries. From that moment on Pio and his alter ego Sidonius became objects of ridicule and libellous propaganda, such as Mariangelo Accorso’s Osci et Volsci (1513) or the anonymous Dialogus in lingua mariopionea sive piomariana pulcherrimus (1512). Probably the most influential of all these defamatory texts was De sermone Latino et modis Latine loquendi, written in 1513 by the powerful cardinal Adriano Castellesi.104 The first sentence of the text left no doubt about who the two main targets of its attacks were: certain ‘men from Bologna’ (Bononie viri) and the late antique authors whom they insisted on promoting and imitating (namely Apuleius, Sidonius, Martianus Capella, and Fulgentius): Cum Bononie viri me aliquot eruditi officii causa convenissent, commentaremurque inter nos (ut fit inter literarum studiosos) de Latini sermonis elegantia, audiremque eorum plerosque Apulei, Sidonii, Capellae, Fulgentii non tam verbis quam fetoribus scaturire verbaque de industria promere aliorum etiam autorum, quae aut obsoleta nimis aut nova et omnino barbara viderentur, multaque ego libere (ut soleo) contra eorum sermonis insolentiam (non sine stomacho) protulissem: idque eo animosius essem aggressus, quod

99

See Annotationes posteriores 35: Excutimus omnes schedas. Non malos imitatores aemulamur quos brutum pecus vocat Horatius, qui solum Ciceronem perlegunt tanquam selectum deum, ceteros, ut Tertulliani verbis utar, tamquam bulbos reprobos abiicientes. Faveo Ciceroni utpote eruditorum eloquentissimo. Illius sermonis nectarei felicitatem admirari non desino, non eo tamen fine ut ceteros explodendos ducam. Sed hoc iudico, cuique suum dicendi modum peculiaremque stylum a natura comparatum et sicuti viridissimum et amoenissimum pratum diversicolori flore fit illustrius, ita Romanum eloquium disparibus dicendi characteribus exornatum splendet, quippe cum singulo auctori dos sua domesticaque facundia natura fit innata. Text is reproduced from Gruytere (1602) 439. 100 On Ciceronianism, see the classic Sabbadini (1885) and Scott (1910). See also McLaughlin (1995) 249–74. 101 On Pio’s inaugural lecture in Rome, see Benedetti (2004a). 102 For further details, see Dionisotti (2003) 70–113. 103 On this crucial debate, see McLaughlin (1995) 249–74. 104 On this work, see Damonte (2003).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 682

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

683

viderem non tam paucorum ipsorum, qui mecum ita essent congressi, quam ceterorum fere nostri temporis hominum unum atque eundem esse errorem, foreque brevi ut relicta vetere veraque Latinitate in aliam omnino linguam et quasi barbariem commigremus. Ea omnia longiusculo tractata sermone . . . iccirco colligere ac litteris mandare volui, ut qui haec legerint, malorum autorum imitatione omissa, perfectos illos Latini candoris parentes agnoscant, studeant, emulentur.105 When certain gentlemen from Bologna came to see me about some learned matter, we began to converse with each other (as usually happens among scholars of literature) concerning the elegance of the Latin language. Hearing that most of them were bubbling up with words (or rather foul odours) from Apuleius, Sidonius, Capella, and Fulgentius, and even deliberately broaching words from other authors that appeared either far too antiquated, or else new and completely barbarous, I would, with complete frankness (as is my custom) and not without irritation, have blurted out many things against their bizarre manner of speaking. And I would have attacked it all the more vigorously, because I could see that the error, not so much of these few men who met with me, as of almost everyone else in our age, was one and the same, and that it would soon come about, that, having abandoned the old, authentic Latinity, we would move over to an entirely different, almost barbaric tongue. And all of this, addressed in a slightly longer discourse . . . I wanted to put together and set down in writing with this purpose: that those who read it would desist from imitating bad authors and recognise, cultivate, and emulate the perfect fathers of Latin splendour. Once again Sidonius and Pio seemed bound by a common fate. Castellesi considered that only the contemporaries of Cicero and Vergil were worthy of study and imitation. All the rest, from Seneca to the Middle Ages, belonged to an all-embracing tempus imperfectum and should therefore be consigned to oblivion. Curiously enough, he used Sidonius’ authority against Sidonius himself, by carefully selecting all the passages in which this author deplored the cultural and linguistic decadence of his time.106 Paradoxically, in this passage Castellesi demonstrated an above average acquaintance with Sidonius’ text, a further proof of Pio’s double-edged success in bringing him to the very centre of the humanistic debate. In order to attack Sidonius by turning his own words against him, the cardinal had to thoroughly read 105 106

Castellesi (1515) f. 2r–2v. Castellesi (1515) f. 5r–5v: Sidonius de suis nugis talis est ordo, inquit, ut sine plurimis novisque verbis, quae praefata pace plurimorum eloquentium specialiter tibi et complatonicis tuis nota sunt, nugae ipsae non valuerint expediri [Sidon. Carm. 14 praef. 1]. Et alio loco de liberalibus artibus agens ita loquitur: Virtutes artium istarum seculis potius priscis seculorum rector ingenuit, quae per etatem mundi iam senescentis lassatis veluti seminibus emedullatae parum aliquid hoc tempore atque id in paucis, mirandum ac memorabile ostentant [Sidon. Ep. 8.6.3]. Et alibi: Increbruit, inquit, multitudo desidiosorum ut, nisi vel paucissimi meram Latialis linguae proprietatem de trivialium barbarismorum robigine vindicaveritis, eam brevi abolitam defleamus [Sidon. Ep. 2.10.1], ‘Sidonius says about his occasional poems: “They [the tenets of philosophy] are so constituted that it would have been impossible to write this trifle without many new words that (with apologies to all other stylists) are known in a specialist way to you and to your fellow-Platonists.” And elsewhere, in a discussion of the liberal arts, he says: “For it was in the men of bygone ages that the Ruler of Ages preferred to implant the talents for such arts; but now, in an era when the world is growing old, these arts have lost the power of germinating, they are exhausted, they produce little that is remarkable or memorable in anyone, and even that only in a few.” And elsewhere he says: “The mob of sluggards has so grown in numbers 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 in a short time be lamenting its extinction.”’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 683

13/02/20 4:30 PM

684

JESÚS HERNÁNDEZ LOBATO

over his complete works, most probably from Pio’s commented edition. All in all, it was a curious way to pay tribute to Pio’s efforts at making Sidonius more accessible and better known than ever before. The result of Castellesi’s crusade against Pio and Sidonius was almost immediate. Only one year after the publication of his pamphlet, Pio left Rome defeated and humiliated, and renounced forever his long-cherished aspiration to become one of the makers of the future literary canon. Twenty-five years after Pio’s departure from Rome the humanist Francesco Florido Sabino still indulged in mocking his style and his literary preferences with unusual cruelty.107 Sidonius’ works did not fare better. The Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives (1492– 1540) branded his prose as ‘absolutely preposterous’ (prosa absurdissima est) and censured his undisguised verbosity.108 Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466/9–1536), despite his sympathy with the stylistic ideals of eclectic imitation and his distrust of triumphant Ciceronianism, did not hesitate to scorn both Sidonius and his fallen defender, Pio, as mere objects of ridicule: Ridendos mihi narras, non imitandos, nisi forte placent Apuleii et Sidonii aut, ut recentiores attingam, Baptistae Pii; qui, quum suppetant probata, splendida accommodaque vocabula, tamen confictis impudenter novis malunt suo more loqui, perinde quasi nihil possit esse praeclarum quod sit usitatum.109 You speak to me of authors who deserve to inspire laughter not imitation, unless it should now transpire that you admire the Apuleiuses, the Sidoniuses, or to give a more recent example, the Pios. Even when they had correct, splendid, and appropriate words at hand, these men nonetheless preferred to speak after their own fashion using new and skittishly invented words, as if nothing that were normal could be distinguished. Only Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484–1558) was a little more lenient towards Sidonius’ style, which he deemed to be ‘well crafted, sometimes even with anxious care, full of recherché 107

108

109

In fact, he devotes a whole chapter (2.19) of his Lectiones subscisivae, published in 1540, to ridiculing Pio and, implicitly, Sidonius, his flagship author: Succedit Beroaldo Baptista Pius, eius auditor, cuius commentaria quantum ingenii eruditionisque habeant, alii interpretabuntur. Ego sane cum pleraque eius scripta recreandi animi gratia nonnunquam lectitarim, neminem ad hanc diem ex iis exstitisse didici, qui durior, sordidior, impuriorque in scribendo fuerit, quam ipse Pius, longo intervallo in styli immunditie magistro anteponendus. De quo cum alibi pauca pro hominis merito dixerimus, aliqua etiam ad phrasin spectantia hoc loco ex eius annotationibus proferemus, ut cum risus aucupe, ne dicam ridiculo, ipsi quoque, et libenter quidem, rideamus. Risu enim, seu cacchinno digna est praefixa prioribus Pii annotationibus epistola . . . Quod senticetum est his uerbis asperius? quod saxetum durius? Nonne praestantius est silentio vitam transire, quam sic scribere? . . . Quanquam hoc utcumque tolerandum esset, nisi et plurima, quae antiquioris Latinitatis auctores ignoravere, ex vilissimis scriptoribus desumsisset, et innumera ipse plusquam Graeca licentia sibi confinxisset: quo nihil est nec dictu nec auditu tetrius, nihil a Latinorum consuetudine remotius. Verum facilius flumina ad fontes recurrere valerent, quam Pius ab eiusmodi verborum prodigiis abstinere, ‘Beroaldus was succeeded by his student Baptista Pius. I leave it to others to judge how intelligent and erudite his commentaries are. However, as I read most of his works now and then as a pastime, I have never come across anybody who is harsher, more imprecise, and less pure in his writing than is this Pius, who greatly surpasses his master by his shabby style. . . . [There follows a series of examples deemed ridiculous].’ I take the text from Gruytere (1602) 1144–5. See Vives’ 1532 treatise De ratione dicendi 3.7. He showed more indulgence towards Sidonius’ poetry (versum non penitus reiicias, ‘his verse is not entirely worthless’). Cytowska et al. (1973) 36, corresponding to Erasmus’ 1528 dialogue De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione dialogus. See also Margolin and Mesnard (1971) 218 (corresponding to his De ratione conscribendi epistulas, published only seven years after Pio left Rome): Et merito ridentur hoc nostro seculo quidam Apuleiani, et obsoletae antiquitatis affectatores, ‘In our time, we rightly laugh at some followers of Apuleius and those who pretentiously adopt obsolete antiquarianism.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 684

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

685

words and sharp sentences, which he rounds off with a quick turn of phrase’ (accuratus, aliquando etiam anxius, plenus electorum verborum et sententiarum, quas acutas brevi concludit gyro).110 Despite Scaliger’s unenthusiastic words of support, Sidonius – and with him most late antique authors – were definitely excluded from the western canon, condemned as representatives of a decadent Latinity and consequently consigned to oblivion. The prevailing attitude towards Sidonius and his contemporaries after the triumph of Ciceronianism, the one that has come down to our own day and age,111 could be summarised in the following words of the sixteenth-century humanist Giglio Gregorio Giraldi (1479–1522): ‘I am neither going to review the surviving writings of Sidonius, nor urge you too much to read them; for in both forms of expression [that is, prose and verse], he seems to smack of something vaguely Gallic and barbaric.’112 Sidonius does not deserve either to be studied by scholars (nec ego recensebo) or to be read – let alone imitated – by writers (nec vos ad legenda satis impellam). He simply has to be silenced as if he had never existed.

7 Further Reading A detailed overview of the first millennium of Sidonius’ reception (from the sixth to the sixteenth century) is provided by Hernández Lobato (2014c), with special attention given to the twelfth century and the Renaissance period (fourteenth to sixteenth centuries). There are also a number of crucial articles on different aspects of this topic. Early reception has been studied by Mascoli (2004b) and Furbetta (2013c), whereas Condorelli (2011), Consolino (2006), Furbetta (2015d), and Hernández Lobato (2013) focus on the influence of Sidonius on specific late antique/early medieval authors, such as Ennodius, Gregory of Tours, and Martin of Braga. Faral (1946) remains essential for the role of Sidonius as a literary model in the forging of medieval aesthetics. As for the Renaissance, Sidonius’ presence in the works of Petrarch, Poliziano, and Enoch of Ascoli has been convincingly traced by Condorelli (2004b), Galland-Hallyn (2009), and Mastrorosa (2000), repectively. Finally, Wolff (2014c) provides an interesting overview of Sidonius’ reception, which proves particularly useful in connection with French Renaissance and post-Renaissance sources.

110

111 112

See Scaliger’s Poetices libri septem 6. According to Baret (1878) 105, humanists like Baillet or De Pins shared this more indulgent approach to Sidonius’ writings. Cf. Wolff (2014c) 257–60. De poetarum historia 5 (first published in 1545): Quae autem Sidonii scripta exstent, nec ego recensebo, nec vos ad legenda satis impellam; in utroque enim dicendi genere, Gallicum nescio quid et barbarum redolere videtur. I take the text from Giraldi (1580) 14.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 685

13/02/20 4:30 PM

23 SIDONIUS RECEPTION: SIXTEENTH TO NINETEENTH CENTURIES Joop van Waarden

‘

I

SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS’ collected letters, the most curious and, at the same time, most authentic record of his age we have.’ A large audience were listening to François Guizot about to read Sidonius to them. It was during one of Guizot’s lectures on the history of European civilisation at the Sorbonne, which caused a furore in the years 1828–30. He had been appointed Professor of Modern History in 1812 at the age of 25, and was now at the height of his academic career and the author of a flood of groundbreaking books on European, notably French and English, civilisation.1 Deeply convinced of the importance of going back to the sources, he had made a translation of several letters which he read out at length.2 From the mouth of such a conscientious historian, the opposition between the ‘most curious’ and the ‘most authentic’ record is significant, and it is the perfect epitome of the attitude of the entire period which we will review in this chapter. From a superficial look, it may seem that Sidonius all but disappeared after the Renaissance, but, looking closer, one discovers a wealth of clues. Rather, his time and his art were seen in a different – and avowedly less central – perspective by an inexorably changing modern world, which outgrew antique and medieval preoccupations. It is the aim of this chapter to contribute to a better understanding of this altered place of Sidonius, and Late Antiquity in general, in the intellectual universe of Modernity. It offers examples of his ‘curiousness’ which prove that his sitting uneasily with contemporary values created a new fascination. His ‘authenticity’ was the natural complement of this attitude. In a radically different modern world, identification and imitation gave way to – and, in doing so, enabled – a historicising approach and an ever sharper focus on cultural relativity. This in turn made possible a second-order identification, for instance in narrative, where Victorian romanticism could project its values on to, and feel legitimised by, Late Antiquity – actually, much the same appropriation of the past as Sidonius himself had practised. Research into the reception of Sidonius in this period is still in its early stages. There are several essays on France and an initial take on the German-speaking world.3 This contribution can only add a few pieces to a still largely incomplete puzzle. They are, however, meant to be OPEN

1 2

3

See below, sect. 1.4.2, for more on Guizot, and sect. 3.3.2 for his contacts with Charlotte Mary Yonge. This translation was to be gratefully adopted by Grégoire and Collombet, a few years later (see Grégoire and Collombet (1836) xii). In this volume, see Furbetta’s ch. 17 n. 61, Green’s ch. 19, and below, in sect. 1.4.2. In recent years, the revival of interest in modern and contemporary Sidonius reception has resulted in Amherdt (2013), Köhler (2013), de Palacio (2014), Baudoin (2014), Aranjo (2014), and Wolff (2014c). Amherdt and Wolff also discuss pre-nineteenth-century material. The Sidonius website, , features an expanding Reception page, ‘Aftermath>Reception’, which contains additional and new information.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 686

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

687

characteristic of the whole. For a maximum of focus in conjunction with significant cultural diversity, I have limited the area of investigation to France (section 1), Germany (2), and Great Britain (3).4

1 France The mother of Sidonius reception is, for obvious reasons, his native country. I here present some distinctive examples, either not mentioned before or as an extension to previous research.

1.1 The Sixteenth Century: André Thevet André Thevet (1516–90) included Sidonius in the third volume of his Vrais Pourtraits et Vies des Hommes Illustres, which came out in 1584.5 A great traveller, both in the Levant and to Brazil, from where he imported, among other things, the tobacco plant into France, Thevet was ‘premier cosmographe du roi’, the official geographer of four successive French kings. His Cosmographie universelle is an irreplaceable source of information, but at the time his detailed knowledge of exotic subject matter made him deeply suspect to theologians. He possessed a large collection of both exotic flora and fauna and Greek and Roman coins. In his works, Antiquity served as a frame of reference to mitigate the strangeness of his ethnographical account. His Vrais Pourtraits aims to bring together the great personalities of all ages and continents: history and a global outlook in one. Book 6 of the Vrais Pourtraits begins with Sidonius, Ausonius, Boethius, and Priscian, followed by a diversity of famous men including not only William Tell and Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), but also Vespucci, Magellan, and Columbus. In Thevet’s view, Sidonius had two principal virtues. First, he was a ‘remarkable paragon of learning’ who ‘consequently immersed himself in associating with learned and brilliantly knowledgeable men’ (‘signalé parangon de sciences’, ‘aussi se baignoit il à la frequentation des hommes doctes & esmaillés de sçauoir’), even helping out the destitute among them – an example, as Thevet says, one would wish to be followed by all highly placed persons. This emphasis on Sidonius’ learning and munificence is highly unusual, and telling: it cannot but

4

5

I would like to append a remark on method. This chapter in this form is a product of the Internet age. If it were not for search machines and the extensive digitisation of historical printed material, it would be impossible to compose a piece like this within a reasonable period of time and with a reasonable degree of representativeness. However, the kick of quick results should not obscure the need for restraint in their application. Accident plays an important role, as one cannot tell what exactly has been digitised and what has not, what is searchable (and how correctly) and what is not. Key word searches are one-dimensional: searching on ‘Sidonius’ alone is not likely to reveal all the intricacies of the primary and secondary sources. Above all, this kind of search hits on the ‘hard’ instances of ‘Sidonius’, and similar, but does not detect the ‘soft’ layer of motifs and allusions. The understandable urge to detect causal connections between disparate facts enlarges the risk of making mistakes to the extent in which these findings are due to chance. Also, claiming disproportionate importance for one’s cherished object of research is not the least among further causes of error. These pitfalls, in the end, can only be overcome by the old-fashioned virtues of patiently multiplying one’s material and evaluating it with erudition. It can only be hoped that the present chapter distantly meets these requirements. For this survey, initial searches have been mainly effectuated through , , , , , , and . Thevet (1584) 486v–487v. On Thevet’s life and work, see Lestringant (2003).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 687

13/02/20 4:30 PM

688

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

reflect Thevet’s own lifelong scientific curiosity as well as some of his unpleasant experiences as a scholar. It is probably his surprising interpretation of the story in Gregory of Tours in which Sidonius ‘repeatedly took silverware out of his house without his wife’s knowledge, and distributed it among the poor’.6 Second, Thevet comes to speak of the stylistic debate involving Sidonius, and of his own position in it: En ce trouue-on nosstre Sidoine reprehensible qu’il à eu vn langage plus affecté & particulier, duquel Ciceron n’estoit le nourrissier. Ie sçay bien ce qu’ont accoustumé de dire ceux, qui espousent sa querele, qu’il est beaucoup plus seant & honorable d’estre affublé d’vne robe de simple & mediocre estoffe, qui soit d’vne piece entiere, que de se parer d’vn haillon appiecé de plusieurs lopins vrayement bien riches & exquis, mais qui par cy par là ont esté caymandés és magasins d’vn Cicero ou quelque autre. Afin que ie ne semble tenir le party plutost de l’vn que de l’autre, c’est à dire estre Ciceroniastre ou Ciceromastige, I’ayme mieux, sans m’arrester à l’habit, escorce ou apparence, sonder au fonds la dignité & excellence des graues discours, que ce Prelat à non moins hardiment entamé qu’heureusement acheminé au poinct de perfection. Là nous ny trouuerons rien autre pour la plus-part que les registres de la plus-part des choses passées au temps passé, & nommément entre les Goths, lesquelles n’ont esté touchées ny ramenteuës par les autres Historiens.7 Sadder and wiser, Thevet does not side with either camp on matters of form, preferring instead to bring out Sidonius’ merits as a historical source, particularly on the Goths. Thus, a professional and a national argument, the protection of free scientific inquiry as well as research into the history of France, motivated Thevet to put Sidonius in pole position in Book 6, before other luminaries.8 The dispute on style and, ultimately, on literary creativity, had been going on since Petrarch rediscovered Cicero and the humanists aligned in favour of or in opposition to an exclusively Ciceronian mould in remodelling Antiquity.9 In France as elsewhere, Ciceronian purism largely prevailed by the sixteenth century. In 1521, in his preface to Valla’s Elegantiae, 6 7

8

9

Greg. Tur. Hist. 2.22. See also below, end of sect. 3.3 on Charlotte Mary Yonge. ‘People find fault with our Sidonius because he had a more mannered and unusual language not fostered by Cicero. I know what those involved in the dispute are wont to say, that it is much more becoming and elegant to be decked with a robe of simple and mediocre cloth which is made in one piece than to dress up with a patchwork made from costly and exquisite pieces, which, however, have been ordered left and right from shops of a Cicero or of somebody else. In order not to appear to adhere to one side over the other, that is, being a Cicero lover or a Cicero critic, I prefer, without dwelling upon the clothes, the skin, or the appearance, to fathom the essence of the dignity and the excellence of the important works which this prelate did not less valiantly broach than felicitously bring to a conclusion, to the point of perfection. There, we will encounter almost nothing else than the annals of most of the things that happened in the past, in particular among the Goths, who have not been touched upon nor recalled by other historians.’ Thevet’s indications concerning the origin of the portrait which he prints to illustrate his article (see < https://sidonapol.org/france/>) merit being worked out. He tells it was made after a bronze, ‘sentant fort son antique’, which was found in the cabinet of ‘Conseiller du Prat’, and which he himself later had occasion to admire, along with several other antique pieces, at the house of the late ‘Monsieur Bourdin, Procureur general du Roy’. The track seems to lead back to the Auvergne, for the Royal Chancellor of France, Bishop Antoine Duprat (1463–1535), was born there and always cherished his bonds with it (in addition, his brother Thomas and his son Guillaume were bishops of Clermont). Gilles Bourdin, Public Prosecutor in Parliament (one of the key functions of the Ancien Régime), was also a brilliant savant; in Cosmographie, Book 15, Thevet says he had a perfect mastery of Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and Chaldaean (no need to mention Latin). Bourdin died in 1570, which fits the date, 1584, of the Vrais Pourtraits. See Wolff (2014c) 255–7 (to whom I owe several indications for what follows for France) with literature, and Hernández Lobato (2014c) and in this volume, ch. 22.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 688

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

689

the influential Paris professor of literature Nicolas Bérault dismissed Sidonius, along with such authors as Apuleius and Gellius, as second-rate to Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Columella, and Quintilian, and their admirers as hopeless hacks. What comes to the fore, instead, is Sidonius as a source for the history of France, and philology. Before we go into that, a short look at Montaigne (1533–92) provides yet another stance concerning Sidonius: Sidonius as a source of quotations, irrespective of his style or historical concerns. In the first, 1580 edition of the Essais, Montaigne cites his authority for the barbarians’ habit of shaving the back part of their heads (Essais 1.49; Sidon. Carm. 5.239–40). There are also two quotations, one in the enlarged 1588 edition: tetrica sunt amoenanda iocularibus10 and one more in the posthumous 1595 one: laudandis pretiosior ruinis.11 Villey thinks that Montaigne possibly owned Vinet’s Sidonius edition, which was published in 1552.12

1.2 The Seventeenth Century: Philology, Forgery, and Myth Around 1600, two quintessential editions of Sidonius saw the light in France, provided with important commentaries, one by Jean Savaron, a Clermontois himself (1598, second edition 1599, reprinted with additions 1609), the other by Jacques Sirmond (1614, second edition 1652).13 These men belonged to the humanist intellectual circles which also included, for instance, the historians of France André Duchesne (1584–1640) and Scévole de Sainte-Marthe (1571–1650) as well as Jean Bolland (1596–1665), who initiated the Bollandist edition of the Lives of the Saints (Acta sanctorum), and the Benedictine congregation of Saint-Maur, who compiled the Gallia christiana encyclopaedia. Their work is characterised by the collection, careful selection, and systematic interpretation of source material, and thus constitutes the first thrust of modern, critical philological method.14 In the midst of a flood of publications, plagiarists and falsifiers tried to get their share of fame. For Sidonius, the lack of information about his consecration as a bishop was a gap that cried out to be filled. Jérôme Vignier (1606–61) did the job, forging a group of supposedly fifth-century documents which included Bishop Lupus’ congratulation letter to Sidonius on the occasion (Migne PL 58, cols 63–5). It was not until 1885 that the French medievalist Julien Havet exposed it as a forgery.15 Credulity also contributed to the dynastic power play in early modern Europe in which the recourse to Antiquity in civic foundation myths and aristocratic genealogical fancies 10 11

12 13

14 15

Essais 3.5; Ep. 1.9.8: ‘serious subjects ought to be brightened by jesting’. Essais 3.9; Carm. 23.62: ‘praised more highly for your glorious ruins’. In Montaigne the praise is attributed to Rome (the quotation is a new insertion in the surrounding text which belongs to the 1588 edition), in Sidonius to Narbonne. Villey (1908) 219; cf. Highet (1949) 187–90. For Vinet, see Furbetta in this volume, ch. 17, sect. 2.2. See Amherdt (2013) 25–7 and Furbetta in this volume, ch. 17, sects. 2.4 and 3.2. See also Furbetta (sects. 2.2 and 2.3) for Vinet (Lyon, 1552) and Wouweren (1598, Lyon and Paris). On French classical scholarship in this period, see Pfeiffer (1976) 129–35. Havet (1885). Cf. Rahner (1935) and e.g. Mathisen (1982) 377–8 and Kaufmann (1995) 322. On Vignier, see Quantin (1998). See Green, ch. 19, sect. 1, in this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 689

13/02/20 4:30 PM

690

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

upheld claims of status and legitimacy.16 A beautiful specimen of the myths which surrounded the genealogy of noble families is the case of the dukes of Polignac, who boasted a lineage which went all the way back to grandfather Apollinaris, to saintly Sidonius, and to his heroic son Apollinaris, also called Apollinaris of Polignac.17 The first known history of the Polignac family is L’Histoire généalogique de la Maison de Polignac, by Gaspard Chabron (1570–after 1638), written towards 1625.18 It frames Sidonius’ grandfather as ‘le premier de la lignée de Messieurs de Polignac’ to embrace Christianity (p. 12), ‘le grand St Sidoine Apollinaire’ himself as the first to be given the (as Chabron argues) hereditary title of count by the emperor Majorian (p. 11),19 and the Castle of Polignac at Le Puy-en-Velay as their ancestral domain (p. 10). To support his claim, Chabron adduces no less an authority than ‘le Sr Savaron, très digne président aujourd’huy dans la ville de Clermont en Auvergne’ in the ‘doctes commentaires qu’il a fait sur les livres de ce saint’. Indeed, in his comment on Ep. 4.6.2 solidae domus ad hoc aevi inconcussa securitas, ‘the security of the solid house, unshaken up to the present’ (which Sidonius is afraid might be disturbed by the enemy raids), Savaron says this is the ancient home of the Apollinaris family in Velay, safely perched on the hill, and still visible in his day in all its age-old splendour: nomenque Apollinarium adhuc hodie retinet, & POLINIAC ab indigenis indigetatur, vbi imago Apollinis in veterrimum lapidem incisa est.20 Amid all this, the debate on style continued to have its appeal in literary circles, as witnessed in the posthumous collection of Gilles Ménage’s papers and table talk, a lawyer and man of letters (1613–92) whose virulent sarcasm caused him the enmity of Boileau and Molière. Sidonius is mentioned repeatedly in these Menagiana. 21

16

17

18

19 20

21

See ‘The Quest for an Appropriate Past’, a project of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW) by Konrad Ottenheym and Karl Enenkel, . This is essentially the same trick for creating legitimacy as the claiming of made-up pedigrees for individuals and nations manifest in Antiquity, exemplified in Sidonius by the Gauls’ and the Franks’ pretended extraction from the Trojans (cf. van Waarden (2010) 347–8). In the words of Hannah Arendt (1951) 271: ‘Legends have always played a powerful role in the making of history.’ Dalton (1915) li, in his introduction, has it in a footnote, n. 102: ‘It has been supposed that the family of Polignac represents the line of Apollinaris, but this is disputed.’ On this legendary genealogy, see Settipani (1988, 1989). For other details, see the Sidonius website, . Chabron (c. 1625); cf. Bizri (2011). I am most grateful to Dr Henri Hours, former Keeper of the Archives of Puy-de-Dôme, for bringing this document to my attention. He also pointed out to me that there are other examples of the local nobility being bound up with early Christian Gaul, for instance the Auvergnat family De Mezel (Puy-de-Dôme), who pretended to be descendants of St Alyre. The Polignacs, too, were adulated in this way; see also Jacotin (1899) 230–1. Cf. Sidon. Ep. 1.11.13. ‘And it retains the name of the Apollinares up to the present, and is designed as Polignac by the natives, where an image of Apollo is carved on a very ancient stone.’ To be honest, Savaron leaves room for a different interpretation which is nearer to the truth: ‘nisi velis ad Voracingum Apollinarium referre’, i.e. the Vorocingus estate at Nîmes, which was the property of the addressee, Sidonius’ uncle Apollinaris. Sirmond, however, was quick to introduce the correct interpretation of domus instead: ‘domum, id est familiam’, not ‘castle’, but ‘family’. Ménage (1716). In vol. 3, 560–98, the discussion on Cicero or Pliny as a model for letter-writing (Sidon. Ep. 1.1.1), with its humanist follow-up by Petrarch, Poliziano, and Barbaro, is extensively revived by means of a sustained commentary on Poliziano’s dedicatory letter. The least that can be said of Sidonius’ judgement on Cicero, Ménage argues, is that it is formulated in an ambiguous way (praise? or criticism, as Petrarch thought). For this discussion, see Hernández Lobato in this volume, ch. 22, sect. 4 with n. 68.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 690

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

691

1.3 The Eighteenth Century: Pierre Bayle, Jean-Baptiste Du Bos, and the Encyclopédie 1.3.1 Pierre Bayle Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), a freethinking Huguenot, whose Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697, second edition 1702, fifth edition 1740, English translation second edition 1734) was among the most popular works of the eighteenth century, repeatedly resorted to his Savaron copy of Sidonius to cite, and, if need were, criticise him. In volume 1 alone (A–Bi, in the English edition), Sidonius is referred to in the lemmata on Achilles, Anaxagoras, Apollonius, Apuleius, Arcesilas, Athenaeum, and Balbus. Sidonius is criticised for his sloppy treatment of philosophy concerning Anaxagoras and Arcesilas in Carm. 15.79–98, and Savaron for not noticing these errors. The figure of Apollonius of Tyana is attractive to Bayle for his unconventionality and being a challenge to authorities. Here Sidonius’ opinion of Apollonius comes in, with a quotation from Ep. 8.3. Bayle, who thought that Sidonius had written Apollonius’ Life, comments: ‘Sidonius Apollinaris has given us a description of Apollonius, which represents him as the greatest of heroes in philosophy. The author of this description does not forget to make his excuses to the Catholic church’ (p. 383).

1.3.2 Jean-Baptiste Du Bos Jean-Baptiste Du Bos (1670–1742), a writer on history and aesthetics, produces an Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie française dans les Gaules, controversially to establish the role of the Franks not as conquerors, but as invited overlords. He aims to justify absolutism by linking contemporary monarchy to the Roman Empire. To this end, he interprets the Frankish presence as continuity rather than disruption.22 The book’s first volume, published in 1734 and expanded in 1742, is actually a sustained reading, along with extensive translated excerpts, of Sidonius’ panegyrics and letters, guided by Duchesne and Sirmond.23 Just to point out some of its topics, by way of illustration: on pp. 565–7, Du Bos illustrates Sidonius’ loathing for the Burgundians by means of Ep. 3.4 and Carm. 12.24 The resistance against the Visigoths is then thematised by means of Ep. 3.3 to Ecdicius and both letters to Principius of Soissons, who, in the north, shared the same fate: 8.14 and 9.8, ‘slavery under the Gibeonites’, read ‘Visigoths’. Sidonius’ confinement in Livia (Ep. 8.3) is described in an argument that the Franks lived in peace with Euric’s Visigoths (pp. 595–6). On pp. 601–3, Du Bos tries to determine the extent to which Gaul was still Roman, using the letter to Arbogastes, Ep. 4.17. Strikingly, Du Bos’ interest in Sidonius is not limited to the historical subject matter: Du Bos also tries to grasp the idea of the correspondence as a collection, and its date and proliferation. Adducing the way Gregory of Tours spoke of the letters, he postulates their wide circulation and Sidonius’ great literary renown. Going on to say that the collection is very old (‘Le Recueil des Lettres de Sidonius, est un Livre très ancien’), he speculates that it may have been published under Clovis, in the lifetime of the generation

22 23 24

See Lombard (1913) 454–9. For an assessment of the abbé Du Bos and his Histoire critique, see Wood (2013) 29–36. Du Bos (1742). Carm. 12 is a classic in reception: see below on Chateaubriand (sect. 1.4.1) and on nineteenth-century Germany (sect. 2.2). It has lost none of its popularity, being recently selected and translated for a historical and literary anthology on Burgundy: Bedin and Feydy (2008).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 691

13/02/20 4:30 PM

692

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

after Sidonius.25 He is even aware of the probability of the classified letters having been left out for reasons of state security or privacy: D’ailleurs il est plus que probable que nous n’avons pas toutes les Lettres de Sidonius, soit parce que lui-même il n’aura pas jugé à propos de garder les broüillons de celles où il s’expliquoit sur les affaires d’Etat en termes clairs & intelligibles pour tout le monde; soit parce que l’Editeur n’ayant point crû devoir publier ces Lettres-là, il les aura supprimées par égard pour les Nations, ou pour les Particuliers dont elles pouvoient interesser la réputation.26 Another sign of the importance Du Bos attached to Sidonius, this time for his artistic lead, is the unexpected link he sees between Sidonius’ picture of a gallery of philosopher portraits and Raphael’s School of Athens. The passage in question is from the Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, published in Paris in 1709, and repeatedly reprinted and enlarged: We find by the epistles of Sidonius Apollinaris [the passage from Ep. 9.9 is quoted in a footnote], that the illustrious philosophers of antiquity had each of them their particular air, figure, and gesture, which were peculiarly appropriated to them in painting. Raphael has made a good use of this piece of erudition from Apollinaris, in his picture of the school of Athens.27 Thus, Du Bos is a representative of the typically French tradition of authors favourable to Sidonius, both as an illustrious bishop and for being among the first national authors, a tradition which is particularly pronounced, and lasting to the present day, in his native Auvergne.28

1.3.3 Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie takes account of Sidonius on two occasions. When the article on Lyon, by Louis Jaucourt, comes to speak of ‘the men of letters whose birth can honour Lyon’, it soberly continues: Sidonius Apollinaris must be mentioned first, being one of the great bishops and famous writers of the fifth century. His father was prefect of Gaul under Honorius. Apollinaris became a patrician, a prefect of Rome, and bishop of Clermont. He died in 480 at the age of fifty-two. Of his works nine books of epistles and twenty-four poems have survived. They have been published with notes by Jean Savaron and Father Sirmond.29 Sidonius stands out alone, for the persons mentioned next are all from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The other instance is in the article ‘Vraisemblance’ (‘Picturesque Verisimilitude’), also by Jaucourt:

25 26

27 28

29

This curiously suggests a failure to read (or take seriously) Sidonius’ statement as the editor in Ep. 1.1. Du Bos (1742) 592: ‘It is quite probable, though, that we do not have all Sidonius’ letters, either because he himself will not have deemed it appropriate to keep the drafts of those in which he gave his opinion on state affairs openly and for everybody to understand, or because the editor, thinking it his duty not to publish those letters, will have suppressed them in consideration of the nations or of private persons whose reputation might be at stake.’ According to the contemporary translation by Thomas Nugent (Du Bos (1748) 219). This observation is from Wolff (2014c) 257–8, to whom I refer for more examples, among them Le Nain de Tillemont and Chaix. For Auvergne in the twentieth century, see also Giannotti in this volume, ch. 24, sect. 1.3. Encyclopédie vol. 9 (1765) 776–8, trans. Diderot and d’Alembert (2003).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 692

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

693

We see by the epistles of Sidonius Apollinaris that the illustrious philosophers from Antiquity also each had a particular appearance, a certain face and gesture, that was his own in paintings. Raphael made good use of this erudition in his painting of the school of Athens.30 This article professedly relies on Du Bos, and the quotation’s provenance is immediately clear.

1.4 The Nineteenth Century: Romanticism and François Guizot 1.4.1 Romanticism Whereas Sidonius could be claimed as a historical witness in defence of the Ancien Régime by the eighteenth century, the nineteenth developed an interest in otherness and the exotic in his oeuvre. François-René de Chateaubriand (1768–1848), one of the precursors of Romanticism, was both informed and inspired by Sidonius for his fascination with the wild and the barbarian, as well as for the national past. Always on the outlook for the picturesque detail, in his epic narration of Civilis’ Batavian rebellion, Les Martyrs (1809), Chateaubriand visualises the assault of the Franks by means of a free translation of a section of Sidonius’ Panegyric on Majorian, Carm. 5.238–53, in which history and poetic imagination merge: les Francs se montraient de loin comme un troupeau de bêtes féroces. . . . Les yeux de ces barbares ont la couleur d’une mer orageuse; . . . tous ont à la ceinture la redoutable francisque, espèce de hache . . . ; arme funeste que le Franc jette en poussant un cri de mort, et qui manque rarement de frapper le but qu’un œil intrépide a marqué.31 Other glimpses of Sidonius in this story include the Christian officer Eudore’s uncomfortable experience of captivity among the barbarians, inspired by Sidonius’ similarly disagreeable stay,32 and the depiction of the Franks as undaunted sailors (‘ils bravent la mer, ils se rient des tempêtes’, ‘they brave the sea, they laugh at storms’), which comes from Sidonius’ portrait of the Saxon pirates.33 However, although Chateaubriand’s work contains several references to Sidonius, both for historical and for ethnographical detail,34 the later author is conscious of the limitations of his source. In Voyage en Amérique (1827), he discusses two ways of looking at barbarian customs, one idealising without paying attention to everyday reality, the other observing nothing but ‘a kind of apes provided with human language’, not caring to try to understand the underlying

30 31

32

33 34

Encyclopédie vol. 17 (1765) 484, trans. Diderot and d’Alembert (2011). Second edition 1826 of Les Martyrs, consulted in Chateaubriand (1845) 102: ‘from afar, the Franks seemed a pack of savage animals. . . . The eyes of these barbarians have the colour of the sea in a thunderstorm; . . . they all have their daunting francisca strapped to their belts, a kind of axe . . . ; a lethal weapon which the Frank throws while uttering a deadly scream, and which seldom fails to hit the mark an intrepid eye has singled out.’ Chateaubriand throws light on this passage in the accompanying Remarques, on p. 429. For Chateaubriand’s creative reading of Sidonius, see Baudoin (2014). Chateaubriand (1845) 116, accounted for on p. 438; for Sidon. Carm. 12, see above at Du Bos, sect. 1.3.2, and below at nineteenth-century Germany, sect. 2.2. Chateaubriand (1845) 97, explained on p. 424; see Sidon. Ep. 8.6.13–15. It is especially worth mentioning the soft spot Chateaubriand had for Sidonius’ Auvergne, as proved by his 1827 Cinq jours à Clermont (Voyage à Clermont).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 693

13/02/20 4:30 PM

694

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

culture. Both are misleading. As an example of the latter, he again adduces Sidonius’ notorious picture of the Burgundians in Carm. 12, where Sidonius complained of being obliged: d’entendre le rauque langage du Germain et de fréquenter le Bourguignon qui se frottoit les cheveux avec du beurre.35 Whereas in Les Martyrs it served the novelist’s purpose of fleshing out Eudore’s tragic plight, in Voyage en Amérique the same piece of evidence is critically assessed by the ethnologist Chateaubriand in order to underpin his methodology. For a ‘travel guide’ Sidonius’ works always come in handy, as one more example may illustrate: Alexandre Dumas père (1802–70) also knew his Sidonius. In Impressions de voyage, when he comes to Arles, he vividly describes the banquet to which Sidonius was invited by the emperor Majorian – the end of Rome’s power, as he says, among statues and marble columns: La puissance romaine s’éteignit à Arles avec Jules Valère Majorien. Il traversa les Alpes en 438 [sic], s’empara de Lyon, et, trouvant, comme Constantin, Arles merveilleusement située, il résolut d’y établir sa cour impériale. Ce fut pendant son séjour en cette ville et dans le palais de Constantin, qu’il invita Sidoine Apollinaire à s’asseoir à sa table; et c’est à cette circonstance que nous devons la lettre du poëte à Montius son ami, lettre dans laquelle il consigne les détails de ce grand festin, où sept grands seigneurs avaient assisté, et où il fait la description du palais, orné, dit-il, de magnifiques statues placées entre des colonnes de marbre.36

1.4.2 François Guizot I began this chapter with Guizot and his appreciation of Sidonius’ letters. François Guizot (1787–1874) made a brilliant career as a Professor of Modern History at the Sorbonne and as a conservative liberal statesman, serving under Louis Philippe in the 1830s and 1840s as Minister of Education and Foreign Minister, ending up as the last Prime Minister of the July monarchy, 1847–8. The revolution of 1848 put an end to his political career. His publications include the famous lectures on the history of civilisation, mentioned above, which developed into a multivolume series, first an Histoire de la civilisation en Europe and then an Histoire de la civilisation en France, published in 1828–30 (and repeatedly reprinted). They were preceded by an impressive series of source material, which appeared during the 1820s. And prior to becoming a minister, Guizot had written the first volume of the Histoire de la révolution d’Angleterre, another pillar of his fame. His admiration for English culture and political institutions was only deepened by a short period of exile in England after his deposition. During the long years of retirement on

35

36

Voyage en Amérique consulted in Chateaubriand (1838) 103. Chateaubriand paraphrases lines 4–7, which, in the original, run: ‘having to endure German speech [and the song of the drunken] Burgundian, who spreads rancid butter on his hair’. Baudoin (2014) 515 seems to have missed this critical approach. Dumas (1841) 132: ‘Rome’s power died down in Arles with Julius Valerius Majorian. He crossed the Alps in 438, took possession of Lyon, and, as – like Constantine – he found Arles splendidly situated, decided to establish his imperial court there. It was during his stay in this city and in the palace of Constantine that he invited Sidonius Apollinaris to sit down at his table; and it is to this circumstance that we owe the poet’s letter to his friend Montius, a letter in which he commits to writing the details of this grand feast where seven grand Lords had been present, and in which he describes the palace, adorned, he says, with magnificent statues placed between marble columns.’ In Sidonius, the dinner is relived in Ep. 1.11.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 694

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

695

his estate in Normandy that followed he continued his historical research, notably on England, and, being a Protestant and a deeply religious man, also wrote on religion, for example Méditations sur le Christianisme. It was during his retirement, in 1869, that Charlotte Yonge met him, as we will see in section 3.3.2. Here I would like highlight his approach to Sidonius in the 1828–30 lectures. References to Sidonius in this work are as follows:37 • • • •

on pp. 112–22, there is a discussion of episcopal elections, including large chunks of Sidonius’ letters 4.25 and 7.9 in translation; on pp. 131–5, there is a comparison of Sidonius ‘l’homme du monde et de plaisir’ and the bishop, including a reading of letter 5.17; p. 149 signals the disappointment of ‘beaux esprits’ like Sidonius and Claudianus Mamertus at the decline of public schools; pp. 226–32 are about the debate in Gaul on the immateriality of the soul, and Faustus’ and Claudianus Mamertus’ role in it. Guizot reads letter 4.11, and continues with a thorough discussion of Claudianus’ De statu animae.

Guizot’s balanced appraisal of Sidonius’ work set a standard for the early nineteenth-century intellectual approach to later Roman authors. Guizot calls it an authentic record of the times by a curious ‘bel esprit’ (p. 90): J’ouvre le recueil des lettres de Sidoine Apollinaire, le monument le plus curieux et en même temps le plus authentique des mœurs de ce temps, surtout des mœurs de la société religieuse.38 And, on p. 181, referring to one of the letters, he deems: Elle porte le caractère ordinaire des lettres de Sidoine; tout l’effort, toute la puérilité du bel esprit s’y mêlent à des sentiments vrais et à des faits curieux.39 Incidentally, Guizot’s Sidonius translations in these lectures were deemed so perfect by Grégoire and Collombet that they respectfully incorporated them into their own 1836 translation.40

2 Germany Unlike in France, in Germany knowledge of Sidonius’ work does not come naturally, and seems to come rather late. In the Baroque period, conventional criticism of his style is taken 37

38

39

40

In the first volume of the Histoire de la civilisation en France, Guizot (1829) (online: ). ‘I open Sidonius Apollinaris’ collected letters, the most curious and, at the same time, most authentic record of the customs of the times, particularly the religious customs in society.’ ‘It bears the usual traits of Sidonius’ letters; all the wit’s effort, all his childlike nature are intermingled with sincere feelings and curious facts.’ The letters concerned are 4.11, 4.25, 5.17, and 7.9. In 1878, Baret says he used the translation which existed in the Guizot family and was made under the supervision of Guizot père. See n. 2 above and, for Grégoire and Collombet, Green, ch. 19, sect. 2, in this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 695

13/02/20 4:30 PM

696

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

for granted. In the nineteenth century, budding nationalism favours quite another side of his work: the information it provides on the earliest Germans.

2.1 Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Literary Criticism In the Baroque period, we meet Sidonius in 1682, in what is the first attempt in ‘Germany’ at a systematic survey of European literature, Unterricht von der Teutschen Sprache und Poesie, by Daniel Georg Morhof (1639–91), who was professor of poetry in Rostock and Kiel. Morhof admires Homer and Vergil for their ability to vary the metre according to what they describe, which makes for expressive vitality. No later poets meet this standard, as they tend to write a monotonous metrical singsong. Morhof mentions only two examples, Claudian and Sidonius. He gives Sidonius a role in the development of rhyme: Nachgehends hat man diese springende Wörtermaaß noch vielmehr beliebt / wie der Sidonius Apollinaris gethan / biß man gar auff die ὁμοιοτέλευτα zu Teutsch genante Reime gekommen.41 In yet another case is Sidonius mentioned in a context of literary criticism, and in an even more negative way. It is in Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst vor die Deutschen, written by Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700–66), his chief work, published in 1730. Gottsched reigned supreme as literary critic in the 1720s and 1730s, becoming a professor in Leipzig. He vigorously opposed the bombast of late seventeenth-century poetry, promoting French classicism instead. In this fragment he argues that a high-flown style is objectionable because it harms the reader’s trust in the author’s veracity. Sidonius is among the defendants: Sein [a historian’s] Zweck ist die nackte Wahrheit zu sagen, das ist, die Begebenheiten, so sich zugetragen haben, ohne allen Firniß, ohne alle Schmincke zu erzehlen. Thäte er das nicht, so würden seine Leser nicht wissen ob sie ihm glauben sollten, oder nicht. . . . Das ist das Urtheil so man vom Curtius mit Grunde zu fällen pflegt. Man traut seinen Nachrichten nicht; weil sie gar zu schön klingen. Florus hat es noch ärger gemacht. Seneca, Apulejus, Sidonius Apollinaris, Martianus Capella, Tertullianus sind unter den ältern; Barclajus aber und unzehliche andre, die in lebendigen Sprachen auch in neuern Zeiten geschrieben, unter diejenigen gezehlet worden, die nicht nur poetisch, sondern gantz hochtrabend, schwülstig, ja unsinnig gedacht und geschrieben haben.42 Elements of crude realism in Sidonius were likewise condemned. The lawyer and art critic Friedrich von Ramdohr (1757–1822), notorious target of budding Romanticism, wrote in Über Mahlerei und Bildhauerarbeit in Rom (1787) that art should not reproduce the ugly peculiarities of

41

42

Morhof (1682) 560–1: ‘Later [after Claudian], this hopping rhythm became even more popular, as Sidonius did, finally developing into full-blown ὁμοιοτέλευτα, called rhymes in German.’ Gottsched (1730) 288–9: ‘His aim is to speak the plain truth, i.e. to tell the events as they happened, without any veneer, without any make-up. If he did not do that, his readers would not know whether or not to believe him. . . . That is the opinion which is usually expressed of Curtius. One does not trust his reports because they sound much too nice. Florus has done it in an even worse way. Seneca, Apuleius, Sidonius Apollinaris, Martianus Capella, Tertullian are among the ancients; furthermore, Barclay [John Barclay, 1582–1621, neoLatin poet] and also innumerable others who have written in living languages in recent times, are numbered among those who have thought and written not only in a poetical, but also in an utterly swollen, bombastic, even absurd way.’

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 696

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

697

real life; consequently, an artist had better not follow Sidonius to the letter in his unflattering description of a gallery of philosopher portraits.43 But Sidonius was also to hand as a source of faits divers for the compiler of a work of reference like Nutzbares, galantes und curiöses Frauenzimmer-Lexikon (1715), Gottlieb Siegmund Corvinus. In this popular handbook of famous women, fashion, housekeeping, ‘und was sonst einem Frauenzimmer zu wissen nöthig’, the lemma ‘Argentaria Polla’ refers to Carm. 23.165–6 to support the assumption, ‘wie einige wollen’, that Argentaria Polla married Statius after Lucan’s death.44

2.2 The Nineteenth Century: A Historical Source In nineteenth-century Germany, interest shifts to the German national past. On 27 February 1851, Jacob Grimm lectures on Germanic language and costume on the basis of letters 5.5, in which Sidonius pokes fun at his friend Syagrius for having mastered the Germanic language, and 4.20, which depicts the Frankish prince Sigismer out courting, accompanied by – to Romans – a picturesque train.45 Jakob von Falke, in a study of German costume and fashion, quotes from Sidonius’ description of the barbarians in Carm. 12 (l. 7): Sidonius Apollinaris weiß gar von geronnener Milch (? infundens acido comam butyro) zu sprechen, welche die Burgunder ins Haar gossen.46 He also recounts at length the variegated attire of what he thinks are Burgundians in the wedding procession in Lyon, from the same Ep. 4.20 on which Grimm commented.47 He goes on to paraphrase Carm. 7.452–7, where the council of elders assemble in their daily clothes. Sidonius’ little Carmen 12 may actually be called an evergreen. With its cutting evocation of German appearance and behaviour, this poem, in 1822, made it to the columns of the Zeitung für die elegante Welt, in a German translation entitled ‘Einquartierungsklage während der Völkerwanderung’ (‘complaint against billeting during the migration of nations’) and signed ‘Kretzschmer’, as an illustration of nil novi sub sole.48 It keeps appealing to people’s minds, as witnessed by the success of a modern German translation offered by

43 44

45

46

47

48

Von Ramdohr (1787) 237, citing at length Ep. 9.9.14 per gymnasia pingantur etc. Corvinus (1715) 70. ‘Wie einige wollen’, ‘as some suppose’, is an understatement as this interpretation had been widely accepted ever since Jean Savaron first mentioned it in 1599 in his second Sidonius edition, with commentary, at Ep. 2.10.6 with reference to Carm. 23. It is also duly recorded by Jacques Sirmond in his editions of 1614 and 1652. It can be surmised that Corvinus used either or both of these standard editions. Modern scholarship, however, keeps aloof from this idea, instead considering the hypothesis that Lucan’s widow remarried Statius’ patron Pollius Felix; see Vessey (1974), Nisbet (1978), van Dam (1984) 454–5, and Newlands (2011) 21–2. Grimm (1871) 403–8; originally a paper for the Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, given on 27 February 1851, and published in its Monatsberichte, pp. 107–11; cf. Breslau (1997) 164. Von Falke (1858) 8: ‘Sidonius Apollinaris even knows about curdled milk . . . which the Burgundians poured on their hair.’ Anderson translates: ‘[the gluttonous Burgundian] who spreads rancid butter on his hair’. Von Falke (1858) 22–3. It is nowadays generally thought that these were Franks, whereas the occasion is either a wedding or a proposal of marriage. See Amherdt (2001) 423. Zeitung für die elegante Welt, 21 September 1822, no. 185, cols 1473–4, ; cf. Goedeke and Jacob (1984) 700. Could ‘Kretzschmer’ be Andreas Kretzschmer (1775–1839), a friend of Wolf, Weber, and Zelter, civil servant involved in the preservation of historic buildings, composer, and folksong researcher? Among other things, he translated some of Byron’s poems. See .

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 697

13/02/20 4:30 PM

698

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Georg Baesecke,49 which has been anonymously circulating on the Internet over the past few years, from an article on garlic to a blogpost on shaving balm, and was recently quoted in full in an analysis of the 2015 European immigration crisis in Die Welt on 23 August 2015. Back to the nineteenth century. Sidonius also served as a source for the history of German law, as in the first volume of Heinrich Brunner’s important Deutsche Rechtgeschichte (1887), on the legal status of outlaws (p. 168 n. 13 quotes Ep. 6.4.1 for vargi), on human sacrifices (p. 176 n. 52 mentions the Saxon pirates murdering one captive in ten before departure; Ep. 8.6.15), and on the leges Visigothorum (p. 321 n. 2, citing Ep. 2.1.3 leges Theudosianas calcans Theudoricianasque proponens).50 Other scholars mined Sidonius for a variety of historical subjects, from the history of iron to a manual of arms.51 In connection with Sidonius, probably the most striking and, with hindsight, tragic lesson not drawn from history was given in 1885. On 19 March of that year, in the Berlin Akademie der Wissenschaften, its presiding secretary Theodor Mommsen delivered the official speech to celebrate King and Emperor Wilhelm I’s eighty-eighth birthday. The speech was entirely devoted to Sidonius Apollinaris and the Germanic peoples.52 Winding up, after a resounding piece of applied history, Mommsen imparts this moral lesson to the king: the Germanic invasions were no great success, ‘ein Weltreich zu gründen, ist nicht germanisch’, let us modestly advance the cause of peace, for we know the alternative: Wir wissen es, dass unsere ganze Nation durchdrungen ist von der Empfindung des ungeheuren Unglücks, welches über die Welt kommen würde, wenn also durch Ströme von Blut dieselbe zur einheiltichen Öde gemacht würde.53 After the annexation of Schleswig-Holstein barely twenty years earlier and then the FrancoPrussian war, and in view of the question of the succession to Kaiser Wilhelm I with its uncertain implications for war and peace, Mommsen, himself a native of Schleswig-Holstein, forcefully brought forward his idea of a unified German nation within its natural boundaries, against any rash expansionism, illustrated by the overall failure of the Germans in Sidonius’ time to create durable states far outside their ‘natural boundaries’.54

3 Great Britain The history of Sidonius reception in Great Britain is still largely virgin territory. I would like to contribute two English pieces of the puzzle, the first on the inescapable Edward Gibbon 49

50 51

52

53

54

Baesecke (1940) 93, adopted by Heinrich Beck in RGA s.v. ‘Burgunden’ 4 (1981) 224–30, on p. 229. For Carm. 12, see above at Du Bos, sect. 1.3.2, and at Chateaubriand, sect. 1.4.1. It is interesting to note that Brunner used Baret’s new 1878 edition (see Green, ch. 19 in this volume). Beck (1884) on iron: p. 727 for the use of coats of mail, the Visigoths examining theirs in Ep. 3.3.5 circulos loricarum, and Carm. 5.399 the Vandal pirates donning ferrea texta; p. 817 to prove the fact that in Sidonius’ times at least the iron pits in Noricum were not yet exhausted. Boeheim (1890), on armour, adduces Sidonius as proof that, in the fifth century, the battle axe ‘unter den Galliern zur Nationalwaffe geworden war’. At the time, after Christian Lütjohann’s death in April 1884, Mommsen was working on how to get the Sidonius edition in the MGH published, which might explain the choice of this theme for the speech. The edition finally came out in 1887. On Mommsen’s vast contribution to the study of Late Antiquity, see Croke (1990). In Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1885) 215–23, esp. 223, (= Hirschfeld (1905) 132–43): ‘We know that our entire nation deeply feels the terrible disaster which would happen to the world if it were thus made into a uniform wilderness through streams of blood.’ For Mommsen’s opinion of the Germans, see Goltz (2005), esp. 234–9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 698

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

699

(who relied on the French tradition of Sirmond and Tillemont), the second on the once famous Victorian novelist Charlotte Mary Yonge (where the trace also leads to France). The latter merits separate treatment, and for that reason has been given a slightly higher profile here to begin with. A short introductory note on the seventeenth century serves only as a reminder of how much is still below the surface.

3.1 The Seventeenth Century: Poet and Letter-Writer Praise for Sidonius as a poet definitely survived mainstream Renaissance condescension to his artistry, in both Catholic and Protestant circles. The Catholic John Abbot published Iesus praefigured in 1623, a poem in five books on the Holy Name of Jesus. In book 2, Sidonius figures in a Christian poetic Pantheon of sorts: Yet former ages often-times haue seene Our Christian Prophets deckt vvith Lavvrel greene Ascend Olympus Mount: vvhere their chast laies Revvarded are vvith glories glitt’ring raies, And Poets brovves vvith Lavvrels Crovvned are, (King DAVID (Poets Phoebus) hath this care: So is Sidonius Crovvnd, Prudence vvho vvrit Things vvorthy of Apollo full of vvitt. Prosper, Sedulius, vvho the nine haue taught VVhen they sing hymnes to blush as Maidens ought.55 In the Protestant Edward Stillingfleet’s 1685 Origines Britannicae, one of the perennial themes in British historiography and Arthurian lore and fantasy is seen: the identity of the British/ Breton king Riothamus, to whom Sidonius wrote letter 3.9.56

3.2 The Eighteenth Century: Edward Gibbon Edward Gibbon (1737–94) had continuous recourse to Sidonius for his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which was published in 1776–88. In chapter 36, he famously levels the following charge at Sidonius’ style: The prose of Sidonius, however vitiated by a false and affected taste, is much superior to his insipid verses.57 and keeps struggling with this issue: This epistle [Ep. 2.13], with some indulgence, may claim the praise of an elegant composition.

55 56 57

Abbot (1623) 95. Stillingfleet (1685) 351–2. Gibbon (1776–88) III.xxxvi.393 n. 97 (in what follows, references are by original volume number, chapter, and page in the edition of Womersley (1994)).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 699

13/02/20 4:30 PM

700

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

and but this composition [the Panegyric on Avitus], though it was rewarded with a brass statue, seems to contain a very moderate proportion either of genius or of truth. The poet, if we may degrade that sacred name, exaggerates the merits of a sovereign and a father.58 But this persistently cited negative judgement sometimes receives a counterweight. Gibbon values Sidonius’ perceptive observations, in the same footnote as the first quotation above: This letter does honour to his heart, as well as to his understanding. and in instances like: The best original account of the Saxon pirates and the original picture of a Gothic king [Theoderic in Ep. 1.2], whom Sidonius had intimately observed,59 while acknowledging the potential ‘the learned and eloquent Sidonius’ had for writing history: If the modesty of Sidonius had not discouraged him from the prosecution of this interesting work [the history of the war of Attila, cf. Ep. 8.14 and Carm. 7.319–28], the historian would have related, with the simplicity of truth, those memorable events, to which the poet, in vague and doubtful metaphors, has concisely alluded.60 Aged 52, after completing Decline and Fall, Gibbon embarked on his Memoirs of My Life and Writings. In it, he refers to Sirmond’s Sidonius edition, which he used for his work, tying it in with his own scholarly ethos: I consummated my first labour [Essay on the Study of Literature] by a short preface, which is dated February 3d, 1759. Yet I still shrunk from the press with the terrors of virgin modesty: the manuscript was safely deposited in my desk; and as my attention was engaged by new objects, the delay might have been prolonged till I had fulfilled the precept of Horace, nonumque prematur in annum. Father Sirmond, a learned jesuit, was still more rigid, since he advised a young friend to expect the mature age of fifty, before he gave himself or his writings to the public . . . . The counsel was singular; but it is still more singular that it should have been approved by the example of the author. Sirmond was himself fifty-five years of age when he published (in 1614) his first work, an edition of Sidonius Apollinaris, with many valuable annotations.61

58 59 60 61

Gibbon (1776–88) III.xxxvi.358 n. 1 and 368. Gibbon (1776–88) III.xxxvi.393 n. 97, II.xxv.995 n. 105, and III.xxxvi.364, respectively. Gibbon (1776–88) III.xxxv.334. Gibbon (1796) 88.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 700

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

701

3.3 The Nineteenth Century: Charlotte Mary Yonge 3.3.1 ‘The Price of Blood’ The prolific Victorian novelist Charlotte Mary Yonge (1823–1901), a bestseller in her own time, provides a beautiful example of the significance which Late Antiquity held for the High Church movement, and, besides, of the fascination which Sidonius may exert in creative writing.62 Yonge was born in the village of Otterbourne, Hampshire, and lived there until her death. Her education included Greek and Latin, engendering a love of the classics which she was to incorporate into her later pedagogical work.63 Strongly influenced by the vicar of the neighbouring parish of Horsley, Rev. John Keble, who sparked the devotional and liturgical reform movement in the Church of England which came to be known as the Oxford or Tractarian Movement, and fed into Anglo-Catholicism, she became a distinctive voice in her own right among other leading figures such as John Henry Newman and Edward Pusey.64 Devoting her profits to charitable works, she published not only articles, children’s stories, and history books, but also many novels that had a great national success and exerted a strong influence on public opinion with their enticing Christian morality. Her most famous work is the novel The Heir of Redclyffe (1853). Its chivalric hero, Guy Morville, fascinated, among others, William Morris and Edward Burne-Jones, when students, and was a formative element towards their continuation of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. In Yonge’s thinking, ideas of purity, generosity, and self-renunciation play a prominent role. These ideals also are the backbone of a short story, ‘The Price of Blood’, which she published in 1890 in the volume More Bywords, this time situated in Late Antiquity, in Sidonius’ Clermont.65 The following is a brief synopsis: Shortly after his release from Visigothic captivity, Bishop Sidonius is staying in the (fictional) city of Claudiodunum at the house of his friend Victorinus, a nobleman appointed by the victorious Visigoths to govern and administer justice in the city. A procession for a rogatio66 has just drawn to an end, and the various members of the prestigious household are returning home, when Victorinus is suddenly called upon to resolve a delicate legal question. The fiancé of his daughter Columba, the brave Arvernian Verronax, has been drawn into a fight when defending Christ from the blasphemies of a group of Arian Visigoths and has mortally wounded Odorik, a young Goth. Sidonius offers to help put together the sum needed to compensate Odorik’s family. Victorinus and Verronax set out for Bordeaux to ask King Euric for a ruling on the case. But Lucius, the gentle and studious son of Victorinus and an aspirant priest, has pre-empted them and offers himself as a sacrificial victim in Verronax’s 62

63

64

65 66

For Yonge’s biography, see Coleridge (1903), Battiscombe (1943), Hayter (1996), and Jay (2004). A short but perceptive encyclopaedic article, including a critical analysis, is to be found in Krueger (2003). Dennis (1992) provides an appraisal of Yonge as a novelist of the Oxford Movement. Schultze (2007) provides information on Yonge’s own classical background and on her thoughts on classical education for girls. For a first introduction and further reading on the Oxford Movement, consult the relevant articles in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed. 2009, online at ). The movement’s ethical thinking has recently been re-examined by Pereiro (2007), while its social and political thinking is assessed by Skinner (2004). Yonge (1890). The Rogation Days (Litaniae minores) are the subject of an article in Yonge’s The Monthly Packet magazine, NS 15 (1873) 417, ‘The Rogation Days and the Feast of the Ascension’.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 701

13/02/20 4:30 PM

702

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

place. At an assembly of the Goths near Bordeaux, Odorik’s father, the venerable warrior Odo, rejects the heavy wehrgeld (ransom) that Sidonius has managed to send, and demands the blood of either Verronax or Lucius. The assembly determines to draw lots to ascertain the will of God, when, suddenly, Victorinus’ second son Marcus arrives breathless to announce that Odorik is still alive. Performing a characteristic act of charity despite her personal grief, Colomba has visited Odorik, wounded and unconscious, but not yet dead. She has taken care of him, and thanks also to the ‘science and sagacity’ of Sidonius, has saved his life. After a feast of reconciliation, Odo follows Victorinus and his party to the villa where his son is convalescent. There he embraces Odorik, who expresses his remorse for offending the true Christian religion, and reveals that the behaviour of Lucius and Colomba has shown him a persuasive mirror of the love of Christ, who offered himself up as a sacrificial victim, and of the charity that belief in Christ’s divine nature inspires. He has thus abandoned the Arian faith, and embraced the true creed. As in The Heir of Redclyffe, money is raised to pay off a debt (here ‘the price of blood’) incurred in male rivalry and carnal passion, and a protagonist is nursed back to health through feminine tenderness and altruism. Christian virtue triumphs over human shortcomings. Bishop Sidonius plays an important role for expertise as both a fund-raiser and a healer. Writing for both boys and girls, men and women, Yonge is as keen to stress Christian chivalry as female abnegation, ending her tale by bringing out its teachings for both sexes.

3.3.2 Yonge and Guizot Where did Yonge discover Sidonius? The nineteenth century, of course, evoked the idealised medieval Christian past as a model for contemporary religious and ethical revival. The Oxford Movement also looked beyond the Middle Ages for inspiration, to Late Antiquity and the Church Fathers, resulting notably in the publication of a collection of translations, entitled A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church.67 Yonge gives proof of this very orientation in a volume of stories from Roman history for children, which appeared in 1877 (one year after a book on the beginnings of church history) as one of a series which included biblical, Greek, English, German, French, and American history.68 Strikingly, this Young Folks’ History of Rome also features chapters on late antique figures, including Constantine, Constantius, Valentinian and his family, Theodosius the Great, Alaric the Goth, the Vandals, Attila the Hun, Theoderic the Ostrogoth, Belisarius, and Pope Gregory the Great. It contains a passage on Sidonius (in chapter 43): the Romans elected as Emperor a senator named Avitus, a Gaul by birth, a peaceful and good man. His daughter had married a most excellent Gaulish gentleman named Sidonius Apollinaris, who wrote such good poetry that the Romans placed his bust crowned with laurel in the Capitol. He wrote many letters, too, which are preserved to this time, and show that, in the midst of all this crumbling power of Rome, people in Southern Gaul managed to have many peaceful days of pleasant country life. But Sidonius’ quiet days came to an end when, layman and lawyer as he was, the people of Clermont begged 67

68

It came out between 1838 and 1888. For a list of titles, see . On the Tractarians as Patristic translators, see Pfaff (1973). Yonge (1877).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 702

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : 16TH TO 19TH CENTURIES

703

him to be their Bishop. The Church stood, whatever fell, and people trusted more to their Bishop than to any one else, and wanted him to be the ablest man they could find. So Sidonius took the charge of them, and helped them to hold out their mountain city of Clermont for a whole year against the Goths, and gained good terms for them at last, though he himself had to suffer imprisonment and exile from these Arian Goths because of his Catholic faith. The answer to the question of where Yonge picked up Sidonius is given in her correspondence, and leads to France. In a letter from 1874, she writes: I think I was misled by the love of Vercingetorix, also of Sidonius Apollinaris whom I have admired ever since I met with him in Guizot.69 This is the François Guizot we met above (section 1.4.2). Yonge first encountered him in person in August and September 1869, on Guizot’s country estate in Normandy. His eldest daughter, Henriette, Madame de Witt, was Yonge’s translator into French.70 The Guizots invited her to visit France and stay with them.71 Her letters home about her stay are mainly confined to the daily prayers, meals, and walks, which, of course, does not exclude the possibility that she discussed history books for children with Guizot, who had been writing L’Histoire de France racontée à mes petits-enfants.72 In a handful of pages, it tells the demise of Gaul, without mentioning Sidonius, for that matter.73 But it is probable that Yonge had known Guizot’s work much longer. It is clear from her letters that she was in touch with the Guizot household by 1864 at the latest. Also, Guizot publicly praised Yonge’s Heir of Redclyffe in the mid-1850s as the epitome of the kind of domestic novel in which the English excelled but which did not exist in France.74 Yonge’s most likely source of information for her own 69

70

71 72

73 74

Letter to her friend and collaborator Edward Augustus Freeman, 7 October 1874. At the time, both were working on history books. Sidonius is also mentioned in another letter to Freeman, dated 27 January 1875: ‘I hope Miss Florence [Freeman’s daughter] will do Sidonius Apollinaris in spite of the wedding! I kept it till I thought she would be come home’ (source: ). The pairing of Sidonius with Vercingetorix, as in this quotation, was evidently very much in Yonge’s mind, as, in ‘The Price of Blood’, too, Vercingetorix is mentioned in the paragraph immediately preceding that in which Sidonius is introduced. She sounds very much like Yonge’s French opposite number, publishing many novels and histories for children and devoting the proceeds to charity. Yonge returned the favour and translated some of de Witt’s works. (I thank Dr Paul Barnaby for this, and a number of other inspiring observations on the contact between Yonge and the Guizots. It seems that Yonge’s relations with Guizot are a little under-researched in the existing monographs on her. Mare and Percival (1948) 212–15 describe this episode at the greatest length, but treat the invitation as an immediate consequence of de Witt’s desire to translate Yonge. But it’s clear from Yonge’s letters that she was in touch with the Guizot household well before 1869. It is also worth noting that Yonge, often treated as a domestic English phenomenon, was very successful in France.) Letter to William Heathcote, 28 February 1869. The title points to a common enthusiasm of Yonge and Guizot: Sir Walter Scott, echoing his Tales of a Grandfather, a Child’s History of Scotland and France. Guizot (1879) 120–5 (online: ). Compare Yonge’s letter to Mary Elizabeth Christie, 8 December 1896, and Wilkie Collins’ (‘Doctor Dulcamara M.P.’) review to which it refers, in Household Words, no. 456 (18 December 1858), pp. 49–52. This review, in its turn, refers to a speech by Sidney Herbert MP, printed in The Times, 29 October 1858, p. 7. He remembered Guizot saying that one class of books was particularly English: ‘They are books describing a virtuous domestic life . . . . They do not go to the tragic or dramatic for interest, but they draw it from the simple springs of natural life.’ This ‘compliment’ was ridiculed by Collins. Guizot’s utterance thus dates to between 1853 and 1858. (I would like to thank Dr Paul Barnaby for researching this.)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 703

13/02/20 4:30 PM

704

JOOP VAN WAARDEN

work is Guizot’s famous 1828–30 lectures, the Histoire de la civilisation en France, which give ample room to Sidonius, and contain his translations of a number of letters.75 Some of the story’s detailing might also be due to it, especially the notion of wehrgeld in Salian law.76 Sidonius’ liberality, on the other hand, rather reminds one of Gregory of Tours’ account of Sidonius’ life in his History of the Franks, 2.21–3. Yonge possibly read this, too, thanks to Guizot, whose vast array of source material for the history of France included a translation of Gregory’s History.77

4 Further Reading Classical receptions study is a thriving field – much more so, however, for the classical period than for Late Antiquity. For Sidonius, much work has still to be done, especially for the period under scrutiny in this chapter. The emblematic work on reception is Gilbert Highet’s The Classical Tradition (1949). Grafton et al. (2010) is a recent comprehensive encyclopaedic survey bearing the same title, mainly centred on concepts. Walde (2012) is another encyclopaedic overview, centred on authors, part of Brill’s New Pauly; the New Pauly also features Landfester (2006–11) on The Classical Tradition, in six volumes. Companion volumes in the field include Martindale and Thomas (2006) and Hardwick and Stray (2008). Reception in English literature is catered for by the multivolume Oxford History of Classical Reception in English Literature (OHCREL). In France the project ‘Présence de l’Antiquité’, directed by Rémy Poignault at the Centre de recherches André Piganiol, Clermont-Ferrand, puts out numerous publications. The Université de Bourgogne boasts a similar initiative, also called ‘Présence de l’Antiquité’. In Germany, volumes of Antike und Abendland have appeared annually since 1945, while Verlag Antike in Heidelberg publishes a series ‘Rezeption der Antike’. Riedel (2000) provides an introduction to the reception of Antiquity in German literature from the Renaissance to the present. Journals in the field include the International Journal of the Classical Tradition (since 1995), Anabases: Traditions et Réceptions de l’Antiquité (since 2005, open access78), and the Classical Receptions Journal (since 2009).

75 76

77

78

See also above, sect. 1.4.2, with n. 37, and n. 2. Guizot (1829) 343. Yonge read French, but, if indeed she consulted this work, it could also have been in the available English translations, the partial one by D.A. Talboys, 2nd edn 1838, and the complete one by William Hazlitt, 1857. Gregory’s chapters on Sidonius in Guizot (1823) 79–85 (online: ). See also above, n. 6. Note that Yonge also read and valued Guizot’s history of the English Rebellion, ‘which is a very fair book, and being the judgment of a statesman cannot be sneered at’ (letter by Yonge to Miss Routledge, 20 May c. 1880). .

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 704

13/02/20 4:30 PM

24 SIDONIUS RECEPTION: LATE NINETEENTH TO TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES Filomena Giannotti

T

HIS CHAPTER WILL chart how, from the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twenty-first, a significant number of authors were drawn to rewrite and repurpose Sidonius’ unique life story and multifaceted personality from a literary perspective. Sidonius has gradually become a more and more popular figure in narrative fiction, and the protean nature of his experiences and talents has enabled individual authors, each stressing different aspects of his life or character, to present a wide and complex range of ‘variations on a theme’. Yet, despite the diversity of their approaches (and a differing degree of sympathy for their subject), these authors are united in depicting certain key aspects of Sidonius’ personality, which converge to form the basis of a shared contemporary portrait of their subject.

1 The Revival of Sidonius: ‘Decadence’, Interbellum, and Auvergnat Regionalism 1.1 ‘Decadence’ Since the final decades of the nineteenth century, Sidonius Apollinaris, an author almost unknown outside scholarly circles since the Renaissance and often subjected to condescending and highly limiting critical judgements, has gradually emerged into the limelight. By virtue of living a difficult and eventful life at a critical juncture of Late Antiquity, and mounting a sincere defence of cultural values in a period of ‘decadence’, he has gained a novel degree of relevance and attention.1 If one assessment symbolically signals this upturn in Sidonius’ fortunes, it is that found in Joris-Karl Huysmans’ discussion of the literary tastes of his protagonist Des Esseintes in his 1884 novel À rebours:2 Il aimait mieux feuilleter la Psychomachia de Prudence . . . , et les œuvres de Sidoine Apollinaire dont la correspondance lardée de saillies, de pointes, d’archaïsmes, d’énigmes, le tentait. Volontiers, il relisait les panégyriques où cet évêque invoque, à l’appui de ses

1

2

‘Bref, il y a un revival de Sidoine!’ (‘In other words, there is a Sidonius revival!’): Wolff (2014c) 260. For the many disparaging assessments of Sidonius in critical history, see Wolff (2014c) 259–60 and Harich-Schwarzbauer (2014) 133–7 (section entitled ‘“Dekadenz” in der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung des 19. Jahrhunderts’). Cf. also Giannotti (2016) ‘Introduzione’ §5. For a useful collection of material for the reception of Sidonius, see Joop van Waarden’s ‘Reception’ pages on his Sidonius website, , to which I owe several pointers for this chapter. See Huysmans (1977) 119–20. Translation Huysmans (1998) 30.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 705

13/02/20 4:30 PM

706

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

vaniteuses louanges, les déités du paganisme, et, malgré tout, il se sentait un faible pour les affectations et les sous-entendus de ces poésies fabriquées par un ingénieux mécanicien qui soigne sa machine, huile ses rouages, en invente, au besoin, de compliqués et d’inutiles. He much preferred browsing through the Psychomachia of Prudentius, . . . and . . . the works of Sidonius Apollinaris, whose correspondence, studded with witticisms, conceits, archaisms, and enigmas, he found intriguing. He was fond of rereading the panegyrics in which that Bishop invokes, in support of his self-satisfied encomia, the deities of the pagan world, and, in spite of everything, he had to admit to a weakness for the affectations and innuendos of these poems, constructed by an ingenious mechanic who takes good care of his machine, keeping its working parts well oiled, and who if required can devise new ones which are both complicated and useless. The deliberately provocative nature of what would become one of the most famous and frequently cited modern comments on Sidonius’ work unsurprisingly prompted reactions from a diametrically opposed perspective. These substantially conformed to the communis opinio on Sidonius – and on many other poets of the Roman ‘Decadence’ – held by the few who were even aware of their existence and literary production. In 1886, one of the leading literary critics of his age, Jules Lemaître (1853–1914), in a collection of critical appraisals of contemporary authors, published a virulent attack on ‘la folie sensationniste de Des Esseintes’ (‘the sensationist folly of Des Esseintes’), whom he dubbed ‘un maniaque, un fou, ou tout bonnement un imbécile très compliqué’ (‘a maniac, a madman, or, quite simply, a very complicated imbecile’), doubting strongly that Huysmans had ever really read the authors he mentions.3 Another interesting case is Remy de Gourmont (1858–1915), a writer and critic close to the Symbolists. His Le latin mystique (first published 1892, with a preface by Huysmans) is a profoundly sympathetic, and influential, re-reading of late antique and medieval poetry, in which he interprets the spiritual turmoil of his own times – the ferment of decadence and mysticism – against the foil of the fragmentation of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. In this context, he comments appreciatively on the generally maligned Sidonius.4 Six years later, in the article ‘Stéphane Mallarmé et l’idée de décadence’, distinguishing sharply between difficultly comprehended originality and uninspired imitation, he shows himself again open to a renewed appreciation of Late Antiquity. He criticises Huysmans, claiming – like Lemaître – that his Des Esseintes (and, by extension, Huysmans himself)5 had probably never even read the poets he purported to love. There can be no justification, he insists, for trying to pigeonhole both Sidonius and Mallarmé as ‘Decadents’:6 Un parallèle inexorable s’imposa entre les poètes nouveaux et les obscurs versificateurs de la décadence romaine vantés par Des Esseintes. L’élan fut unanime et ceux mêmes que l’on décriait acceptèrent le décri comme une distinction. Le principe admis, les 3

4 5 6

Lemaître (1886), esp. 324–35 (§4). Lemaître is similarly dismissive of Huysmans a little earlier in the essay (in §1): ‘M. Huysmans est une espèce de misanthrope impressionniste qui trouve tout idiot, plat et ridicule. Ce mépris est chez lui comme une maladie mentale, et il éprouve le besoin de l’exprimer continuellement’ (‘M. Huysmans is a sort of impressionist misanthrope who finds everything stupid, dull, and ridiculous. In him, this contempt is like a mental illness, and he feels the need to express it continuously’). See Chevallier (2002) 167–8, who also gives Huysmans’ response. Gourmont (1892) 57–62. See Wolff (2014c) 259. Cf. Chevallier (2002) 164. This article, originally published in 1898, is reprinted in Gourmont (1964) 93–107; see Wolff (2014c) 259 (which quotes the extract from pp. 102–3 reproduced above). Wolff adds: ‘Huysmans n’avait pas lu les auteurs

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 706

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

707

comparaisons abondèrent. Comme nul, et pas même Des Esseintes, peut-être, n’avait lu ces poètes dépréciés, ce fut un jeu pour tel feuilletoniste de rapprocher de Sidoine Apollinaire, qu’il ignorait, Stéphane Mallarmé, qu’il ne comprenait pas. Ni Sidoine Apollinaire ni Mallarmé ne sont des décadents, puisqu’ils possèdent l’un et l’autre, à des degrés divers, une originalité propre; mais c’est pour cela même que le mot fut justement appliqué au poète de L’Après-midi d’un Faune, car il signifiait, très obscurément, dans l’esprit de ceux-là mêmes qui en abusaient: quelque chose de mal connu, de difficile, de rare, de précieux, d’inattendu, de nouveau. A persistent parallel was established between the new poets and the obscure versifiers of the Roman Decadence exalted by Des Esseintes. It was a unanimous effort, and even those who were being denounced accepted the denunciation as a mark of distinction. Once the premise was generally accepted, there were no end of comparisons. Since no one, and perhaps not even Des Esseintes himself, had read these much-derided poets, it was child’s play for some journalist or other to liken Sidonius Apollinaris, of whom he was completely ignorant, to Stéphane Mallarmé, whom he did not understand. Neither Sidonius Apollinaris nor Mallarmé is decadent, as they both possess, in differing degrees, an originality of their own; but it is precisely for that reason that the word ‘decadent’ was applied to the author of L’Après-midi d’un Faune, because, in the minds of those who misused the term, it very obscurely signified something little known, difficult, rare, precious, unexpected, new. Disappointed in Huysmans, Gourmont, from the second edition onwards, replaced Huysmans’ preface to Le latin mystique with one written by himself. In the meantime, a similar reaction had emerged from an essayist writing from a very different perspective, Max Nordau (1849–1923, pen name of Simon Miksa Südfeld). In a widely read and highly controversial series of publications, he denounced contemporary irrationality, nihilism, and artistic degeneration. Tragically, the moral stance of this founding father of Zionism was to pave the way to the Nazi campaign against entartete Kunst. Late Latin poets, he claims in Entartung (Degeneration) from 1892–3, are wilfully being misrepresented by modern decadents:7 The truth is that these degenerate writers [like Gautier, Baudelaire, and Huysmans] have arbitrarily attributed their own state of mind to the authors of the Roman and Byzantine decadence, to a Petronius, but especially to a Commodianus of Gaza, an Ausonius, a Prudentius, a Sidonius Apollinaris, etc., and have created in their own image, or according to their morbid instincts, an ‘ideal man of the Roman decadence’.

7

dont il parle, il pique ses épithètes sur les analyses de l’Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande d’Adolf Ebert, dont le premier tome a été traduit en français en 1883 (Histoire générale de la littérature du Moyen Âge en Occident)’ (‘Huysmans had not read the authors whom he discusses; he lifted his epithets straight from the analyses in Adolf Ebert’s Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande, the first volume of which had been translated into French in 1883 as Histoire générale de la littérature du Moyen Âge en Occident’). As to the suspicion that Huysmans worked at second hand, Chevallier (2002) 165 is inclined, nonetheless, to give him the benefit of the doubt. The quotation is from Nordau (1993) 301, translating Nordau (1892–3). See also Amherdt (2013) 23 and de Palacio (2014) 529–31.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 707

13/02/20 4:30 PM

708

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

While glimpses of Sidonius could be caught in the verses of poets who gravitated between Parnassianism and Symbolism like Laurent Tailhade (1854–1919) and Pierre Louÿs (1870– 1925),8 he also began to figure in classically themed narrative, portrayed precisely as one of those ‘decadents and aesthetes’ who attracted Max Nordau’s opprobrium.9 As a result, the figure of Sidonius began to be twisted into new and tendentious shapes. One of the most striking examples is the novel L’Augustule 475–476 (1903) by Aimé Giron and Albert Tozza, which presents a Sidonius ‘revu et corrigé en esthète fin-de-siècle’ (‘revised and corrected into a fin-de-siècle aesthete’), a ‘nouvel arbitre des élégances’ (‘a new arbiter of elegance’) who ‘médit de tous avec une bienveillance amusée, et profère des aphorismes et paradoxes dignes d’un Oscar Wilde’ (‘slanders everyone with an amused benevolence and proffers aphorisms and paradoxes worthy of Oscar Wilde’).10 Sidonius is openly depicted here as a protean and disillusioned figure, ready to bend in whatever direction seems opportune. He seems thus to faithfully mirror the cultural milieu which, according to Marie-France de Palacio, produces this characterisation: ‘à travers cet être de papier se dessine une interprétation qui est moins personnelle que collective (le fait que l’auteur en soit bicéphale confirme cette lecture possible), reflet fidèle d’un “esprit fin-de-siècle”’ (‘this paper creature embodies an interpretation which is less personal than collective (the fact that it is a collaborative work confirms this possible reading), a faithful reflection of the “fin-de-siècle spirit’”).11 In the Germanophobe and nationalistic climate after the defeat of France in 1870, Sidonius was tendentiously framed as the impotent victim of the Barbarians by Édouard Drumont (1844–1917). In La dernière bataille (1890), one of a long series of anti-Semitic pamphlets, he projects a decadent end-of-an-era atmosphere both onto his own time and onto Late Antiquity, where Jewish-German internationalism and the Germanic invasions are portrayed as twin manifestations of the evil that destroys, and destroyed, the French nation.12

1.2 Interbellum: Buchan, Graves, and Derème Between World Wars I and II, two works of British fiction in which Sidonius plays an ancillary role are worth mentioning. First, Sidonius makes a brief appearance in ‘The Wind in the Portico’, a fantastic tale by Scottish writer and politician John Buchan (1875–1940) published in his 1928 collection 8 9 10

11 12

For Tailhade and Louÿs, see de Palacio (2014) 533. And which provide the heading for one of the chapters of his Entartung: see de Palacio (2014) 530–1. De Palacio (2014) 531. For Giron and Tozza (1903) see the reading in de Palacio (2014) 531–3, which provides further commentary and quotations. Aimé Giron (1836–1907) was a lawyer and one of the most prolific writers of his time. He first achieved fame with the poetry collection Le Sabot de Noël, published in 1863; in his prose, he is often inspired by the history and the legends of his native region, the Velay (Haute-Loire). Albert Tozza (1855–1923), of Corsican origin, was a teacher and the author of historical novels, including Les jardins du Magnifique and, together with Aimé Giron, Antinoüs. He is best known for his translation (from Latin) of a Histoire de la Corse by the sixteenth-century author Pietro Cirneo. L’Augustule was written in 1901–2 and credits Sidonius himself with coining the derogatory epithet for the last emperor in one of his vaguely disdainful witticisms; this is quoted in de Palacio (2014) 531 and 535: ‘qu’on donne l’Occident, en jouet, au tout petit César, à l’Augustule, souligna Sidoine sur un ton ironique’ (‘let them give the West, as a plaything, to the tiny Caesar, to the Augustulus, Sidonius observed in an ironic tone’). For further details of this novel and its portrayal of Sidonius, see de Palacio (forthcoming). De Palacio (2014) 532. This work has been brilliantly analysed by de Palacio (2014) 525–9, who provides a detailed contextualisation of both the author and the book.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 708

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

709

The Runagates Club.13 Henry Nightingale, a classical scholar, visits a secluded estate to view a neglected manuscript for his critical edition of Theocritus. He learns that Dubellay, the owner, has recently discovered a shrine to the Celtic god Vaunus (associated by the Romans with Apollo) and has rehoused it in his manor. Nightingale humorously suggests that Dubellay rededicate it as a Christian altar and cites an entirely fictional passage in Sidonius, where ‘you begin by sacrificing a white cock or something suitable, and tell Apollo with all friendliness that the old dedication is off for the present’.14 Dubellay hurriedly rejects the suggestion as if Nightingale ‘had offended his ears by some horrid blasphemy’. When, however, Nightingale returns for a final look at the Theocritus manuscript in summer 1914, his host’s attitude is markedly different. He begs Nightingale to read him the relevant passage from the edition of Sidonius held in the manor’s splendid classical library. Realising that Dubellay is in deadly earnest, Nightingale urges him to ‘let old Vaunus stick to his altar’ and reminds him that ‘we’re in the twentieth century and not in the third’ (p. 137). Dubellay ignores Nightingale’s advice, performs the ritual, and is apparently slain by a vengeful Vaunus in the form of a scorching wind. His house and library are burnt to the ground and the invaluable Theocritus manuscript destroyed, but, as Nightingale remarks, ‘that didn’t worry me much’ for ‘six weeks later came the War, and I had other things to think about’ (p. 147). The mention of the war clearly situates ‘The Wind in the Portico’ among the many works in which Buchan treats the 1914–18 conflict as an unleashing of primal or barbaric forces. While the spurious nature of the Sidonius quotation and the incorrect dating of his works might encourage the suspicion that Buchan had little authentic knowledge of Sidonius, Michael and Isobel Haslett have underlined Buchan’s classical learning and particularly stressed the influence of Helen Waddell’s The Wandering Scholars (1927) on his work in the late 1920s.15 Barnaby (2016) points, in particular, to a passage where Waddell cites Sidonius Carm. 10.47–9 in a discussion of Christian writers who poetically bring ‘tender’ but ‘dangerous’ pagan gods back to life.16 Barnaby suggests that this may have reminded Buchan of his youthful reading of Huysmans’ À rebours, where, as we have seen, Des Esseintes particularly enjoys verses where ‘Bishop’ Sidonius ‘evokes . . . the deities of the pagan world’. It may well, then, have seemed particularly apt for Buchan to introduce Sidonius into a tale which paradoxically warns of the twin dangers of releasing the pagan and atavistic and seeking to suppress or Christianise them.17 In his 1938 novel Count Belisarius, Robert Graves constructs a fictional character on the model of the historical Sidonius.18 Van Waarden’s Sidonius website provides a useful summary of the most significant textual parallels:19 13

14 15 16 17

18

19

Consisting largely of tales which appeared in the London Pall Mall Magazine between September 1927 and May 1928, The Runagates Club was first published by Hodder & Stoughton, London. See Barnaby (2016). Buchan (1928) 132. Haslett and Haslett (2009) 21. Waddell (1954) 43. I am most grateful to Paul Barnaby for providing me with this section on Buchan. A full version of his article is Barnaby (2017). Robert Graves (1895–1985) was a poet (Collected Poems, 1986), translator, essayist (the author of several studies of myth and religion, in particular The Greek Myths, 1955), short-story writer (Collected Short Stories, 1991), and author of historical novels (above all I, Claudius and Claudius the God, both 1934) to which he particularly owed his fame. For Count Belisarius, see now, in an edited volume on Robert Graves and the Classical Tradition (ed. A.G.G. Gibson (2015)), Coulston (2015), and Tougher (2015); Tougher notes, on p. 83, that Graves, in his diary, lists Sidonius among the primary sources he perused. See . To these we might add an interesting reference at the beginning of ch. 2 (‘The Banquet of Modestus’): ‘the scene is the dining-room of Modestus’s villa . . . Everything is arranged

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 709

13/02/20 4:30 PM

710

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

The figure of Belisarius’ uncle Modestus, a verbose laudator temporis acti and still a pagan at heart, is loosely modelled on Sidonius: • •

• • •

‘. . . a familiar type of the tinsel-age Roman man of letters’ (introduction) ‘But Modestus could never permit himself to make the least remark without wrapping it in an approved literary allusion, a paradox, or a pun, or all three together’ (chapter 1) ‘I have also inherited a volume of Modestus’ poems and another of his painfully composed letters, in the style of Pliny’ (chapter 2) ‘Modestus goes on . . . to point the close resemblance . . . between this villa and the favourite villa of the celebrated author, Pliny’ (chapter 2) ‘. . . let me copy out from Modestus’ book of poems an example of his Latin hendecasyllabics - the metre that he favoured most. It will show both the weakness and the occasional strength of his verse’ (chapter 2).

Even this brief list of traits shared with Sidonius is enough to reveal a subtly ironic move on Graves’ part. Having modelled his character on Sidonius (in an ultimately affectionate way), Graves christens him Modestus, which is certainly attested as one of Sidonius’ given names, but, read as an adjective, is totally at odds with the character that emerges from his works (and of the fictional Modestus in the novel).20 Our survey of interwar literature concludes with the French poet Tristan Derème (1889– 1941), one of the main theorists of the ‘école fantaisiste’, which flourished approximately between 1912 and 1925. In 1931, Derème dedicated a long verse epistle (116 lines in nine stanzas of varying length and metre) to Sidonius, whom he salutes as the epitome of the refined and technically sophisticated poet. He compares his own times and dreams of literary glory with those of Sidonius, polemicising against the new barbarians who have invaded the literary scene (that is, the futurists). It is worth quoting a brief passage (vv. 65–73):21 Vous pensiez : L’avenir saura-t-il mon langage Et méditera-t-il aux phrases que j’écris ? Est-ce fini de Rome ? Est-il un pont fragile Où passera notre destin, Où pour atteindre au bord lointain, Parmi le cortège latin, Nous marcherons avec les Muses de Virgile ? Déjà s’ouvre un autre univers. On y scande fort mal nos vers

20

21

exactly in the old Roman style, for Modestus is an antiquarian and makes no mistakes: he can justify everything by quotation from some Latin author or other of the Golden Age.’ This passage is useful for tracing a banquet motif which runs from Yonge (1890) to Graves and Marcel (see below, n. 29). Could it be that Graves’ source is Anderson’s (1936) first Loeb volume, which would have provided him with all material that could be got from the poems and letters 1 and 2? (private suggestion by Gavin Kelly). For Tristan Derème, see Aranjo (1996, 2014, with further bibliography), the latter of which also reprints a Latin translation by Geneviève Immè of the second part of Derème’s poem on Sidonius (vv. 46–116); cf. Wolff (2014c) 259. Aranjo (2014) 542–5 also presents some poetic texts on Sidonius and his time (Odoacre) written by the French poet George Saint-Claire between 1994 and 2005; cf. also Aranjo (1996) 35.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 710

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

711

You thought: Will the future know my language And meditate on the phrases I am writing? Is this the end of Rome? Is there a fragile bridge Which our destiny will cross Where to reach the far side We shall walk with Vergil’s Muses Amidst the Latin procession? Another universe is already opening before us Where our verses are most poorly scanned.

1.3 Jean Anglade and Auvergnat Local Pride Jean Anglade, a major forerunner of the recent narrative rediscovery of Sidonius, operates on a larger scale. He is author of Sidoine Apollinaire (1963), an evocative reconstruction of Sidonius’ life, a novelised biography, or rather, one which is rendered more vivid by the use of techniques associated with fiction. He employs Sidonius’ own works as his principal source, treating them with scrupulous fidelity and deep respect.22 I believe that it may be useful to offer a brief precis of Anglade’s work here, first because, in a way, it provides a summary of the salient biographical data,23 extracted from Sidonius himself or contemporary sources, available to anyone embarking on a narrative reconstruction of his personality; and, second, because, as we shall see shortly, it has subsequently been creatively exploited in further narrative reworkings of Sidonius’ life and literary career:24 The novel begins by telling the story of the gravediggers who accidentally desecrate the tomb of Sidonius’ grandfather (Ep. 3.12: [1]). It then covers the years which Sidonius spends in the entourage of Avitus until the emperor is overthrown and Sidonius retires to his estate at Aydat ([2]–[4]). After the failure of the conspiracy led by Marcellinus [5], Sidonius succeeds in bringing the city of Lyon back into favour with Majorian, and becomes part of the new emperor’s court ([6]–[7]). A further period of 22

23

24

Born 18 March 1915, Jean Anglade died in Clermont on 22 November 2017 at the age of 102. His literary production covers a great variety of forms (poetry, narrative, drama, essays, screenplays, translations from Italian), and won a number of prestigious prizes and honours. In particular, he dedicated many works, in a range of genres, to his native Auvergne. In 2000, Sidoine Apollinaire was reprinted in the volume Auvergne encore, where it is the last of a series of narratives inspired by his beloved region. Anglade also discusses Sidonius in his Histoire de l’Auvergne, particulaly in ch. 3, ‘L’Auvergne se latinise’: Anglade (1974) 55–78. For greater clarity, I have inserted chapter numbers in square brackets, and, in a small number of cases, a reference to the source in Sidonius himself. On a side note, Wolff (2014c) 258, after stating that ‘En Auvergne Sidoine Apollinaire est toujours resté une gloire locale’ (‘In the Auvergne, Sidonius Apollinaris has always remained a matter of local pride’), finds Anglade ‘peu convaincante’ (‘unconvincing’), perhaps because he views him solely from a scholarly perspective. He adds: ‘Jean Le Guillou, auvergnat d’adoption, est plus amusant: on apprendra par exemple dans son Sidoine Apollinaire: L’Auvergne et son temps, que notre auteur était homosexuel’ (‘Jean Le Guillou, an adopted ‘auvergnat’, is more amusing: in his Sidoine Apollinaire: L’Auvergne et son temps [Le Guillou (2002)], he tells us, for example, that Sidonius was homosexual’). Wolff adds a footnote (n. 42), hypothesising that Le Guillou is basing his opinion on Sidonius’ portrait of Theoderic in Ep. 1.2.2–3. I note, in passing, that Rouland (1987) 421 explicitly indicates this portrait as a source for the depiction of the Visigothic king (pp. 76–7) in his novel Soleils barbares, in which Sidonius plays no role other than as a documentary source (acknowledged in Rouland’s notes).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 711

13/02/20 4:30 PM

712

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

retreat at Aydat following the fall of Majorian is interrupted by a diplomatic mission to Ravenna and to the new emperor Anthemius in Rome ([8]–[9]), which results in Sidonius being appointed praefectus urbis, where he has to deal with the Arvandus affair (Ep. 1.7: [10]–[11]). As the Burgundians dominate the region around Lyon, Eparchius, bishop of Clermont, nominates Sidonius as his successor on his deathbed. Soon Sidonius is forced to organise the city’s defence against Euric’s invading Goths, while Olybrius, Glycerius, and Julius Nepos occupy the imperial throne in rapid succession ([12]–[14]). Chapter [15] bears the significant title An 475: Munich!25 The Auvergne is sacrificed by the episcopal negotiators, and Sidonius writes to Graecus of Marseille to express his discontent (Ep. 7.7). Romulus Augustulus succeeds Julius Nepos, but is soon deposed (28 August 476); Odoacer bestows the western imperial insignia upon the eastern emperor. Following periods of exile and captivity at the hands of the Visigoths, Sidonius returns to his duties as bishop, but is disheartened by his son Apollinaris’ complicity with Victorius. In the end, when Victorius falls into disgrace, Apollinaris is imprisoned in Milan but manages to escape ([16]–[18]). In his final years, Sidonius sees off a sinister plot by Honorius and Hermanchius to seize the episcopal throne of Clermont, designates Aprunculus as his successor, and, following his death, is venerated as a saint ([19]–[20]). Anglade is essentially inspired by his genuine love of the Auvergne, and his Sidonius is not made to serve a particular ideology or philosophy of life, but tends rather to be depicted (with a hint of fervent exaggeration) as an exceptional character living in an equally exceptional region, whose life is rightly crowned by his elevation to sainthood. Anglade touches only rarely on the more conceited and narcissistic elements of Sidonius’ character, such as when he composes his imperial panegyrics and shows a burning interest in every stage of the preparation of the statue in his honour. But even on these occasions, the tone is moderate and respectful, as if Anglade is indulgently and good-naturedly portraying a minor weakness inherent in human nature.

2 A Hero of Fictional Experiments: Sidonius in Jean Marcel and Denis Montebello 2.1 Jean Marcel Two highly original and sophisticated narrative experiments have recently presented Sidonius in a new guise. In terms of narratological innovation, Jean Marcel’s work is particularly important, employing ironic techniques to distance itself from previous literary portrayals of Sidonius (and even including an explicit reference to Anglade, who makes a brief appearance as one of its characters).

25

This brief chapter title involves a peculiar anachronism: Anglade appears to be suggesting an analogy between the treaty that ceded the Auvergne to the Visigoths and the Munich Agreement of 29–30 September 1938, when Italy, Great Britain, and France accepted the German annexation of the Sudetenland. This effectively permitted Hitler to impose his politics of aggression, and is seen as a point of no return in the countdown to World War II. The preceding chapter (Le résistant) and the following two (Le déporté; Devant le führer) also have titles which allude to a World War II context. See Kelly (2016c); see also sect. 3 below.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 712

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

713

I have already discussed the French-Canadian Marcel’s Triptyque des temps perdus in my monograph on the reception of Sts Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.26 It is a trilogy of novels consisting of Hypatie ou La fin des dieux (1989), Jérȏme ou De la traduction (1990), and Sidoine ou La dernière fête (1993). In the third and final novel, Sidonius, held prisoner by Euric, is presented as the witness of a symbolic final day of the Roman Empire: 26 August 476. The feast to which the title refers is hosted by his friend Myron at Narbonne towards the end of 467 to celebrate the publication of a book of poems by Petrus, one of the final sparks of an ‘Empire qui n’achevait plus de finir’ (‘empire that could never finish ending’).27 The ‘last feast’ is clearly a symbolic event, capturing the somewhat empty, futile, yet deeply human mental horizons of ‘neuf poètes de ce cinquième siècle sans avenir parce qu’il pesait sur lui trop de choses présentes’ (‘nine poets of this fifth century that held no future as present matters weighed too heavily upon it’).28 It is also, however, a ‘symposium’ (214: ‘convivium de chez Myron’), after the manner of Graeco-Roman symposiac literature, to close the trilogy’s depiction of Late Antiquity.29 Even a rapid inspection of Sidoine ou La dernière fête reveals elements which clearly show that Marcel is familiar with Anglade (1963). The novel begins with the arrival of a mysterious messenger at the fort where Sidonius is kept prisoner,30 which recalls a similar moment of suspense at the beginning of Anglade’s second chapter. Likewise, there are echoes of Anglade’s opening chapter in the prominence given to the episode where the tomb of Sidonius’ grandfather is desecrated (p. 100). (With a typical ironic variation, Marcel adds that Sidonius treated the gravediggers so harshly, ‘dit-on’, that one subsequently died.) Then we suddenly find Anglade directly cited in the novel, and indeed woven into the narrative thread, not only as the author of ‘une biographie assez romancée et fort respectueuse de Sidoine Apollinaire’ (‘a somewhat novelised and highly respectful biography of Sidonius Apollinaris’; p. 119), but also as one of a mysterious coded list of members of a clandestine sect ‘qui s’était donné pour mission de restaurer la splendeur et la puissance des druides’ (‘who had set themselves the mission of restoring the power and splendour of the druids’). The biographer-character makes his appearance in a chapter which uses the history and conflicting interpretations of the stainedglass windows of Clermont cathedral as a pretext to describe various moments of Sidonius’ life. Now, the first edition of Anglade’s biography contains very fine colour reproductions of the individual window panes. In my view, those reproductions have played a key role in drawing Marcel’s attention to this particular episode in the afterlife of Sidonius. This provides a clear insight into Jean Marcel’s methodology. Proceeding from Sidonius’ own works and from Anglade’s biography, Marcel imbues his subject matter with a violent ironic energy, irreverent and, at the same time, affectionately complicit, finding the most imaginative narrative pretexts to retrieve historical details, which he then twists into new 26

27

28 29

30

Giannotti (2009) 127–31 and 142. Jean Marcel is the nom de plume of Jean-Marcel Paquette (born in Montreal in 1941). In the same year as Marcel’s Sidoine ou La dernière fête (1993) appeared, Élisabeth Szwarc published a children’s book in France entitled Sidoine Apollinaire: Un Gaulois contre les Barbares, with illustrations by Jean-Michel Payet (Szwarc and Payet (1993)). This tells the story of Sidonius’ life, stressing, in particular, his struggles with the Visigoths. Marcel (1993) 105. On Marcel’s trilogy and his Sidonius novel, in particular, see the author’s interview with Dominique Garand (Garand and Marcel (1992)), together with Giannotti (2009) and Dion et al. (2005). Marcel (1993) 196–7. I wonder whether ch. 2 of Graves (1938), ‘The Banquet of Modestus’ (cf. above, n. 19), influenced Marcel in his decision to give such prominence to a minor episode, and to draw further attention to it in his choice of title. Marcel (1993) 14.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 713

13/02/20 4:30 PM

714

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

shapes in order to present them in a modern and symbolically significant way. Thus segments of narrative emerge from the description, in a scrupulously scholarly style, of the stained-glass windows of Clermont cathedral (chapter 3), or, conversely, via a sort of magic spell, from the mirror that Evodius gives to Euric’s wife, Ragnahilda (chapter 5), after having Sidonius’ verses engraved in it (verses that Sidonius encloses in Ep. 4.8 to Evodius).31 As with the second novel of the trilogy, where we are addressed at the start by St Jerome’s lion, the beginning takes the reader by surprise. Guided by a star (p. 16), Abraham, a wandering monk from the East,32 reaches the imprisoned Sidonius. His appearance links the new novel to earlier volumes in the trilogy. In his youth, Abraham of Mesopotamia took part in the killing of Hypatia, and subsequently his travels have brought him into contact with Jerome. Now, bizarrely, he seeks to instruct Sidonius in the doctrine of the Gautama Buddha (p. 21). Then, before disappearing over the horizon, he warns Sidonius of the trauma that he will have to face on that very night of 26 August 476. In fact, as ‘prescribed’ by Verlaine’s ‘Langueur’ (‘Je suis l’Empire à la fin de la décadence, / qui regarde passer les grands Barbares blancs’, ‘I am the empire at the end of decadence, watching the tall, white Barbarians passing by’), Sidonius, from his prison window in the fortress tower of Livia, will watch history unfold in the form of a long procession of barbarian tribes (p. 34: ‘il vit déferler l’histoire par la fenêtre de sa prison’). These are the gentes who constitute Odoacer’s army, as they prepare to pour into Italy and the heart of the empire (pp. 33 and 53). Clad in his episcopal robes, Sidonius observes them. Marcel has chosen him as the protagonist of the last instalment of his trilogy both as a witness to the symbolic date of 476 (the ‘Fall of Rome’) and as a symbolic representative of late antique Romanitas, an aristocratic intellectual committed to the church and confronted with rampant barbarian hordes and the decay of the values of Roman civilisation. At this point Marcel ‘suspends’ the narrative for a long digression, part historical, part legendary, on the subject of barbarians, presenting first an anthropological overview and an outline of their evolution, then an ethnographical study of the Germanic tribes, followed by a chronological account of their encounters with the Roman Empire, and finally the story of their conversion to Christianity at the hands of Wulfila, described as ‘en quelque sorte une manière de Jérôme à l’usage des confins de la Gothie profonde’ (‘in a sense a sort of St Jerome of the Gothic borderlands’; p. 45). Marcel has a distinctly ironic yet poetical approach to historical reconstruction. The ironic tone makes the greatest human deeds seem relative, reducing them to petty squabbles viewed from a lofty distance. The poetic element consists of metaphorical images and bursts of fantastic language which bring an air of enchantment to these paltry tales, and restore their vitality by binding them together with a mesh of everyday events and circumstances. Marcel’s narrative proceeds by way of scenes and fragments. For instance, purportedly concerned with describing the pleasures of otium at Aydat, the fourth chapter of the novel is really an analysis of the origins of Sidonius’ literary (and especially poetic) vocation, conducted with Marcel’s characteristic humour but also with moments of profound psychological penetration and poetry. For Sidonius, words were ‘la matière même de tout ce qui était’ (‘the very essence of all that existed’) (p. 138), a talisman against the fear of death and to overcome the inevitable painful realisation that life is a great river of atrocities, flowing between brutality, as embodied in the Romans, and cruelty, as represented by the barbarians (pp. 153–4). Then 31

32

For a suggestive reading of the episode of Ragnahilda’s mirror (which, in my view, also draws on the fairy tale Snow White), see Dion et al. (2005) 46. Cf. Sidon. Ep. 7.17.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 714

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

715

with one of Marcel’s customary temporal leaps, the pages devoted to these seven years of sweet repose and privacy are interrupted by a lengthy digression on the hardships encountered by the poet’s descendants, his son Apollinaris and grandson Arcadius (pp. 142–50). The last party of the book’s title is ‘la fameuse fête chez Myron’, as chapter 6 is headed ‘la fête de sa vie!’ (p. 190): the surprise party thrown for Petrus, who has finally completed a poetry collection ‘qu’il concoctait depuis longtemps dans le plus grand secret’ (‘that he had long been compiling in the greatest secret’; p. 189).33 Like the Muses themselves, the nine friends allocate each other academic names and places at the banquet table: Consentius is Homer, Lampridius is Statius, Sidonius is Orpheus, Petrus (in the centre) is Vergil, Anthedius is Horace, Domnulus is Martial, Proculus is Claudian, Severinus is Ennius, and ‘Myron était Myron, nous n’en savons rien de plus’ (‘Myron was Myron, that’s all we know about it’; p. 197). The competitors, ‘heureux d’eux-mêmes, ivres de poésie, pour une des dernières belles fêtes de l’Empire’ (‘delighted with themselves, drunk on poetry, at one of the last real feasts of the empire’; p. 197), must compose the verses in tandem with the other normal activities of a banquet. They proceed, then, to entertain each other with various anecdotes, which once again permit Marcel to recall hitherto neglected fragments of Sidonius’ life, such as the story of the Arles satire (Ep. 1.11), or the ball-game that leads Sidonius to improvise the immortal quatrain on the pannus (Ep. 5.17.9–10). Naturally, victory falls to Sidonius, and the night at Livia with which the novel opens, with its barbarian horsemen of the Apocalypse, is counterbalanced by this exquisite night of poetry (p. 215): ‘on venait de vivre la plus grande nuit de tous les temps. Que restait-il d’autre à attendre?’ (‘they had just lived the greatest night of all time. What else was left to look forward to?’). Leaving Narbonne, Sidonius passes in front of the fort of Livia, the same fort where he will be imprisoned ten years later. Starting from no particular theoretical premise, but simply driven by inspiration and fantasy,34 Jean Marcel blows away many of the conventions that govern this type of narrative, and which often box it into unproductive narrative schemes. He thus arrives at positions and stances which are highly innovative from a narratological viewpoint. This aspect of his work has been perceptively studied by Dion et al. (2005). Their essay begins by noting how the unifying theme of the trilogy is the ‘end’: of the gods, of the empire, of time.35 The narrative 33

34

35

Petrus is the former minister of Majorian who will play such a major role at the end of vol. 1 and the beginning of vol. 2 of Castelli’s trilogy (see below). As a curiosity, in Azaïs (2011) 106 and 109, the fictional memoirs of Sidonius seem to insinuate that Petrus and the emperor were secret lovers! As Marcel declares himself in the revealing interview he gave to Dominique Garand while still working on the third ‘Sidonian’ instalment of the trilogy: ‘à vrai dire, moi qui ai passé la plus grande partie de ma vie à analyser les oeuvres des autres, je ne comprends pas grand-chose à la mienne, sinon qu’elle me fut à un moment donné et précis un singulier plaisir, et que ce plaisir est sa seule justification à mes yeux, et son seul sens. Si mes livres ont un autre sens, c’est à vous de le leur donner. Théoricien, oui, mais lorsque je suis en présence de ma page blanche – plutôt de mon écran bleuté –, mes esprits théoriques se dissolvent, et il ne me reste plus que la pure volupté de composer. C’est déjà beaucoup. C’est du moins suffisant’ (‘to tell the truth, despite spending most of my life analysing other writers’ work, I don’t understand very much about my own, except that at a particular moment it gave me an extraordinary pleasure, and that pleasure is its sole justification in my eyes, and its sole meaning. If my books have any other meaning, it’s up to you to give it to them. Certainly I am a theorist, but when I find myself facing a bare white page – or rather, a blueish screen – my theoretical mind-frame dissolves away, and all that is left is the sheer voluptuous pleasure of creating. That’s already a lot. At least it’s enough’ (Garand and Marcel (1992) 152). Marcel (1993) 38.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 715

13/02/20 4:30 PM

716

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

shatters temporal barriers and stretches out into a continuum that brings ancient and modern times close together. As Marcel himself comments:36 J’utilise le passé pour ce qu’il est, c’est-à-dire une matrice du présent, une mémoire, c’està dire encore une présence. Autrement dit, c’est une sorte d’ascèse qui consiste en une abolition de la distance qui nous sépare du passé: pour moi, ces gens dont je parle sont de parfaits contemporains. Voilà pourquoi je voyage facilement de 1967 au Ve siècle: c’est que pour moi, tout est contemporain. I make use of the past for what it is: that is to say, a matrix of the present, a memory, or, to put it another way, a presence. In other words, it is a sort of mental effort consisting in abolishing the distance which separates us from the past: for me, these people are altogether our contemporaries. That is why I journey with such ease from 1967 to the fifth century: it is because, for me, everything is contemporary. In Marcel’s view, we live in times where more information is available to us about the past than ever before, but which have seen a fading of our ‘memory’, by which he means our respect for what has happened before us and our regard for the lessons that it can pass down to us.37 Even Marcel’s rich and systematic scholarly documentation is easily absorbed into his creative play. At times it is openly displayed, at others it is reinterpreted and distorted. It is often shot through with an irony deriving from an underlying conviction that any human assertion – especially those of established ‘sources’, time-honoured and set in stone – is more ambiguous and complex than we generally tend to think.38 The wheels of Marcel’s invention are constantly exposed, and we are intended to appreciate them as a means of simultaneously exploring the ancient and the modern (and anything potentially universal which might be unearthed in the process).39 By playfully but systematically wrongfooting his reader, Marcel arrives at a narrative mode which has been described as ‘diffracted’, hingeing on the multiplication of viewpoints in the epistolary structure of Hypatie, on the improbable focalisation through the 36

37

38

39

Garand and Marcel (1992) 135–6; cf. Dion et al. (2005) 38, and also the quotation on p. 36 of the same essay: ‘comme le rappelle André Daspre [Daspre (1975) 244], le roman historique représente “non pas une évasion dans le passé mais une explication [du] présent, une vision de [l’]avenir”’ (‘as André Daspre reminds us, the historical novel does not represent “an escape into the past but an explanation of the present, a vision of the future”’). Cf. also Garand and Marcel (1992) 137: ‘je pense même que le monde ancien n’est pas encore tout à fait mort, il survit dans le monde qu’on appelle nouveau. Autrement dit, les ruptures de l’histoire ne le sont que dans l’ordre de la représentation – ce sera d’ailleurs le sujet de mon Sidoine. Il n’y a pas eu de véritables ruptures’ (‘I even think that the ancient world is not completely dead yet, it survives in the world that we call new. In other words, historical breaks only exist in the order of representation, which, moreover, will be the theme of my Sidoine. There is no genuine break’). See Garand and Marcel (1992) 138–9, where Marcel concludes: ‘toutefois, il ne faut pas penser que j’ai un message à ce sujet. Je trouve tout simplement que cette question de la mémoire est importante et j’essaie de lui donner une forme romanesque’ (‘all the same, you mustn’t think that I have a message about this subject. I simply think that this question of memory is important and I try to give it a novelistic form’); cf. Dion et al. (2005) 42. See Garand and Marcel (1992) 136: ‘j’expose toujours qu’il y a dans cette mémoire quelque chose de flou: on est aussi peu sûrs du passé que l’on est sûrs de la réalité qui nous entoure. Au fond, c’est une mise en doute de la réalité elle-même. Vous voyez à la longue que tout ce que l’on sait nous vient à travers la déformation de textes’ (‘I always reveal that there is something hazy about this memory: we are just as unsure of the past as we are sure of the reality surrounding us. In the end, I am raising doubts about reality itself. Over time you realise that everything we know comes to us distorted by text’: my italics). Cf. also the remarks on ‘error’ discussed in n. 42 below. Dion et al. (2005) 44.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 716

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

717

lion-narrator of Jérôme, or on the constant temporal leaps and placing of ‘ourselves’ on stage in Sidoine.40 The result is a work which is highly polyphonic from a structural perspective, and modern and innovative from an aesthetic viewpoint.41 At its centre is no longer an orderly sequence of events, but the narrative act itself, coordinating and reinterpreting those events, and leaving ample room for errors, lacunae, and concessions,42 all viewed with ironic and tolerant comprehension, because such is human life. Consequently, for the past to reinterpret the present, it must offer itself as a kind of laboratory of the soul, that is to say, as ‘une forme . . . où la vie, son déroulement et sa mise en fiction se jouent dans l’espace de la pensée, de l’indice et de la logique plutôt que dans celui de la chronologie événementielle’ (‘form . . . where life, its unfolding, and its fictionalisation are all played out in the sphere of thought, intimations, and logic rather than in the chronological succession of events’).43

2.2 Denis Montebello Denis Montebello’s 1999 novel Au dernier des Romains also takes a strikingly free approach to the conventions of the genre.44 The title itself merits a brief commentary. As is well known, from the 1970s onwards, Classical scholars have gradually come to see Late Antiquity in a new light. It is no longer viewed as simply the decadent terminal phase of a once glorious world, but as a sort of new Antiquity in its own right with its own distinctive features.45 In this respect, narrative fiction, while showing an ever-growing interest in the culture of this new transitional society, and mining it for parallels with the modern world, has continued to adopt a relatively backward stance. I mean that the idea of decadence, of an irrevocable decline and the crumbling away of ancient grandeur,46 continues to condition many literary rewritings of this period. It is not easy to identify the most deep-seated reasons why, at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries, fiction-writers have continued to interpret the third to eighth centuries in this key. Nonetheless, we can readily discern one literary motive in the essentially romantic attractions of a perspective capable of generating highly promising narrative situations rich in pathos, adventure, twists of fortune, and dramatic conflicts (such as civilisation versus barbarism, paganism versus Christianity). 40 41

42

43 44

45 46

Dion et al. (2005) 44–5. Dion et al. (2005) 46: ‘toutes ces stratégies semblent pouvoir se résumer à une notion, la polyphonie . . . Avec la polyphonie, le roman bio-historique amorce un passage du monologique au dialogique – réel dialogue avec l’histoire, avec les lecteurs, avec les biographés, et dialogue romanesque, poétique, dans la diégèse’ (‘it seems possible to bring all these strategies back to one idea: polyphony . . . With polyphony, the bio-historical novel undergoes a transition from the monologic to the dialogic: a real dialogue with history, with its readers, with its biographical subjects, and a novelistic, poetical dialogue in its diegesis’), or, as they remark later: ‘Marcel introduit une forme narrative novatrice, plus enquête ou essai qu’histoire par moments’ (‘Marcel introduces an innovative narrative form, which at times is more like an inquiry or an essay than history’) (p. 48). In Garand and Marcel (1992), the author explicitly discusses the rich creative possibilities of what we usually classify as ‘errors’. He cites, for example, the twist by which ‘on a confondu les noms de Gérasimus et de Hiéronimus’ (‘the names of Gerasimos and Jerome were mixed up’), and the lion from the legend of Gerasimos was thus permanently transposed to that of Jerome (p. 145; cf. also p. 152). Dion et al. (2005) 47–8. Cf. also the conclusions on pp. 49–50, with further remarks specifically concerning Sidoine. The blurb succinctly introduces the author as follows: ‘Denis Montebello was born in 1951 in Épinal. He teaches Classics at La Rochelle and has published several novels and short stories. He has also translated from Latin, in particular Petrarch’s Ascent of Mont Ventoux and Letter to Posterity’ (our translation). Giannotti (2009) 16–18, with further bibliography. De Palacio (2005) passim, esp. ch. 16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 717

13/02/20 4:30 PM

718

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

Within this general picture of decline, writers have focused, in particular, on whatever can be presented as the last spark or the last stand of a system of values battling extinction. Here too, the main incentive seems to be the possibility of foregrounding symbolic situations or characters, whose terminal nature and precarious position on the edge of catastrophe, or of the overthrow of an entire world, casts them in a particularly moving and significant light. Thus many recent works of fiction set in the Romano-Barbarian world present this idea of a final epiphany in their very title. If we limit ourselves to works connected with Sidonius, then Montebello’s novel, together with Marcel (1993)47 and all three parts of Castelli’s trilogy, are cases in point.48 Montebello’s narrative is initially presented as a letter in which Namatius (the addressee of Ep. 8.6) replies to the quintessential ‘last of the Romans’, Sidonius himself. But Namatius is not only the commander of Euric’s fleet, who, from his island base of Oléron, defends the coastline from the raids of Saxon pirates, and devotes himself in his free time to agriculture, to learning, and to somewhat inept and unsuccessful hunting. He is also a mask assumed by Montebello himself, permitting him to assert his own identity as poet and translator, and as a speaker of French rather than Latin (cf. the end of Sidon. Ep. 8.6). He writes from the future to the past: his fictional reply to Sidonius is dated ‘Oléron, 1999’!49 The narrative unfolds over various chapters which intercut Namatius’ point-by-point response to Ep. 8.6 with fragments of other letters and poems by Sidonius and with evocations of Sidonius’ friends, presented in order of the itinerary that Sidonius lays out for his just-published libellus in Carm. 24. From around half-way through the book, however, dialogue with Sidonius is progressively and quite deliberately reduced.50 The novel now turns into a lyrical monologue from Montebello– Namatius which assumes an intentionally labyrinthine and fragmentary shape. Comprised of shards of thoughts and memories, it cannot be made to cohere around a single centre of inspiration and is characterised by an increasingly cryptic experimentation which moves freely across history, or in other words, occupies that continuous present in which ‘les poètes sont si rares et les barbares si nombreux’ (‘poets are so rare and barbarians so numerous’; p. 57). What is particularly striking is that Montebello draws inspiration from the temporal dislocation typical of the so-called Latin epistolary style, where the writer assumes the perspective of the addressee and thus uses the past tense to describe events which are present for him but will be over when the letter is received. Montebello evokes this rule, yet his Namatius is writing from the future to the past, and if he has to use a past tense, he employs it to refer to events from Sidonius’ lifetime, explicitly recognising that his correspondent died many centuries before (pp. 14 and 57). Narrative leaps between time periods, characters, and episodes are facilitated by Namatius’ precise geographical location. He is on the ocean shore, looking into the horizon (that is, the future). The sea and the wind bring all sorts of materials to land, and so, to catch a glimpse of the future, but of the past too, it is enough to ‘read the beach’ (p. 39). As a result, Namatius can introduce Sidonius to Venantius Fortunatus or the Vindolanda tablets. One of the novel’s most important themes is naming and a writer’s need to ‘grow as close’ as possible to his own name. Even the various components of Sidonius’ full family name 47 48

49 50

But see also Marcel (1989). See also Fo (2013) 183–4 with n. 12 who coins the labels ‘decadimentismo’ and ‘ultimismo’; Giannotti (2015) 26 n. 26 and context. Cf. also the title of the novel by Manfredi cited below, in n. 78. For Castelli, see sect. 4.2 below. Montebello (1999) 7. Montebello (1999) 83, 95, 105.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 718

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

719

inspire associative fantasies (pp. 9–18, 37, 60, 65, 84). And perhaps Montebello is thinking of his own name too, setting himself the task of raising a ‘mountain’ of poetic ‘beauty’ via a progressive rarefaction of logical and historical narrative lines, and a distillation of what, in his view, most matters and will always most matter in human existence.51

3 Sidonius as a Component of a Fictional Character: The Dream of Scipio by Iain Pears In his novel The Dream of Scipio,52 Iain Pears interweaves the stories of three fictional characters: one from Late Antiquity named Manlius Hippomanes; a second from the Middle Ages, the troubadour Olivier de Noyen; and finally, from the twentieth century, the scholar Julien Barneuve. Their personal circumstances have many points in common, starting from their shared homeland of Provence and, in particular, the town of Vasio Vocontiorum or, as it is now known, Vaison-la-Romaine. Before looking at the novel in more detail, we must pause to consider the late antique figure of Manlius Hippomanes, whom Pears constructs by blending together traits from a variety of fourth- and fifth-century writers. The individual components that go to make up this character have been analysed with great rigour and precision by Evenepoel (2010).53 One of Pears’ principal models is Synesius of Cyrene (c. 370–c. 413): Manlius is the pupil of a fascinating female philosopher called Sophia, who closely resembles Synesius’ teacher Hypatia of Alexandria. Even part of the character’s name seems to derive from Synesius: in a brilliant hypothesis, Evenepoel connects the bizarre ‘speaking name’ Hippomanes (that is, horse-lover) with a known passion of the historical Synesius.54 It is less clear what led Pears to choose Manlius as a forename.55 51

52

53

54

55

For greater detailing of the narrative technique of Montebello (1999), see de Palacio (2005) 412–15, who concludes (p. 415): ‘La lettre faussement antique est un prétexte pour remettre en question les lois de l’écriture et de la fiction. . . . La réflexion sur l’écriture peut être délivrée par un “je” en perpétuelle évolution’ (‘Fake antique letters are a pretext for questioning the laws of writing and fiction. . . . A reflection on writing can be delivered by an “I” that is constantly evolving’). Iain Pears (born Coventry, 1955) is an English art historian and writer educated at Oxford, where he still lives. He is the author of various novels, including a series of detective novels set in the art world (e.g. The Raphael Affair, The Titian Committee, The Bernini Bust, Giotto’s Hand, Death and Restoration). The Dream of Scipio was published in 2002. In The Dream of Scipio, as in his other more ‘literary’ novels (An Instance of the Fingerpost, Stone’s Fall, and Arcadia), his favourite technique is multiple narratives, either of the same events by different characters (Fingerpost, Stone’s Fall to an extent), or by narrators in different periods but with analogous situations (this work and Arcadia). I should like to express my particular gratitude to Joop van Waarden, who kindly provided me with an English translation of Evenepoel’s Dutch original, which would otherwise have been inaccessible to me. See Evenepoel (2010) §4.4, which provides a detailed survey of the points that Manlius shares with Synesius. The hypothesis on the name, with supporting arguments, occurs at the end of the paragraph (which I quote in van Waarden’s English translation: ‘one last detail: Synesius was fond of books and horses. From childhood, he had an excessive love of horses: in Epist. 105 . . . , Synesius uses the verb “hippomanein” in this context! In Epist. 37, he shows himself a true connoisseur of horses, and in Epist. 41 . . . , he describes his life as a life of prayer, books, and hunting. Was Pears inspired by this fact (and by letter 105 in particular), when he called the Roman Manlius Hippomanes . . . ? It should be remembered that, since Homer, horses and weapons were characteristic of the aristocracy.’ See Evenepoel (2010) §4.2–3, who is uncertain whether Pears is alluding in some way to Boethius, one of whose forenames was Manlius, or to a major Roman family and, in particular, to ‘T. Manlius Torquatus, an example of Roman strictness from the 4th century BC. He had his son executed as the latter made a mistake (Livy 8,7); compare how Manlius takes action against his adoptive son Syagrius!’ (Of course, Syagrius is one of the names that Pears extracted directly from Sidonius’ letters: cf. Ep. 5.5 and 8.8.) Gavin Kelly has suggested to me (per litteras) that the name of the scholar and consul Manlius Theodorus, dedicatee of one of Claudian’s panegyrics, could possibly also have played a role.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 719

13/02/20 4:30 PM

720

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

Manlius attempts to expound the principal teachings of Sophia, as well as his own personal philosophical and political views, in a neo-Platonic treatise entitled The Dream of Scipio,56 a detail that recalls not so much Cicero as Macrobius, the author of two books of Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis.57 Other historical characters lend further, less significant traits to Pears’ Manlius.58 But leaving aside the debt to Synesius, Manlius clearly owes his other main character traits and biographical details to Sidonius Apollinaris.59 Like Sidonius, Manlius is a rich and powerful aristocrat, a lover of poetry and literature, and the owner of a significant library. He has long been tempted to publish a collection of his own letters, and is capable both of fashioning highly ornate phrases and of reciting them in a manner that delights the ears of his listeners. He is subsequently destined to become a bishop (of Vaison in Manlius’ case, consecrated by Faustus of Riez himself), to seek to stamp his own personal authority on his fellow bishops, and to defend the authority of his class in the face of barbarian invasions. He will finally die in the odour of sanctity (triggering a violent contest for his relics). For all these parallels, however, once Manlius is anointed bishop, his cynical opportunism – leading, at times, to acts of ferocious cruelty – takes him in a very different direction from the real-life trajectory of his ‘archetype’, the bishop-aristocrat Sidonius Apollinaris. But at the same time as providing a model for the tastes and life-experiences of the fictional Manlius, Sidonius also appears in his own right as a historical character in The Dream of Scipio. In one episode, Manlius is conversing with his friend Felix, who recalls how a cousin of his, despite being somewhat boorish, has, like Felix himself, sent some of his own peasants to help defend the city of Augustonemetum, that is, Clermont:60 56

57

58

59

60

For the title, cf. n. 57 below. The content of Manlius’ Somnium Scipionis is described in Pears (2002) 303–6, where it is presented as a pagan rejoinder to Augustine’s De civitate Dei (even though Manlius is a bishop). For the Somnium’s relation to the teachings of Sophia, see Pears (2002) 174. Evenepoel (2010) §4.1 makes two important observations on the title (trans. van Waarden): ‘(1) as Pears himself says on p. 268, about the title of his novel: the title refers to a dream about Scipio, not to a dream of Scipio; upon seeing the fall of Carthage, Scipio, according to tradition, was overcome by grief, because he realised that Rome, too, one day would fall. It is that fall which Manlius experiences in TDS [i.e. The Dream of Scipio]. (2) The four works bearing the title TDS [i.e. by Cicero, Macrobius, Manlius Hippomanes, and Iain Pears respectively] all have to do with the belief that, in addition to philosophical contemplation, political action is also very important.’ Cf. also Evenepoel (2010) §5.4. The theme of civic virtue is important for all three protagonists of the novel (Manlius, Olivier, and Julien): see e.g. Pears (2002) 303. Towards the end of the novel, for example, an episode occurs which resembles the account by Gregory of Tours (Hist. 5.11) of the conversion of five hundred Jews by Avitus, bishop of Clermont from 572 to 594 (see Evenepoel (2010) §4.3). Pears, as ever, plays games with his sources and accuses Gregory of crediting Avitus with a miracle that was really performed by Manlius (Pears (2002) 401–2). And at one point, the figures of Abelard and Heloise also seem to emerge as models: see Pears (2002) 63–4, concerning the correspondence between Manlius and Sophia (cf. n. 69 below). Other real historical figures appear in the course of the narrative, albeit embellished with the occasional creative descriptive trait. The late antique episode, for example, features Ricimer, Gundobad, and Faustus of Riez, who manoeuvres behind the scenes to have Manlius consecrated bishop of Vaison (a ceremony that he conducts himself) (Pears (2002) 118; cf. Evenepoel (2010) §4.1, 4.3, 4.6). For a systematic overview of their shared traits, see Evenepoel (2010) §4.3 and 4.6. For an interesting precedent for Pears’ procedure in Graves (1938), see the extract from van Waarden’s Sidonius website quoted above. A discussion of fictional characters more or less faithfully modelled on Sidonius should also mention Steve White’s two novels Legacy (1995a) and Debt of Ages (1995b), an odd blend of fantasy and science fiction (for brief summaries, see, in the reception pages of the Sidonius website, , s.v. ‘United States of America: Fiction)’. Pears (2002) 11. For Felix see also p. 722 and n. 66 below.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 720

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

721

‘But I haven’t, even though Sidonius is one of my oldest friends? Is that how you wish to end your sentence?’ Manlius added. It had been preying on his mind greatly in the past few months. The city of Clermont, far to the west, was under siege from King Euric, blocking his desire to grab a stranglehold on the whole of Provence. . . . Indeed it might already have fallen had it not been for Sidonius, who had put himself at the head of the defenses and was refusing to accept the inevitable . . . Now here was Sidonius, brave, foppish, foolish Sidonius, who had decided to take a stand where emperors had failed. He had always had a weakness for lost causes, for grand, heroic but empty gestures. As a general point, Pears likes to ‘show his hand’, to engage in a subtle game of allusive hints, and to evoke, quite explicitly, the historical characters on whom he has based important elements of his protagonists. It is also the case, for example, with Sophia, who is clearly modelled on Hypatia, and of Olivier de Noyen, who suddenly falls victim to an amorous passion in Avignon which closely resembles Petrarch’s love for Laura.61 Analysing the structure of the novel more closely, it is clear that Pears’ ideological objective is to show the need to safeguard civilisation and to illustrate how fully men can commit themselves to this noble enterprise, even though they are destined to be thwarted by the blind power of fate (p. 417).62 Pears achieves this by portraying three fictional characters from different historical periods whose commitment is expressed in different ways. For Manlius Hippomanes, it is embodied in his philosophy and in his political and social engagement as a bishop. He is flanked by Sophia, his enlightened philosophical guide. He may be said to achieve political success (saving his bishopric of Vasio from the Visigoths, at the price, however, of accepting the heavy-handed protection of the Burgundians). Nonetheless, Manlius’ achievements are marred by dishonourable compromises. To overcome the resistance of the ‘opposition’, represented by Felix, he has no hesitation in having his old friend (and fellow bishop) bumped off. Other acts of cruelty dictated by ‘raisons d’état’ include the persecution of Vaison’s Jews (p. 428, but pre-empted earlier; the theme of antiSemitism unites all three narratives). Although they win some battles, all three protagonists ultimately fail as evil proves too strong, especially when it is opposed by a ‘good’ which appeals to humanistic values and traditions, and employs humanistic tools: the philosophical-political treatise Somnium Scipionis (Manlius) and philosophy itself (Sophia); poetry (Olivier); painting (Luca Pisano, Olivier’s artist-friend from Siena); encyclopaedic culture (the Jewish scholar Gersonides, patron of Rebecca); philology and, once again, the figurative arts (Julien and Julia). The treatment of the Jews, the thread that binds all three narratives together, comes to symbolise the absurdity and gratuitousness of hatred and violence, leading to the bitter conclusion that ‘it is 61

62

See Pears (2002) 51: ‘was not Hypatia the greatest philosopher of Alexandria, and a true martyr to the old values of learning? . . . And Sophia’s father had been one of her last pupils, and when she died had fled to Marseille, a city less under the sway of religion, for fear that the same punishment would be meted out to him.’ And further on: ‘Perhaps it was her youthful beauty? Julian Barneuve thought so, at least when he first read the account of this fateful encounter . . . . The pedigree of the anecdote was always suspect, seeming too close to Petrarch’s encounter with his Laura to be comfortable’ (p. 5). Cf. also Evenepoel (2010) §5.4: ‘personally, I consider this novel as a lively and fascinating reflection on the fragility of civilisation and the ongoing problems of conscience in the exercise of power.’ And again at §3.3: ‘the basic theme of the novel is gloomy, due to the thought that everything turns out differently from what people expect; the author expressly highlights the absurdity of human planning (see e.g. the lock, pp. 391–2). “Fate” plays a crucial role in the eyes of the author.’ On periods of decadence, see Pears (2002) 186–7 (cf. p. 4).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 721

13/02/20 4:30 PM

722

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

the civilised who are the truly barbaric’ and, in Julien’s story, ‘the Germans are merely the supreme expression of it’ (p. 417). Despite its distinctly pessimistic message, what is nonetheless particularly striking about Pears’ novel is that, unlike many other fictional representations of Sidonius or the Romano-Barbarian world, it does not interpret Manlius Hippomanes’ period within a framework of decline and fall. It is a time of destruction, certainly, but it is not portrayed in terms of decadence; if anything, the stress is on heroism and on the refusal to fade into the sunset. Likewise, it is significant that, as with Anglade, the era is portrayed in parallel with World War II.63 Sharing a location (principally Vaison and the surrounding part of Provence; the town also plays a role in the medieval segment, which is mostly set in Avignon), the three narratives run parallel to each other, 64 and, at many points, intertwine.65 They are tales in which, as mentioned above, barbarism essentially prevails, despite the protagonists’ best efforts, whether these be heroic or dishonest and morally disreputable. Another common thread, in fact, is the theme of betrayal. Limiting ourselves to Manlius’ case, he has his friend Felix put to death,66 and, on another level, forsakes the humanistic and humane teachings of Sophia for pragmatic political reasons (and is then, in a sense, ‘excommunicated’ by his mentor, who disowns him as a pupil). In the context of the classically themed novel, authors usually choose between a biofiction centred on a precise historical character,67 and an invented story woven around a fictional character, who generally navigates through a significant period, coming into contact with many great figures of the time.68 In Pears, we encounter the middle position: fictional creations who nonetheless share psychological and biographical traits with real historical characters. Pears, moreover, has a vivid narrative style and an exceptional gift for immersing himself in the events related and bringing them to life for the reader. His lucid intelligence often produces moments of engaging irony, such as when he posits a hypothetical modern analyst grappling with the correspondence between Manlius and Sophia. The letters are lost, but

63 64

65

66 67

68

See above, n. 25. Cf. Evenepoel (2010) §3. Besides their shared Provençal origins (and birthplace of Vaison), the following elements are emphasised and thematically developed in the portrayal of all three protagonists: their studies (and inclination for the liberal arts); their relationship with their parents and, particularly, their fathers; the overwhelming (albeit, in a sense, ‘platonic’) amorous passion that defines their existence; their travels (e.g. Pears (2002) 67–76); their habit of bestowing gifts (pp. 58–63); their correspondence (p. 94); their friendships (pp. 98–9); their involvement – as mentioned above – with the Jewish question (for Manlius: pp. 177, 396–401; in Olivier’s time, when the Jews are already the object of considerable prejudice: pp. 168–9, 256–7; but are finally defended by Clement VI: p. 438; for the Nazi period, see the Julien narrative passim). All three narratives take place in time of war: World War II for Julien; the final throes of the Hundred Years War for Olivier, entwined with the problem of the ‘Babylonian Captivity’ of the Papacy at Avignon; the imminent Visigothic invasion for Manlius. The close ties between the three narratives obviously originate in the Somnium Scipionis, inspired by Sophia, written by Manlius, discovered by Olivier, and conserved in the Vatican Library where it is rediscovered by Julien. But there are many other ties as well, which it would take too long to cover in detail. Another name that probably derives from Sidonius’ letters: cf. Ep. 2.3, 3.4, 3.7, 4.5, 4.10. Numerous examples might be cited here, ranging from cultural figures and great politicians all the way through to Christ and the Apostles. For an overview, see Riikonen (1978) and Fornaro (1989). Cf. also Fedeli (1991) and de Palacio (2005). Many examples are discussed in Giannotti (2003, 2006, 2007, 2009). E.g. Gregory Julian in Robert Raynolds’ The Sinner of St. Ambrose, which I study in detail in the first chapter of Giannotti (2009), or Flavio Ascanio, the protagonist of Castelli (2009, 2010), who will be discussed later.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 722

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

723

the omniscient narrator has naturally had the opportunity to peruse them and appreciate their worth.69 In the specific case of Manlius, Pears may progressively lead his protagonist towards dubious ‘political’ areas and a morality that Sidonius is unlikely to have shared (and is explicitly refuted by Sophia), until, in the end, he becomes a ruthless murderer (executing his own son Syagrius with gratuitous ferocity). Nonetheless, Sidonius clearly provides a model for his personality and environment, and would probably have underwritten both some of the theories that Pears’ fictional characters expound and the values that they promote, as, for example, in this particularly significant dialogue between Sophia and Manlius (p. 45): ‘And you think joining the church will help?’ he asked, scarcely keeping the amused incredulity out of his voice. ‘Of course not,’ she said scornfully. ‘I think running the church will help. Perhaps even that will accomplish nothing, but at least learning will die with a friend by its bedside, rather than abandoned in a ditch.’

4 A Canonical Sidonius: His Memoirs in Guy Azaïs, his Deeds in Giulio Castelli 4.1 Guy Azaïs The ‘memoirs of Sidonius’ ghostwritten by Guy Azaïs merit a rapid overview.70 Probably influenced by Mémoires d’Hadrien by Marguerite Yourcenar, Azaïs depicts Sidonius at the end of his life looking back over his own existence in a letter-cum-memoir addressed to his friend and contemporary Basilius. Azaïs’ work is of no great literary value but is nonetheless significant from two points of view. First, it represents a sort of epitome or commonplace book of the notions that an educated person might form about Sidonius. Second, it shows how a historical figure like Sidonius, while retaining his principal traits and the symbolic role to which he seems predestined, is inevitably ‘rewritten’ by any author who, consciously or unconsciously, applies his own personal filter, which may have a strikingly distorting effect. Guy Azaïs, in fact, is a former diplomat who occupied a number of important posts.71 His Sidonius stresses his harsh and rigid school education (sic), underlines his father’s role in teaching him public diplomacy, and adopts ‘diplomatic’ perspectives that

69

70

71

Pears (2002) 63–4: ‘What the analyst would have cooed over was the eroticism of the images presented as abstract philosophy, although he would probably have missed the playful, affectionate lilt of the language.’ The first edition (2008) is entitled Sidoine Apollinaire, mémoires imaginaires: Récit [‘Sidonius Apollinaris, Imaginary Memoirs: A Narrative’]; the second edition (from which I quote here) only gives the author’s name in the biographical notice on the back cover, and is directly presented as a work by Sidonius himself: Sidoine Apollinaire: Que le jour recommence [‘Sidonius Apollinaris: May the Day Dawn Once More’] (2011) (on the cover, but not the frontispiece, the word Roman [‘Novel’] is added). The brief bio-bibliographical notice on the back cover of Azaïs (2011) tells us that the author, who is still alive and whose full name is Guy Marie Joseph Gérard Azaïs de La Garde de Chambonas, ‘est né en 1942 à Aixen-Provence. Après des études émérites (Sciences Politiques, puis l’ENA), il devient fonctionnaire aux Affaires Étrangères dans de nombreux pays: Espagne, Cuba, Maroc, mais aussi Bénin, Canada, Colombie ou Angola, comme ambassadeur ou haut-fonctionnaire’ (‘was born in 1942 in Aix-en-Provence. Having distinguished himself as a student (Sciences Po (Paris), followed by the École nationale d’administration), he worked for the Foreign Office as an ambassador or diplomatic official in numerous countries: principally Spain, Cuba, and Morocco, but also Benin, Canada, Colombia and Angola’).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 723

13/02/20 4:30 PM

724

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

the real Sidonius is unlikely to have shared. For example, he opines that Honorius should have welcomed, and indeed given his blessing to, the wedding of Galla Placidia and Ataulf. The Goths would thus have been peacefully absorbed into the empire and not become its deadly enemy.72 Sidonius’ life thus becomes a pretext for Azaïs to relate the long agony of the Roman Empire from his own personal viewpoint.73 Fully immersed in the character of Sidonius, and only occasionally recalling the narrative pretext with a reference to his nominal addressee Basilius, Azaïs also invents a number of episodes. Sidonius, for example, is present in Rome when it is sacked by the Vandals in 455. He is a guest at the house of the fictional senator Linus, a character who serves to provide support for Sidonius in Rome, and to send him news from the capital when he returns to Gaul. But even such intermittent narrative devices tend to conform to long-established, if not outworn, conventions, as is also the case with many of the descriptive passages and the portrayal of minor characters. A typical example here would be the portrait of Sidonius’ future wife Papianella (sic), sketched along somewhat hackneyed lines:74 Celle qui allait devenir ma femme, m’apparut alors dans tout l’éclat de sa beauté paisible. Son charme était fait de douceur réservée. Il émanait d’elle une élégante sérénité. Des rares instants où nous nous retrouvions seuls, j’ai retenu le ton enjoué de sa conversation ainsi que son intelligence vive et discrète. She who would become my wife appeared before me then in all the radiance of her quiet beauty. Her charm consisted in a reserved and gentle nature. She exuded elegance and serenity. From the rare moments that we were alone together, I recall the cheerful tone of her conversation as well as her lively and discreet intelligence. The reason why the diplomat and public official Azaïs chose Sidonius Apollinaris as his hero and, in some respects, alter ego is perhaps revealed by an improbable – and, from a literary perspective, weak – remark made by Euric to Bishop Epiphanius of Pavia:75 J’ai su par la suite la fière réponse d’Euric aux humbles supplications de l’évêque: ‘Ma cuirasse ne me quitte jamais. J’ai toujours mon bouclier à portée de la main, l’épée à mon côté. Mais j’ai trouvé en toi un homme dont l’éloquence est plus forte que mes armes. La langue des romains vaut bien tous nos boucliers et nos javelots’. 72

73

74

75

For Honorius and Galla Placidia, see Azaïs (2011) 16. On the diplomatic virtues of Sidonius’ father and his teachings on the subject, see p. 19. Other passages where the diplomatic theme is particularly stressed include: pp. 152; 154; 173–5 (where what most interests Azaïs when his protagonist becomes a bishop is the letters that the newly elected Sidonius writes to various important figures to establish healthy relations); 180–1 (the bishop Epiphanius’ efforts to reconcile Anthemius and Ricimer); 184 and 206 (the importance of epistolary correspondence); 197 (Euric’s release of Sidonius for diplomatic and administrative reasons); 198–9 (Salvianus on a diplomatic mission to Sidonius). The author fully adopts the traditional perspective of Untergangsstimmung discussed above (n. 48 and context). The whole fictional biography is conceived as a final act, written in the last days of his life by a Sidonius who (like Yourcenar’s Hadrian) is readying himself for death yet, in the closing lines, can still lament the decline of his own world: ‘My religious needs awoke when faced with the decadence of the world in which I had put all my faith from my very earliest childhood’ (Azaïs (2011) 209–10). Azaïs (2011) 36. From a very different perspective – albeit in an equally cursory piece of characterisation – Castelli presents Papianilla as ‘una ragazzetta insignificante sui dodici anni’ (‘an insignificant little girl aged about twelve’), who ‘incominciò subito a fare sfoggio di citazioni devote. Sembrava che conoscesse a memoria tutte le vite dei martiri’ (‘immediately began to show off her knowledge of pious quotations. She seemed to know all the martyrs’ lives by heart’) (Castelli (2008) 193). It is not obvious why Azaïs felt the need to assign Sidonius two male children – ‘Sidoine’ and ‘Marcus’ – rather than three girls and a boy (Apollinaris). Azaïs (2011) 188–9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 724

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

725

En des temps différents, ce propos m’eût vivement réjoui en ce qu’il était une sorte d’hommage rendu à ce qui faisait encore, malgré tout, notre supériorité. I learned later of Euric’s proud response to the bishop’s humble pleas: ‘My armour is never off. My shield is always at hand’s reach, and my sword always at my side. But in you I have found a man whose eloquence is stronger than my weapons. A Roman’s tongue is worth all our shields and javelins.’ At another time, these words would have cheered me enormously, as they were a sort of homage paid to what, despite everything, still made us superior.

4.2 Giulio Castelli Sidonius’ story also plays a major part in the monumental fresco of fifth-century life presented in Giulio Castelli’s late antique trilogy.76 Comprised of three substantial novels, Imperator: L’ultimo eroe di Roma antica [‘Imperator: The Last Hero of Ancient Rome’] (2008), Gli ultimi fuochi dell’Impero romano [‘The Final Sparks of the Roman Empire’] (2009), and 476 A.D.: L’ultimo imperatore [‘AD 476: The Last Emperor’] (2010), this was republished in a single volume in 2013 with the title Il romanzo dell’Impero romano [‘The Novel of the Roman Empire’]. The first great historical character to emerge and to acquire a profound symbolical, ethical, and political significance is the emperor Majorian. Imperator is, in fact, presented as a book of memoirs written by Iulius Valerius Maiorianus in what turns out to be the last year of his life. In the course of the narrative, we learn that Majorian is working on his autobiography in 461 in the city of Arles, where his ‘avventura gallica’ (‘Gallic adventure’) started,77 although the time period covered stretches from 415 (the year of Hypatia’s murder at Alexandria) to 458 (when Majorian is recognised as western emperor by his eastern counterpart and introduces his reforming laws). The second and third novels of the trilogy are presented, conversely, as diaries written in old age by the fictional Flavius Ascanius, a nephew of Petrus, the civil servant who acted as Majorian’s secretary. The ‘memoirs of Ascanius’, finalised in 498 in Tintagel in Cornwall, where he has retired following his last battle with the Saxons, provide a sequel, then, to the ‘memoirs of Majorian’, consisting of a long narrative which goes back to cover the period between 458 and the fateful year 476, subsequently touching more briefly upon other events up to the end of the century.78 76

77 78

Born in Rome in 1938, Giulio Castelli is a journalist, writer, and scholar of late antique and medieval history. He deals with the transition between the classical world and the Middle Ages not only in the trilogy Il romanzo dell’Impero romano but also in his 2013 Il diario segreto di Marco Aurelio: L’imperatore che disprezzava il potere and his 2014 L’imperatore guerriero: Il romanzo di Diocleziano, il persecutore. His other significant works include the 1973 novel Il Fascistibile and the 1992 pamphlet Il leviatano negligente. Castelli (2008) 65, 80, and 571. The final novel and the whole trilogy end in remote Britannia, where Ascanius combats the Saxon invaders alongside Ambrosius Aurelianus – Emrys Wledig in the Britonnic tongue – who is ‘il gran re di tutti i Britanni liberi’ (‘the great king of all the free Britons’) (Castelli (2010) 451) and the last descendant of Roman noblemen. Strangely, then, we find ourselves in similar territory to another classically themed novel, Valerio Massimo Manfredi’s L’ultima legione (The Last Legion), which revolves around the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus in 476 and also concludes in Britannia with a fusion of the last remnants of Roman civilisation and the emerging saga of King Arthur. For further details, see Giannotti (2003) 289–97. Ambrosius Aurelianus is also featured in The Lantern Bearers, a children’s novel by the English writer Rosemary Sutcliff (1920–92). Among his opponents is Vortigern, who also figures in Castelli (2010). It seems reasonable to surmise that Sutcliff’s highly successful novel, which is still in print, provided a source of inspiration for Castelli (and perhaps, up to a point, for Manfredi too). For a fuller study of Castelli’s trilogy, see Giannotti (2015). (I thank Gavin Kelly for pointing out Sutcliff’s book to me.)

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 725

13/02/20 4:30 PM

726

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

If we take Castelli’s remarks in the preface to the second volume79 and apply them to the whole trilogy, there are three possible ways of approaching Il romanzo dell’Impero romano: as a historical novel relating events with great accuracy; as an adventure story, where action is an essential ingredient; and as an extended metaphor, where the decadence of the late antique world ultimately reflects the cultural and moral decline of our own times. First, then, a major feature of the trilogy is its historical exactitude. Castelli is scrupulously exact both in depicting events and in portraying an impressively wide range of prominent historical characters, at least in so far as either can be reconstructed from source materials. Castelli himself, though, acknowledges that the historical approach can only go so far, as there are contradictory accounts of events in the historical sources, and inevitably there are grey areas which force the writer to use his imagination.80 As a result, the narrative gradually slides into a ‘romanzo d’avventura’ (‘adventure story’),81 a term which, in my view, is to be understood in the broadest sense, not only implying a greater emphasis on episodes of high drama, but also permitting the author to grasp the narrative opportunities offered by Majorian’s childhood and adolescence, and, in the context of the emperor’s own autobiographical memoir, allowing for emotional reflections and confessions which would be out of place in a sober account of the facts. The adventure element is particularly prominent, for example, in the chapter where Majorian assumes a false identity to take part in a Byzantine delegation to Geiseric, with the hidden aim of freeing the empress Licinia Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian III.82 As regards a metaphorical reading of the trilogy, there is a pronounced emphasis throughout on political and moral considerations. This element can probably be traced to a personal interest of the author, documented in his 1992 pamphlet Il leviatano negligente: Potere e inefficienza in Italia [‘The Negligent Leviathan: Power and Inefficiency in Italy’], which Castelli has the bold idea of attributing to Majorian himself in the trilogy, presenting it as a collection of thoughts on the consolidation of personal power and the simultaneous weakening of public authority.83 Among its most prominent themes, in fact, is the decadence of Rome, for the main task that Castelli’s idealised and public-minded Majorian sets himself is to halt such decadence, arrest decline, and redress injustices.84 Although it focuses primarily on other fifth-century characters, both historical and fictional (Majorian, the civil servant Petrus, and his nephew Flavius Ascanius), the trilogy gradually but naturally brings the figure of Sidonius Apollinaris to the fore. Based on a highly detailed reading, Castelli extracts historical data and suggestions from Sidonius’ letters, integrating them into a rich and varied portrayal of the writer, which stems primarily from his creative imagination. The physical description of Sidonius is distinctly unflattering: ‘con il suo labbro inferiore che gli pendeva sempre’ (‘with his ever-drooping lower lip’);85 ‘era debole e flaccido. Sudava facilmente anche se non era affatto una stagione calda. Arrotava le dentali e le erre’ (‘he was weak and flabby. He sweated profusely even if the weather was not at all hot. He slurred his dental

79 80 81 82 83 84

85

Castelli (2009) 7–8. Castelli (2010) 7. Castelli (2009) 7. Castelli (2008) 475–87. Castelli (2008) 263–4, (2009) 124, 201, and 353–5, (2010) 230 and 255. Among the numerous illustrations of this theme, one might cite the following examples in the first volume: (2008) 326–7, 346–7, 370, 434, 490. Castelli (2008) 471.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 726

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

727

consonants and his “r”s’).86 And even as a bishop more than ten years later: ‘le guance gli cadevano ai lati come grossi bargigli di un vecchio gallo, le borse sotto gli occhi erano bluastre. . . . ansimava tra una parola e l’altra’ (‘his cheeks hung down at either side like the long wattles of an old cockerel, the bags under his eyes were blueish . . . and he panted between words’).87 The psychological portrait is more subtle and nuanced, albeit overweighted perhaps towards a picture of Sidonius as a conceited man of letters, who, despite living in a time of great drama, is forever tempted by the trivial and frivolous. The first traits that gradually emerge from this somewhat barbed depiction of Sidonius are curiosity and a habit of asking ‘domande in continuazione’ (‘question after question’), typical of an ‘amabile seccatore’ (‘amiable bore’)88 whose presence can easily become wearisome, causing Petrus to comment ironically: ‘l’Urbe è sopravvissuta ai Vandali, ma non sono certo che sopravviverà alle letture pubbliche delle opere di Sidonio’ (‘Rome survived the Vandals, but I am not sure that it will survive the public readings of the works of Sidonius’).89 He is ‘tutto tronfio’ (‘extremely pompous’) to boot and aspires ‘ad un ruolo importante, magari nella stessa città di Roma’ (‘to an important role, perhaps even in the city of Rome itself’); he believes himself a ‘candidato a tutto’ (‘candidate for everything’) and is ‘il più grande ruffiano dei nostri tempi’ (‘the greatest sycophant of our age’).90 His two main character traits are egocentricity and vanity. Ascanius recalls how, as a dinner guest, he spent ‘due ore ad ascoltare il poeta che parlava di se stesso’ (‘two hours listening to the poet talk about himself’91), while even at Zaragoza, on Majorian’s march towards Tarraconensis, Sidonius ‘si pavoneggiava tra le matrone e i preti di quel municipio di provincia’ (‘preened himself before the matrons and priests of that provincial town’).92 He will retain these traits all his life,93 making him a constant (comically) polemical target for Petrus: ‘nessuna bella schiava riuscirebbe a sedurlo se non fosse in grado di procurargli un pubblico plaudente’ (‘no fair slave-girl would ever manage to seduce him unless she could first find him an enthusiastic audience’).94 Other notable elements that go to make up his personality are aristocratic pride, superficiality, and frivolity,95 culminating in an image of Sidonius as ‘uno splendido vaso cesellato ma vuoto’ (‘a splendid vase, finely chiselled but empty’).96 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

94 95

96

Castelli (2009) 183. Castelli (2010) 77. Castelli (2008) 195 and 220. Castelli (2008) 472. Castelli (2009) 122–3 and 315. Castelli (2009) 397. Castelli (2009) 58. As is evident from the following encounter after Ascanius’ return from Constantinople to Rome: ‘Sidonio era, come sempre, attento soprattutto a se stesso. Si considerava il centro del mondo. Gongolava quando gli dissi che a Costantinopoli le sue opere erano lette e apprezzate. Mi chiese particolari e poi aggiunse che nella capitale d’Oriente il pubblico era più attento che altrove alla poesia’ (‘Sidonius was, as always, predominantly concerned with himself. He thought the world revolved around him. He was delighted when I told him that his works were read and appreciated in Constantinople. He asked me for details, then added that the public were more devoted to poetry in the eastern capital than anywhere else)’ ((2009) 293). See also the description of the public reading of his works in the Basilica Ulpia ((2009) 299). Castelli (2009) 229. ‘Sidonio non avvertiva la profondità di quanto andava dicendo. Si fermava alla superficie . . . In fondo non gli dispiaceva che la gente misera fosse inselvatichita. La cultura doveva essere limitata a chi sapeva farne uso e la poesia era l’espressione delle anime nobili. Ma per “anime nobili” lui intendeva le “anime dei nobili”’ (‘Sidonius did not appreciate the profundity of what he was saying. He never looked beneath the surface . . . Deep down, he was not unhappy that the poor were uncultivated. Culture, he though, should be restricted to those who knew how to make use of it, and poetry was a vessel for noble souls. But by “noble souls”, he meant the “souls of the nobility”’ ((2009) 80). Castelli (2009) 80.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 727

13/02/20 4:30 PM

728

FILOMENA GIANNOTTI

Viewing the trilogy in its entirety, it is worth noting that, as the story proceeds, the figure of Sidonius undergoes a transformation, and we might surmise that, when writing Imperator, Castelli did not fully foresee how far his character might evolve in a positive direction. In fact, after becoming personally acquainted with Sidonius, Ascanius comes to rely on him more and more. As a friend of Majorian and nephew of Petrus, he is adopted as his protégé, subsequently becomes his son-in-law, and will eventually repay the debt by rescuing Sidonius from his plight as Euric’s prisoner. Castelli’s trilogy ultimately constitutes a significant step towards broadening public knowledge of the complex and tangled history of the fifth century. It highlights those features of the period which are most appealing from a novelistic viewpoint: love stories, seductions, intrigues, murders, gratuitous cruelty sometimes linked to religious fundamentalism, and sudden reversals of fortune (such as the deaths of Valentinian III and Heraclius). It offers a persuasive picture of the late antique world and largely avoids arbitrariness and anachronism in evoking its mentality. Castelli also skilfully hints at its contemporary relevance by drawing implicit analogies with our own times.97 Sidonius is portrayed in his historical context as he really was: futile yet, at the same time, culturally committed. As we have seen, the trilogy initially adopts the prevalent historical and literary view of Sidonius, stressing his self-importance and depicting him as a vain, shallow, superficial poet, and as a slave to aristocratic social rituals which seem totally detached from the pressing political and military realities of his day. As the trilogy proceeds, however, Sidonius gradually emerges as a nobler character, one of the few surviving cultured – and culturally committed – figures in those turbulent years.

5 Conclusion Classically themed novels rarely examine the ‘minor’ figures of the fifth century, tending to focus rather on an individual of major importance, and, in particular, on great writers such as Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Rutilius Namatianus, and Claudian, or female figures such as Hypatia, or, later in the century, Romulus Augustulus with his unique significance as the last emperor.98 In this light, it is all the more striking how Sidonius has shifted from being considered an intriguing and elusive littérateur to being saluted as a symbol of human and humanistic resistance in a period of decadence, with a growing appreciation of his existential struggles and of his genuine faith in the cultural values that inspired him. And this occurs both directly (Anglade, Azaïs) and indirectly, that is, where Sidonius’ own biographical and cultural profile is used to create a fictional character (Pears). 97

98

A good example would be the exceptionally moving and – at the time of writing this chapter – dreadfully topical episode where Thea, Majorian’s concubine, tells the tale of her escape with her parents from Biserta on a fishing boat: ‘hanno preteso tutto quello che avevamo per portarci in Sicilia . . . Poi mia madre si ammalò. Erano ustioni da sole e le vennero piaghe sul viso. Aveva delle allucinazioni . . . Così loro credettero che fosse appestata, e la gettarono in mare. La gettarono viva . . . Immobilizzarono me e mio padre . . . Uno di loro prese un remo e la colpì. Continuò a colpirla mentre lei tentava di aggrapparsi alla barca. La finirono a bastonate, là in mezzo al mare’ (‘they demanded everything we had to take us to Sicily . . . Then my mother fell ill. She had sun blisters which turned into running sores on her face. She began to have hallucinations . . . So they thought she had the plague, and threw her overboard. She was alive when they threw her . . . They held my father and me still . . . One of them took an oar and hit her with it. He kept on hitting her while she tried to hang on to the boat. They ended up bludgeoning her to death, right there in the middle of the sea’) (Castelli (2008) 143). Cf. Giannotti (2006, 2009).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 728

13/02/20 4:30 PM

SIDONIUS RECEPTION : LATE 19TH TO 21ST CENTURIES

729

If we take all these fictional recreations of Sidonius together, two further elements need to be stressed. The first is that some of these novels (Anglade, Azaïs, and partly Pears too) tend to dramatise the fall of the Roman Empire as a clash between barbarians and Romans, rather than what most historians would now see in the period – the collapse of the Roman system, in which barbarians played a significant role. This is not the case for Castelli’s trilogy, however, where the emphasis falls on systemic failure, so that Majorian (the fictional Flavius Ascanius’ master and point of reference) is presented precisely as the ‘last’ figure capable of reversing the decline and countering the inefficiency of the state apparatus: a ‘last’ (and wasted) opportunity for regeneration which goes no further than the pages of Majorian’s (fictional) treatise The Negligent Leviathan.99 The second significant element is that, almost invariably, very little space is devoted in these novels to Sidonius’ role as a committed Christian, a bishop, clergyman, and future saint. Only Anglade (chapters 13–16 and 18–20) could be said to deal with Sidonius’ religious life to any real extent.100 Elsewhere, it tends to be the political and social dimension of his episcopal role that is stressed (Castelli, but Marcel, too, albeit from an ironically playful and consistently irreverent perspective); this is also the side of the historical Sidonius that Pears most clearly portrays in his fictional Manlius Hippomanes, who is essentially presented as a crypto-pagan, as, for that matter, is Graves’ Modestus. The vision of Sidonius as a noble symbol of political, military, spiritual, and cultural resistance is predictably most apparent in those works (Anglade, Azaïs) which are fundamentally sympathetic towards him. It is also evident, however, in cases where reservations are expressed as to his character and as to the depth of his understanding of his times and ability to analyse them (Castelli), and even where he is systematically debunked and subjected to an irreverent, ironic treatment (Marcel, Montebello). To conclude, then, it is not only on the scholarly front but also in the literary and creative sphere that the unique life and literary heritage of Sidonius Apollinaris are being rediscovered and explored, in all their unique wealth, at the start of the twenty-first century.

6 Further Reading I would like to highlight a few general studies on historical fiction and on the topical issue of the blurring of biographical reality and fiction (biofiction). Hannu Riikonen (1978) is fundamental for the role of Antiquity in the nineteenth-century novel, while Marie-France de Palacio (2008) has written an essential contribution on the tragedy of the ‘end of empire’ as applied in German fiction around 1900. Three important studies for the problem of biofiction are Keener (2001) and Castellana (2015) and (2019). Translated from the Italian by Paul Barnaby

99

100

See n. 83 and context above. It is harder to characterise the stance adopted on this point in the experimental novels by Montebello and Marcel. Some elements of Sidonius’ life as a Catholic bishop are stressed in the short story by Yonge (1890) discussed in van Waarden’s ch. 23, sect. 3.3, in this volume.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 729

13/02/20 4:30 PM

EPILOGUE: FUTURE APPROACHES TO SIDONIUS Gavin Kelly and Joop van Waarden

I

N THIS EPILOGUE,

we would like to look back at some of the themes of this book and discuss areas for development and for future study. Scholarship on Sidonius and his world has matured over the last decades and covered new areas. This Companion offers a first comprehensive survey of what has been achieved so far, particularly on historical and literary issues, while adding several new building blocks to the construction. To give a few examples: a fresh look at all the surviving manuscripts results in a groundbreaking modification of the shape of the tradition, and should have far-reaching consequences for the constitution of the text in future editions, as we will show below. A generous list of Sidonius’ people and places not only provides a useful working instrument, but also deepens our insight into the stratification of Sidonius’ world thanks to social network analysis. Another area that is freshly catered for is Sidonius’ reception from the very beginning to the twentyfirst century. The comprehensive bibliography aims at covering everything that is essential; meanwhile, for further detail and updates readers are encouraged to turn to the Sidonius website: .

Editing When we asked Franz Dolveck to reinvestigate the manuscript tradition of Sidonius, we were expecting a useful catalogue of manuscripts and perhaps some interesting corrections in the study of the textual transmission. As he himself admits, the transmitted text of Sidonius is reasonably good – possibly because linguistic difficulties kept scribes on their mettle. What he has produced includes the catalogue of manuscripts but also, for the transmission, a complete recasting of the basis on which scholars have been working.1 If he is right, as we think he is, Dolveck’s work will make an enormous difference to future research on the text by making possible a simple stemmatic selection between variant readings, though editors will still need to consider and print a good number of conjectures. In order to test this conviction, we decided to make an experimental investigation of the panegyric of Anthemius and its preface, checking cases where Loyen’s apparatus presented the manuscripts as split.2 Dolveck had suggested that C and F were not the most appropriate members of their families to use, and accordingly for the α family we added the readings of A (Vaticanus Latinus 3421) and of Vaticanus Latinus 1661 to those of C, and for γ we used London, BL, Royal 4 B. IV in addition to F (and for two lines Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawl. G. 45). We also checked the readings of 1 2

Ch. 16, ’The Manuscript Tradition of Sidonius’. There may be other cases that we missed, where Loyen did not record a divergence; but our aim was to sample rather than provide a definitive study. For sigla see the census of manuscripts in ch. 16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 730

13/02/20 4:30 PM

EPILOGUE : FUTURE APPROACHES TO SIDONIUS

731

Leip2 (Leipzig, UB, Rep. I 48), which Dolveck hypothesises may have a link to the archetype independent of α and β. In conducting this exercise, the most striking result was certainly the realisation of Loyen’s sheer inaccuracy in his critical apparatus. There were errors of reporting in nine of the twentyfour places checked. Loyen took his readings from Lütjohann and Leo’s edition of 1887, which was, however, cut off by the premature death of Lütjohann. In one case, Lütjohann was responsible for a faulty reading; otherwise Loyen misinterpreted the silences of Lütjohann’s minimalist apparatus, and clearly did not himself look at manuscripts, even the French ones.3 The exercise shows that a number of changes seem necessary: •

•

•

• •

• •

At 1.19, it is clear that the description of Chiron as semifer (M, accepted by Loyen) is an emendation: attractive though it is, there is probably no reason to doubt the archetypal reading semivir. At 1.25, Loyen printed Victore as the name of the quaestor before whom the panegyric was being delivered. Victore is attributed to the second hand of P, which in fact reads victure – and the erased word is discernible as doctore, confirmed by the fact that doctore is also in T. The reading victure is an innovation of λ, and victore can only be found at the bottom of the stemma in the two Berlin MSS and (presumably) Montpellier, BU Méd., H. 4. The agreement of α and γ should in itself have been enough to guarantee the correctness of doctore, even more so given that it is also the reading of T and P1. ‘Victor’ should be relegated to the anonymi in the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. At 2.115, the situation is clearly the same as at 1.19: M’s reading constantis Iuli is patently an emendation and should be replaced by the archetypal cunctantis (αγPT). In the relevant lines of the Aeneid (2.681–6) Iulus is neither particularly constant or hesitant, but the hesitancy goes well with the characterisation of the other exemplary figure that follows, Astyages (expavit, Carm. 2.118). At 2.156, the archetypal reading is certainly minor (αγP1T), not minus (MP2).4 At 2.185, the readings divide between families loquenti (ACγ), loquendi (Vat1661 PT). The dative seems to be both the authentic reading of the α family and more plausible following dat opem. At 2.402, the archetypal reading is iuncto not vincto (a trivial difference; vincto is definitely superior). At 2.500, the line should read quantumvis veteris repetam conubia saecli (αγP). Loyen misreports both C and P to reverse the order of veteris and repetam, found among his manuscripts only in T.5

Dolveck’s bipartite stemma certainly seems to work, in that at all places where α agrees with manuscripts from β (represented here by γMPT), the reading is either right or widely enough 3

4 5

Carm. 1.25 P p.c. victure, not victore (error taken over from Lütjohann); P a.c. almost certainly had doctore; 2.156 C minor not minus, and to our eyes minus has been added after minor in P; 2.246 F arctum not artum, 2.254 F and T fascea not fascia; 2.291 F nec not non, 2.402 T and probably P iuncto not vincto, 2.413 F flagrat not fragrat, 2.500 C and P veteris repetam not r.v. All but the first are misunderstandings of Lütjohann’s apparatus, assuming from the latter’s silence that the named MS had the reading printed in his text. At 2.178, Lütjohann’s report of an erasure in C is misunderstood (C reads Socraticusque). nec minus is paralleled by Carm. 7.207; nec minor might, however, be defensible. F, which has veteris inserted above the line, shows how the error could have occurred, by a leap from the -is of quantumvis to that of veteris and a misplaced mark of correction.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 731

13/02/20 4:30 PM

732

GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

attested in β to be clearly archetypal. At points where α and β divide, β is followed by editors more often than α. While at 2.291 non α is correct against nec β, the reverse is definitely the case at 2.88 fudit β, fundit α, and very probably at 2.419 praefert β, profert α; at 2.246 artum (some β MSS) is clearly right for the pointy heads of the Huns against α’s atrum, though the γ family’s arctum and Leip2’s austrum complicate the picture. At 2.303, expectabat β gives the right meaning, but it could be a gloss on spectabat α, the simple for the compound verb. Expectabat requires the rather unusual elision of the previous monosyllable quem. The exercise also drew attention to a few orthographic points;6 and at a few places idiosyncratic readings of individual MSS turn out not to be representative of their families (F’s astus (506), iam, and malorum (520), for example), and their removal would simplify the apparatus. Of course, editors will still need to think deeply about textual choices and the necessity for conjectural solutions. But while there are certainly many texts more in need of editing, the exercise suggests that a new critical edition of Sidonius is highly desirable.

Commentary The Leverhulme International Network grant for ‘Sidonius Apollinaris for the 21st Century’ provided support, among other things, for the development of three Sidonius commentaries, now nearing publication. This, together with other complementary initiatives, encourages cautious optimism that all the works of Sidonius will have received modern commentaries within the next decade.7 This would fulfil one necessary precondition for future research on or involving Sidonius to develop on a stable interpretative basis. However, in order to encourage as well as simply to enable future scholarship, commentaries at undergraduate level are an important desideratum.8

Translation Another regrettable gap in fundamental works on Sidonius is the comparative lack of accessible translations in most of the main European languages.9 In English and French, keen students without Latin can consult the Budé or the Loeb; in German, there is Köhler’s translation of the letters, albeit marketed at a forbidding price. Soon, Roger Green’s version of the poetry will be available in the Translated Texts for Historians series from Liverpool University Press. But (to speak only of English) there is as yet no translation in the Penguin Classics or Oxford World’s Classics that can be picked up in larger bookshops by non-academic readers. Considering Sidonius’ literary stature and his ability to speak as a memorable voice for the age of the invasions – amply demonstrated in the various popular novels described in Giannotti’s chapter 24 – there could certainly be a market for such a version.10 6

7 8

9 10

At Carm. 2.36 only M has gnatos and at 2.254 none of the manuscripts reads fascia; the spellings in the archetype are natos (αγPT) and fascea. Fascea is also seemingly the archetypal reading at Carm. 2.400, where the editions print fascia without comment. See Introduction, p. 000. Cambridge University Press are currently considering a proposal for a ‘Green and Yellow’ edition by Joop van Waarden. See also ch. 19. Patrizia Mascoli has embarked on a full Italian translation of the correspondence; see her partial translation, Mascoli (2016a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 732

13/02/20 4:30 PM

EPILOGUE : FUTURE APPROACHES TO SIDONIUS

733

Going Beyond Sidonius’ Oeuvre Thus far we have considered the possibility of new works of fundamental scholarship on Sidonius, and the general focus in this book has of course been on him and his works. But in many areas – among them literary, historical, archaeological, and linguistic – progress is likely to come not only (or even mainly) from works specifically focused on Sidonius and on solving problems in his life or work, but rather from studies focused on questions that go beyond one author. Thus, in literary terms, many important insights have come in the past and are likely to come in the future from looking at Sidonius in the context of studies of the genres that he wrote in – broad, like the panegyric and the letter, or narrow, like the epithalamium or letter of recommendation or the verse preface.11 In some cases, much remains to be discovered. In others, Sidonius has been well studied but in comparative isolation: arguably, to take the biggest example, scholarship has not really got a holistic grasp of the vast genre of the late antique letter.12 Likewise, looking at characteristic modes of late antique writing, we have had illuminating studies of topics such as obscurity and the so-called jewelled style,13 but there is room both for further thoughts on these areas and for the exploration of others: for example, we have no general study of the late antique tendency towards invective, or of the catalogue of exempla. In the second of these categories, Sidonius is a particularly impressive and influential author, and could be the centrepiece of a valuable study.

Intertextuality The core business of much scholarship is reading Sidonius, like many of his predecessors, as an allusive author, in the spirit of the ‘linguistic turn’ in the humanities and the trends of Latin literature, including Late Antiquity.14 The dominant tendency in Classical scholarship has been to treat this allusivity as an authorial construct in the first place, almost as the objective hidden backbone of any ancient work of literature to be laid bare in the process of philological research – and, indeed, Sidonius is a good test case for the selfconsciousness and deliberateness of allusion. In the light, however, of postmodern qualms concerning the viability of historical understanding – or, for that matter, of basic Popperian scientific critique – it should be a systematic concern of future scholarship to ask questions about the limits of allusive self-fashioning by late antique authors, as well as to 11

12

13 14

To exemplify with just one of these areas: for broad studies of epic panegyric that include Sidonius, see Schindler (2009) and Gillett (2012) – and yet Sidonius and verse panegyric have not so far been well integrated into the broader growth of interest in late antique panegyric, which tends towards a Greek/Latin divide as well as a prose/verse one. As for the letter of recommendation, Willum Westenholz’ current PhD project (Vienna, supervisor Danuta Shanzer) aims to fulfil the desideratum of a commentary on Sidonius Book 6 embedded in a study of the genre. Our contributor Roy Gibson is currently Principal Investigator of a project on ‘Ancient Letter Collections’ funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council: among the aims are to discover how many Greek and Roman letter collections survive between the fourth century BCE and the fifth century CE, as well as how they were ordered, in order to establish the study of ancient letter collections as a coherent field. It is surprising that this fundamental task needed to be undertaken. A valuable first step, specific to Late Antiquity, is Sogno et al. (2017a). Schwitter (2015), Roberts (1989). An important voice being Gian Biagio Conte (1986, 1994). See the considerations in this volume by Gualandri, ch. 8.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 733

13/02/20 4:30 PM

734

GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

be aware of the subjectivity of all subsequent appropriation (which ultimately is an interpretative and necessarily circular move of the reader) – as a check to falsify interpretations according to Popper’s scientific critique. If allusiveness is to remain a reliable guide, the way forward is not just multiplying its instances (which, to a certain degree, is easy thanks to digital databases) but turning the burden of proof around, formulating objections, and considering alternative explanations. The study of intertextuality in Sidonius has tended to function on a fairly localised basis: the study of the individual poem and letter and how its interpretation is affected by its intertexts; on a slightly wider level the study of how individual authors, especially the classic writers of the first centuries before and after Christ, were reflected across Sidonius’ oeuvre.15 There is room for plenty more studies in this area in the rigorous form sketched above. But perhaps we have now come far enough to use Sidonius, alongside other allusive late antique Latin authors, as the basis for larger literary-historical studies that systematically illustrate the fortune and interpretation of earlier classical authors in Late Antiquity, as well as the rise of new classics. Such a comprehensive contribution to the literary history of Late Antiquity would be a huge asset in itself and a catalyst for further research.

History Historical treatments of Sidonius have also arguably followed the more general ‘linguistic turn’. The careful attention paid to the literary character and the biases of sources has been noteworthy. Let it suffice here to point out how such an approach has borne fruit for the writing of Sidonius’ biography and for sustained attention to self-fashioning as one of Sidonius’ central concerns.16 The latter is clearly connected with our modern concern with identity, which has also caused a wave of interest in ‘otherness’ and the barbarians.17 However, there has been a general decline in the extent to which historians of the wider period are willing to rest much on Sidonius, given their increased awareness of his artifice. But one may hope that historians of fifth-century Gaul and late Roman society can learn to handle Sidonius in all his complexity, rather than simply ignoring him out of mistrust.

Material Culture The engagement of archaeological scholarship with Sidonius is still less observable than that of historical scholarship. Indeed, archaeological and epigraphic materials are not expressly addressed in this volume, other than in their narrow context, for instance the inscription on Sidonius’ tombstone (a fragment), his honorific statue-cum-inscription in the Forum of Trajan (lost), or instances of villa descriptions (literary rather than architectural artefacts). For an author who offers more sense of the material world and of daily life than most of his contemporaries, there is surprisingly little scholarship that attempts to place Sidonius in his material and visual context, and we regret not having a dedicated chapter in this book. There is

15 16 17

E.g. Stoehr-Monjou (2013) on Horace, and Furbetta (2018a) on Ovid. Spearheaded by Harries (1994). On identity e.g. Mratschek (2013) and in this volume, ch. 6; on the barbarians Fascione (2019).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 734

13/02/20 4:30 PM

EPILOGUE : FUTURE APPROACHES TO SIDONIUS

735

certainly also a case for further study on the intersection of materiality and literature in such areas as urbanism and villa culture, including building materials. Similarly with epigraphy: a number of Sidonius’ shorter poems are presented as being written as inscriptions.18 As far as art history is concerned, the long and lingering ekphrases of formal scenes and the personification of the panegyrics have clear models in late antique art, decoration, and ceremony, and would merit an interdisciplinary study.19

Other Methodologies What could be other ways forward for studies of Sidonius? It is probably foolish to imagine one can predict where the next big advances will be, just as it would be to suggest that certain seams have been fully mined. Moreover, it is obvious that Sidonius benefits enormously from the integration of literary and historical studies that is ideally at the heart of the traditional discipline of Classics, even if not always present in practice. We will, however, mention two newer areas, which may offer scope for new discoveries and for maintaining the freshness and vitality of the field. Since the heyday of the study of late Latin in the first half of the twentieth century, linguistics (broadly understood) has paid relatively little attention to the high-flown Latin art-prose of the later empire and immediately after: much more interest has gone to sub-literary texts. And yet linguistic approaches could greatly deepen our understanding of Sidonius’ idiolect and the communicative nature of his message in particular. Text linguistics could give full weight to such elements as particles, textual coherence, and narrative structure.20 Meanwhile the application of narratology has only just begun for our author for issues such as narrative modes, focalisation, and epistolary time.21 Second, cognitive approaches to classics are terra incognita in Sidonius studies; they can be expected to yield results in fields as widely apart as ritual studies,22 semantics,23 and emotions24 as well as – again – linguistics and narratology,25 by laying bare the biological, embodied foundations of language and perception, for the author as well as the reader. Such an approach can thus link to the linguistic approach already mentioned, and can expand the multidisciplinary nature of the classical discipline beyond the textual and visual to the psychological.

18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The archaeology of late antique Gaul is covered extensively in publications like Duval et al. (1991, 1995–8). On late antique cities in Gaul in particular, see Loseby (2006) and the survey article Grig (2013). On villa culture, see Percival (1992) and Wickham (2005) 465–81. On literary descriptions of architecture, see especially Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard (2011a, 2011b, 2014a, 2014b). For building materials, see e.g. the various types of marble in the panegyric of Majorian, lines 34–9, discussed by Tiziana Brolli in Brolli (2013) 99–102 and in her forthcoming commentary on this panegyric. For an example of the crossover of historical geography and literary scholarship applied to Ep. 1.5, see Fournier and Stoehr-Monjou (2014). On the ‘epigraphic habit’, ‘inscribing identity’, see Trout (2009) in a chapter bearing this title. Over a hundred and forty years have passed since the last study, Purgold (1878). See examples in Risselada (2013) and van Waarden in this volume, ch. 13. See examples in van Waarden (2010) 154–6 and Hanaghan (2019). See van Waarden (forthcoming a). E.g. Short (2018). E.g. Cairns and Nelis (2017). E.g. van Waarden (forthcoming b).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 735

13/02/20 4:30 PM

736

GAVIN KELLY AND JOOP VAN WAARDEN

Late Antiquity has become a period of much greater fascination for the current generation, whether because of a postmodern wish to recognise its own situation in a confusing and multicultural society, or because of a mixture of fascination and resistance in the face of traditional literary and historical canons.26 Sidonius as an author seems a particularly apt figure – multifaceted, contradictory, and Janus-like – to illustrate this age of competing sources of authority, and to link present-day concerns to the study of Late Antiquity in a way that does justice to both.

26

One might here signal the ‘Other Antiquity’ paradigm, for which see ‘The Library of the Other Antiquity’, edited by Marco Formisano for Winter Universitätsverlag in Heidelberg, and Formisano’s essay on ‘anachronic’ Late Antiquity: Formisano (2017). For Sidonius, see Hernández Lobato (2012a).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Part 2.indd 736

13/02/20 4:30 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Titles of eastern European publications are provided with indicative translations. Journal titles are abbreviated according to the conventions of L’Année philologique, but are given in full when there is no standard abbreviation or a journal is less well known, or to avoid confusion. Abbot, J. (1623) Iesus praefigured, or, A poëme of the holy name of Iesus in five bookes, Antwerp(?). Adamik, T. (1996) Római irodalom a késo˝ császárkorban [Roman Literature in the Later Roman Empire]), Budapest. Adams, J.D. (1993) ‘Sidonius and Riothamus’, Arthurian Literature 12, 157–64. Adams, J.N. (2016) An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 BC–AD 900: Fifty Texts with Translations and Linguistic Commentary, Cambridge. Adkin, N. (2001) ‘The Younger Pliny and Jerome’, RPL 24, 31–47. — (2003) Jerome on Virginity: A Commentary on the Libellus de Virginitate Servanda (Letter 22), Leeds. — (2011) ‘A New Echo of Pliny the Younger in Jerome?’, Philologus 155, 193–95. Agha, A. (2007) Language and Social Relations, Cambridge. Ahl, F. (1985) Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets, Ithaca. Aiello, O. (2005) ‘Varia vocum cantuumque modulamina: Sidonio Apollinare, ep. 2.2.14 ed il “Carmen de Philomela” (Anth. Lat. 762 Riese)’, Sileno 31, 1–11. Alciati, R. (2008) ‘Ruricio novello Sidonio? Costituzione e trasmissione del suo epistolario tra tarda antichità e alto medioevo’, in S. Gioanni and B. Grévin (eds), L’antiquité tardive dans les collections médiévales: Textes et représentations, VIe–XIVe siècle, Rome, 65–84. Alexander, J.J.G., and M.T. Gibson (1976) Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to R.W. Hunt, Oxford. Alexander, M.C. (2007) ‘Oratory, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Republic’, in W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, Oxford, 98–108. Alexandre, R. (2009a) ‘Pudor et libertas: L’irrévérence selon Sidoine Apollinaire’, in B. Delignon and Y. Roman (eds), Le poète irrévérencieux: Modèles hellénistiques et réalités romaines, Paris, 327–46. — (2009b) ‘La voix du poète dans les Panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, VL 180, 53–63. Alfonsi, L. (1965) ‘Nota a Sidonio Apollinare’, VChr 19, 114–15. Alimonti, T. (1975) Apuleio e l’arcaismo in Claudiano Mamerto, in Forma futuri: Studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino, Turin, 189–228. Alla, R. (1972–3) ‘La voie d’Agrippa en Gévaudan: Section des Monts d’Aubrac à Javols’, Bulletin de la Société des Lettres, Sciences et Arts de la Lozère 18–19, 35–40. Allard, P. (1908a) ‘La jeunesse de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Revue des Questions Historiques 83, 24–44.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 737

13/02/20 4:39 PM

738

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1908b) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire sous les règnes d’Avitus et de Majorien’, Revue des Questions Historiques 83, 426–52. — (1908c) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire, préfet de Rome’, Revue des Questions Historiques 84, 399–419. — (1909) ‘La retraite de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Revue des Questions Historiques 86, 49–66. — (1910) St. Sidoine Apollinaire, 431–489, Paris (3rd edn Paris, 1930). Allmer, A., and P. Dissard (1888–93) Musée de Lyon: Inscriptions antiques, 5 vols, Lyon. Álvarez Jiménez, D. (2011) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fourth Punic War’, in Hernández de la Fuente (2011) 158–72. Amherdt, D. (2001) Sidoine Apollinaire: Le quatrième livre de la correspondance: Introduction et commentaire, Bern. — (2004) ‘Rusticus politicus: Esprit de caste? L’agriculture et la politique chez Sidoine Apollinaire: Réalité et lieux communs’, Hermes 132, 373–87. — (2013) ‘Sidonius in Francophone Countries’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 23–36. — (2014) ‘Le carmen 16 de Sidoine Apollinaire: L’Esprit Saint et les Muses, la Bible et Juvénal, Lérins et les Syrtes brûlantes’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 421–32. Anderson, W.B. (1934) ‘Notes on the Carmina of Apollinaris Sidonius’, CQ 28, 17–23. — (1936, 1965) Sidonius: Poems and Letters, 2 vols: vol. 1 Poems; Letters Books 1–2; vol. 2 Letters Books 3–9 (finished by W.H. Semple and E.H. Warmington), Loeb, London. André, J.-M. (2006) ‘La survie de l’otium litteratum chez Sidoine Apollinaire: Culture et lyrisme’, in L. Castagna (ed.), Quesiti, temi, testi di poesia tardolatina, Frankfurt, 63- 86. — (2009) ‘Le culte des Muses dans l’esthétique de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Aevum 83, 209–20. Angelucci, P. (1984) ‘La tipologia macrobiana dei rapporti tra poeta e modelli nella poesia esametrica latina’, RCCM 26, 93–115. Anglade, J. (1963) Sidoine Apollinaire [novel], Clermont-Ferrand (repr. in Auvergne encore, Paris (2000) 1103–1241). — (1974) Histoire de l’Auvergne, Paris. Antès, S. (1981) Corippe: Éloge de l’empereur Justin II, Paris, 1981. Anton, H.H. (1984) ‘Trier im Übergang von der römischen zur fränkischen Herrschaft‘, Francia 12, 1–52. Aranjo, D. (1996) ‘Le latin de la vingt-cinquième heure (Sidoine Apollinaire 1930)’, in G. Cesbron and L. Richer (eds), La réception du latin du XIXe siècle à nos jours, Angers, 365–84, . — (2014) ‘Quatre poèmes modernes sur Sidoine Apollinaire, ses barbares, son époque (1931, 1994, 2004, 2005)’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 537–45, . Arendt, H. (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York (cited in Penguin Classics edn. 2017). Aris, M.-A. (2000) ‘Fragment einer Sidonius-Handschrift (Marburg, Hessisches Staatsarchiv Hr 4, 15)’, Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 52, 391–9. Arnaud, P. (1991) ‘Sylla, Tigrane et les Parthes: Un nouveau document pour la datation de la propréture de Sylla: Sidoine Apollinaire Paneg. Aviti 79–82’, REA 93, 55–64. Ash, R. (2003) ‘Aliud est enim epistulam, aliud historiam . . . scribere (Epistles 6.16.22): Pliny the Historian?’, Arethusa 36, 211–25. Assmann, A. (1999) Erinnerungsräume: Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, Munich. — (2016) Formen des Vergessens, Göttingen. — and J. Assmann (1987) ‘Kanon und Zensur als kultursoziologische Kategorien’, in A. Assmann and J. Assmann (eds), Kanon und Zensur: Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II, Munich, 7–27. Assmann, J. (1992) Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen, Munich. — (2006) ‘Das kulturelle Gedächtnis’, in J. Assmann, Thomas Mann und Ägypten: Mythos und Monotheismus in den Josephsromanen, Munich, 67–75. Attias-Donfut, C. (1988) Sociologie des générations: L’empreinte du temps, Paris.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 738

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

739

Aubrun, M. (1997) ‘Le diocèse de Clermont, de la fin du XIe au début du XIIe siècle’, in Le concile de Clermont (1997) 23–32. Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, ed. J.O. Urmson, Cambridge, MA. Averintsev, S.S., M.L. Gasparov, and R.M. Samarin (1984) ‘От античности к Средневековью (V–VI вв.): Латинская литература’ [From Antiquity to the Middle Ages (5th–6th Centuries): Latin Literature], in История всемирной литературы [A History of World Literature], Moscow, vol. 2, 446–9. Avril, F., and M.-T. Gousset (2005) Manuscrits enluminés d’origine italienne, vol. 3.1, Paris. — and P. Stirnemann (1987) Manuscrits enluminés d’origine insulaire, VIIe-XXe siècle, Paris. Aymard, J. (1964) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et la chasse’, in M. Renard and R. Schilling (eds), Hommages à Jean Bayet, Brussels, 47–53. Azaïs, G. (2011) Sidoine Apollinaire: Que le jour recommence: Roman [novel], Paris (1st edn Sidoine Apollinaire, mémoires imaginaires: Récit, Paris 2008). Bachrach, B.S. (1968) ‘A Note on Alites’, ByzZ 61, 35. Bacon, F. (1974) The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis, ed. A. Johnston, Oxford. Baesecke, G. (1940) Vor- und Frühgeschichte des deutschen Schrifttums, vol. 1, Halle. Bailey, L.K. (2010) Christianity’s Quiet Success: The Eusebius Gallicanus Sermon Collection and the Power of the Church in Late Antique Gaul, Notre Dame. — (2016) The Religious Worlds of the Laity in Late Antique Gaul, London. — (forthcoming) ‘Liturgy’, in B. Effros and I. Moreira (eds), Oxford Handbook of the Merovingian World, Oxford. Baker, R.J. (1996) ‘Martial “Sells” a Villa: IV, 64’, PP 51, 33–45. Baldwin, B. (1982) ‘Literature and Society in the Later Roman Empire’, in B.K. Gold (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, Austin, 67-83. Balmelle, C. (2001) Les demeures aristocratiques d’Aquitaine: Société et culture de l’Antiquité tardive dans le sud-ouest de la Gaule (Aquitania, suppl. 10), Paris. Banaji, J. (2007) Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity, rev. edn, Oxford. — (2016) Exploring the Economy of Late Antiquity: Selected Essays, Cambridge. Banniard, M. (1992) ‘La rouille et la lime: Sidoine Apollinaire et la langue classique en Gaule au Ve siècle’, in L. Holz and J.-C. Fredouille (eds), De Tertullien aux Mozarabes, vol. 1 Antiquité tardive et Christianisme ancien (IIIe–VIe siècles): Mélanges offerts à Jacques Fontaine, Paris, 413–27. Baratte, B. (1993) La vaisselle d’argent en Gaule dans l’Antiquité tardive, Paris. — (2012) ‘Vaisselle d’argent et société dans la Rome de l’Antiquité tardive: Luxe, politique et religion à la lumière de quelques récentes découvertes’, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions de Janvier à Mars 2012, 183–212. Barbieri, A. (2004) ‘Citazioni e identità culturale: Sidon. Ap. (carm. 14)’, Eikasmós 15, 375–81. Barcellona, R. (2008) ‘Lerino nei versi di un aristocratico: Il carmen XVI di Sidonio Apollinare’, in Motivi e forme della poesia cristiana antica tra scrittura e tradizione classica, Rome, 713–26. — (2013) ‘La “conversione” della cultura: Una trasformazione tardoantica’, Chaos e Kosmos 14, 1–23. — (2015) ‘Da Apollo a Cristo: L’invocazione proemiale nel carme XVI di Sidonio Apollinare’, in C. Giuffrè Scibona and A. Mastrocinque (eds), Ex Pluribus Unum: Studi in onore di Giulia Sfameni Gasparro, Rome, 279–90. Barchiesi, A. (1980) ‘Le molte voci di Omero: Intertestualità e trasformazione del modello epico nel decimo dell’Eneide’, MD 4, 9–58. — (2005) ‘The Search of the Perfect Book: A PS to the New Posidippus’, in K. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, Oxford, 320–42. Baret, E. (1878) Œuvres de Sidoine Apollinaire: Texte latin, Paris (repr. 1879). — (1887) Ausone, Sidoine Apollinaire, Fortunat, Collections Nisard, Paris. — (2004) Sidoine Apollinaire: Œuvres complètes, ed. N. Desgrugillers, tr. P. Nisard, text rev. Y. Germain and B. Tézenas, Clermont-Ferrand. Barlow, C.W. (1950) Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera omnia, New Haven.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 739

13/02/20 4:39 PM

740

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnaby, P. (2016) ‘Sidonius in Clubland: John Buchan’s “The Wind in the Portico”’ [blogpost], . — (2017) ‘Sidonius in Clubland: John Buchan’s “The Wind in the Portico”’, Classical Receptions Journal 9, 507–26. Barnes, T.D. (1983) ‘Late Roman Prosopography: Between Theodosius and Justinian’, Phoenix 37, 248–70. — (1995) ‘Statistics and the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy’, JRS 85, 135–47. Barnish, S.J. (1994) ‘Late Roman Prosopography Reassessed’, JRS 84, 171–7. Barrow, R.H. (1973) Prefect and Emperor: The Relationes of Symmachus A.D. 384, Oxford. Bartsch, S. (1994) Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian, Cambridge, MA. Bassnett, S. (2014) Translation Studies, Abingdon. Battaglia, S. (1961) Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, vol. 1, Turin. Battiscombe, G. (1943) Charlotte Mary Yonge: The Story of an Uneventful Life, London. Baudoin, S. (2014) ‘Présence-absence de Sidoine Apollinaire dans l’œuvre de Chateaubriand’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 513–24. Bausi, F. (1992) ‘Orfeo e Achille: La prefazione alla Manto di Angelo Poliziano’, Schede Umanistiche n.s. 2, 31–59. Baynes, N.H. (1916) Review of Dalton (1915), JRS 5, 216. Beard, M. (2002) ‘Ciceronian Correspondences: Making a Book out of Letters’, in T.P. Wiseman (ed.), Classics in Progress, London, 103–44. Becht-Jördens, G. (2017) ‘Ein Waschbecken mit Versinschrift des Sidonius als Danaergeschenk für die Gotenkönigin Ragnahild: Zur Bedeutung von Materialität, Handwerks- und Dichtkunst im Diskurs der Ohnmächtigen (Sidon. epist. IV 8)’, A&A 63, 125–53. Beck, H.G.J. (1950) The Pastoral Care of Souls in South-East France during the Sixth Century, Rome. Beck, L. (1884) Die Geschichte des Eisens 1, Brunswick. Becker, A. (2013) Les relations diplomatiques romano-barbares en Occident au Ve siècle: Acteurs, fonctions, modalités, Paris. — (2014) ‘Les évêques et la diplomatie romano-barbare en Gaule au Ve siècle’, in M. Gaillard (ed.), L’empreinte chrétienne en Gaule du IVe au IXe siècle, Turnhout, 45–59. Becker, G. (1885) Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, Bonn. Bedin, V. and J. Feydy (eds) (2008) La Bourgogne dans les beaux textes: Petite anthologie historique et littéraire 1, Messigny-et-Vantoux. Bedon, R. (2016) ‘Le séjour et les actions d’un futur empereur romain au bord de la Loire prise par les glaces (Sidoine Apollinaire, Carmina V, 206–211’, RIPARIA 2, 93–113. Behrwald, R. (2011) ‘Das Bild der Stadt Rom im 5. Jh.: Das Beispiel des Sidonius Apollinaris’, in T. Fuhrer (ed.), Rom und Mailand in der Spätantike, Berlin, 283–302. Bellès, J. (1989, 1992) Sidoni Apol·linar: Poemes, 2 vols: vol. 1 Panegírics; vol. 2 Poemes menors, Barcelona. — (1997, 1998, 1999) Sidoni Apol·linar: Lletres, 3 vols: vol. 1 Llibres 1–3; vol. 2 Llibres 4–6; vol. 3 Llibres 7–9, Barcelona. Beltrán Serra, J. (1993) ‘Terminología para la muerte y el suicidio (Lucrecio, Séneca, San Agustín, Sidonio)’, CFC(L) 4, 27–38. — (1994) ‘Revisión del hexámetro en Sidonio Apolinar’, Actas del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Madrid, vol. 1, 427–34. — (1996) ‘Las cláusulas en el hexámetro de Sidonio’, Helmántica 47, 161–73. — (1998) ‘Estudio de la cesura en el hexámetro de Sidonio’, CFC(L) 15, 387–95. Bendschus, T. (2019) Münzen als Medium der Herrschaftskommunikation von Kleinkönigen im hellenistischen Osten: Die Königreiche von Kappadokien, Pontos, dem Regnum Bosporanum, Armenien und Kommagene im Hellenismus und in der frühen Kaiserzeit, Bonn. Benedetti, S. (2004a) ‘Per l’oratoria academica di primo Cinquecento: La praelectio romana di Giovanni Battista Pio (1512)’, in A. Barbuto (ed.), Per Mario Petrucciani, Rome, 117–46.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 740

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

741

— (2004b) ‘La Cebetis Tabula e Giovan Battista Pio tra “vocabuli exquisiti” e curiositas erudita’, in S. Colonna (ed.), Roma nella svolta tra Quattro e Cinquecento, Rome, 183–207. Berger, C. (1981) ‘The Hand and the Art of Memory’, Musica Disciplina 35, 87–120. Berger, J. (2016) ‘Droit, société et parenté en Auvergne médiévale (VIe-XIVe siècles): Les écritures de la basilique Saint-Julien de Brioude’, thesis, Lyon III. Bergmann, M. (1999) Chiragan, Aphrodisias, Konstantinopel: Zur mythologischen Skulptur der Spätantike, Wiesbaden. Berlioz, J., and J.-M. David (eds) (1980) ‘Rhétorique et histoire, l’exemplum et le modèle de comportement dans les discours antique et médiéval’, MEFRM 92.1, 7–179, with ‘Introduction bibliographique’, 15–31. Bernardy, A. (1960) À la recherche de la villa de Tonance Ferréol: La villa galloromaine de Marignargues à SaintMaurice-de-Cazevieille, Uzès (Gard). Berndt, G.M., and R. Steinacher (eds) (2008) Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor-) Geschichten, Vienna. Berno, F.R. (2006) L. Anneo Seneca, Lettere a Lucilio libro VI: Le lettere 53–57, Bologna. Bethmann, L.C. (1844) ‘Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica’, in MGH SS 6, Hanover, 300–74. Beutel, F. (2000) Vergangenheit als Politik: neue Aspekte im Werk des jüngeren Plinius, Frankfurt. Billardon de Sauvigny, E.[-L.] (1787) Lettres de Caius Sidonius Apollinaris, Paris. — (1792) Œuvres de Caius Sidonius Apollinaris, 2 vols, Paris. Birley, A.R. (1972) Review of PLRE 1, JRS 62, 185–6. — (2000) Onomasticon to the Younger Pliny, Munich. — (2005) The Roman Government of Britain, Oxford. Bischoff, B. (1937) Review of Scriptoria medii aevi Helvetica (Denkmäler Schweizerischer Schreibkunst des Mittelalters), II: Schreibschulen der Diözese Konstanz: St. Gallen I, ed. A. Bruckner, Geneva, 1936, HJ 57, 694–95. — (1976) ‘Die Hofbibliothek unter Ludwig dem Frommen’, in J.J.G. Alexander and M.T. Gibson (eds), Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, Oxford, 3–22 (= Bischoff (1981) Mittelalterliche Studien: Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, vol. 3, Stuttgart, 170–86). — (1989) Die Abtei Lorsch im Spiegel ihrer Handschriften, Lorsch. — (1998–2014) Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen), 3 vols, Wiesbaden. Bitschofsky, R. (1881) De C. Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Studiis Statianis, Vienna. Bizri, M. (2011) ‘Polignac en Velay, relecture de l’origine et de l’évolution du site: Entre tradition, célébrité et réalité archéologique’, in A.-M. Cocula and M. Combet (eds), Château, naissance et métamorphoses, Bordeaux, 93–107. Blakiston, H.E.D., rev. R.T. Stearn (2004) ‘Ellis, Robinson’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, . Blankert, A. (1966–7) ‘Heraclitus en Democritus bij Marsilio Ficino’ (Heraclitus and Democritus in Marsilio Ficino), Simiolus 1, 128–35. Blänsdorf, J. (1993) ‘Apollinaris Sidonius und die Verwandlung der römischen Satire in der Spätantike’, Philologus 137, 122–31. Boardman, J. (2014) The Triumph of Dionysos: Convival Processions, from Antiquity to the Present Day, Oxford. Bodart, M.-G. (2010) ‘Apports des lettres de Sidoine Apollinaire à l’histoire du christianisme’, in Jolivet et al. (2010) 363–74. Boeheim, W. (1890) Handbuch der Waffenkunde, Leipzig. Bolgov, N.N., and E.V. Litovchenko (2008) ‘Феномен Сидония Аполлинария: Личность как отражение переходного характера позднеантичной эпохи’ [The Phenomenon of Sidonius Apollinaris: His Personality as a Reflection of the Transitional Character of Late Antiquity], Античный вестник [Antiquity Gazette], Almaty¯, 5, 15–33. Bóna, I. (1991) Das Hunnenreich, Stuttgart.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 741

13/02/20 4:39 PM

742

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonjour, M. (1982) ‘Personnification, allégorie et prosopopée dans les Panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Vichiana n.s. 11, 5–17. — (1983) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et l’empire’, in La patrie gauloise d’Agrippa au VIe siècle: Actes du colloque de Lyon 1981, Lyon, 203–17. — (1984) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris inter Romanos et barbaros’, in N. Sallmann and R. Schnur (eds), Acta Treverica 1981: De Roma et provinciis septentrionalibus ad occidentem vergentibus, Leichlingen, 109–18. — (1988) ‘Discrétion mondaine ou réserve chrétienne? Les femmes chez Sidoine Apollinaire’, in D. Porte and J.-P. Néraudau (eds), Res sacrae: Hommages à Henri Le Bonniec, Collection Latomus 201, Brussels, 40–52. Bonnassie, P. (1990) ‘L’évêque, le peuple et les sénateurs: Scènes de la vie à Cahors, d’après la Vita Ambrosii’, Annales du Midi 102.189–90, 209–17. Borghini, G. (ed.) (1989) Marmi antichi, Rome (4th edn Rome, 2004). Borius, R. (1965) Constance de Lyon: Vie de saint Germain d’Auxerre, Sources chrétiennes 112, Paris. Bornecque, H. (1907) Les clausules métriques latines, Lille. Boshoff, L. (2016) ‘Looking Eastwards: The Regina Orientis in Sidonius Apollinaris’ Carmen 2’, in N.S.M. Matheou et al. (eds), From Constantinople to the Frontier: The City and the Cities, Leiden, 11–24. Bossuat, R. (1955) Alain de Lille: Anticlaudianus, Paris. Boudartchouk, J.-L. (2006) ‘La lettre IV, 15 de Sidoine Apollinaire et la dédicace du baptistère d’Elaphius à Castellum (novembre–décembre 476 ou 477): L’évêque de Clermont s’est-il rendu à Chastel-sur-Murat?’, Revue de la Haute-Auvergne 68, 547–67. Bouffartigue, J. (1992) L’Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, Paris. Bowersock, G.W. (1986) ‘Symmachus and Ausonius’, in F. Paschoud (ed.), Colloque Genevois sur Symmache, Paris, 1–12. Brakman, C. (1904) Sidoniana et Boethiana, Utrecht. Branca, V. (1983) Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola, Turin. Brémond, C., J. Le Goff, and J.-C. Schmitt (1982) L’exemplum, Typologie des Sources du Moyen Âge Occidental 40, Turnhout. Breslau, R. (1997) Der Nachlass der Brüder Grimm: Katalog, Wiesbaden. Breyer, R. (1706) Lettres de saint Loup, évêque de Troyes, et saint Sydoine évêque de Clermont, Troyes [translation]. Brink, C.O. (1971) Horace on Poetry: The Ars Poetica, London. Briquel, D. (2016) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire’, in B. Poulle (ed.), L’Etrusca disciplina au Ve siècle apr. J.-C.: Actes de colloque de Besançon, 23–24 mai 2013, La divination dans le monde étrusco-italique 10, Besançon, 175–84. Brittain, C. (2001) ‘No Place for a Platonist Soul in Fifth-Century Gaul? The Case of Mamertus Claudianus’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2001) 239–62. Broadhead, H.D. (1922) Latin Prose Rhythm, Cambridge. Brocca, N. (1999) ‘A proposito di Rutilio Namaziano, de reditu 115–16’, Filologia Antica e Moderna IX.17, 7–11. — (2004) ‘Memoria poetica e attualità politica nel panegirico per Avito di Sidonio Apollinare’, in L. Cristante and A. Tessier (eds), Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica 3, 279–95. — (2014) ‘Les Rois Mages, Ambroise de Milan et Chromace d’Aquilée: Quelques remarques à propos de la culture chrétienne de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 433–47. Brodka, D. (1997) ‘Die Idee der Roma Aeterna in den Kaiserpanegyriken des Sidonius Apollinaris’, in J. Styka (ed.), Studies of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Classica Cracoviensia 3, 121–9. — (1998) ‘Die Weltherrschaftstopik in den Kaiserpanegyriken des Sidonius Apollinaris’, Eos 85, 81–90. Brolli, T. (2004) ‘Silio in Sidonio: Maggioriano e il passaggio delle Alpi’, in L. Cristante and A. Tessier (eds), Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica 3, 297–314. — (2005) ‘Sidonio Apollinare: Il panegirico di Maggioriano: Traduzione e commento’, dissertation, University of Turin. — (2013) ‘Writing Commentary on Sidonius’ Panegyrics’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 93–109.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 742

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

743

— (2014) ‘I Franchi Salii al Vicus Helena (Sidon. Carm. 5.211–254)’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 129–45. — (2018) ‘Il mordax dens di Sidonio Apollinare nel panegirico per Maioriano’, Lexis 36, 305–15. Brown, P. (1992) Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity, Madison. — (2012) Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD, Princeton. Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson (1978) ‘Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena’, in E.N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge, 56–311. — and — (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge. Brown, R.W., and A. Gilman (1960) ‘The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity’, in T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, Cambridge, MA, 253–76. — (1989) ‘Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies’, Language in Society 18, 159–212. Brożek, M. (1991) ‘Ad Sidonii Apollinaris carm. XI (Epithalamium) v. 1–6’, Eos 79, 61. — (1996) ‘Galia literacka w pismach Sydoniusza’ [Literary Gaul in Sidonius’ letters], Filomata 435–6, 109–18. — (1999) Epitalamia antyczne czyli antyczne pieśni weselne [Ancient Epithalamia or Ancient Wedding Songs], tr. and ed. M. Brożek, completed and prepared for the press J. Danielewicz, Warsaw. — (2004) Sydoniusz Apolinary: Listy i wiersze [Sidonius Apollinaris: Letters and Poems], tr., ed., and pref. M. Brożek, bibliography M. Starowiejski, Cracow. Bruggisser, P. (1993) Symmaque ou le rituel épistolaire de l’amitié littéraire: Recherches sur le premier livre de la correspondance, Fribourg. Bruzzone, A. (1999) Flavio Merobaude: Panegirico in versi: Introduzione e commento, Rome. — (2004) ‘Il concilium deorum nella poesia panegiristica latina da Claudiano a Sidonio Apollinare’, in A.M. Taragna (ed.), La poesia tardoantica e medievale, Alessandria, 129–41. — (2011) ‘Riprese oraziane nella Gigantomachia del carme 6 di Sidonio Apollinare’, InvLuc 33, 13–21. — (2013) ‘Mito e politica nei Panegyrici di Sidonio Apollinare’, in Diefenbach and Müller (2013) 355–78. — (2014) ‘Ovidio (e altri) in Sidonio Apollinare, carme 6’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 305–32. Buchan, J. (1928) The Runagates Club [short stories], London. Bulloch, A.W. (1985) Callimachus: The Fifth Hymn, Cambridge. Buongiorno, P. (2019) ‘Ex vetere senatusconsulto Tiberiano: Nota in margine a Sid. ep. 1.7.12′, in E. Chevreau et al. (eds), Liber amicorum: Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Pierre Coriat, Paris, 65–72. Buongiovanni, C. (2009) ‘L’epigramma prefatorio da Marziale a Sidonio Apollinare’, Voces 20, 49–79. Burgess, R.W. (1987) ‘The Third Regnal Year of Eparchius Avitus: A Reply’, CPh 82, 335–45 (repr. in Burgess 2011, item XIII, with separately paginated supplementary notes, 5–7). — (2001) ‘The Gallic Chronicle of 511: A New Critical Edition with a Brief Introduction’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2001) 85–100. — (2011) Chronicles, Consuls, and Coins: Historiography and History in the Later Roman Empire, Aldershot. Burke, M.C. (1911) De Apollinaris Sidonii codice nondum tractato Remensi bibl. civ. 413, Munich. Bursian, C. (1877) ‘Elmenhorst, Geverhart’, in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 6, 59, . Burton, G.P. (1979) ‘The Curator Rei Publicae: Towards a Reappraisal’, Chiron 9, 465–87. Bury, J.B. (1923) History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian, 2 vols, London. Butler, S. (2006) Angelo Poliziano: Letters, Volume 1: Books 1–4, Cambridge, MA. Butts, C.T. (2008) ‘Social Network Analysis with SNA’, Journal of Statistical Software 24, 1–51. Buyarov, D.V. (2008a) ‘К вопросу о некоторых сторонах политического развития Галлии во второй половине V в. в сочинениях Сидония Аполлинария’ [On the Problem of Some Aspects of the Political Development in Gaul in the Second Half of the Fifth Century in the Writings of Sidonius Apollinaris], in A.I. Donchenko (ed.), Чтения памяти профессора Е. П. Сычевского: Сборник докладов [Papers in Remembrance of Prof. E.P. Sy¯chevskiı˘: A Dossier], vol. 8, Blagoveshchensk, 28–36.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 743

13/02/20 4:39 PM

744

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2008b) ‘Некоторые особенности состояния латинской образованности в Галлии V века’ [Some Features of the State of Latin Education in Fifth-Century Gaul], in Материалы 58-й научно-практической конференции преподавателей и студентов [Materials of the 58th Scientific and Practical Conference of Teachers and Students], Blagoveshchensk, 78–82. — (2008c) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий и развитие галльской литературы во второй половине V века’ [Sidonius Apollinaris and the Development of Gallic Literature in the Second Half of the Fifth Century], Вестник Поморского университета. Серия Гуманитарные и социальные науки [Journal of Pomor State University, Archangel’sk. Humanities and Social Science Series] 14 ,147–51. — (2009a) ‘К вопросу о некоторых ценностях в системе мировоззрения Cидония Аполлинария’ [On the Problem of Some Values in the System of Sidonius Apollinaris’ Worldview], Научный журнал КубГАУ [Scientific Journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, Krasnodar], 2 . — (2009b) ‘Светское и христианское начала в мировоззрении Сидония Аполлинария’ [Secular and Christian Principles in Sidonius Apollinaris’ Worldview], Религиоведение [Study of Religion, Blagoveshchensk] 1, 41–8. — (2009c) ‘Христианский уровень в мировоззрении Сидония Аполлинария’ [The Christian Standard in Sidonius Apollinaris’ Worldview], Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики [Historical, Philosophical, Political and Legal Sciences, Cultural Studies and Art History: Issues of Theory and Practice] 1, 23–6. — (2009d) ‘Поэтические произведения Сидония Аполлинария’ [Sidonius Apollinaris’ Poetical Works], in A.I. Donchenko (ed.), Чтения памяти профессора Е. П. Сычевского: Сборник докладов [Papers in Remembrance of Prof. E.P. Sychevskiı˘: A Dossier], vol. 9, Blagoveshchensk, 26–39. — (2009e) Мировоззрение и сочинения Сидония Аполлинария в контексте позднеантичной культуры [Worldview and Writings of Sidonius Apollinaris in the Context of Late Antique Culture], dissertation, Blagoveshchensk. Byvanck, A.W. (1935) ‘Notes batavo-romaines’, Mnemosyne 2, 309–20. Cabouret, B. (2014) ‘Libanius‘ Letters’, in L. van Hoof (ed.), Libanius: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge, 144–59. Cain, A. (2009) The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford. — (2013) Jerome and the Monastic Clergy: A Commentary on Letter 52 to Nepotian, Leiden. — (2017) ‘The Letter Collection of Jerome of Stridon’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 221–38. Cairns, D.L., and D.P. Nelis (eds) (2017) Emotions in the Classical World: Methods, Approaches, and Directions, Stuttgart. Callu, J.-P. (1972–2009) Symmaque: Lettres, Discours et Rapports, 5 vols, Paris. — (1986) ‘“Symmachus Nicomachis Filiis”: Vouvoiement ou discours familial?’, in F. Paschoud (ed.), Colloque Genevois sur Symmaque à l’occasion du mille six centième anniversaire du conflit de l’autel de la Victoire, Paris, 17–37. Cam, M.-T. (2003) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire, lecteur de Vitruve’, Latomus 62, 139–55. Cambier, G. (1957) ‘Embricon de Mayence (1010?–1077): Est-il l’auteur de la Vita Mahumeti?’, Latomus 16, 468–79. Cameron, Alan (1965) ‘The Fate of Pliny’s Letters in the Late Empire’, CQ 15, 289–98. — (1970) Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius, Oxford. — (2011) The Last Pagans of Rome, New York. — (2012) ‘Anician Myths’, JRS 102, 133–71. — (2016a) ‘Were Pagans Afraid to Speak their Minds in a Christian World? The Correspondence of Symmachus’, in M.R. Salzman et al. (eds), Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome, Cambridge, 64–109. — (2016b) ‘The Fate of Pliny’s Letters in the Late Empire’, in Gibson and Whitton (2016) 463–81 (rev. version of Cameron (1965) and addendum, CQ 17 (1967), 421–2).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 744

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

745

Cameron, Averil (1991) Christianity and the Rhetoric of the Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse, Berkeley. Canobbio, A. (2013) ‘Una supplica tra serio e faceto: Marziale nel carme 13 di Sidonio Apollinare’, Lexis 31, 366–90. Capron, É. (1994) ‘Remarques étymologiques sur vicus Helena’, Linguistique Picarde 129, 7–11. Carlon, J.M. (2009) Pliny’s Women: Constructing Virtue and Creating Identity in the Roman World, Cambridge. Carney, T.F. (1973) ‘Prosopography: Payoffs and Pitfalls’, Phoenix 27, 156–79. Carstens, C.E. (1898) ‘Wowern, Johann von’, in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 44, 220, . Carter, J.M. (1990) ‘Games Early Medieval People Played: Sidonius Apollinaris and Gallo-RomanGerman Sports’, Nikephoros 3, 225–31. Casado, P. (2011) ‘Réflexions onomastiques à propos de Vorocingus et Prusianum, deux noms de lieux chez Sidoine Apollinaire’, Cahiers de la Société Française d’Onomastique 3, 63–73. Castagna, L. (2004) ‘Sidonio e la palliata’, Aevum Antiquum n.s. 4, 349–56 (repr. in G. Aricò and M. Rivoltella (eds), La riflessione sul teatro nella cultura romana, Milan, 2008, 349–56) Castellana, R. (2015) ‘La biofiction: Teoria, storia, problemi’, Allegoria 3rd ser. 23, 67–97. — (2019) Finzioni biografiche: Teoria e storia di un genere ibrido, Rome. Castellesi, A. (1515) De sermone latino et de modis latine loquendi, Rome. Castelli, E. (2012) ‘L’invocazione allo Spiritus nel carme 16’, in Santelia (2012) 143–50. Castelli, G. (2013) Il romanzo dell’Impero romano [novel], Rome, comprising: — (2008) Imperator: L’ultimo eroe di Roma antica [novel], Rome. — (2009) Gli ultimi fuochi dell’Impero romano [novel], Rome. — (2010) 476 A.D.: L’ultimo imperatore [novel], Rome. Catarinella, F.M. (2000) ‘Una ripresa agostiniana in Sidonio Apollinare (ep. II 13, 2)’, VetChr 37, 413–18. Cavallin, S. (1952) Vitae sanctorum Honorati et Hilarii episcoporum Arelatensium, Lund. Céard, J. (1978) ‘Des Esseintes et la décadence latine, Huysmans lecteur de Dom Rivet, de Chateaubriand et d’Ozanam’, Studi Francesi 65–6, 298-310. Ceccarelli, L. (2009) ‘Nota a Sidonio Apollinare, Carm. 11,5’, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 137, 171–7. — (2012) ‘L’evoluzione del distico elegiaco tra Catullo e Ovidio’, in R. Cristofoli et al. (eds), Properzio tra tradizione e innovazione: Atti del convegno internazionale (Assisi-Spello, 21–23 maggio 2010), Assisi, 47–97. — (2018) Contribution to the History of the Latin Elegiac Distich, Turnhout. Cecconi, G.A. (2002) Commento storico al libro II dell’epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco, Pisa. Chabron, G. (c. 1625) L’Histoire généalogique de la Maison de Polignac, s.l., transcribed 2000 and collated 2001 by F.H. Forestier, (accounted for in Cahiers de la Haute-Loire 2007). Chadwick, H. (2001) ‘The Church and the Barbarian Invasions in the West: Salvian, Sidonius, Caesarius’, in H. Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great, Oxford, 633–57. Chadwick, N. (1955) Poetry and Letters in Early Christian Gaul, London. Chaix de Lavarène, L.-A.C. (1866) Saint Sidoine Apollinaire et son siècle, 2 vols, Clemont-Ferrand. Champlin, E. (1974) ‘The Chronology of Fronto’, JRS 64, 136–59. Charlet, J.-L. (1985) ‘L’inspiration et la forme biblique dans la poésie latine, du III au VI siècle’, in J. Fontaine and C. Pietri (eds), Le monde latin antique et la Bible, Paris, 613–43. — (1988) ‘Aesthetic Trends in Late Latin Poetry (325–410)’, Philologus 132, 74–85. — (2007) ‘Les mètres sapphiques et alcaïques de l’antiquité à l’époque humaniste’, Faventia 29, 133–55. — (2008) ‘Tendances esthétiques de la poésie latine tardive (325–470)’, AnTard 16, 159–67. — (2014) ‘Gianbattista Pio éditeur de Sidoine Apollinaire et juge de son style’, in Poignault and StoehrMonjou (2014) 501–12. Chateaubriand, F.-R. de (1838) Voyage en Amérique, suivi des Natchez, Paris.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 745

13/02/20 4:39 PM

746

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1845) Les Martyrs, suivis de Remarques, 2nd edn, Paris. Châtillon, F. (1967) ‘Paulin de Périgueux, auteur de la Vita Martini, et Sidoine Apollinaire, panégyriste des empereurs’, Revue du Moyen Âge Latin 23, 5–12. Chauvot, A. (2018) ‘Luxus et pompa: La notion de luxe d’après trois portraits de “barbares” dans la Correspondance de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Ktèma 43, 57–76. Chenault, R. (2012) ‘Statues of Senators in the Forum of Trajan and the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity’, JRS 102, 103–32. Cherf, W. (1994) ‘What’s in a Name? The Gerontii of the Later Roman Empire’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100, 145–74. Cherny¯kh, A.I. (2015) ‘Письма Сидония Аполлинария в собрании Музея книги Российской государственной библиотеки’ [The Letters of Sidonius Apollinaris in the Collection of the Book Museum of the Russian State Library], Вестник РГГУ. Серия История. Филология. Культурология. Востоковедение [Journal of the Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow. History, Philology, Cultural Studies, Oriental Studies] 9, 44–52. Chevallier, R. (2002) ‘La bibliothèque de Des Esseintes ou le latin “décadent”: Une question toujours d’actualité’, Latomus 61, 163–77. Chianéa, G. (1969) ‘Les idées politiques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger 47, 353–89. Chin, C.M. (2008) Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World, Philadelphia. Christ, K. (1933) Die Bibliothek des Klosters Fulda im 16. Jahrhundert: Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse, Leipzig. Christiansen, P.G., and J.E. Holland (1993) Concordantia in Sidonii Apollinaris carmina, Hildesheim. Christiansen, P.G., et al. (1997) Concordantia in Sidonii Apollinaris epistulas, Hildesheim. Chronopoulos, T. (2010) ‘Brief Lives of Sidonius, Symmachus, and Fulgentius Written in Early Twelfth Century England?’, Journal of Medieval Latin 20, 232–91. Citroni, M. (1970) ‘Un proemio di Marziale’, in Studia Florentina Alexandro Ronconi sexagenario oblata, Rome, 81–91. — (1975) M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber I, Florence. — (1986) ‘Le raccomandazioni del poeta: Apostrofe al libro e contatto col destinatario’, Maia 38, 111–46. — (1995) Poesia e lettori in Roma antica, Bari. — (2011) ‘Arte Allusiva: Pasquali and Onward’, in B. Acosta-Hughes et al. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus, Leiden, 566–86. Clark, E. (1991) ‘Elite Networks and Heresy Accusations: Towards a Social Description of the Origenist Controversy’, Semeia 56, 79–117. Clarke, G.W. (1984) The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, vol. 1 Letters 1–27, New York. Cleary, N. (2015) ‘Jerome on the Attack: Constructing a Polemical Persona’, thesis, University of Edinburgh. Cloppet, C. (1989) ‘À propos d’un voyage de Sidoine Apollinaire entre Lyon et Clermont’, Latomus 48, 857–68. Clover, F.M. (1971) Flavius Merobaudes: A Translation and Historical Commentary, TAPhA 61.1, Philadelphia. Colafrancesco, P. (2014) ‘Sidon. epist. 3, 12: note a margine’, InvLuc 35–6, 71–6. Coleridge, C. (1903) Charlotte Mary Yonge: Her Life and Letters, London. Colton, R.E. (1976) ‘Traces of Martial’s Vocabulary in Sidonius Apollinaris’, CB 53, 12–16 (= Colton (1995) 262–74). — (1985a) ‘Some Echoes of Martial in the Poems of Sidonius Apollinaris’, RPL 8, 21–33. — (1985b) ‘Some Echoes of Martial in the Letters of Sidonius Apollinaris’, AC 54, 277–84. — (1988) ‘Some Echoes of Persius in Sidonius Apollinaris’, CB 64, 49–52. — (1995) Studies of Imitation in Some Latin Authors, Amsterdam. — (2000) Some Literary Influences on Sidonius Apollinaris, Amsterdam. Condorelli, S. (2001a) L’esametro dei Panegyrici di Sidonio Apollinare, Naples.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 746

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

747

— (2001b) ‘Una particolare accezioni di barbarismus in Sidonio Apollinare’, in U. Criscuolo (ed.), Mnemosynon: Studi di letteratura e di umanità in memoria di D. Gagliardi, Naples, 323–38. — (2003a) ‘Prospettive sidoniane: Venti anni di studi su Sidonio Apollinare (1982–2002)’, BStudLat 33 (2003) 140–74. — (2003b) ‘Sidonio Apollinare e la recusatio del genere storiografico (Epist. IV 22)’, in V. Viparelli (ed.), Tra strategie retoriche e generi letterari: Dieci studi di letteratura latina, Naples, 51–67. — (2003c) ‘L’esametro di Ennodio: Alcune osservazioni prosodiche e metriche’, in E. D’Angelo (ed.), Atti della Seconda Giornata Ennodiana, Naples, 77–92. — (2004a) ‘L’officina di Sidonio Apollinare: Tra incus metrica e asprata lima’, BStudLat 34, 558–98. — (2004b) ‘Sidonio e Petrarca: Tracce di una memoria perduta’, BStudLat 34, 599–608. — (2008) Il poeta doctus nel V secolo D.C.: Aspetti della poetica di Sidonio Apollinare, Naples. — (2011) ‘Sidonio maestro di Ennodio?’, in S. Condorelli and D. Di Rienzo (eds), Quarta giornata ennodiana: Atti della sessione ennodiana del Convegno ‘Auctor et Auctoritas in Latinis Medii Aevi litteris’, Cesena, 61–98. — (2012) ‘Dal parassita della commedia all’impudicus di Sidonio Apollinare (Epist. 3,13,1–4)’, Paideia 67, 409–27 (French version: Condorelli (2014)). — (2013a) ‘Gli epigrammi funerari di Sidonio Apollinare’, in Guipponi-Gineste and Urlacher-Becht (2013) 261–82. — (2013b) ‘Improvisation and Poetical Programme in Sidonius, Ep. 9.13’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 111–32. — (2014) ‘Du parasite de la comédie à l’impudicus de Sidoine (epist. 3,13,1–4)’, in Poignault and StoehrMonjou (2014) 227–43 (French version of Condorelli (2012)). — (2015) ‘L’inizio della fine: L’epistola IX 1 di Sidonio Apollinare tra amicitia ed istanze estetico-letterarie’, BStudLat 45, 489–511. — (2017a) ‘Una memoria apuleiana in Sidonio Apollinare: Tra stile epistolare e modelli retorici’, in G. Matino et al. (eds), La lingua e la società: Forme della comunicazione letteraria fra antichità ed età moderna, Naples, 51–73. — (2017b) ‘Friguttio/fringultio: Fortuna di un verbo tra onomatopea e arcaismo’, BStudLat 47, 705–18. Connerton, P. (2008) ‘Seven Types of Forgetting’, Memory Studies 1, 59–71. Conring, B. (2001) Hieronymus als Briefschreiber: Ein Beitrag zur spätantiken Epistolographie, Tübingen. Consolino, F.E. (1974) ‘Codice retorico e manierismo stilistico nella poetica di Sidonio Apollinare’, ASNP ser. 3.4, 423–60. — (1976) ‘L’appello al lettore nell’epitaffio della tarda latinità’, Maia 28, 129–43. — (1979) Ascesi e mondanità nella Gallia tardoantica: Studi sulla figura del vescovo nei secoli IV–VI, Naples. — (1999) ‘L’eredità dei classici nella poesia del VI secolo’, in G. Mazzoli and F. Gasti (eds), Prospettive sul tardoantico: Atti del convegno di Pavia (27–28 novembre 1997), Como, 69–90. — (2000) ‘Poesia e propaganda da Valentiniano III ai regni romanobarbarici (secc. V–VI)’, in F.E. Consolino (ed.), Letteratura e propaganda nell’occidente latino da Augusto ai regni romanobarbarici, Rome, 181–227. — (ed.) (2003) Forme letterarie nella produzione latina di IV–VI secolo, Rome. — (2006) ‘Prosa e poesia in Ennodio: La dictio per Epifanio’, in F. Gasti (ed.), Atti della terza Giornata Ennodiana (Pavia, 10–11 novembre 2004), Pisa, 93–122. — (2011a) ‘Panegiristi e creazione del consenso nell’occidente latino’, in G. Urso (ed.), Dicere laudes: Elogio, comunicazione, creazione del consenso, Pisa, 299–336. — (2011b) ‘Recusationes a confronto: Sidonio Apollinare epist. IX, 13, 2 e Venanzio Fortunato carm. IX, 7’, in L. Cristante and S. Ravalico (eds), Il calamo della memoria: Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità 4, Trieste, 101–25. — (2013) ‘Sidonio e le Silvae’, in Galand and Laigneau-Fontaine (2013) 213–36. — (2014) ‘Fra intertestualità e iconografia: Le rappresentazioni della Dea Roma nei panegirici di Sidonio Apollinare’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 147–75. — (2015) ‘Le mot et les choses: epigramma chez Sidoine Apollinaire’, in P.F. Moretti et al. (eds), Culture and Literature in Latin Late Antiquity: Continuities and Discontinuities, Turnhout, 69–98.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 747

13/02/20 4:39 PM

748

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2017) ‘Polymetry in Late Latin Poems: Some Observations on its Meaning and Functions’, in Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017) 100–24. Conte, G.B. (1986) The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, tr. and ed. C. Segal, Ithaca. — (1994) Genres and Readers, Baltimore. — (2014) Dell’imitazione: Furto e originalità, Pisa. — and A. Barchiesi (1989) ‘Imitazione e arte allusiva’, in G. Cavallo et al. (eds), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 1, Rome, 81–114. Contreni, J.J. (2002) ‘Reading Gregory of Tours in the Middle Ages’, in Mitchell and Wood (2002) 419–34. Conybeare, C. (2000) Paulinus Noster: Self and Symbol in the Letters of Paulinus of Nola, Oxford. Coombe, C. (2018) Claudian the Poet, Cambridge. Copeland, R., and I. Sluiter (eds) (2009) Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric: Language Arts and Literary Theory, AD 300–1475, Oxford. Coquerel, R. (1964) ‘Recherches archéologiques sur les vestiges antiques de Saint-Lézer’, Ogam 16, 54–60. Corke-Webster, J. (2017) ‘The Early Reception of Pliny the Younger in Tertullian of Carthage and Eusebius of Caesarea’, CQ 67, 247–62. Corrocher, J. (1976) ‘Voies romaines dans la région de Vichy’, Archéologia 95, 10–17. — (1981) Vichy antique, Clermont. Corvinus, G.S. (1715) Nutzbares, galantes und curiöses Frauenzimmer-Lexicon, Leipzig. Coudry, M. (2001) ‘Camille: Construction et fluctuations de la figure d’un grand homme’, in Coudry and Späth (2001) 47–81. — and T. Späth (eds) (2001) L’invention des grands hommes de la Rome antique, Paris. Coulston, J. (2015) ‘Graves on War and the Late Antique: Count Belisarius and his World’, in A.G.G. Gibson (2015) 99–122. Courcelle, P. (1969) Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources, Cambridge, MA. — (1970) ‘Sidoine philosophe’, in W. Wimmel (ed.), Forschungen zur römischen Literatur: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Karl Büchner, Wiesbaden, 46–59. — (1985) Lecteurs païens et lecteurs chrétiens de l’Énéide, Paris. Courtois, C. (1957) ‘L’évolution du monachisme en Gaule de St Martin à St Columban’, in Il monachesimo nell’alto medioevo e la formazione della civiltà occidentale, Spoleto, 47–72. Couture, L. (1892) ‘Le cursus ou rythme prosaïque dans la liturgie et la littérature de l’église latine du IIIe siècle à la renaissance’, Revue des Questions Historiques 51, 253–61. Coville, A. (1904) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire à Lyon’, Revue d’Histoire de Lyon 3, 81–95. Cracco Ruggini, L. (2002) ‘La funzione simbolica di eroi, re e imperatori nella cultura greca e romana del Tardoantico’, in F. Elia (ed.), Politica retorica e simbolismo del primato: Roma e Constantinopoli (secoli IV–VII): Omaggio a Rosario Soraci, Catania, 355–83. Crawford, J.P.W. (1913) ‘The Seven Liberal Arts in the Visión Deleitable of Alfonso de la Torre’, Romanic Review 4, 58–75. Cribiore, R. (2001) Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton. Croke, B. (1990) ‘Theodor Mommsen and the Later Roman Empire’, Chiron 20, 159–90. Crook, B. (2014) ‘Dynasty and Aristocracy in the Fifth Century’, in Maas (2014) 98–124. Cugusi, P. (1983) Evoluzione e forme dell’ epistolografia latina nella tarda repubblica e nei primi due secoli dell’impero, con cenni sull’epistolografia preciceroniana, Rome. — (1985) Aspetti letterari dei Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Bologna. — (1990) ‘Un’epistola recusatoria di Sidonio’, BStudLat 20, 275–80 (= ‘Sidonio, epist. IV, 22, Plinio, epist. V 8 e Cicerone, fam. V 12’, in Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, vol. 3 Letteratura latina dall’età di Tiberio all’età del basso impero, Palermo (1991) 1329–33). Cupaiuolo, F. (1963) Un capitolo sull’esametro latino, Naples. — (1982) Lettura di Orazio lirico, Naples. Curchin, L. (1987) ‘Social Relations in Central Spain: Patrons, Freedmen and Slaves in the Life of a Roman Provincial Hinterland’, Ancient Society 18, 75-89.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 748

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

749

Curtius, E.R. (1953) European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, tr. W.R. Trask, New York (original Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern (1948)). Cytowska, M., and H. Szelest (1994) ‘Sidonius’ Oeuvre’, in Literatura rzymskia okresu cesarstwa, autorzy chrześcijańscy [Imperial Roman Literature, Christian Authors], Warsaw, 335–54. — et al. (eds) (1973) Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi, vol. I.4, Amsterdam. Czúth, B. (1983) ‘Die Rolle des Volkes zur Zeit der Belagerung Orleans durch Attila’, Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: Acta Historica 76, 3–10. Dalton, O.M. (1915) The Letters of Sidonius, 2 vols, Oxford. Daly, W.M. (2000) ‘An Adverse Consensus Questioned: Does Sidonius’ Euchariston (Carmen XVI) Show that He Was Scripturally Naïve?’, Traditio 55, 19–71. D’Amico, J.F. (1984) ‘The Progress of Renaissance Latin Prose: The Case of Apuleianism’, Renaissance Quarterly 37, 351–42. Damonte, L. (2003) ‘Il De sermone latino di Adriano Castellesi: Il montaggio di una storia della letteratura latina’, Moderni e Antichi 1, 291–332. Damsté, P.H. (1905) ‘Ad Apollinarem Sidonium (Ep. vi,12,6; 8,2; i,5,5)’, Mnemosyne 33, 185, 188, 218. Dark, K. (2005) ‘The Archaeological Implications of Fourth- and Fifth-Century Descriptions of Villas in the Northwest Provinces of the Roman Empire’, Historia 54, 331–42. Daspre, A. (1975) ‘Le roman historique et l’histoire’, Revue de l’Histoire Littéraire de la France 75, 235–44. Daur, K.-D. (2004, 2005, 2009) Augustinus: Epistulae, CC SL 31, 31A, 31B, Turnhout. David, J.-M. (1980) ‘Maiorum exempla sequi: L’exemplum historique dans les discours judiciaires de Cicéron’, in Berlioz and David (1980), 67–86. David-de Palacio, M.-F.: see Palacio, M.-F. de. De Cicco, P. (2014) ‘L’historien Eusèbe de Nantes (?): Nouvelles perspectives’, RET 3, 211–42. de Groot, A.W. (1918) Handbook of Antique Prose-Rhythm, Groningen. de Luca, S. (2017) ‘Il processo di Arvando e il ruolo del senato tra Antemio e Ricimero’, Historia 66, 483–508. De Nonno, M. (1990) ‘Le citazioni dei grammatici’, in G. Cavallo et al. (eds), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 3, Rome, 597–646. De Robertis, T., and G. Resta (2004) Seneca: Una vicenda testuale, Florence. Debal, J. (1983) Histoire d’Orléans et de son terroir, vol. 1 Des origines à la fin du XVIe siècle, Roanne. Declareuil, J. (1935) ‘Les curies municipales et le clergé au Bas-Empire’, Revue Historique du Droit Français et Étranger 14, 26–53. Deissmann, A. (1908) Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistischrömischen Welt, Tübingen (4th edn 1923). Tr. L.R.M. Strachan as Light from the Ancient East, New York (4th edn, 1927). Deitz, L. (1995) ‘Ioannes Wower of Hamburg, Philologist and Polymath: A Preliminary Sketch of his Life and Works’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 58, 132–51. Del Nero, V. (1981) ‘Note sulla vita di Giovan Battista Pio (con alcune lettere inedite)’, Rinascimento 21, 247–63. Delaplace, C. (2014) ‘Le témoignage de Sidoine Apollinaire: Une source historique toujours fiable? À propos de la “conquête de l’Auvergne” par les Wisigoths’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 19–32. — (2015) La fin de l’Empire romain d’Occident: Rome et les Wisigoths de 382 à 531, Rennes. Delattre, A. (2014) ‘Genséric et les Vandales: Sources et méthodes de construction d’une image dans les Panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 177–92. Delbrueck, R. (1932) Antike Porphyrwerke, Berlin. Delhey, N. (1991) ‘Porphyr bei Apollinaris Sidonius: Zu Apollinaris Sidonius epist. 2, 2, 7’, Hermes 119, 126–7. — (1993) Apollinaris Sidonius, Carmen 22: Burgus Pontii Leontii, Berlin. Delisle, L. (1903) ‘Un feuillet retrouvé du recueil écrit sur papyrus de lettres et de sermons de saint Augustin’, BECh 64, 453–80.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 749

13/02/20 4:39 PM

750

BIBLIOGRAPHY

dell’Anno, L. (2020) ‘Sidonius’s Carm. 22: An Ecphrasis of otium’, JLA 13. DellaNeva, J. (1989) ‘Reflecting Lesser Lights: The Imitation of Minor Writers in the Renaissance’, Renaissance Quarterly 42, 449–79. Delz, J. (1999) ‘Zu spätlateinischen Dichtern: Avien. Orb. terr. 690; Sidon. Carm. 9.222’, MH 56, 34–35. Demandt, A. (1971) ‘Die Konsuln der Jahre 381 und 382 Namens Syagrius’, ByzZ 64, 38–45. — (2007) Die Spätantike: Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284–565 n. Chr., 2nd edn (1st edn 1989), Munich. Demeulenaere, R. (1985) Ruricius: Epistulae, CC SL 64, Turnhout. Demicheli, A.M. (2012) ‘Inquilinato e unioni miste per condizione sociale tra 4. e 5. sec.: Da una lettera (Ep. 5,19) di Sidonio Apollinare’, in Atti dell’Accademia romanistica Costantiniana 18, Rome, 275–304. Demougeot, E. (1950) De l’unité à la division de l’empire romain, 395–410, Paris. Dempsey, G.T. (2015) Aldhelm of Malmesbury and the Ending of Late Antiquity, Turnhout. Denecker, T. (2015) ‘Language Attitudes and Social Connotations in Jerome and Sidonius Apollinaris’, VetChr 69, 393–421. Dennis, B. (1992) Charlotte Yonge: Novelist of the Oxford Movement, Lewiston, NY. Depreux, P. (1992) ‘Imbuendis ad fidem prefulgidum surrexit lumen gentibus: La dévotion à Saint Rémi de Reims aux IXe et Xe siècles’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, Xe–XIIe Siècles 35.138, 111–29. Deproost, P.A. (1990) L’apôtre Pierre dans une épopée du VIe siècle: L’Historia apostolica d’Arator, Paris. Desbrosses, L. (2015) ‘L’Ancien Monde chez Sidoine: Prégnance et signification du modèle païen’, in S. Ratti (ed.), Une antiquité tardive noire ou heureuse?, Besançon, 209–26. — (2018) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et la Gaule chrétienne au Ve siècle’, thesis, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon. Desgraves, L. (1977) Elie Vinet, humaniste de Bordeaux (1509–1587): Vie, bibliographie, correspondance, bibliothèque, Geneva. Desjardins, E. (1876–93) Géographie historique et administrative de la Gaule Romaine, 4 vols, Paris. Dewar, M. (1994) ‘Hannibal and Alarich in the Later Poems of Claudian’, Mnemosyne 47, 349–72. — (1996) Claudian: Panegyricus de sexto consulatu Honorii Augusti, Oxford. — (2014) Leisured Resistance: Villas, Literature and Politics in the Roman World, London. Di Salvo, L. (2005a) Felicis munera mali: Momenti di vita quotidiana nella poesia di età romanobarbarica, Rome. — (2005b) ‘Spigolature tardoantiche: Sidon. carm. 22, 140–141; Ven. Fort. carm. 3, 10,23–26; 7, 2,9–10; 7, 4, 19–22; 10, 9,51–62’, in E. Zaffagno (ed.), FuturAntico 2, Genoa, 37–57. Di Santa Teresa, G. (1955) ‘Ramenta Carmelitana 7 (Mantuaniana 3): Un autografo del b. Battista Mantovano’, Ephemerides Carmeliticae 6, 220–2. Diderot, D., and J. le R. d’Alembert (2003) The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert: Collaborative Translation Project, tr. N.S. Hoyt and T. Cassirer, Ann Arbor. — (2011) The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert: Collaborative Translation Project, tr. C. Robinson Slouber, Ann Arbor. Diefenbach, S., and G.M. Müller (eds) (2013) Gallien in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter: Kulturgeschichte einer Region, Berlin. Dill, S. (1898) Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, London (2nd rev. edn London, 1899; repr. New York, 1958). Dion, J. (2016) ‘Aratos, Virgile, Sidoine Apollinaire: La réécriture et ses enjeux’, in J. Pigeaud (ed.), Virgiliennes: Hommages à Philippe Heuzé, Paris, 227–53. Dion, R., et al. (2005) ‘Le Triptyque des temps perdus de Jean Marcel: Modernité du roman biographique historique’, Voix et Images, 30.2, 35–50, . Dionisotti, C. (2003) Gli Umanisti e il volgare fra Quattro e Cinquecento, Milan. Dolbeau, F. (1979) ‘Anciens possesseurs des manuscrits hagiographiques latins conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris’, RHT 9, 183–238. — (1983) ‘La vie en prose de saint Marcel, évêque de Die: Histoire du texte et édition critique’, Francia 11, 97-130.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 750

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

751

Doyle, D.E. (2002) The Bishop as Disciplinarian in the Letters of St. Augustine, New York. Drinkwater, J. (1998) ‘The Usurpers Constantine III (407–411) and Jovinus (411–413)’, Britannia 29, 269–98. — (2007) The Alamanni and Rome, 213–496, Oxford. — and H. Elton (eds) (1992) Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?, Cambridge. Droysen, H. (1879) ‘Paul the Deacon’, Historia Romana, MGH SS rer. Germ. 49, Berlin. Drumont, É. (1890) La dernière bataille: Nouvelle étude psychologique et sociale, Paris. Du Bos, J.-B. (1742) Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie française dans les Gaules 1, 2nd edn, Paris. — (1748) Critical Reflections on Poetry, Painting and Music 1, tr. T. Nugent, London. Duchesne, L. (1907, 1910, 1915) Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule, 3 vols: vol. 1 Provinces du sud-est, 2nd edn; vol. 2 L’Aquitaine et les Lyonnaises; vol. 3 Les provinces du nord et de l’est, Paris. Dufour, J. (1972) La bibliothèque et le scriptorium de Moissac, Geneva. Dufraigne, P. (1994) Adventus Augusti, adventus Christi: Recherche sur l’exploitation idéologique et littéraire d’un cérémonial dans l’Antiquité tardive, Paris. Dumas, A. (1841) Impressions de voyage 2: Le Midi de la France, Brussels. Duval, N., et al. (1991) Naissance de arts chrétiens: Atlas des monuments paléochrétiens de la France, Paris. — (1995–8) Les premiers monuments chrétiens de la France, Paris. Duval, P.-M. (1955) ‘Les peuples d’Aquitaine d’après la liste de Pline’, Revue de Philologie, de Littérature et d’Histoire Anciennes 29, 213–27. Ebbeler, J. (2010) ‘Letters’, in A. Barchiesi and W. Scheidel (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, Oxford, 464–76. — (2012) Disciplining Christians: Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters, New York. — (2017) ‘The Letter Collection of Augustine of Hippo’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 239–53. Ebert, A. (1883) Histoire générale de la littérature du Moyen Âge en Occident, vol. 1 Histoire de la littérature chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à Charlemagne, tr. J. Aymeric and J. Condmain, Paris (German original Leipzig, 1874). Eck, W. (2002) ‘Imperial Administration and Epigraphy: In Defence of Prosopography’, Proceedings of the British Academy 114, 131–52. — (2010) ‘Prosopography’, in A. Barchiesi and W. Scheidel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, Oxford, 146–59. Egbert, J.C. (1896) Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions, New York. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. (2010) ‘Bleibende Klänge: Das hymnische Briefsiegel des Bischofs Sidonius (epist. 9,16)’, in W. Brandes et al. (eds), Millennium 7, Berlin, 257–92. — (2014) ‘Who Reads What? Intended Plurality of Addressees in the Epistolary Votive of Bishop Sidonius (Epist. 2,10)’, in J.-C. Julhe (ed.), Pratiques latines de la dédicace: Permanences et mutations, de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Paris, 369–98. — (2018) ‘Vom Epulonenschmaus zum Fest der Worte: Konviviale Gelegenheiten im Briefcorpus des Sidonius’, in Müller (2018) 255–86. Egetenmeyr, V. (2019) ‘“Barbarians” Transformed: The Construction of Identity in the Epistles of Sidonius Apollinaris’, in J.W. Drijvers and N. Lenski (eds), The Fifth Century: Age of Transformation. Proceedings of the Twelfth Biennial Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity Conference, Bari, 169–81. Ehimba, A. (1974) Le Panégyrique en vers dans la poésie latine de Catulle à Stace, thesis, University of Clermont-Ferrand. Eigler, U. (1997) ‘Horaz und Sidonius Apollinaris: Zwei Reisen und Rom’, JbAC 40, 168–77. — (2003) Lectiones Vetustatis: Römische Literatur und Geschichte in der lateinischen Literatur der Spätantike, Munich. Ellis, R. (1885) ‘Glossae in Apollinarem Sidonium’, Anecdota Oxoniensia, classical ser. 1.5, 27–62. Ellis, S.P. (2000) Roman Housing, London. Elmenhorst, G. (1617) Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera, ex postrema recognitione Ioannis Wowerii V.C. et quondam illustrissimi principis Holsatiae consiliarii, Geverhartus Elmenhorstius edidit, ex vet. cod. textum emendavit, et indicem copiosum adiecit, Hanover.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 751

13/02/20 4:39 PM

752

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elsner, J. (1995) Art and the Roman Viewer, Cambridge. — (1998) Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, Oxford. — (2014) ‘Introduction’, in Elsner and Meyer (2014) 1–34. — and J. Hernández Lobato (eds) (2017) The Poetics of Late Latin Literature, Oxford. — and M. Meyer (eds) (2014) Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture, Cambridge. — and M. Squire (2016) ‘Sight and Memory: The Visual Art of Roman Mnemonics’, in Squire (2016) 180–204. Endlicher, S. (1836) Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis. Pars 1: catalogus codicum philologicorum Latinorum, Vienna. Engelbrecht, A. (1885) Untersuchungen über die Sprache des Claudianus Mamertus, Vienna. — (1890) ‘Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung der Briefe des Apollinaris Sidonius, Faustus und Ruricius’, Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 41, 481–97. — (1891) Ruricius: Epistulae, CSEL 21, Vienna, 349–450. Engels, J. (2010) Die Sieben Weisen: Leben, Lehren und Legenden, Munich. Eshevskiı˘, S.V. (1870) К. С. Аполлинарий Сидоний: Эпизод из литературной и политической истории Галлии V в. [C.S. Apollinaris Sidonius: An Episode From the Literary and Political History of Fifth-Century Gaul], in S.V. Eshevskiı˘, Собрание сочинений [Collected Works], Moscow, vol. 3, 3–342. Étaix, C.R. (1983) ‘Le cabinet des manuscrits du Marquis de Cambis-Velleron’, Scriptorium 37, 66–91. Evenepoel, W. (2010) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris en Synesius van Cyrene in de roman The Dream of Scipio’, Lampas 43, 269–83. Even-Zohar, I. (1990) Polysystem Studies, Durham, NC (= ‘Polysystem Theory’, Poetics Today 11 (1990) 3–26). Fabbrini, D. (2007) Il migliore dei mondi possibili: Gli epigrammi di Marziale per amici e protettori, Florence. Fabech, C., and U. Näsman (eds) (2017) The Sösdala Horsemen and the Equestrian Elite of Fifth-Century Europe, Moesgard. Fagerlie, J.M. (1967) Late Roman and Byzantine Solidi Found in Sweden and Denmark, New York. Faggi, V. (1982) Sidonio Apollinare: Carmina, pref. F. Bandini, intro. and notes A.M. Mesturini, Genoa. Faller, O., and M. Zelzer (1968, 1982, 1990, 1996) Sancti Ambrosii opera, 4 vols: vols 1, 2, 4 Epistulae et acta, vol. 3 Epistularum liber decimus (CSEL 82.1–4), Vienna. Fanaud, L. (1967) ‘Découverte d’une section de voie romaine à Chantelle-la-Vieille’, Bulletin du Bourbonnais 53, 454–9. Fantham, E. (2012) ‘Two Levels of Orality in the Genesis of Pliny’s Panegyricus’, in Rees (2012a) 109-25. Faral, E. (1924a) Les arts poétiques du XIIe et du XIIIe siècle: Recherches et documents sur la technique littéraire du Moyen Âge, Paris; repr. Paris, 1958. — (1924b) ‘Eberhard the German, Laborintus’, in Faral (1924a) 336–77. — (1924c) ‘Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Documentum de arte versificandi’, in Faral (1924a) 263–320. — (1946) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et la technique littéraire du Moyen Age’, in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. 2 Letteratura medievale, Vatican City, 567–80. Fascione, S. (2016) ‘Seronato, Catilina e la moritura libertas della Gallia’, Koinonia 40, 453–62. — (2018a) ‘Finding Identities on the Way to Rome’, in C. Ferella and C. Breytenbach (eds), Paths of Knowledge: Interconnection(s) between Knowledge and Journey in the Greco-Roman World, Berlin, 177–87. — (2018b) ‘Retorica e realtà: i barbari di Sidonio Apollinare’, InvLuc 40, 35–44. — (2019) Gli ‘altri’ al potere: Romani e barbari nella Gallia di Sidonio Apollinare, Bari. Faure, É., and N. Jacquemard (2014) ‘L’émergence du paludisme en Gaule: Analyse comparée des écrits de Sidoine Apollinaire et de Grégoire de Tours’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 55–70. Favrod, J. (1997) Histoire politique du royaume burgonde (443–534), Lausanne. Fedeli, P. (1991) Il romanzo, in G. Cavallo et al. (eds), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 4 L’attualizzazione del testo, Rome, 117–200. Felgentreu, F. (1999) Claudians praefationes: Bedingungen, Beschreibungen und Wirkungen einer poetischen Kleinform, Stuttgart.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 752

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

753

Ferguson, T.S. (2010) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris and the Muses: Reception of an Epic Tradition in the Poems and Letters’, in Studia patristica 48, From the Fifth Century: Greek Writers, Latin Writers, Nachleben, Leuven, 289–94. Fernández López, M.C. (1989) ‘Recordatio iocorum tempore dolendi (Sidonio Apolinar Ep. 8,11,2)’, Helmántica 40, 237–44. — (1994) ‘Sidonio Apolinar, humanista de la antigüedad tardía: Su correspondencia’, Antigüedad y Cristianismo 11, 11–291. — (2006) ‘Pompa . . . Veneris (Sid. Ap. Cartas IV 20)’, Actas del XI Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos 3, Madrid, 95–103. — (2012) ‘“La lune dans un puits”? Broma de frontera (in puteo/in podio, Sid. Apol., Carm. 24, 23–25)’, in F. Biville et al., Latin vulgaire - Latin tardif 9, Lyon, 901–8. Ferrari, C. (2016) ‘Tra le steppe e le Gallie: La descrizione degli Unni di Sidonio Apollinare (carm. II, Panegirico di Antemio, 243–269)’, Studi Classici Orientali 62, 315–44. Ferreiro, A. (2014) The Visigoths in Gaul and Iberia: A Supplemental Bibliography, 2010–2012, Leiden. Filosini, S. (2014a) Sidonio Apollinare: Epitalamio per Ruricio ed Iberia, Turnhout. — (2014b) ‘Ovidio nell’Epitalamio per Ruricio ed Iberia (Sidon. carm. 11)’, in Poignault and StoehrMonjou (2014) 349–76. Fingernagel, A. (1999) Die illuminierten lateinischen Handschriften süd-, west- und nordeuropäischer Provenienz der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz: 4.-12. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden. Fioravanti, G. (2017) ‘Come scomparvero i filosofi in Occidente’, in A. Bertolacci and A. Paravicini Bagliani (eds), La filosofia medievale tra antichità ed età moderna: Saggi in memoria di Francesco Del Punta (1941–2013), SISMEL 18, Florence, 73–100. Fizellier-Sauget, B. (ed.) (1999) L’Auvergne de Sidoine Apollinaire à Grégoire de Tours: Histoire et archéologie, Clermont-Ferrand. Flammini, G. (2006) ‘La fortuna dell’endecasillabo falecio nella poesia latina: Dagli esordi preneoterici alle sezioni liriche dell’“Heptateuchos”’, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia 39, 121–52. — (2009) ‘La presenza di Orazio negli scritti di Caio Sollio Sidonio Apollinare: La cultura di un auctor cristiano nella Gallia del secolo V’, GIF 61, 221–56. Flower, H.I. (2006) The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture, Chapel Hill, NC. Fo, A. (1982a) ‘Note a Merobaude: Influssi claudianei e tecniche allusive: Questioni critico-testuali’, Romanobarbarica 6, 1–28. — (1982b) Studi sulla tecnica poetica di Claudiano, Catania. — (1990) ‘Tentativo di introduzione a Paolino di Pella’, in A. Garzya (ed.), Metodologie della ricerca sulla tarda antichità, Naples, 361–82. — (1991) ‘Percorsi e sogni geografici tardolatini’, Aion 13, 51–71. — (1999) ‘Sidonio nelle mani di Eurico (Ep. VIII 9): Spazi della tradizione culturale in un nuovo contesto romanobarbarico’, in M. Rotili (ed.), Memoria del passato, urgenza del futuro: Il mondo romano fra V e VII secolo, Naples, 17–37. — (2002) ‘Arginare la decadenza da “minore”: Sidonio Apollinare’, in S. Ronchey (ed.), La decadenza, Palermo, 154–90. — (2013) ‘Verso una fortuna “al quadrato”: Postille sulla recezione di Rutilio Namaziano’, Annali di Studi Umanistici 1, 175–92. Fohlen, J., C. Jeudy, A. Marucchi, and E. Pellegrin (1971), ‘Notes surs quelques manuscrits de textes classiques latins conservés à la Bibliothèque Vaticane’, RHT 1, 183–225. Folkerts, M. (1981) ‘Mittelalterliche mathematische Handschriften in westlichen Sprachen in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Ein vorläufiges Verzeichnis’, Centaurus 25, 1–49. Fontaine, J. (1961) Review of Loyen (1960), REL 39, 336–8. — (1977) ‘Unité et diversité du mélange des genres et des tons chez quelques écrivains latins de la fin du IV siècle: Ausone, Ambroise, Ammien’, in M. Fuhrmann (ed.), Christianisme et formes littéraires de l’Antiquité tardive en Occident, Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt 23, Geneva, 425–82.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 753

13/02/20 4:39 PM

754

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1988) ‘Comment doit-on appliquer la notion de genre littéraire à la littérature latine chrétienne du IVe siècle?’, Philologus 132, 53–73. Formicola, C. (2009) ‘Poetica dell’imitatio e funzione del modello: Properzio nei versi di Sidonio Apollinare’, Voces 20, 81–101. — (2011) ‘Oltre l’archetipo: Ipotesti letterari e testimonianze codicologiche (specimina da Lucrezio e Sidonio)’, in P. Mastandrea and L. Spinazzè (eds), Nuovi archivi e mezzi d’analisi per i testi poetici: I lavori del progetto Musisque Deoque Venezia 21–23 giugno 2010, Amsterdam, 89–97. Formisano, M. (2007) ‘Towards an Aesthetic Paradigm of Late Antiquity’, AnTard 15, 277–84. — (2008) ‘Speculum principis, speculum oratoris: Alcune considerazioni sui panegirici latini come genere letterario’, in L. Castagna and C. Riboldi (eds), Amicitiae templa serena: Studi in onore di Giuseppe Aricò, Milan, 581–99. — (2014) ‘Reading Décadence: Reception and the Subaltern Late Antiquity’, in Formisano and Fuhrer (2014) 7–16. — (2017) ‘Tarda antichità anacronica: Tra storiografia e panegirico’, in S. Rocchi and C. Mussini (eds), Imagines Antiquitatis: Representations, Concepts, Receptions of the Past in Roman Antiquity and the Early Italian Renaissance, Berlin, 65–84. — and T. Fuhrer (eds) (2014) Décadence: ‘Decline and Fall’ or ‘Other Antiquity’?, Heidelberg. Fornaro, P. (1989) Trapassato presente: L’appropriazione psicologica dell’antico attraverso la narrativa moderna, Turin. Foucault, M. (1986) The History of Sexuality, vol. 3 The Care of Self, tr. R. Hurley, New York; orig. Le souci de soi, Paris (1984). — (2005) Dits et écrits: Schriften, vol. 4 1980–1988, tr. M. Bischoff et al., Frankfurt; orig. Dits et écrits, vol. 4 1980–1988, Paris (1994). Fournier, M., and A. Stoehr-Monjou (2014) ‘Cartographie géo-littéraire et géo-historique de la mobilité aristocratique au Ve siècle d’après la correspondance de Sidoine Apollinaire: Du voyage officiel au voyage épistolaire’, Belgeo 2, 2–19, . — and — (2015) ‘Représentation idéologique de l’espace dans la lettre I, 5 de Sidoine Apollinaire: Cartographie géo-littéraire d’un voyage de Lyon à Rome’, in P. Voisin and M. de Béchillon (eds), L’espace dans l’Antiquité, Paris, 267–85. Fowden, G. (2004) Quṣayr ‘Amra: Art and the Umayyad Elite in Late Antique Syria, Berkeley. Franceschelli, C., and P.L. Dall’Aglio (2014) ‘Entre voies de terre et voies d’eau: L’évolution du voyage en Italie Padane, entre l’Itinerarium Burdigalense et le témoignage de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Belgeo 2, . Franzoi, A. (2008) ‘Memoria di Marziale in Sidonio (carm. 3 e 4)’, Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica 7 , 321–7. — (2013) ‘Mesure (et nature) de l’épigramme latine tardive dans les témoignages littéraires du IVe au VIe siècle’, in Guipponi-Gineste and Urlacher-Becht (2013) 481–91. — (2016) ‘Ancora sul uicus Helena (Sidon. carm. 5.210–54)’, Lexis 34, 420–4. Frauenhuber, A. (2007) ‘Kontinuität und Wandel: Karrieren und Lebensbilder im Gallien des 5. Jahrhunderts: Betrachtungen zu zwei Briefen des Sidonius Apollinaris an Syagrius’, Diomedes 4, 11–21. Fray, J.L. (1997) ‘Clermont en 1095’, in Le concile de Clermont (1997) 9–21. Freeman, L.C., et al. (1989) Research Methods in Social Network Analysis, Fairfax, VA. Fried, J. (2008) Die Formierung Europas: 840–1046, 3rd edn, Munich. Friedlaender, L. (1886) M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton libri, I, Leipzig. Fry, C. (2014) ‘Apollinaris modus: Sidoine Apollinaire rythmicien’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 259–80. Frye, D. (1992) ‘Aegidius, Childeric, Odovacar and Paul’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 36, 1–25. — (1994) ‘The Meaning of Sidonius, Ep. 2, 1, 4’, Eranos 92, 60–1. — (2003) ‘Aristocratic Responses to Late Roman Urban Change: The Examples of Ausonius and Sidonius in Gaul’, Classical World 96, 185–96.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 754

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

755

Fuhrer, T. (2011) ‘Inszenierungen von Göttlichkeit: Die politische Rolle von Dionysos/Bacchus in der römischen Literatur’, in R. Schlesier (ed.), A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin, 373–89. Fuhrmann, M. (1989) Cicero und die römische Republik: Eine Biographie, Munich (5th edn Mannheim, 2011). — (1994) Rom in der Spätantike: Porträt einer Epoche, Zurich. Fumaroli, M. (ed.) (1996) J. K. Huysmans, À rebours, 2nd edn, Paris. Furbetta, L. (2010) ‘Sidonio Apollinare e l’imperatore Eparchio Avito: Testo, traduzione e commento dei carmi 6, 7 e 8’, thesis, University ‘La Sapienza’, Rome. — (2011) ‘Alcune riflessioni sul carm. 6 di Sidonio Apollinare’, RPL 33–4, 148–63. — (2013a) ‘Remarques sur la présence du mythe dans l’œuvre de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Lalies 33, 275–90. — (2013b) ‘Les objets et les lieux: Quelques réflexions sur les épigrammes de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Guipponi-Gineste and Urlacher-Becht (2013) 243–60. — (2013c) ‘Tra retorica e politica: Formazione, ricezione ed esemplarità dell’epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare’, in S. Gioanni and P. Cammarosano (eds), La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia. Part 2 Forme, stili e funzioni della scrittura epistolare nelle cancellerie italiane (secoli V–XV), Rome, 23–65. — (2014a) ‘Un nuovo manoscritto di Sidonio Apollinare: Una prima ricognizione’, RPL 37, 135–57. — (2014b) ‘Il Panegirico di Avito: Note di metodo e nuovi resultati’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 73–88. — (2015a) ‘Empereurs, rois et délateurs: Esquisse d’étude sur la représentation du pouvoir et de ses dégénérescences dans l’œuvre de Sidoine Apollinaire’, RET 4, 123–54. — (2015b) ‘L’epitaffio di Sidonio Apollinare in un nuovo testimone manoscritto’, Euphrosyne n.s. 43, 243–54. — (2015c) ‘La lettre de recommandation en Gaule (Ve–VIIe siècles) entre tradition littéraire et innovation’, in A. Bérenger and O. Dard (eds), Gouverner par les lettres: De l’Antiquité à l’époque contemporaine, Metz, 347–68. — (2015d) ‘Sidonio Apollinare nei Libri Historiarum di Gregorio di Tours: Qualche riflessione’, MEFRM 127–2, . — (2016a) ‘La mémoire de Lucain dans l’œuvre de Sidoine Apollinaire: L’exemple du carm. VII’, in F. Galtier and R. Poignault (eds), Présence de Lucain, Caesarodunum 47–9 bis, Clermont-Ferrand, 397–428. — (2016b) ‘Gioco letterario e realtà: L’esempio dell’epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare’, in P. Cammarosano et al. (eds), Art de la lettre et lettre d’art: Épistolaire politique III, Trieste, 9–47. — (2016c) ‘Tracce di Ausonio nelle lettere di Sidonio Apollinare (appunti di lettura)’, in L. Cristante et al. (eds), Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica 14, 107–33. — (2017a) ‘Da Lucrezio a Sidonio Apollinare: Esempi di intertestualità nei versi di Avito di Vienne’, in L. Cristante and V. Veronesi (eds), Il calamo della memoria: Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità 7, Trieste, 85–146. — (2017b) ‘Lire la Bible et “construire” un texte poétique: L’exemple de Sidoine Apollinaire (carm. 16,6–39) et d’Avit de Vienne’, in M. Cutino (ed.), Poésie et Bible aux IVe–VIe s., RET 6 suppl. 4, 147–88. — (2017c) ‘La rhétorique du “petit” dans les épigrammes de Sidoine Apollinaire: Stratégies littéraires et e njeux politiques’, in Meyer and Urlacher-Becht (2017) 251–66. — (2018a) ‘Presence of, Reference to and Echoes of Ovid in the Works of Rutilius Namatianus, Sidonius Apollinaris and Avitus of Vienne ’, in F.E. Consolino (ed.), Ovid in Late Antiquity, Turnhout, 293–323. — (2018b) ‘Présence d’Ausone dans les panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in É. Wolff (ed.), Ausone en 2015: Bilan et nouvelles perspectives, Paris, 349–66. — (2018c) ‘“Minime ignarus, quod ita mens pateat in libro velut vultus in speculo”: L’écriture épistolaire d’après Sidoine Apollinaire’, in D. Demartini et al. (eds), La lettre-miroir dans l’occident latin et vernaculaire du Ve au XVe s., Paris, 99–112.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 755

13/02/20 4:39 PM

756

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fürst, A. (2002) Augustinus-Hieronymus: Epistulae mutuae/Briefwechsel, 2 vols, Turnhout. Galand, P., and S. Laigneau-Fontaine (eds) (2013) La silve: Histoire d’une écriture libérée en Europe, de l’Antiquité au XVIIIe siècle, Turnhout. Galand-Hallyn, P. (2009) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et Ange Politien: L’énargie du désespoir, aspects d’une métapoétique à la lumière d’une lecture humaniste’, in Galand-Hallyn and Zarini (2009) 297–324. — and V. Zarini (eds) (2009) Manifestes littéraires dans la latinité tardive: Poétique et rhétorique, Paris. Galland, A. (1774), ‘C. Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera ex praeclara editione Sirmondiana, ab eodem Sirmondo recognita’, in Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, vol. 10, Venice, 461–626. Gamberini, F. (1983) Stylistic Theory and Practice in the Younger Pliny, Zurich. Ganda, A. (2009) ‘L’edizione milanese di Sidonio Apollinare (Ulderico Scinzenzeler, 1498)’, Archivio Storico Lombardo 135, 267–93. Garand, D., and J. Marcel (1992) ‘Entretien’, Moebius, 52, 129–53, . García López, J. (1991) Alfonso de la Torre: Visión deleytable, vol. 1, Salamanca. Garin, E. (1952) Prosatori latini del Quattrocento, Milan. Gärtner, T. (2001) ‘Statius Theb. 10, 909 f. im Lichte spätantiker Imitationen’, MH 28, 123–8. — (2002) ‘Die sieben Weisen bei Sidonius Apollinaris und Laurentius von Durham’, Wiener Studien 115, 321–7. Garzelli, A. (ed.) (1985) Miniatura fiorentina del Rinascimento (1440–1525): Un primo censimento, 2 vols, Inventari e cataloghi toscani 18–19, Florence. Gassmann, P. (1977) ‘Der Episkopat in Gallien im 5. Jahrhundert’, dissertation, Bonn. Gayraud, M. (1981) Narbonne antique, des origines à la fin du IIIe s., Paris. Gehrke, H.-J. (2004) ‘Identität und Alterität’, in E. Wirbelauer (ed.), Oldenbourg Geschichte Lehrbuch Antike, Munich, 362–9. Geisler, E. (1887) ‘Loci similes auctorum Sidonio anteriorum’, in Lütjohann (1887) 351–416. Gemeinhardt, P. (2007) Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung, Tübingen. Genette, G. (2010) Die Erzählung, tr. A. Knop, 3rd edn, Munich (= Discours du récit (1972) and Nouveau discours du récit (1983), Paris). Gérard, J. (1980) La ponctuation trochaïque dans l’hexamètre d’Ennius à Juvénal, Paris. Gerbrandy, P. (2013) ‘The Failure of Sidonius’ Poetry’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 63–76. Germain, A. (1840) Essai littéraire et historique sur Apollinaris Sidonius, Montpellier. Gerth, M. (2013) Bildungsvorstellungen im 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: Macrobius, Martianus Capella und Sidonius Apollinaris, Berlin. Giannotti, F. (2001a) ‘Criteri organizzativi nell’Epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare: Il caso del terzo libro’, AFLS 22, 27–38. — (2001b) ‘Appunti sul quarto libro dell’epistolario sidoniano’, InvLuc 23, 103–10. — (2002) ‘L’epistola III 3 di Sidonio Apollinare fra encomio di Ecdicio e misobarbarismo’, Romanobarbarica 17, 161–82. — (2003) ‘Romolo Augustolo: Caduta e “rigenerazione” di un impero tra Dürrenmatt e Manfredi’, InvLuc 25, 281–97. — (2006) ‘Ombre solenni: Personaggi tardoantichi nella letteratura contemporanea’, thesis, University of Siena. — (2007) ‘Lo scomunicatore di Tibor Déry: Un episodio della fortuna di Ambrogio tra religione e politica’, in S. Conti (ed.), Tra religione e politica nel mondo classico, Ancona, 79–99. — (2009) Nei pensieri degli uomini: Momenti della fortuna di Ambrogio, Girolamo, Agostino, Bologna. — (2015) ‘Uomini e scrittori tardoantichi nel Romanzo dell’Impero Romano di Giulio Castelli’, Annali di Studi Umanistici 3, 9–28. — (2016) Sperare meliora: Il terzo libro delle Epistulae di Sidonio Apollinare, Pisa. Gibbon, E. (1776–88) The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, London (cited by original volume and chapter and by page number in the edition by D. Womersley, London, 1994).

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 756

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

757

— (1796) Miscellaneous Works, vol. 1, ed. J. Sheffield, London. Gibson, A.G.G. (ed.) (2015) Robert Graves and the Classical Tradition, Oxford. Gibson, R.K. (1998) ‘Meretrix or Matrona: Stereotypes in Ovid, Ars Amatoria 3’, Papers of the Leeds Latin Seminar 10, 295–312. — (2002) ‘“Cf. e.g.”: A Typology of “Parallels” and the Function of Commentaries in Latin Poetry’, in Gibson and Kraus (2002) 331–57. — (2011) ‘ Confirmed? Pliny, Epistles 1.1 and Sidonius Apollinaris’, CQ 61, 655–9. — (2012) ‘On the Nature of Ancient Letter Collections’, JRS 102, 56–78. — (2013a) ‘Reading the Letters of Sidonius by the Book’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 195–219. — (2013b) ‘Pliny and the Letters of Sidonius: From Constantius and Clarus to Firminus and Fuscus’, in Gibson and Rees (2013) 333–55. — (2013c) ‘Letters into Autobiography: The Generic Mobility in the Ancient Letter Collection’, in Papanghelis et al. (2013) 387–416. — (2014a) ‘Starting with the Index in Pliny’, in L. Jansen (ed.), Paratextuality and the Reader in Roman Literature and Culture, Cambridge, 33–55. — (2014b) ‘Suetonius and the uiri illustres of Pliny the Younger’, in T.J. Power and R.K. Gibson (eds), Suetonius the Biographer: Studies in Roman Lives, Oxford, 199–230. — (2015) ‘Not Dark Yet . . . Reading to the End of Pliny’s Nine-Book Collection’, in I. Marchesi (ed.), Pliny the Book-Maker: Betting on Posterity in the Epistles, Oxford, 185–222. — (forthcoming a) Pliny the Younger: Epistles Book VI, Cambridge. — (forthcoming b) Man of High Empire: The Life of Pliny the Younger, Oxford. — and C. S. Kraus (eds) (2002) The Classical Commentary, Leiden. — and R. Morello (2012) Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger: An Introduction, Cambridge. — and A.D. Morrison (2007) ‘What Is a Letter?’, in Morello and Morrison (2007) 1–16. — and R.D. Rees (eds) (2013) Pliny in Late Antiquity, Arethusa 46. — and C.L. Whitton (eds) (2016) The Epistles of Pliny: Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, Oxford. Gillett, A. (1999) ‘The Accession of Euric’, Francia 26, 1–40. — (2001) ‘Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors’, PBSR 69, 131–67. — (2003) Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411–533, Cambridge. — (2012) ‘Epic Panegyric and Political Communication in the Fifth-Century West’, in Grig and Kelly (2012) 265–90. Gilliard, F.D. (1984) ‘Senatorial Bishops in the Fourth Century’, Harvard Theological Review 77, 153–75. Gioanni, S. (2004) ‘Communication et préciosité: Le sermo épistolaire de Sidoine Apollinaire à Avit de Vienne’, in Comunicazione e ricezione del documento Cristiano in epoca tardoantica, Rome, 515–44. — (2006, 2010) Ennode de Pavie: Lettres I–II, III–IV, Paris. — (2014) ‘La Correspondance de Sidoine Apollinaire dans les florilèges médiévaux: L’exemple du Florilegium Angelicum (milieu du XIIe siècle)’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 487–500. — and P. Cammarosano (2013) La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia 2: Forme, stili e funzioni della scrittura epistolare nelle cancellerie italiane (secoli V–XV) = Les correspondances en Italie 2: Formes, styles et fonctions de l’écriture épistolaire dans les chancelleries italiennes (Ve–XVe siècle), Rome. Giraldi, L.G. (1580) Operum quae extant omnium . . . tomi duo, vol. 2, Basel. Giron, A., and A. Tozza (1903) L’Augustule 475–476, Paris. Giulietti, I. (2014) Sidonio Apollinare difensore della Romanitas: Epistulae 5, 1–13, saggio di commento, thesis, Macerata, . Glenn, J. (2004) Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims, Cambridge. Godding, R. (2001) Prêtres en Gaule mérovingienne, Brussels. Goedeke, K., and H. Jacob (1984) Grundriss zur Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung aus den Quellen, vol. 16, Berlin. Goffart, W. (1980) Barbarians and Romans A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accommodation, Princeton. — (2006) Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire, Philadelphia.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 757

13/02/20 4:39 PM

758

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goldlust, B. (2009) ‘Un manifeste sur l’organicité littéraire: La préface des Saturnales de Macrobe’, in Galand-Hallyn and Zarini (2009) 279–96. — (2010) Rhétorique et poétique de Macrobe dans les Saturnales, Turnhout. — (2013) ‘Nature et culture dans l’écriture silvaine de la latinité tardive (Ausone, Symmaque, Sidoine Apollinaire)’, in Galand and Laigneau-Fontaine (2013) 183–211. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, I.N. (1972) Средневековая латинская литература Италии [Medieval Latin Literature of Italy], Moscow. Goltz, A. (2005) ‘Mommsens Germanenbild’, in A. Demandt et al. (eds), Theodor Mommsen: Wissenschaft und Politik im 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 226–45. Gosserez, L. (2009) ‘Mythe et politique dans le Panégyrique d’Avitus’, VL 180, 39–52. Gotoh, A. (1997) ‘The Consecration of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Studia Patristica 29, 40–5. Gottsched, J.C. (1730) Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst vor die Deutschen, Leipzig. Gounot, R. (1989) ‘Archéologie gallo-romaine en Haute-Loire’, Cahiers de la Haute-Loire 130. Gourmont, R. de (1892) Le latin mystique: Les poètes de l’antiphonaire et la symbolique au moyen âge, Paris (2nd edn 1922). — (1964) La culture des idées, Paris (1st edn 1900). Grafton, A., G.W. Most, and S. Settis (eds) (2010) The Classical Tradition, Cambridge, MA. Graham, A.J. (1974) ‘The Limitations of Prosopography in Roman Imperial History (with Special Reference to the Severan Periods)’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der antiken Welt, 2.1, 136-57. Graham, S., and G. Ruffini (2007) ‘Network Analysis and Greco-Roman Prosopography’, in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (ed.), Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook, Oxford, 325–36. Graves, R. (1938) Count Belisarius [novel], London. Green, R. (2016) ‘The Sadness of Eparchius Avitus (Sidonius, Carm. 7.519–21)’, CQ 66, 821–5. Grégoire, J.-F., and F.-Z. Collombet (1836) Œuvres de C. Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius, 3 vols, Lyon and Paris. Grethlein, J. (2013) Experience and Teleology in Ancient Historiography: ‘Futures Past‘ from Herodotus to Augustine, Cambridge. Grey, C.A. (2008) ‘Two Young Lovers: An Abduction Marriage and its Consequences in Fifth-Century Gaul’, CQ 58, 286–302. Griffe, É. (1956) ‘L’apocryphe hiéronymien De septem ordinibus ecclesiae’, Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 57, 215-24. Grig, L. (2013) ‘Cities in the “Long” Late Antiquity, 2000–2012: A Survey Essay’, Urban History 40, 554–66. — and G. Kelly (eds) (2012) Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, New York. Grimm, J. (1871) Kleinere Schriften, vol. 5.2 Recensionen und vermischte Aufsätze, Berlin. Grupe, E. (1888) ‘Zur Syntax des Apollinaris Sidonius’, in 17. Jahresbericht des Progymnasiums zu Pfalzburg, 3–10. — (1892) ‘Zur Sprache des Apollinaris Sidonius’, suppl. of Programm des Gymnasiums zu Zabern 1891/2, Saverne — (1926) ‘Juristische Analekten aus den Briefen des G. Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius’, ZRG(R) 46, 19–31. Gruytere, J. (1602) Lampas siue fax artium liberalium, hoc est thesaurus criticus in quo infinitis locis theologorum iurisconsultorum, medicorum, philosophorum, oratorum, historicorum, poetarum, grammaticorum scripta supplentur, corriguntur, illustrantur, notantur, vol. 1, Frankfurt. Grzywaczewski, J. (2005) ‘Roma, romanitas, christianitas u Sydoniusza Apollinarego’ [Roma, Romanitas and Christianitas in Sidonius Apollinaris], in S. Wielgus (ed.), Kościół w życiu publicznym [The Church in Public Life], vol. 3, Lublin, 329–48. — (2010a) ‘Christianity of Gaul According to Sidonius Apollinaris (430–486)’, Forum Teologiczne 11, 127–44. — (2010b) ‘The Passage from Romanitas to Christianitas According to Sidonius Apollinaris († c. 486)’, Studia Patristica 48, 295–302. — (2014) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris’ Pagan Vision of Ancient Roma Bellatrix in Christian Rome’, Studia Theologica Varsaviensia 1, 179–94.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 758

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

759

— and D.K. Knox (2017) ‘Glory, Decay and Hope: Goddess Roma in Sidonius Apollinaris’ Panegyrics’, in M. Sághy and E.M. Schoolman (eds), Pagans and Christians in the Late Roman Empire: New Evidence, New Approaches (4th–8th Centuries), Budapest, 203–16. Gualandri, I. (1974) ‘Note sul testo di Sidonio Apollinare’, Acme 27, 293–7. — (1979) Furtiva lectio: Studi su Sidonio Apollinare, Milan. — (1993) ‘Elegi acuti: Il distico elegiaco in Sidonio Apollinare’, in C. Catanzaro and F. Santucci (eds), La poesia cristiana latina in distici elegiaci, Assisi, 191–216. — (1995) ‘Prassi esegetica e stile letterario: Alcuni problemi’, in C. Moreschini (ed.), Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica, Naples, 147–74. — (1999) ‘Gli dei duri a morire: Temi mitologici nella poesia latina del quinto secolo’, in G. Mazzoli and F. Gasti (eds), Prospettive sul Tardoantico, Como, 49–68. — (2000) ‘Figure di barbari in Sidonio Apollinare’, in G. Lanata (ed.), Il tardoantico alle soglie del duemila: Diritto, religione, società, Pisa, 105–29. — (2001) ‘Immagini dei barbari in Sidonio Apollinare: I Franchi’, in U. Criscuolo (ed.), Mnemosynon: Studi di letteratura e di umanità in memoria di D. Gagliardi, Naples, 323–38. — (2013) ‘Claudiano e il suo pubblico: Esempi di allusività nei carmi politici’, in M.E. Consoli (ed.), Sapientia et eloquentia: Omaggio ad Antonio Garzya, Lecce, 113–42. Guérard, J. (2011) ‘Le thème du cortège divin dans la littérature Latine de l’antiquité tardive: Lectures profanes et adaptation chrétienne’, Camenulae 7. Guerrini, R. (1993) ‘Effigies Procerum: Modelli antichi (Virgilio. Floro, De viris illustribus) negli epigrammi del Salutati per Palazzo Vecchio a Firenze’, Athenaeum 81, 201–12. Guillaume-Coirier, G. (2000) ‘Des couronnes virgiliennes pour un convivium littéraire (Sidoine Apollinaire, Epist. IX, 13, 5)’, Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé 1, 44–53. Guillaumin, J.-Y. (2013) ‘Rappel de l’histoire et invitation à l’action dans les panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne, suppl. 8, 93–107. Guillaumont, F., and P. Laurence (eds) (2012) La présence de l’histoire dans l’épistolaire, Tours. Guipponi-Gineste, M.-F. (2010a) Claudien poète du monde à la cour d’Occident, Paris. — (2010b) ‘Sidoine et la topique de l’éloge de personne dans les Poèmes VI et VII’, VL 182, 41–60. — (2014) ‘Poème-bijou et objet précieux: La merveille entre esthétique, épideictique et politique dans la correspondance de Sidoine Apollinaire (Epist., IV,8)’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 245–57. — (2017) ‘Le lusus poétique du convivium et autres formes d’otium dans les poèmes de la correspondence de Sidoine Apollinaire‘, in Meyer and Urlacher-Becht (2017) 235–50. — and C. Urlacher-Becht (eds) (2013) La renaissance de l’épigramme dans la latinité tardive, Paris. Guizot, F. (1823) Collection des mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France, vol. 1 Mémoires de Grégoire de Tours, Paris. — (1829) Histoire de la civilisation en France depuis la chute de l’empire romain, vol. 1, Paris. — (1879) L’histoire de France depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’en 1789, racontée à mes petits-enfants, vol. 1, Paris. Günther, L.-M. (1997) ‘Roscia: Aristokratentochter und Bischofskind im spätantiken Gallien (zu Sid. Ap. ep. 5, 16, 3)’, Laverna 8, 48–58. Günther, R. (1982) ‘Apollinaris Sidonius: Eine Untersuchung seiner drei Kaiserpanegyriken’, in G. Wirth (ed.), Romanitas-Christianitas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit, Johannes Straub zum 70. Geburtstag am 18. Oktober 1982 gewidmet, Berlin, 654–60. — (1998) ‘Ansätze eines Bedeutungswandels sozialer und politischer Termini bei lateinischen Schriftstellern des 5. Jahrhunderts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Sidonius Apollinaris’, Kodai 8/9, 31–52. Gustaffson, F.V. (1882) De Apollinari Sidonio emendando, Helsinki. Hadot, P. (1972) ‘Fürstenspiegel’, in RAC 8, 555–632. Hagendahl, H. (1937) La prose métrique d’Arnobe, Gothenburg. — (1952) La correspondance de Ruricius, Gothenburg.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 759

13/02/20 4:39 PM

760

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hägg, T. (2012) The Art of Biography in Antiquity, Cambridge. Hall, J. (2009) Politeness and Politics in Cicero’s Letters, Oxford. Hall, R.G., and S.M. Oberhelman (1986) ‘Internal Clausulae in Late Latin Prose as Evidence for the Displacement of Metre by Word-Stress’, CQ 36, 508–26. Halsall, G. (2003) Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450–900, London. — (2007) Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376–568, Cambridge. Hamacher, U.G. (2006) Senecas 82. Brief an Lucilius, Munich. Hanaghan, M.P. (2014) ‘Intertextuality and Allusion in the Epistles of Sidonius’, thesis, University of Sydney. — (2015) Review of van Waarden and Kelly (2013), CR 65, 163–7. — (2017a) ‘Avitus’ Characterisation in Sidonius’ Carm. 7’, Mnemosyne 70, 262–80. — (2017b) ‘All in a Word or Two: Micro Allusions in Sidonius’ Programmatic Epistles’, IJCT 24, 249–61. — (2017c) ‘Latent Criticism of Anthemius and Ricimer in Sidonius Apollinaris’ Epistulae 1.5’, CQ 67, 631–49. — (2018) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris and the Making of an Exile Persona’, in D. Rohmann et al. (eds), Mobility and Exile at the End of Antiquity, Frankfurt, 259–72. — (2019) Reading Sidonius’ Epistles, Cambridge. — (2020) ‘Competing at otium? A Juxtaposed Reading of Sidonius’ Baths’, JLA 13. Hänel, G. (1830) Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum qui in bibliothecis Galliae, Helvetiae, Belgii, Britanniae M., Hispaniae, Lusitaniae asservantur, Leipzig. — (1857) Corpus legum ab imperatoribus Romanis ante Justinianum latarum, Leipzig. Hankey, T. (1959) ‘Salutati’s Epigrams for the Palazzo Vecchio at Florence’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 22, 363–5. Hardie, P. (2019) Classicism and Christianity in Late Antique Latin Poetry, Oakland, CA. Hardwick, L., and C. Stray (eds) (2008) A Companion to Classical Receptions, Oxford. Harich-Schwarzbauer, H. (2014) ‘Die “Lust” der Poesie: “Décadence” in den spätantiken Epithalamien (Claudius Claudianus, c.m. 25, und Sidonius Apollinaris, cc. 10–11; 14–15)’, in Formisano and Fuhrer (2014) 133–48. — (2019) ‘Pallas Athena im gallo-römischen Narbonne: Der “Tempel” der Philosophie und der “Tempel” der Webkunst bei Sidonius Apollinaris, carm. 15′, in B.M. Gauly et al. (eds), Dialoge mit dem Altertum: Sinnstiftungen aus der Vergangenheit in Antike, Früher Neuzeit und Moderne, Heidelberg, 161–76. — and J. Hindermann (2020) Leisure and the Muses in Sidonius Apollinaris, JLA 13. Harries, J.D. (1992) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris, Rome and the Barbarians: A Climate of Treason?’, in Drinkwater and Elton (1992) 298–308. — (1994) Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome AD 407–485, Oxford. — (1996) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris and the Frontiers of Romanitas’, in Mathisen and Sivan (1996) 31–44. — (1999) Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. — (2001) ‘Not the Theodosian Code: Euric’s Law and Late Fifth-Century Gaul’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2001) 39–51. — (2018) ‘Saturninus the Helmsman, Pliny and Friends’, in A. König and C. Whitton (eds), Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian: Literary Interactions, AD 96–138, Cambridge, 260–79. Harrison, G.T. (1983) ‘The Verse Panegyrics of Sidonius Apollinaris: Poetry and Society in Late Antique Gaul’, thesis, Stanford University. Hartenberger, R. (1911) ‘De o finali apud poetas latinos ab Ennio usque ad Iuvenalem’, dissertation, Bonn. Haskins, C.H. (1909) ‘A List of Textbooks from the Close of the Twelfth Century’, HSCP 20, 75–94. Haslett, M., and I. Haslett (2009) ‘Buchan and the Classics’, in K. Macdonald (ed.), Reassessing John Buchan, London, 17–28. Haverling, G. (1988) Studies on Symmachus’ Language and Style, Gothenburg. — (1995) ‘On the “Illogical” Vos in Late Latin Epistolography’, in L. Callebat (ed.), Latin vulgaire - latin tardif 4, Hildesheim, 337–53. Havet, J. (1885) ‘Questions Mérovingiennes II: Les découvertes de Jérôme Vignier’, BECh 46, 205–71.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 760

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

761

Havet, L. (1892) La prose métrique de Symmaque et les origines métriques du cursus, Paris. Hayter, A. (1996) Charlotte Yonge, Plymouth. Heather, P.J. (1996) The Goths, Oxford. — (2005) The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, London. — (2011) ‘Law and Society in the Burgundian Kingdom’, in A. Rio (ed.), Law, Custom and Justice in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, London, 115–54. Hebert, B. (1988) ‘Philosophenbildnisse bei Sidonius Apollinaris: Eine Ekphrasis zwischen Kunstbeschreibung und Philosophiekritik’, Klio 70, 519–38. Hecquet-Noti, N. (2005) ‘Faut-il lire senem Arcadium dans la lettre 51 d’Avit de Vienne? Étude sur le lien familial entre Avit de Vienne et Sidoine Apollinaire’, MH 62, 148–61. — (2013) ‘Le temple de Dieu ou la nature symbolisée: La dédicace de la cathédrale de Lyon par Sidoine Apollinaire (Epist. 2, 10)’, in F. Garambois and D. Vallat (eds), Le lierre et la statue: La nature et son espace littéraire dans l’épigramme gréco-latine tardive, Saint-Étienne, 217–31. — (2014) ‘Avit de Vienne face à l’esthétique de Sidoine Apollinaire: L’embarrassant héritage littéraire d’un oncle admiré’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 451–63. Heinemann, O. von (1884–8) Die Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel: Erster Abthheilung: Die Helmstedter Handschriften, Wolfenbüttel. Heinzelmann, M. (1976) Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien: Zur Kontinuität römischer Führungsschichten vom 4. bis 7. Jahrhundert, Munich. — (1982) ‘Gallische Prosopographie 260–527’, Francia 10, 531–718. Hemelrijk, E.A. (1999) Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna, London. Hen, Y. (1995) Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, AD 481–751, Leiden. Henderson, J. (2002) Pliny’s Statue: The Letters, Self-Portraiture and Classical Art, Exeter. — (2004) Morals and Villas in Seneca’s Letters: Places to Dwell, Cambridge. Henke, R. (2007) ‘Brief des Sidonius Apollinaris an Burgundio (Epist. 9, 14) und seine versteckte Zeitkritik’, Hermes 135, 216–27. — (2008) ‘Eskapismus, poetische Aphasie und satirische Offensive: Das Selbstverständnis des spätantiken Dichters Sidonius Apollinaris’, in A. Arweiler and M. Möller (eds), Vom Selbst-Verständnis in Antike und Neuzeit: Notions of the Self in Antiquity and Beyond, Berlin, 155–73. — (2012) ‘Der Brief 3,12 des Sidonius Apollinaris an Secundus: Eine Novelle in einer Epistel?’, Hermes 140, 121–5. Henning, D. (1999) Periclitans res publica: Kaisertum und Eliten in der Krise des Weströmischen Reiches 454/5–493 n. Chr., Wiesbaden. Hennings, R. (1994) Der Briefwechsel zwischen Augustinus und Hieronymus und ihr Streit um den Kanon des alten Testaments und die Auslegung von Gal. 2, 11–14, Leiden. Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard, G. (2011a) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et les “bibliothèques”’, in A. Balansard et al. (eds), Prolongements et renouvellements de la tradition classique: En hommage à Didier Pralon, Aix-enProvence, 321–40. — (2011b) ‘Venance Fortunat et la représentation littéraire du décor des villas après Sidoine Apollinaire’, in C. Balmelle et al. (eds), Décor et architecture en Gaule entre l’Antiquité et le haut Moyen Age, Bordeaux, 391–401. — (2014a) ‘Les descriptions et évocations d’édifices religieux chrétiens dans l’œuvre de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 379–406. — (2014b) ‘La description du castellum de Nizier dans le carmen 3, 12 de Venance Fortunat: Une retractatio de la description du burgus de Pontius Leontius de Sidoine Apollinaire (carm. 22)’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 465–85. — and A. Stoehr-Monjou (eds) (2016) Studium in libris: Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Louis Charlet, Paris. Hermann, H.J. (1926) Die deutschen romanischen Handschriften: Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der illuminierten Handschriften in Österreich, vol. 2 Die illuminierten Handschriften in Inkunabeln der Nationalbibliothek in Wien, part 2 Die deutschen romanischen Handschriften, Leipzig.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 761

13/02/20 4:39 PM

762

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hernández de la Fuente, D. (ed.) (2011) New Perspectives on Late Antiquity, Newcastle upon Tyne. Hernández Lobato, J. (2006) ‘Estructura interna y articulación semántica del poemario de Sidonio Apolinar: Hacia una nueva interpretación’, Acme 59, 251–60. — (2007) ‘Murex Sidonius: Poder y poesía en el carmen 13 de Sidonio Apolinar’, Acme 60, 53–96. — (2008) ‘Nota a Sidonio Apolinar (carmen 13.19)’, Acme 61, 303–9. — (2010a) ‘Traducir a Sidonio en el siglo XXI: En busca de la experiencia estética tardoantigua’, in P. Cañizares Ferriz (ed.), Traducir a los clásicos, Estudios clásicos 1, 141–50. — (2010b) ‘La aristocracia galorromana ante las migraciones bárbaras del siglo V: La invención del burgundio’, El Futuro del Pasado 1, 365–78. — (2010c) ‘Sterilis Camena: El carmen 9 de Sidonio Apolinar o la muerte de la poesia’, Acme 63, 97–133. — (2010d) ‘La écfrasis de la Catedral de Lyon como híbrido intersistémico: Sidonio Apolinar y el Gesamtkunstwerk tardoantiguo’, AnTard 18, 297–308. — (2011a) ‘Sidonio Apolinar en el Quattrocento’, Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 18, 77–96. — (2011b) ‘La recepción de Sidonio Apolinar en los albores del Humanismo: Petrarca y Salutati como intérpretes y transmisores de la cultura tardoantigua’, Traditio 66, 267–306. — (2012a) Vel Apolline muto: Estética y poética de la Antigüedad Tardía, Bern. — (2012b) ‘Poéticas de lo banal: La literatura tardoantigua como literatura en el campo expandido’, Latomus 71, 133–49. — (2013) ‘El poema In refectorio de Martín de Braga: ¿Un ready-made literario?’, Voces 23–4, 75–92. — (2014a) ‘El carmen 16 de Sidonio Apolinar: Muerte y resurreccion de la poesia’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 407–20. — (2014b) ‘Sidonio Apolinar y Alano de Lille: El revival tardoantiguo de la Escuela de Chartres en el contexto intelectual del siglo XII’, in A. Musco (ed.), Coexistence and Cooperation in the Middle Ages, Palermo, 685–96. — (2014c) El Humanismo que no fue: Sidonio Apolinar en el Renacimiento, Bologna. — (2014d) ‘La polémica humanística sobre la presunta irrisio Ciceronis de Sidonio Apolinar: Historia de un malentendido’, in L. Bertolini et al. (eds), Nel cantiere degli umanisti: Per Mariangela Regoliosi, Florence, 617–30. — (2015) Sidonio Apolinar: Poemas, Madrid. — (2017) ‘To Speak or Not to Speak: The Birth of a “Poetics of Silence” in Late Antique Literature’, in Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017) 278–310. — (2018) ‘Late Antique Foundations of Postmodern Theory: A Critical Overview’, in S. Schottenius Cullhed and M. Malm (eds), Reading Late Antiquity, Heidelberg, 51–70. Hertz, M. (1882) Analecta ad carminum Horatianorum historiam, V, Index Lectionum in Universitate Litterarum Vratislaviensi. Hess, H. (2019) Das Selbstverständnis der gallo-römischen Oberschicht: Übergang, Hybridität und Latenz im historischen Diskursraum von Sidonius Apollinaris bis Gregor von Tours, Berlin. Hexter, R., and R. Townsend (eds) (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Latin Literature, Oxford. Hicks, A. (2012) ‘Martianus Capella and the Liberal Arts’, in Hexter and Townsend (2012) 307–34. Highet, G. (1949) The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman Influences on Western Literature, Oxford. — (1954) Juvenal the Satirist, Oxford. Higounet-Nadal, A. (1983) Histoire du Périgord, Toulouse. Hindermann, J. (2020) ‘At Leisure with Pliny the Younger: Sidonius’ Second Book of the Epistulae as a Book of otium’, JLA 13. –– (forthcoming a) ‘La lettre comme lieu de publication des épigrammes: Les épigrammes dans les épîtres de Sidoine Apollinaire et son modèle Pline le Jeune’, in L. Furbetta and C. Urlacher-Becht (eds), Les ‘lieux’ de l’épigramme latine tardive: Vers un élargissement du genre, RET 8. –– (forthcoming b) ‘Lucubratio (Night Work) and the candelabra as a Symbol of Marriage and Inspiration in Sidonius Apollinaris (ep. 2, 10, 5)’, in H. Harich-Schwarzbauer (ed.), Women and Objects, Iphis: Gender Studies in den Altertumswissenschaften, Trier. Hindley, A., et al. (2000) Old French–English Dictionary, Cambridge.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 762

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

763

Hinds, S. (1998) Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge. Hirschberg, T. (1992) ‘Zu Apollinaris Sidonius, epist. 4, 3, 6’, Hermes 120, 124–7. Hirschfeld, O. (ed.) (1905) Reden und Aufsätze von Theodor Mommsen, Berlin. Hodgkin, T. (1892) ‘The Letters and Poems of Apollinaris Sidonius’, in Italy and her Invaders, vol. 2 (book 3), 2nd edn, Oxford, 297–373. [—] (1901) Selected translations in ‘Caius Sallius [sic] Sidonius Apollinaris: Roman Provincial Life in the Fifth Century’, in H.T. Peck and F.R. Stockton (eds), The World’s Great Masterpieces, vol. 1, New York, 397–402. [—] (1904) Selected translations in N.H. Dole et al. (eds), The Bibliophile Library of Literature, Art and Rare Manuscripts, vol. 4, New York, 1153–62. Hoenigswald, H.M. (1949) ‘A Note on Latin Prosody: Initial S Impure after Short Vowel’, TAPhA 80, 271–80. Hofacker, C. (1903) ‘De clausulis C. Caecili Plini Secundi’, dissertation, Bonn. Hoffer, S.E. (1999) The Anxieties of Pliny the Younger, Atlanta. Hoffmann, D. (1969–70) Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum, Epigraphische Studien 7/1–2, 2 vols, Düsseldorf. Hofmann, H. (1988) ‘Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der nichtchristlichen Epik der lateinischen Spätantike’, Philologus 132, 101–59. Hofmann, J.B., and A. Szantyr (1965) Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, Munich. Holland, R. (1905) Studia Sidoniana, Leipzig. Holland Heller, K., and R. Rebuffat (1987) ‘De Sidoine Apollinaire à l’Odyssée: Les ouvrières du manoir’, MEFRA 99, 339–52. Holtz, L. (1981) Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical: Étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe–IXe siècle) et édition critique, Paris. Hönscheid, C. (2004) Fomenta Campaniae: Ein Kommentar zu Senecas 51., 55. und 56. Brief, Berlin. Horváth, Á. Tóth (1999) ‘Some Aspects of the Roman Empire’s Correspondence in Latin in the A.D. Fourth and Fifth Centuries’, ACD 34–5, 269–77. — (2000) ‘The Education of Sidonius Apollinaris in the Light of his Citations’, ACD 36, 151–62. — (2001) ‘Caius Sollius Modestus Sidonius Apollinaris’, in L. Havas (ed.), Bevezetés az ókortudományba [Introduction to Ancient History], vol. 4, Debrecen, 383–7. — (2002) A Római Birodalom latin nyelvű levelezésének három évszázada [Three Centuries of Latin Correspondence in the Roman Empire], Szeged, 262–7. Hose, M. (2002) ‘Die Kehrseite der Memoria oder Über die Möglichkeiten des Vergessens von Literatur in der Antike’, A&A 48, 2–17. Housman, A.E. (1900) ‘On Apollinaris Sidonius’, CR 14, 54; repr. in Housman (1972) 2, 516. — (1927) ‘Prosody and Method’, CQ 21, 1–12; repr. in Housman (1972) 3, 1114–26. — (1972) The Classical Papers of A.E. Housman, eds J. Diggle and F.R.D. Goodyear, 3 vols, Cambridge. Hughes, I. (2015) Aetius: Attila’s Nemesis, London. Humfress, C. (2014) ‘Law and Legal Culture in the Age of Attila’, in Maas (2014) 125–55. Hunger, H. (1959) Lexikon der griechischen Mythologie, Vienna. Hunt, T. (1979) ‘The Vernacular Entries in the Glossae in Sidonium (MS Oxford, Digby 172)’, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 89, 130–50. Hutchings, L. (2009) ‘Travel and Hospitality in the Time of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 5, 65–74. Hutchinson, G.O. (1995) ‘Rhythm, Style, and Meaning in Cicero’s Prose’, CQ 45, 485–99. — (1998) Cicero’s Correspondence: A Literary Study, Oxford. Huysmans, J.-K. (1977) À rebours [novel], ed. M. Fumaroli, Paris (1st edn 1884). Tr. M. Mauldon (1998) as Against Nature, Oxford. Inglebert, H. (1996) ‘L’histoire de Rome dans l’antiquité tardive: Un concept équivoque’, Latomus 55, 544–67. Inwood, B. (2007) Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters, Oxford.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 763

13/02/20 4:39 PM

764

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Iovine, G. (1985) La chiesa galloromana nel V secolo: Sidonio Apollinare, Naples. Jacotin, A. (1899) Preuves de la maison de Polignac: Recueil de documents pour servir à l’histoire des anciennes provinces, vol. 3, Paris. James, E. (1977) The Merovingian Archaeology of South-West Gaul, Oxford. — (1988) ‘Childéric, Syagrius et la disparition du royaume de Soissons’, Revue Archéologique de Picardie 3–4, 9–12. Janson, T. (1964) Latin Prose Prefaces, Stockholm. — (1975) Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century, Stockholm. Jarausch, K.H., and K.A. Hardy (1991) Quantitative Methods for Historians: A Guide to Research, Data, and Statistics, Chapel Hill. Jay, E. (2004). ‘Charlotte Mary Yonge’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, . Jeep, L. (1876, 1879) Claudii Claudiani carmina, 2 vols, Leipzig. Jenni, U. and M. Theisen (2004) Die illuminierten Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Mitteleuropäische Schulen III (ca. 1350–1400), Vienna. Jeudy, C., and Y.-F. Riou (1989) Les manuscrits classiques latins des bibliothèques publiques de France, vol. 1 Agen–Évreux, Paris. Jolivet, J.-C. (2014) ‘Avitus et les barbares: Nouvel Énée, Éole, roi des oisaux: Quelques remarques sur l’intertexte virgilien dans le carmen 7’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 111–28. — (2015) ‘Aurore et Rome: Topothésie ovidienne et chorographie virgilienne dans le Panégyrique d’Anthémius de Sidoine Apollinaire (Carmen II)’, in S. Clément-Tarantino and F. Klein (eds), La représentation du ‘couple’ Virgile–Ovide dans la tradition culturelle de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Lille, 155–76. — et al. (eds) (2010) L’étude des correspondances dans le monde romain: De l’antiquité classique à l’antiquité tardive: Permanences et mutations, Lille. Jones, A.E. (2009) Social Mobility in Late Antique Gaul: Strategies and Opportunities for the Non-Elite, Cambridge. Jordan, L., and S. Wool (eds) (1986) Inventory of Western Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, vol. 2 C–D superior, Notre Dame. Jullian, C. (1905) ‘L’origine de Bayonne’, REA 7, 147–54. Kalff, A.W. (1938) Ps.-Hieronymi: De septem ordinibus ecclesiae, Würzburg. Karataş, S. (2019) ‘The Integration of domi nobiles at Rome. A Case Study’, in K.-J. Hölkeskamp and S. Karataş (eds.), Empire, Hegemony, or Anarchy: Rome and Italy, 201–31 BCE, Stuttgart, 221–36. Karsavin, L.P. (1908) Из истории духовной культуры падающей Римской империи: Политические взгляды Сидония [From the History of the Intellectual Culture of the End of the Roman Empire: Sidonius’ Political Views], St Petersburg. — (1911) ‘Магнаты конца Римской империи: Быт и религия’ [Magnates of the End of the Roman Empire: Life and Religion], in К 25-летию ученой и педагогической деятельности И. М. Гревса: Сб. статей его учеников [To the 25th Anniversary of the Scientific and Pedagogical Activity of I.M. Grevs: A Collection of Articles by his Students], St Petersburg. Kaster, R.A. (1988) Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, Berkeley. — (2010) Studies on the text of Macrobius’ Saturnalia, New York. — (2014) ‘The Transmission of Suetonius’ Caesars in the Middle Ages’, TAPhA 144, 133–86. Kaufmann, F.-M. (1995) Studien zu Sidonius Apollinaris, Frankfurt. Kaufmann, H. (2015) ‘Papinius noster: Statius in Roman Late Antiquity’, in W.J. Dominik et al. (eds), Brill’s Companion to Statius, Leiden, 481–96. — (2017) ‘Intertextuality in Late Latin Poetry’, in Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017) 149–75. Kay, N.M. (2001) Ausonius: Epigrams, London. Keaveney, A. (1995) ‘Sulla’s Cilician Command: The Evidence of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Historia 44, 29-36. Keener, J.F. (2001) Biography and the Postmodern Historical Novel, Lewiston. Kelly, C. (2015) ‘Pliny and Pacatus: Past and Present in Imperial Panegyric’, in J. Wienand (ed.), Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, Oxford, 215–38.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 764

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

765

Kelly, G. (2008) Ammianus Marcellinus, the Allusive Historian, Cambridge. — (2012) ‘Claudian and Constantinople’, in Grig and Kelly (2012) 241–64. — (2013a) ‘Pliny and Symmachus’, in Gibson and Rees (2013) 261–87. — (2013b) ‘Sidonius and Claudian’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 171–91. — (2013c) ‘The Political Crisis of AD 375–376’, Chiron 43, 357–409. — (2016a) ‘Claudian’s Last Panegyrics and Imperial Visits to Rome’, CQ 66, 336–57. — (2016b) ‘The First Book of Symmachus’ Correspondence as a Separate Collection’, in P.F. Moretti et al. (eds), Culture and Literature in Latin Late Antiquity: Continuities and Discontinuities, Turnhout, 197–220. — (2016c) ‘Vichy and the Visigoths: Sidonius in Occupied France’ [blogpost], . — (2018) ‘Erasing Victor: Sidonius, Manuscripts, and Prosopography’ [blogpost], . — (forthcoming) ‘Two Prosopographical Notes on Sidonius’ Panegyrics’. — and A. Pelttari (eds) (forthcoming) The Cambridge History of Later Latin Literature, Cambridge. Kennedy, S. (2019) ‘Winter is Coming: The Barbarization of Roman Leaders in Imperial Panegyric from A.D. 446–68’, CQ, . Ketelaer, N., and G. van Leempt (1473/4), editio princeps, Utrecht. Kirsch, W. (1988) ‘Die Umstrukturierung des lateinischen Literatursystems im Zeichen der Krise des 3. Jahrhunderts’, Philologus 132, 2–18. Kirstein, R. (2000) Paulinus Nolanus: Carmen 17, Basel. Klauck, H.-J. (1998) Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch, Paderborn (= (2006) Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis, Waco). Klotz, A. (1923) ‘Sidonius I’, RE II.A, cols 2230–8. Köhler, H. (1995) C. Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius Briefe Buch I: Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Heidelberg (indexes in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 305–51). — (1998) ‘“Der Geist ist offenbar im Buch wie das Antlitz im Spiegel”: Zu Sidonius epist. I 2, III 13, VII 1’, in M. Baumbach et al. (eds), Mousopolos Stephanos: Festschrift für Herwig Görgemanns, Heidelberg, 333–45. — (1999) ‘Der historische Infinitiv in den Briefen des Sidonius’, in H. Petersmann and R. Kettemann (eds), Latin vulgaire - latin tardif 5, Heidelberg, 409–18. — (2013) ‘Sidonius in German-Speaking Countries’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 37–46. — (2014) C. Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius: Die Briefe, Stuttgart. — (2015) Review of Santelia (2012), Gnomon 87, 124–7. Kon’kov, D.S. (2016a) ‘“At nostra longe condicio dispar”: Элементы суггестии в письме Сидония Аполлинария’ [At nostra longe condicio dispar: Elements of Suggestion in a Letter by Sidonius Apollinaris], Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета [Novosibirsk State University Journal] 15.1, 28–38. — (2016b) ‘Нужна ли идентичность истории: К критике концепции идентичности’ [Does History Need Identity? Towards a Critique of The Concept of Identity], Вестник Томского государственного университета [Tomsk State University Journal] 409, 79–84. Konstan, D. (2004) ‘The Birth of the Reader: Plutarch as a Literary Critic’, Scholia 13, 3–27. Koptev, A. (2004) ‘The Raptor and the Disgraced Girl in Sidonius Apollinaris’ Epistula V 19’, Ancient Society 34, 275–304. Koskenniemi, H. (1956) Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr., Helsinki. Koster, S. (1988) ‘Princeps und poeta in Lyon (Sidon. carm. 3; 4; 13)’, in U. Kindermann et al. (eds), Festschrift für Paul Klopsch, Göppingen, 293–307. Kraemer, M. (1909) ‘Res libraria cadentis antiquitatis Ausoniii et Apollinaris Sidonii exemplis illustratur’, dissertation, Marburg. Krasser, H. (1995) ‘Entwicklungen der römischen Lesekultur in trajanischer Zeit’, in B. Kühnert et al. (eds), Prinzipat und Kultur im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert, Bonn, 79–89. Kraus, F.F. (1928) Die Münzen Odovacars und des Ostgotenreiches in Italien, Halle.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 765

13/02/20 4:39 PM

766

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kretschmann, H. (1870–2) De latinitate G. Solli Apollinaris Sidoni, 2 vols, Memel. Kroll, W. (1924) ‘Die Kreuzung der Gattungen’, in Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur, Stuttgart, 202–24. Kröner, H.-O. (1989) ‘Q. Symmachi rotunditas, C. Plinii disciplina maturitasque’, Actas del VII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos 2, 639–52. Krueger, C.L. (2003) Encyclopedia of British Writers, New York. Krusch, B. (1887) Ruricius: Epistulae, MGH AA 8, Berlin, 299–350. — (1896) ‘Hincmar of Reims, Vita Remigii episcopi Remensis’, in Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici et antiquiorum aliquot, vol. 1, MGH SRM 3, Hanover, 239–341. Kudryavtsev, P.N. (1881) ‘О сочинении С. В. Ешевского Аполлинарий Сидоний’ [About S.V. Eshevskiı˘’s publication Sidonius Apollinaris], in P.N. Kudryavtsev, Собрание сочинений [Collected Works], Moscow, vol. 1, 239–302. Kulikowski, M.E. (2000) ‘Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain’, Britannia 31, 325–45. — (2001) ‘Visigothic Settlement in Aquitania: The Imperial Perspective’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2001) 26–38. — (2002) ‘Marcellinus of Dalmatia and the Fall of the Western Empire’, Byzantion 72, 177–91. — (2004) Late Roman Spain and its Cities, Baltimore. — (2008) ‘Carmen VII of Sidonius and a Hitherto Unknown Gallic Civil War’, JLA 1, 335–52. — (2012) ‘The Western Kingdoms’, in S. Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Oxford, 31–59. — (2013) ‘Sundered Aristocracies, New Kingdoms, and the End of the Western Empire’, in Diefenbach and Müller (2013) 79–90. — (2014) ‘The Failure of Roman Arms’, in Lipps et al. (2014) 77–83. — (2015) ‘Regional Dynasties and Imperial Court’, in J. Wienand (ed.), Contested Monarchies: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, New York, 135–48. — (2019) Imperial Tragedy: From Constantine to the Destruction of Roman Italy AD 363–568, London. Küppers, J. (2005) ‘Autobiographisches in den Briefen des Apollinaris Sidonius’, in M. Reichel (ed.), Antike Autobiographien: Werke - Epochen - Gattungen, Cologne, 251–77. La Penna, A. (1995a) ‘Gli svaghi letterari della nobiltà gallica nella tarda antichità: Il caso di Sidonio Apollinare’, Maia 47, 3–34. — (1995b) ‘Il poeta e retore Lampridio: Un ritratto di Sidonio Apollinare’, Maia 47, 211–24. — (1995c) ‘Flavus/fulvus: Un dubbio su Sidonio Apollinare, carm. 22, 178’, Maia 47, 225–7. La Ville de Mirmont, H. de (1909) ‘L’astrologie chez les Gallo-Romains’, REA 11, 301–46. Labadie, E. (1909) Bibliographie historique d’Élie Vinet, Principal du Collège de Guyenne à Bordeaux au XVIe siècle, Bordeaux, . Labrousse, M. (1969) Toulouse antique, Paris. Laffitte, M.-P. (2014) ‘Inventaires de bibliothèques normandes: L’intérêt des listes tardives’, Tabularia 14, 89–150. Landfester, M. (2006–11) Brill’s New Pauly, Classical Tradition, 6 vols, Leiden, . Langhammer, W. (1973) Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus Municipales und der Decuriones in der Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwaltenden Gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen des spätantiken Zwangsstaates (1.-4. Jahrhundert der römischen Kaiserzeit), Wiesbaden. Laty¯shev, V.V. (1906) ‘Аполлинарий Сидоний. Письма. (Отрывки). - 2 стихотворения. Панегирики. (Отрывки)’ [Sidonius Apollinaris: Letters (Fragments). Two Poems. Panegyrics (Fragments)], Scythica et Caucasica 2.2, 418–26. Laudizi, G. (2000) Lettere a Lucilio, Libro XV: Le lettere 94 e 95, Brescia. Laurand, L. (1936) Étude sur le style des discours de Cicéron, 3 vols, 4th edn, Paris. Lausberg, M. (1982) Das Einzeldistichon: Studien zum antiken Epigramm, Munich. Lauxerois, R. (1985) Alba: De la cité gallo-romaine au village, Paris. Le Bourdellès, H. (1984) ‘Le problème linguistique dans l’affaire du Vicus Helena’, Revue du Nord 66, 351–9.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 766

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

767

Le concile de Clermont de 1095 et l’appel à la croisade (1997), Actes du colloque universitaire international de Clermont-Ferrand (23–28 juin 1995), Collection de l’école française de Rome 236, Paris. Le Guillou, J. (2002) Sidoine Apollinaire: L’Auvergne et son temps, Mémoires de la Société ‘La HauteAuvergne’ 8, Aurillac. Leach, E. (2006) ‘An gravius aliquid scribam: Roman seniores Write to iuvenes’, TAPhA 136, 247–67. Leatherbury, S.V. (2017) ‘Writing (and Reading) Silver with Sidonius: The Material Contexts of Late Antique Texts’, Word & Image 33, 35–56. Lefèvre, E. (2009a) Vom Römertum zum Ästhetizismus: Studien zu den Briefen des jüngeren Plinius, Berlin. — (2009b) ‘Der Lebensraum des Ästheten‘, in Lefèvre (2009a) 223–72. Légier Desgranges, H. (1937) Les Apollinaires: Histoire d’une famille gallo-romaine pendant trois siècles, Paris. Lemaître, J. (1886) ‘J.-K. Huysmans’, in Les Contemporains: Études et portraits littéraires. Première série, Paris, 311–35, . Lepelley, C. (1983a) ‘Quot curiales, tot tyranni: L’image du décurion oppresseur au bas-empire’, in E. Frézouls (ed.), Crise et redressement dans les provinces européennes de l’empire, Strasbourg, 143–56. — (1983b) ‘Liberté, colonat et esclavage d’après la lettre 24*: La juridiction épiscopale de liberali causa’, in Les lettres de saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak, Paris, 329–42. Leppin, H. (ed.) (2015) Antike Mythologie in christlichen Kontexten der Spätantike, Berlin. Lestringant, F. (2003) Sous la leçon des vents: Le monde d’André Thevet, cosmographe de la Renaissance, Paris. Levêque, L. (1898) Un essai d’explication des traditions provençales, Aix. Leyser, C. (1999) ‘“This Sainted Isle”: Panegyric, Nostalgia, and the Invention of a “Lerinian Monasticism”’, in W. Klingshirn and M. Vessey (eds), The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R.A. Markus, Ann Arbor, 188–206. Lewis, C.T. (1890) An Elementary Latin Dictionary, New York. Lida de Malkiel, M.R. (1940) ‘Notas para la interpretación, influencia, fuentes y texto del Libro de buen amor’, Revista de Filología Hispánica 2, 105–50. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. (2005) Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, Liverpool. — (2015a) East and West in Late Antiquity: Invasion, Settlement, Ethnogenesis and Conflicts of Religion, Leiden. — (2015b) ‘Barbarians and Taxes’, in Liebeschuetz (2015a) 67–190 (= G.P. Brogiolo and A. Chavarría Arnau (eds), Archeologica e Società tra Tardo Antico e Alto Medioevo, Mantua (2007) 71–84). — (2015c) ‘Goths and Romans in the Leges Visigothorum’, in Liebeschuetz (2015a) 202–17 (= G. de Kleijn and S. Benoist (eds), Integration in Rome and the Roman World, Leiden (2014) 89–104). — (2015d) ‘Letters of Ambose of Milan (374–97), Books I–IX’, in Neil and Allen (2015) 97–112. Liebs, D. (1998) ‘Die Juristenwelt bei Sidonius Apollinaris: Römische Juristen 420 bis 500 n. Chr. im südlichen Gallien’, in M. Humbert and Y. Thomas (eds), Mélanges de droit romain et d’histoire ancienne: Hommage à la mémoire de André Magdelain, Paris, 259–73. Lindsay, W.M. (1911) Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX, 2 vols, Oxford. Lipkin, J., and B. Lipkin-Sacks (1978) ‘Data Base Development and Analysis for the Social Historian: The Educational Status of the Beneficed Clergy of the Diocese of Hereford, 1289-1539’, Computers and the Humanities 12, 113-26. Lipps, J., et al. (eds) (2014) The Sack of Rome in 410 AD: The Event, its Context and its Impact, Rome. Litovchenko, E.V. (2007a) ‘К образу Аполлинария Сидония: Человек поздней античности’ [Towards a Portrait of Sidonius Apollinaris: A Man of Late Antiquity], Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История, политология, экономика [Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series: History, Political Science, Economy] 2.3, 30–8. — (2007b) ‘Элементы классической традиции в произведениях Авзония и Сидония: К истории ментальности позднеантичного времени’ [Elements of the Classical Tradition in the Works of Ausonius and Sidonius: Towards a History of Late Antique Mentality], Мир Византии: материалы Междунар. науч. семинара [The World of Byzantium: Materials of the International Scientific Seminar], Belgorod, 6–14.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 767

13/02/20 4:39 PM

768

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2007c) ‘Классическая традиция в трудах позднеримских интеллектуалов (конец IV–начало VI вв.)’ [The Classical Tradition in the Works of Late Roman Intellectuals (End Fourth–Beginning Fifth Century)], dissertation, Tula. — (2008) ‘Система средств трансляции классической традиции в позднеримской литературе (по произведениям Сидония Аполлинария)’ [The System of the Means of Transmission of the Classical Tradition in Late Roman Literature (According to Sidonius’ Works)], in N.V. Sokol’skaya (ed.), Гуманитарные науки: сборник научных трудов [The Humanities: A Collection of Scientific Papers], Belgorod, 16, 138–49. — (2009a) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий: Духовное лицо или государственный деятель? (по письмам Сидония, галльского аристократа V в. н.э.)’ [Sidonius Apollinaris: A Clergyman or a Politician? (According to the Letters of Sidonius, a Fifth-Century Gallic Aristocrat)], in V.N. Glaz’ev (ed.), Государство и его подданные: века сотрудничества и противостояния: Материалы Третьей региональной научной конференции (г. Воронеж, 3 февраля 2009 [The State and Its Subjects: Centuries of Cooperation

and Confrontation: Materials of the Third Regional Scientific Conference (Voronezh, 3 February 2009)], Voronezh, 200–4. — (2009b) ‘Динамика отражения классической традиции в трудах Сидония и Фульгенция’ [The Dynamics of the Reflection of the Classical Tradition in the Works of Sidonius and Fulgentius], Iсторична наука на початку XXI столiття: проблеми, перспективи. Матерiали III та IV Мiжнародноi конференцii молодих науковцiв [Historical Science on the Brink of the 21st Century: Problems and Perspectives. Materials of the Third and Fourth Conferences of Young Scholars], Kherson, 90–4. — (2009c) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий. Письма. I, 1 (перевод с лат.)’ [Sidonius Apollinaris. Letters I.1 (Translation from the Latin)], Классическая и византийская традиция: материалы III Международного научного семинара [Classical and Byzantine Tradition: Materials of the Third International Scientific Seminar], Belgorod, 225. — (2011) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий. Письма (I.1; II.8; IV.12). Перевод’ [Sidonius Apollinaris. Letters I.1; II.8; IV.12. Translation], Классическая и византийская традиция [Classical and Byzantine Tradition], Belgorod, 200–3. — (2012a) ‘Римская вилла позднеантичного времени (по данным Сидония Аполлинария)’ [A Roman Villa from Late Antiquity (According to Sidonius Apollinaris)], Гендер, права человека, историческое знание: актуальные проблемы и перспективы исследований: Cборник статей и тезисов докладов I Всероссийской научной конференции с международным участием. Май 2012 [Gender, Human

Rights, Historical Knowledge: Actual Problems and Prospects of Research: A Collection of Articles and Abstracts of the First All-Russian Scientific Conference with International Participation. May 2012], Lipetsk, 28–31. — (2012b) ‘Письма Сидония и жизнь позднеантичного общества’ [Sidonius’ Letters and the Life of Late Antique Society], Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История, политология, экономика [Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series: History, Political Science, Economy] 22.7, 69–73. — (2012c) ‘Основные подходы к интерпретации письменного наследия Сидония Аполлинария (V в. н.э.)’ [Basic Approaches to the Interpretation of the Written Legacy of Sidonius Apollinaris (Fifth Century CE)], in A.Yu. Koty ¯lev and A.A. Pavlov (eds), Историческое произведение как феномен культуры: материалы VII Международной научной конференции (Сыктывкар, 19 октября 2012 г.) [Historical Work as a Cultural Phenomenon: Materials of the Seventh International Scientific Conference (Sy¯kty¯ vkar, 19 October 2012)], Sy¯kty¯ vkar, 7, 19–28. — (2012d) ‘К вопросу о “понимании и интерпретации” сочинений Сидония Аполлинария (V в. н.э.)’ [On the Issue of ‘Understanding and Interpreting’ Sidonius Apollinaris’ Works (Fifth Century CE)], Проблемы истории и археологии Украины: материалы VIII Международной научной конференции (Харьков, 9–10 ноября 2012 г.) [Problems of History and Archaeology of Ukraine: Materials of the Eighth International Scientific Conference (Khar’kov, 9–10 November 2012), Khar’kov, 54.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 768

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

769

— (2014) ‘Письма Сидония как образцы эпистолярного жанра в позднеримской литературе Письма Гауденцию и Фелицию’ [Sidonius’ Letters as Examples of the Epistolary Genre in Late Roman Literature: The Letters to Gaudentius and to Felix], Cursor Mundi, Ivanovo, 6, 6–16. — (2015a) ‘Особенности клиентских отношений в позднеантичный период (по письмам Сидония)’ [Features of Client Relationships in Late Antiquity (Based on the Letters of Sidonius)], ИРЕСИОНА. Выпуск IV: сборник научных трудов к 50-летию проф. Н.Н. Болгов [Iresiona vol. 4: A Collection of Scientific Works for the 50th Anniversary of Prof. N.N. Bolgov], Belgorod, 158–64. — (2015b) ‘Феномен галло-римского патриотизма на закате Римской империи’ [The Phenomenon of Gallo-Roman Patriotism During the Decline of the Roman Empire], Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История, политология [Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series: History, Political Science] 19.36, 30–8. — (2016a) ‘Некоторые персонажи “Константинова века” в послании Сидония (письмо Секундину, 477 г.)’ [Some Characters from the ‘Age of Constantine’ in a Letter by Sidonius (Letter to Secundinus, 477 CE)], in M.V. Gratsianskiı˘ and P.V. Kuzenkov (eds), Империя ромеев во времени и пространстве: Центр и периферия. Тезисы докладов XXI Всероссийской научной сессии византинистов [The Roman Empire in Time and Space: Center and Periphery. Abstracts of the Twenty-First All-Russian Byzantinists Scientific Session], Belgorod, 123–5. — (2016b) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий: Послание Симплицию и Аполлинарию (472 г.)’ [Sidonius Apollinaris: The Letter to Simplicius and Apollinaris (472 CE)], ИРЕСИОНА. Выпуск V. К 30-летию кафедры всеобщей истории НИУ ‘БелГУ’ [Iresiona vol. 5: To the 30th Anniversary of the Department of World History of Belgorod State University], Belgorod, 66–9. — (2016c) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий: Послание Турну’ [Sidonius Apollinaris: The Letter to Turnus], Зборник Радова Филозофског факултета Универзитета у Приштини [Proceedings of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Prishtina], 46.2, 479–92. — (2016d) ‘К вопросу о свадебной церемонии в письмах Сидония: Некоторые аспекты ритуала’ [On the Issue of the Wedding Ceremony in Sidonius’ Letters: Some Aspects of the Ritual], Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История, политология [Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series: History, Political Science], Belgorod, 22.40, 56–61. — (2017) ‘Эпизод из жизни галло-римского общества V в. н.э. (послание Сидония Аполлинария Монцию, 461 г.)’ [An Episode from the Life of Gallo-Roman Society in the Fifth Century (Sidonius Apollinaris’ Letter to Montius, 461 CE)], Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История, политология [Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series: History, Political Science], Belgorod, 15.43, 33–8. Lizzi Testa, R. (2003) ‘Un’epistola speciale: Il commonitorium’, in F.E. Consolino (ed.), Forme letterarie nella produzione latina di IV–V secolo, Rome, 53–89. Löfstedt, E. (1936) Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Lateinischen Sprache, Uppsala. Lombard, A. (1913) L’abbé Du Bos, un initiateur de la pensée moderne (1670–1742), Paris. Longobardi, C. (2010) ‘Strofe saffica e innologia: L’apprendimento dei metri nella scuola cristiana’, Paideia 65, 371–9. — (2011) ‘Il corpus pseudoacroniano e la rinnovata fortuna dei metri di Orazio’, in L. Cristante and S. Ravalico (eds), Il calamo della memoria: Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità 4, Trieste, 247–60. — (2014) ‘Il memoratus, la dimensione scritta del ricordo’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 195–203. López Kindler, A. (2003) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris, Mitläufer im spätrömischen Gärungsprozess oder Zeuge des Glaubens?’, in M.P. García Ruiz et al. (eds), Urbs aeterna: Actas y colaboraciones del Coloquio Internacional ‘Roma entre la Literatura y la Historia’, homenaje a la profesora Carmen Castillo, Pamplona, 835–52. — (2005) Sidonio Apolinar: Poemas, Madrid.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 769

13/02/20 4:39 PM

770

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2006) Sidonio Apolinar: Poemas selectos, Pamplona. Łoś, J.S. (1958) ‘Sidonius’ Biography’, in Sylwetki rzymskie [Roman Silhouettes], Warsaw, 219–32. Loseby, S. (1992) ‘Marseille: A Late Antique Success Story’, JRS 82, 165–85. — (2006) ‘Decline and Change in the Cities of Late Antique Gaul’, in: J.-U. Krause and C. Witschel (eds), Die Stadt in der Spätantike: Niedergang oder Wandel?, Stuttgart, 67–104. Lot, F. (1929) ‘La Vita Viviani et la domination wisigothique en Aquitaine’, in Mélanges Paul Fournier, Paris, 467–77. Loth, Y. (1986) Tracés d’itinéraires en Gaule romaine (milieu Ve siècle), Dammairie-les-Lys. Lotter, F. (1970) ‘Inlustrissimus vir Severinus’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 26, 200–7. — (1971) ‘Zu den Anredeformen und ehrenden Epitheta der Bischöfe in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 27, 514–17. — (1973) ‘Designation und angebliches Kooptationsrecht bei Bischofserhebungen’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 59, 112-50. Loyen, A. (1933a) ‘L’Albis chez Claudien et chez Sidoine Apollinaire’, REL 11, 203–11. — (1933b) ‘Qu’est-ce que l’Albis?’, REL 11, 322–4. — (1937) Review of Anderson (1936), REL 15, 392–96. — (1942) Recherches historiques sur les panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire, Paris (repr. Rome, 1967). — (1943) Sidoine Apollinaire et l’esprit précieux en Gaule aux derniers jours de l’empire, Paris. — (1944) ‘À la recherche du Vicus Helena’, REA 46, 121–34. — (1956) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et les derniers éclats de la culture classique dans la Gaule occupée par les Goths’, in I Goti in Occidente, Spoleto, 265–84. — (1960, 1970) Sidoine Apollinaire, 3 vols: vol. 1 Poèmes; vol. 2 Lettres 1–5; vol. 3 Lettres 6–9, Paris. — (1968) ‘Études sur Sidoine Apollinaire’, REL 27, 83–90. — (1969) ‘Le rôle de saint Aignan dans la défense d’Orléans’, Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 64–74. Lucarini, C.M. (2002) ‘Congetture a Sidonio Apollinare e al “Carmen adv. Marcionitas”’, SCO 48, 378–92. Luce, T.J. (1997) The Greek Historians, London. Luceri, A. (2012) ‘I nuovi confini del genere: L’epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare’, in Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 7 (I Testi; 2 Prosa), Rome, 584–95. Lucht, B. (2011) Gastfreundschaft und Landleben bei Sidonius Apollinaris am Beispiel von epist. 2,9 (an Donidius), Berlin. Ludolph, M. (1997) Epistolographie und Selbstdarstellung: Untersuchungen zu den ‘Paradebriefen’ Plinius des Jüngeren, Tübingen. Luiselli, B. (1966) ‘Metrica della tarda latinità: I salmi di Agostino e Fulgenzio e la versificazione trocaica’, QUCC 1, 29–91. — (1982–7) ‘Forme versificatorie e destinazione popolare in Ilario, Ambrogio e Agostino’, Helikon 22–7, 61–74. Luque Moreno, J. (1994) El dístico elegíaco: Lecciones de metrica latina, Madrid. Lütjohann, C. (1887) Gai Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii epistulae et carmina, MGH AA 8, Berlin. Lütkenhaus, W. (1998) Constantius III: Studien zu seiner Tätigkeit und Stellung im Westreich 411–421, Bonn. Lutz, C.E. (1939) John the Scot: Annotationes in Marcianum, Cambridge, MA. Luzio, A. (1887) I precettori di Isabella d’Este, Ancona. Maas, M. (ed.) (2014) The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila, Cambridge. MacBain, B. (1983) ‘Odovacer the Hun?’, CPh 78, 323-7. MacCormack, S. (1972) ‘Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of aduentus’, Historia 21, 721–52. — (1976) ‘Latin Prose Panegyrics: Tradition and Discontinuity in the Later Roman Empire’, REAug 22, 29–77. — (1981) Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 770

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

771

Macé, A. (1933) ‘Qu’est-ce que l’Albis?’, REL 11, 321–2. MacGeorge, P. (2002) Late Roman Warlords, New York. Mackie, C.J. (1997) ‘Achilles’ Teachers: Chiron and Phoenix in the Iliad’, Greece & Rome 44, 1–10. MacKinlay, A.P. (1951) Aratoris subdiaconi De actibus apostolorum, Vienna. Malaspina, E. (2002) ‘Il “lusus” poetico nella Gallia subromana’, in E. Lelli (ed.), Arma virumque: Studi di poesia e storiografia in onore di L. Canali, Pisa, 197–233. — and M. Reydellet (2016) Avit: Lettres, Paris. Malherbe, A.J. (1988) Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Atlanta. Mamina, O.N. (1984) ‘Понятия negotium и otium в сочинениях Сидония Аполлинария’ [The Concepts of negotium and otium in Sidonius Apollinaris’ Works], in Античная и средневековая идеология: Античная древность и средние века [Ancient and Medieval Ideology: Antiquity and the Middle Ages], Sverdlovsk, 66–79. — (1989) ‘Идеология и социальная психология галло-римского нобилитета V в. н.э.: Мировоззрение Сидония Аполлинария’ [Ideology and Social Psychology of the Gallo-Roman Nobility in the Fifth Century CE: Sidonius Apollinaris’ Worldview], dissertation, Sverdlovsk, Manfredi, A. (1994) I codici latini di Niccolò V: Edizione degli inventari e identificazione dei manoscritti, Vatican City. Manitius, M. (1923) Geschichte der Lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, vol. 2 Von der Mitte des zehnten Jahrhunderts bis zum Ausbruch des Kampfes zwischen Kirche und Staat, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Abt. IX, Band 2.2, Munich. — (1931) Geschichte der Lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, vol. 3 Vom Ausbruch des Kirchenstreites bis zum Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Abt. IX, Band 2.3, Munich. — (1935) Handschriften Antiker Autoren in Mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen, Leipzig. Mannheimer, I. (1975) Sprachliche Beziehungen zwischen Alt- und Spätlatein, Zurich. Manukyan, É.M. (2014a) ‘Политик в мантии: Сидоний Аполлинарий, К вопросу о роли епископов в ”битве за Клермон” (471–475 гг.)’ [A Politician in the Robe: Sidonius Apollinaris, On the Issue of the Role of the Bishop in the ‘Battle of Clermont’ (471–475 CE)], Классическая и византийская традиция. Материалы VIII международной научной конференции [Classical and Byzantine Tradition. Materials of the Eighth International Scientific Conference], Belgorod, 132–7. — (2014b) ‘К вопросу о выборе епископа в Галлии V века: Критерии, мотивации, цели (на примере выборов в Бурже ок. 471 г.)’ [On the Problem of Episcopal Elections in Fifth-Century Gaul: Criteria, Motivations, Goals (Taking as an Example the Election in Bourges c. 471)], in A.Yu. Prokop’ev (ed.), Проблемы истории и культуры средневекового общества. Тезисы докладов XXXIII всероссийской конференции студентов, аспирантов и молодых ученых ‘Курбатовские чтения’ [Historical and Cultural Problems of Medieval Society. Abstracts of the Twenty-Third AllRussian Conference of Students, Postgraduates, and Young Scientists ‘Kurbatov Readings’], St Petersburg. — (2014c) ‘Переписка Сидония Аполлинария и Лупа Труаского’ [The Correspondence of Sidonius Apollinaris and Lupus of Troyes], Cursor Mundi 6, 17–33. — (2015) ‘Episcopus bonus: Эпистолярная репрезентация образа у Сидония Аполлинария’ [Episcopus bonus: Epistolary Self-Presentation in Sidonius Apollinaris], Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История, политология [Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series: History, Political Science] 7.34, 58–64. — (2016a) ‘Eще раз о переписке Cидония и Лупа (Вступительный комментарий к письмам VI.9 и IX.11)’ [The Correspondence of Sidonius and Lupus Revisited (Introductory Commentary to Letters VI.9 and IX.11)], Cursor Mundi 8, 8–21. — (2016b) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий и Луп Труаский: Эпизод из истории взаимоотношений представителей церковной аристократии Галлии V века’ [Sidonius Apollinaris and Lupus of Troyes: An Episode from the History of the Relations Between Members of the Church Aristocracy in Fifth-Century Gaul], in A.Yu. Prokop’ev (ed.), Проблемы истории и культуры средневекового общества. Материалы XXXIV всероссийской научной конференции ‘Курбатовские чтения’ (25–28 ноября 2014 года) [Historical and

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 771

13/02/20 4:39 PM

772

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cultural Problems of Medieval Society. Materials of the Thirty-Fourth All-Russian Scientific Conference ‘Kurbatov Readings’, 25–28 November 2014], St Petersburg, 191–7. — (2018) ‘Род Аполлинариев и социокультурные стратегии галло-римской аристократической фамилии в IV-V вв.’ [The gens Apollinaris and the Socio-Cultural Strategies of a Gallo-Roman Aristocratic Family in the 4th-5th Centuries], Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История. Политология [Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. Series: History, Political Science] 45.3, 415–26. Marcel, J. (1989) Hypatie ou La fin des dieux [novel], Montreal. — (1990) Jêrome ou De la traduction [novel], Montreal. — (1993) Sidoine ou La dernière fête [novel], Montreal. Marchei, M.C., and B. Pettinau (1989) ‘Bibliografia ragionata: Risultati e problemi degli studi sui marmi antichi’, in Borghini (1989) 117–30. Marchesi, I. (2008) The Art of Pliny’s Letters: A Poetics of Allusion in the Private Correspondence, Cambridge. Marchetta, A. (1987) Orosio e Ataulfo nell’ideologia dei rapporti romano-barbarici, Rome. Marchiaro, M. (2009) ‘Un manoscritto di Sidonio Apollinare postillato da Giovanni Pico della Mirandola e da Pietro Crinito’, Medioevo e Rinascimento 20, 279–89. — (2013) La biblioteca di Pietro Crinito: Manoscritti e libri a stampa dalla raccolta di un umanista fiorentino, Santa Maria da Feira. Mare, M., and A.C. Percival (1948) Victorian Best-Seller: The World of Charlotte M. Yonge, London. Margolin, J.C., and P. Mesnard (1973) Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi, vol. I.4, Amsterdam. Marina Sáez, R. (2003) ‘Notas sobre la estructura métrico-verbal del final del pentámetro latino tardío’, Latomus 62, 648–63. Marrou, H.-I. (1970) ‘Le dossier épigraphique de l’évêque Rusticus de Narbonne’, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 3-4, 331-49. Martindale, C. (1993) Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, Cambridge. — and R.F. Thomas (eds) (2006) Classics and the Uses of Reception, Oxford. Martindale, J.R. (1971, 1980) The Prosopography of the Late Roman Empire, vol. 1 A.D. 160–395; vol. 2 A.D. 395–527, Cambridge. Mascoli, P. (2000) ‘Personaggi femminili in Sidonio Apollinare’, InvLuc 22, 89–107. — (2001) ‘Gli Apollinari e l’eredità di una cultura’, InvLuc 23, 131–45. — (2002) ‘Un nobile galloromano: Apollinare il Vecchio’, AFLB 45, 3–16. — (2003a) ‘Gli ultimi difensori della civiltà galloromana: Il padre di Sidonio Apollinare e i suoi contemporanei’, AFLB 46, 297–308. — (2003b) ‘L’elogio funebre di Filomazia (Sidon. epist. 2, 8)’, InvLuc 25, 153–67. — (2004a) ‘Sulle opere perdute di Sidonio Apollinare’, AFLB 47, 187–98. — (2004b) ‘Per una ricostruzione del Fortleben di Sidonio Apollinare’, InvLuc 26, 165–83. — (2010) Gli Apollinari: Per la storia di una famiglia tardoantica, Quaderni di InvLuc 39, Bari. — (2012) ‘Tracce di Persio in Sidonio Apollinare’, Classica et Christiana 7, 183–92. — (2013) ‘Gli Apollinari: Una famiglia dell’aristocrazia galloromana’, Classica et Christiana 8, 199–214. — (2014a) ‘Multum est quod debemus et matribus: Le donne della famiglia degli Apollinari’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 33–9 (= Classica et Christiana 9 (2014) 175–83). — (2014b) ‘Sidon. epist. 4,12,1–2: La ruminatio, da forma di socializzazione ad intima riflessione sul sapere’, InvLuc 35–6, 137–45. — (2015) ‘Come estorcere un elogio: Una schermaglia epistolare tra Claudiano Mamerto e Sidonio Apollinare’, VetChr 52, 231–40. — (2016a) Amici di penna: Dall’epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare, Bari. — (2016b) ‘Per chiudere in bellezza: Giochi di parole tra retorica e storia nell’epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare’, VetChr 53, 21–9. — (2016c) ‘Sidonio marito e vescovo: Matrimonio e interesse nella Gallia del V secolo’, Classica et Christiana 11, 193–9. — (2017) ‘Per una biografia di Apollinare il Giovane’, Classica et Christiana 12, 197–212.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 772

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

773

Mastandrea, P. (2008) ‘“Ennius ohne Vergilius”: Lasciti degli Annales nell’epica imperiale, tarda e cristiana’, Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica 7, 83–101. — (2014) Review of van Waarden and Kelly (2013), Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2014.05.42. Mastrorosa, I. (2000) ‘“Enochi Asculani Epistula” Baptistae de Albertis, Romae, Ex Roschildia, die VI Decembris 1451’, Albertiana 3, 189–248. — (2002) ‘Tipologia edilizia e diletti bucolici in Sidonio Apollinare (Ep. II 2): Il dono di Enoch d’Ascoli all’Alberti’, Albertiana 5, 191–236. — (2007) ‘Lettera di Enoch d’Ascoli a Battista Alberti, con allegata un’epistola di Sidonio Apollinare, Roskilde, 6 dicembre 1451’, in P. Benigni et al. (eds), Corpus epistolare e documentario di Leon Battista Alberti, Florence, 245–53. Mathisen, R.W. (1975) ‘Computer Analysis of the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire’, First Annual Byzantine Studies Conference: Cleveland, 24–25 October 1975: Abstracts of Papers, Cleveland, 28–9. — (1979a) ‘Resistance and Reconciliation: Majorian and the Gallic Aristocracy after the Fall of Avitus’, Francia 7, 597–627 (repr. in Mathisen (1991a) 167–97). — (1979b) ‘Sidonius on the Reign of Avitus: A Study in Political Prudence’, TAPA 109, 165–71 (repr. in Mathisen (1991a) 199–205). — (1979c) ‘Hilarius, Germanus and Lupus: The Aristocratic Background of the Chelidonius Affair’, Phoenix 33, 160–9. — (1979d) ‘The Ecclesiastical Aristocracy of Fifth-Century Gaul: A Regional Analysis of Family Structure’, dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. — (1981a) ‘Epistolography, Literary Circles, and Family Ties in Late Roman Gaul’, TAPhA 111, 95–109 (repr. in Mathisen (1991a) 13–27). — (1981b) ‘Petronius, Hilarius and Valerianus: Prosopographical Notes on the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy’, Historia 30, 106–12 (repr. in Mathisen (1991a) 83–90). — (1981c) ‘Avitus, Italy and the East in A.D. 455–456’, Byzantion 51, 232-47 (repr. in Mathisen (1991a) 137–52). — (1981d) ‘The Last Year of Saint Germanus of Auxerre’, Analecta bollandiana 99, 151–9. — (1982) ‘PLRE II: Suggested Addenda and Corrigenda’, Historia 31, 364–86 (repr. in Mathisen (1991a) 365–87). — (1985) ‘The Third Regnal Year of Eparchius Avitus’, CPh 80, 326–35. — (1986) ‘Ten Office-Holders: A Few Addenda and Corrigenda to P.L.R.E.’, Historia 35, 125–7. — (1987) ‘A Survey of the Significant Addenda to P.L.R.E.’, Medieval Prosopography 8, 5–30. — (1988a) ‘The Theme of Literary Decline in Late Roman Gaul’, CPh 83, 45–52 (repr. in Mathisen (1991a) 45–52). — (1988b) ‘A Prosopographical Database for Late Antiquity’, History and Computing Today 4, 35–40. — (1988c) ‘The Construction of a Prosopographical Database for Late Antiquity’, Humanistike Data 2, 33–40. — (1989) Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century Gaul, Washington, DC. — (1990) ‘The Last Year of Saint Germanus of Auxerre: Some Recent Suggestions’, Patristic and Byzantine Review 9, 181–9. — (1991a) Studies in the History, Literature, and Society of Late Antiquity, Amsterdam. — (1991b) ‘Phoebus, Orpheus and Dionysus: Nicknames and the Literary Circle of Sidonius’, in Mathisen (1991a) 29–44. — (1991c) ‘The Third Regnal Year of Eparchius Avitus: The Interpretation of the Evidence’, in Mathisen (1991a) 163–6. — (1992) ‘Fifth-Century Visitors to Italy: Business or Pleasure?’, in Drinkwater and Elton (1992) 228–38. — (1993) Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul: Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition, Austin. — (1994) ‘The Ideology of Monastic and Aristocratic Community in Late Roman Gaul’, Polis 6, 203–20. — (1996a) ‘Romans and Barbarians in the Early Byzantine Empire’, Twenty-Second Annual Byzantine Studies Conference: Abstracts of Papers: October 24–27, 1996: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, 50. — (1996b) Review of Harries (1994), IJCT 3, 246–50.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 773

13/02/20 4:39 PM

774

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (1998) ‘The Codex Sangallensis 190 and the Transmission of the Classical Tradition during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’, IJCT 5, 163–94. — (1999a) Ruricius of Limoges and his Friends: A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Gaul, Liverpool. — (1999b) ‘A New Fragment of Augustine’s De nuptiis et concupiscentia from the Codex Sangallensis 190’, ZAC 3, 165–83. — (2000) ‘Hispania Tarraconensis’, in R. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton. — (2001a) ‘The Letters of Ruricius of Limoges and the Passage from Roman to Frankish Gaul’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2001) 101–15. — (2001b) ‘Imperial Honorifics and Senatorial Status in Late Roman Legal Documents’, in R.W. Mathisen (ed.), Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 179–207. — (2003a) People, Personal Expression, and Social Relations in Late Antiquity, 2 vols, Ann Arbor. — (2003b) ‘Qui genus, unde patres: The Case of Arcadius Placidus Magnus Felix’, Medieval Prosopography 24, 55–71. — (2003c) ‘The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow’, in Av. Cameron (ed.), Fifty Years of Prosopography: The Later Roman Empire, Byzantium, and Beyond, Oxford, 23–40. — (2007) ‘Where Are All the PDBs? The Creation of Prosopographical Databases for the Ancient and Medieval Worlds’, in K. Keats-Rohan (ed.), Prosopography Approaches and Applications: A Handbook, Oxford, 95–126. — (2011) ‘Catalogues of Barbarians in Late Antiquity’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2011) 17–42. — (2012) ‘Clovis, Anastasius, and Political Status in 508 CE: The Frankish Aftermath of the Battle of Vouillé’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2012) 79–110. — (2013a) ‘Dating the Letters of Sidonius’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 221–48. — (2013b) ‘Desiderius of Cahors, Last of the Romans’, in Diefenbach and Müller (2013) 455–69. — (2014) ‘La création et l’utilisation de “dossiers” dans les lettres de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 205–14. — (2016) ‘The Letter Collection of Ruricius of Limoges’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 337–56. — (2018a) ‘The “Publication” of Latin Letter Collections in Late Antiquity’, in Müller (2018) 63–84. — (2018b) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris’, in D.G. Hunter et al. (eds), Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, . — (2018c) ‘“Roman Identity” in Late Antiquity, with Special Attention to Gaul’, in Pohl et al. (2018) 255–74. — (2019) ‘The End of the Western Roman Empire in the Fifth Century CE: Barbarian Auxiliaries, Independent Military Contractors, and Civil Wars’, in J.W. Drijvers and N. Lenski (eds), The Fifth Century: Age of Transformation. Proceedings of the Twelfth Biennial Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity Conference, Bari, 137–56. — and D. Shanzer (eds) (2001) Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul: Revisiting the Sources, Aldershot. — and — (eds) (2011) Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity, Farnham. — and — (eds) (2012) The Battle of Vouillé, 507 CE: Where France Began, Berlin. — and H.S. Sivan (eds) (1996) Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, Aldershot. — and — (1999) ‘Forging a New Identity: The Kingdoms of Toulouse and the Frontiers of Visigothic Aquitania (418–507)’, in A. Ferreiro, The Visigoths: Studies in Culture and Society, Leiden, 1–62. Matthews, J.F. (1974) ‘The Letters of Symmachus’, in J.W. Binns (ed.), Latin Literature of the Fourth Century, London, 58–99 (repr. in Matthews (1985) 58–99 and (2010) 215–53). — (1975) Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364–425, Oxford. — (1985) Political Life and Culture in Late Roman Society, London. — (1989) The Roman Empire of Ammianus, London.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 774

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

775

— (2000) ‘Roman Law and Barbarian Identity in the Late Roman West’, in S. Mitchell and G. Greatrex (eds), Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity, London, 31–45 (repr. in Matthews (2010) 327–42). — (2010) Roman Perspectives: Studies in Political and Cultural History, from the First to the Fifth Century, Swansea. Mattingly, D. (2008) An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, London. Maufras, E. (1904) Histoire de la ville de Bourg-sur-Gironde, Bordeaux. Maurin, J. (1982) ‘La prosopographie romaine: Pertes et profits’, Annales, Economie, Societé 37, 824-36. Mause, M. (1994) Die Darstellung des Kaisers in der lateinischen Panegyrik, Stuttgart. Max, G.E. (1979) ‘Political Intrigue during the Reigns of the Western Roman Emperors Avitus and Majorian’, Historia 28, 225–37. Mazzarino, S. (1942) Stilicone: La crisi imperiale dopo Teodosio, Rome. Mazzoli, G. (2006) ‘Sidonio, Orazio e la lex saturae’, in L. Cristante (ed.), Il calamo della memoria: Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità 5, Trieste, 171–84. — and F. Gasti (eds) (1999) Prospettive sul Tardoantico: Atti del Convegno di Pavia (27–28 Novembre 1997), Como. McConnell, S. (2014) Philosophical Life in Cicero’s Letters, Cambridge. McCormick, M. (1977) ‘Odoacer, Emperor Zeno, and the Rugian Victory Legation’, Byzantion 47, 212-22. McDonough, C.J. (2010) Alexander Neckam: Sacerdos ad altare, CC CM 227, Turnhout. McGing, B.C. (1986) The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, Leiden. McLaughlin, M. (1995) Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo, Oxford. Meier, M., and S. Patzold (2010) August 410: Ein Kampf um Rom, Stuttgart. Ménage, G. (1716) Menagiana ou les bons mots et remarques critiques historiques, morales et d’érudition de M. Ménage recueillies par ses amis, Amsterdam. Ménestrier, C.-F. (1694) La philosophie des images énigmatiques, Lyon. Merchie, E. (1921) ‘Un aspect de la prose de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Musée Belge 25, 165–77. — (1922) ‘Confiteor errorem: Sidoine Apollinaire, Ep. III, 12, 2’, Musée Belge 26, 145–9. — (1923) ‘Notes sur le style de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Musée Belge 27, 83–9. Merli, E. (2008) ‘Cenabis belle: Rappresentazione e struttura negli epigrammi di invito a cena di Marziale’, in Morelli (2008) 299–326. Mesturini, A.M. (1981) ‘Sul carmen XX di Sidonio Apollinare’, Sandalion 4, 177–82. — (1982) ‘Due asterischi su Sidonio Apollinare’, Sandalion 5, 263–76. Méthy, N. (2007) Les lettres de Pline le Jeune: Une représentation de l’homme, Paris. Meurer, T.L. (2019) Vergangenes verhandeln: Spätantike Statusdiskurse senatorischer Eliten in Gallien und Italien, Berlin. Meyer, D., and C. Urlacher-Becht (eds) (2017) La rhétorique du ‘petit’ dans l’épigramme grecque et latine, Paris. Meyer, W. (1905) ‘Die rythmische lateinische Prosa’, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur mittellateinischen Rythmik, vol. 1, Berlin, 236–86. Meyers, J. (2008) ‘Prolégomènes bibliographiques à la lecture des Panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, VL 179, 77–86. Meyniel, J. (1906) Le Président Jean Savaron: Ses théories, ses ouvrages, Paris. Migne, J.-P. (1862) Sanctorum Hilari, Simplicii, Felicis III . . . Victoris Vitensis, Sidonii Apollinaris, Gennadii . . . opera omnia, PL 58, Paris. Mishulin, A.V. (1936) ‘Аполлинарий Сидоний: Письма, III, 13: Стихотворения, II. 237; IX. 252’ [Sidonius Apollinaris: Letters, III, 13: Poems, II. 237; IX. 252], in A.V. Mishulin, Спартаковское восстание. Революция рабов в Риме в 1 в. до н.э. [The Spartacus Revolt. A Slave Revolution in Rome in the First Century BCE], Moscow, 257–8. Mitchell, K., and I. Wood (eds) (2002) The World of Gregory of Tours, Leiden. Modéran, Y. (2003) Les Maures et l’Afrique romaine (IVe–VIIe siècle), Paris.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 775

13/02/20 4:39 PM

776

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2014) Les Vandales et l’Empire romain, Paris. Mohr, P. (1895) Caius Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius, Leipzig. Mondin, L. (2008) ‘La misura epigrammatica nella tarda latinità’, in Morelli (2008) 397–494. Monfort, M.-L. (2009) ‘Massa rotunda caput ou la tête des Huns: Sidoine Apollinaire, Carmen 2, 247’, in M.-F. Marein et al. (eds), Figures de l’étranger autour de la Méditerranée antique, Paris, 285–94. Monni, A. (1999) ‘L’arcaismo in Sidonio Apollinare e nel suo milieu culturale’, AFLS 20, 23–9. Montebello, D. (1999) Au dernier des Romains [novel], Paris. Montone, F. (2011a) ‘Scribo ergo sum: La presenza di toponimi campani in Sidonio Apollinare, l’ultimo letterato dell’impero romano’, Salternum 26–7, 89–106. — (2011b) ‘“Lupi d’autore” nel panegirico ad Avito di Sidonio Apollinare (carm. 7, 361–368)’, Parole Rubate 4, 113–29. — (2012a) ‘Sidonio Apollinare: Carmi 1 e 2: Praefatio e Panegirico per Antemio: Introduzione, traduzione, commento ed appendici’, dissertation, University of Naples . — (2012b) ‘Il barbaro che Roma non sconfisse: Il vandalo Genserico in una similitudine del poeta tardoantico Sidonio Apollinare’, Salternum 28–9, 67–77. — (2013a) ‘Africa in the Roman Imagination: The Personification of the Goddess Africa in the Panegyric on Maiorianus by Sidonius Apollinaris (Carm. 5, 53–350)’, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Postgraduates in Ancient Literature, St Andrews . — (2013b) ‘I barbari contro l’impero: L’excursus sugli Unni nel Panegirico per l’imperatore Antemio di Sidonio Apollinare’, Salternum 30–1, 35–48. — (2014a) ‘I rapporti di Sidonio Apollinare con l’imperatore Maioriano, con i barbari foederati . . . e con Ovidio’, Salternum 18, 29–37. — (2014b) ‘Memoria poetica e propaganda augustea: Per un commento di tre luoghi sidoniani sulla battaglia di Azio’, Parole Rubate 9, 3–25. — (2015) ‘L’ultimo arbitro dei destini dell’impero romano d’Occidente: Il barbaro Ricimero nel panegirico ad Antemio di Sidonio Apollinare’, Salternum 34–5, 89–103. — (2016) ‘Lettere dalla Gallia del V secolo d.C.: Sidonio Apollinare scrittore e vescovo e il sesto libro dell’epistolario’, Salternum 20, 139–57. — (2017) ‘Vita e svaghi di un aristocratico del V secolo: Il secondo libro dell’epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare’, Salternum 21, 23–45. — (2019) ‘Il Panegirico ad Antemio di Sidonio Apollinare: metapoetica e intratestualità’, Vichiana 56, 33–60. Montuschi, C. (2001) ‘Sidonio Apollinare e Ovidio: Esempi di riprese non solo verbali (Sidon. Carm. 2, 405–435; 22, 47–49)’, InvLuc 23, 161–81. Montzamir, P. (2003) ‘Nouvel essai de reconstitution matérielle de l’épitaphe de Sidoine Apollinaire (RICG, VIII, 21)’, AnTard 11, 321–7. — (2014) ‘Confirmation de l’existence de l’épitaphe de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in B. Dousteyssier and P. Bet (eds), Éclats arvernes: Fragments archéologiques (Ier–Ve siècle apr. J.-C.), Clermont-Ferrand, 46–7. — (forthcoming) ‘Du nouveau sur l’épitaphe attribuée à Sidoine Apollinaire’. Moorhead, J. (1984) ‘Theoderic, Zeno and Odovacer’, ByzZ 77, 261-6. Moraw, S. (2011) ‘Visual Differences: Dionysos in Ancient Art’, in R. Schlesier (ed.), A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin, 233–52. Morelli, A.M. (ed.) (2008) Epigramma longum: Da Marziale alla tarda antichità: From Martial to Late Antiquity, Cassino. Morelli, G. (2001) ‘Sui metri di Anacreonte nella tradizione antica’, RPL 4, 146–53. Morello, R., and A. Morrison (eds) (2007) Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, Oxford. Moreno Resano, E. (2015) ‘Las ejecuciones de Crispo, Licinio el Joven y Fausta (año 326 d.C.): Nuevas observaciones’, Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 41, 177–200. Morgenstern, F. (1993) Die Briefpartner des Augustinus von Hippo, Bochum.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 776

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

777

Morhof, D.G. (1682) Unterricht von der Teutschen Sprache und Poesie, Kiel. Morin, G. (1897) Saint Lazare et saint Maximin: Recherches nouvelles sur plusieurs personnages de la ‘tradition provençale’, Paris. — (1938) ‘Le destinataire de l’apocryphe hiéronymien De septem ordinibus ecclesiae’, Revue d’histoire Ecclésiastique 34, 229-44. Mortensen, L.B. (2000) ‘The Diffusion of Roman Histories in the Middle Ages: A List of Orosius, Eutropius, Paulus Diaconus and Landolfus Sagax Manuscripts’, Filologia Mediolatina 6–7, 101–200. Morton Braund, S. (2012) ‘Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric: Cicero, Seneca, Pliny’, in Rees (2012a) 85-108. Morvillez, E. (2017) ‘“Avec vue sur jardin”: Vivre entre nature et paysage dans l’architecture domestique, de Cicéron à Sidoine Apollinaire’, Cahiers Mondes Anciens 9, . Mossberg, K.-Å. F. (1934) Studia Sidoniana critica et semasiologica, Uppsala. Most, G.W. (ed.) (1999) Commentaries-Kommentare, Göttingen. — (2004) Doubting Thomas, Cambridge, MA. Mratschek, S. (1993) Divites et praepotentes: Reichtum und soziale Stellung in der Literatur der Prinzipatszeit, Stuttgart. — (2002) Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola: Kommunikation und soziale Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Göttingen. — (2003) ‘Illa nostra Italia: Plinius und die Wiedergeburt der Literatur in der Transpadana’, in L. Castagna and E. Lefèvre (eds), Plinius der Jüngere und seine Zeit, Munich, 219–41. — (2008) ‘Identitätsstiftung aus der Vergangenheit: Zum Diskurs über die trajanische Bildungskultur im Kreis des Sidonius Apollinaris’, in T. Fuhrer (ed.), Die christlich-philosophischen Diskurse der Spätantike: Texte, Personen, Institutionen, Stuttgart, 363–80. — (2010) ‘Zirkulierende Bibliotheken: Medien der Wissensvermittlung und christliche Netzwerke’, in Jolivet et al. (2010) 325–50. — (2011) ‘Die ungeschriebenen Briefe des Augustinus von Hippo’, in J.A. van den Berg et al. (eds.), In Search of Truth: Augustine, Manichaeism and Gnosticism: Studies for J. van Oort at Sixty, Leiden, 109–22 (tr. as ‘The Unwritten Letters of Augustine of Hippo’, in P. Nehring et al., Scrinium Augustini: The World of Augustine’s Letters, Turnhout (2017) 57–77). — (2013) ‘Creating Identity from the Past: The Construction of History in the Letters of Sidonius’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 249–71. — (2017) ‘The Letter Collection of Sidonius Apollinaris’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 309–36. — (2018a) ‘Images of Domitius Apollinaris in Pliny and Martial: Intertextual Discourses as Aspects of Self-Definition and Differentiation’, in A. König and C.L. Whitton (eds), Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian: Literary Interactions, A.D. 96–138, Cambridge, 208–32. — (2018b) ‘Geben und Nehmen in den Briefen des Paulinus von Nola: Der himmlische Bankier und der Wohltäter der Armen’, in Müller (2018) 109–29. — (2019) ‘Crossing the Boundaries: Networks and Manifestations of Christian Hospitality’, in C. Cvetković and P. Gemeinhardt (eds), Episcopal Networks in Late Antiquity: Connection and Communication across Boundaries, Berlin, 149–77. — (2020) ‘The Silence of the Muses in Sidonius Apollinaris (Carm. 12–13; Ep. 8.11): Aphasia and the Timelessness of Poetic Inspiration’, JLA 13. Muir, J. (2009) Letters and Life in the Ancient Greek World, London. Müller, E. (1887) ‘De numero Ciceroniano’, dissertation, Kiel. Müller, G.M. (ed.) (2018) Zwischen Alltagskommunikation und literarischer Identitätsbildung: Studien zur lateinischen Epistolographie in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, Stuttgart. Müller, L. (1894) De re metrica poetarum latinorum, 2nd edn, St Petersburg. Mullet, M. (1981) ‘The Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Letter’, in M. Mullet and R. Scott (eds), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, Oxford, 75–93. Munier, C. (1963) Concilia Galliae A. 314-A. 506, CC SL 148, Turnhout.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 777

13/02/20 4:39 PM

778

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Munk Olsen, B. (1979) ‘Les classiques latins dans les florilèges médiévaux antérieurs au XIII siècle’, RHT 9, 47–121. — (1982–2014) L’étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, 4 vols (vols 3 and 4 in 2 parts each), Paris. — (1995) ‘Ovide au Moyen Âge (du IXe aux XII siècle)’, in La réception de la littérature classique au Moyen Age (IXe–XIIe siècle): Choix d’articles publié par ses collègues à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, Copenhagen, 71–94. Münscher, K. (1920) ‘Kritisches zum Panegyrikus des jüngeren Plinius’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 73, 174–98. Muzerelle, D. (2013) Calendoscope, Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, Paris, . Mynors, R.A.B. (2012) ‘Preface to the OCT Edition of the XII Panegyrici Latini’, in Rees (2012a) 49-54. — and R.M. Thomson (1993) Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Hereford Cathedral Library, Woodbridge. — and — (1998–9) William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum, 2 vols, Oxford. Näf, B. (1995) Senatorisches Standesbewußtsein in spätrömischer Zeit, Freiburg. — (2012) ‘Se taire sur l’histoire’, in Guillaumont and Laurence (2012) 81–91. Nannini, S. (1986) Omero e il suo pubblico, Rome. Nathan, G. (1998) ‘The Rogation Ceremonies of Late Antique Gaul: Creation, Transmission and the Role of the Bishop’, Classica et Mediaevalia 49, 275–303. Naumann, R. (1838), Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Senatoria civitatis Lipsiensis asservantur, Grimma. Nauroy, G. (2017) ‘The Letter Collection of Ambrose of Milan’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 146–60. Nazzaro, A.V. (1988) ‘Sidonio Apollinare’, in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, vol. 4, Rome, 838–40. — (1993) ‘Momenti della fortuna di Orazio nella poesia cristiana latina’, in C.D. Fonseca (ed.), Non omnis moriar: La lezione di Orazio a duemila anni dalla scomparsa, Lecce, 231–6. — (1998) ‘Sidonio Apollinare’, in Enciclopedia Oraziana, vol. 3, Rome, 72–4. Neil, B., and P. Allen (eds) (2015) Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Neri, M. (2009) Ruricio di Limoges: Lettere, Pisa. — (2011) ‘Sidonio Apollinare (epist. 9,9,10) e la possibile attribuzione del De ratione fidei a Fausto di Riez’, BStudLat 41, 531–42. Newbold, R. (1985) ‘Power Motivation in Sidonius Apollinaris, Eugippius and Nonnus’, Florilegium 7, 1–16. Newby, Z. (2014) ‘Poems in Stone: Reading Mythological Sarcophagi through Statius’ Consolations’, in Elsner and Meyer (2014) 256–87. Newlands, C.E. (2002) Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire, Cambridge. — (2011) Statius: Silvae Book II, Cambridge. — (2013) ‘Architectural Ecphrasis in Roman Poetry’, in Papanghelis et al. (2013) 55–78. — (2017) ‘The Early Reception of the Silvae: From Statius to Sidonius’, in F. Bessone and M. Fucecchi (eds), The Literary Genres in the Flavian Age: Canons, Transformations, Reception, Trends in Classics, suppl. 51, Berlin, 167–84. Nicholson, J. (1998) ‘The Survival of Cicero’s Letters’, in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 9, Brussels, 63–105. Nicolau, M.G. (1930) L’origine du ‘cursus’ rythmique et les débuts de l’accent d’intensité en latin, Paris. Nisbet, R.G.M. (1978) ‘Felicitas at Surrentum (Stat. Silv. 2.2)’, JRS 68, 1–11. — (1990) ‘Cola and Clausulae in Cicero’s Speeches’, in E.M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, Oxford, 349–59. Nixon, C.E.V. (2012) ‘Latin Panegyric in the Tetrarchic and Constantinian Period’, in R. Rees (ed.), Latin Panegyric, Oxford, 223–39. — and B. Saylor Rodgers (1994) In Praise of Later Roman Emperors, Berkeley. Nonn, U. (2010) Die Franken, Stuttgart. Nordau, M. (1892–3) Entartung, 2 vols, Berlin (repr. 2013). Tr. G.L. Mosse (1993) as Degeneration, London.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 778

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

779

Norden, E. (1898) Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance, Leipzig. Nortier, G. (1971) Les bibliothèques médiévales des abbayes bénédictines de Normandie, Paris. Norton, P. (2007) Episcopal Elections 250–600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford. Novati, F. (1891–1911) Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, Rome. Nünlist, R. (2009) The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia, Cambridge. Nürnberg, R. (1988) Askese als sozialer Impuls: Monastisch-asketische Spiritualität als Wurzel und Triebfeder sozialer Ideen und Aktivitäten der Kirche in Südgallien im 5. Jahrhundert, Bonn. Oberhelman, S.M. (1987) ‘The Provenance of the Prose Style of Ammianus Marcellinus’, QUCC 27, 79–89. — (1988a) ‘The Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose: A Reconsideration of Methodology’, CPh 83, 136–49. — (1988b) ‘The History and Development of the Cursus Mixtus in Latin Literature’, CQ 38, 228–42. — (1991) Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-Century Christian Literature: Prose Rhythm, Oratorical Style, and Preaching in the Works of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, Atlanta, GA. — (2003) Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First Century B.C. to Fourth Century A.D., Lewiston, NY. — and R.G. Hall (1984) ‘A New Statistical Analysis of Accentual Prose Rhythms in Imperial Latin Authors’, CPh 80, 114–30. — and — (1985) ‘Meter in Accentual Clausulae of Late Imperial Latin Prose’, CPh 80, 214–27. O’Flynn, J.M. (1983) Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire, Edmonton. Onorato, M. (2013) Patterning delle incisioni e strategia retorica nei faleci di Catullo, Naples. — (2014) ‘Tigrifer Niphates: a proposito dell’anfibologia nei carmi di Sidonio Apollinare’, BStudLat 44, 70–82. — (2016a) Il castone e la gemma: Sulla tecnica poetica di Sidonio Apollinare, Naples. — (2016b) ‘Amore e Venere nel c. 11 di Sidonio Apollinare: Tra culto della varietas ed aemulatio staziana’, BStudLat 46, 79–109. — (2016c) ‘Sulla multiplicitas lessicale del c. 23 di Sidonio Apollinare’, BStudLat 46, 174–99. — (2017a) ‘Dal novum al notum: Gli anacreontei di Sidonio Apollinare’, BStudLat 47, 112–55. — (2017b) ‘Tra Orazio e Arnobio: Contaminazione di modelli in un’immagine musicale di Sidonio Apollinare’, BStudLat 47, 661–73. — (2018) ‘Un ospite per Apollo: Intertestualità interna e codice ausoniano nella metatoria pagina di Sidonio a Lampridio’, BStudLat 48, 492–523. — (2019) ‘L’arte della concinnatio da Ausonio a Sidonio Apollinare’, in É. Wolff (ed.), La réception d’Ausone dans les littératures européennes, Bordeaux, 25–63. Oost, S.I. (1970) ‘D.N. Libius Severus P.F. Aug.’, CPh 65, 228-40. Op het Veld, C. (2000) Quem putas perisse praemissus est: Ein Kommentar zu Senecas 93. und 99. Brief, Aachen. Opelt, I., and W. Speyer (2001) ‘Barbar’, RAC, suppl. 1, 813–95. Oppedisano, F. (2011) ‘Maioriano, la plebe e il defensor civitatis’, RFIC 139, 422–48. — (2013) L’impero d’Occidente negli anni di Maioriano, Rome. — (2017) ‘L’insediamento di Antemio’, Aevum 91, 241–63. Orbán, A.P. (2006) Aratoris subdiaconi Historia apostolica, CC SL 130, Turnhout. Osherov, S.A., and F.A. Petrovskiı˘ (1982) ‘Аполлинарий Сидоний’ [Apollinaris Sidonius], in Поздняя латинская поэзия [Late Latin Poetry], Moscow, 543–71. Ouy, G. (1999) Les manuscrits de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor: Catalogue établi sur la base du répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514), 2 vols, Turnhout. Overwien, O. (2009a) ‘Ironie in den Briefen des Sidonius’, in R.F. Glei (ed.), Ironie: Griechische und lateinische Fallstudien, Trier, 247–64. — (2009b) ‘Kampf um Gallien. Die Briefe des Sidonius Apollinaris zwischen Literatur und Politik’, Hermes 137, 93–117. Pagani, I. (2004) Epistolario di Abelardo ed Eloisa, Turin. Palacio, M.-F. de (2005) Reviviscences romaines: La latinité au miroir de l’esprit fin-de-siècle, Bern.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 779

13/02/20 4:39 PM

780

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2008) Tragédies de fins d’empires: Actualité de la fiction antiquisante romaine en Allemagne autour de 1900, Paris. — (2014) ‘Mechanemata fin-de-siècle: Sidoine Apollinaire et la “décadence”’, in Poignault and StoehrMonjou (2014) 525–35. — (forthcoming) ‘“Atteint du mal des races qui vont s’éteindre”: L’Augustule 475–476 d’Aimé Giron et Albert Tozza (1903)’, in Actes de la journée d’études sur Romulus Augustule tenue à l’Université de Bretagne Occidentale (Brest) le 11 juin 2010. Paolucci, P. (2013) ‘Metro e semantica: Per l’esegesi di Lussorio 298 Happ (con una breve storia del dimetro ionico anaclastico)’, Rivista di Studi di Anthologia Latina 4, 125–43. Papanghelis, T.D., et al. (eds) (2013) Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature: Encounters, Interactions and Transformations, Berlin. Papini, A.M. (1959) Ricimero: L’agonia dell’ impero romano d’Occidente, Milan. Parkes, R. (2005) ‘Model Youths? Achilles and Parthenopaeus in Claudian’s Panegyric on the Third and Fourth Consulship of Honorius’, ICS 30, 67–82. Paschoud, F. (1967) Roma aeterna: Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l’Occident latin à l’époque des grandes invasions, Rome. — (2012) ‘On a Recent Book by Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome’, AnTard 20, 359–88. Pasquali, G. (1942) ‘Arte allusiva’, L’Italia che Scrive 25, 185–7 (= Stravaganze quarte e supreme, Venice (1951) 11–20, = Pagine stravaganti, Florence (1968) 275–82). Patzold, S. (2014) ‘Bischöfe, soziale Herkunft und die Organisation lokaler Herrschaft um 500’, in M. Meier and S. Patzold (eds), Chlodwigs Welt: Organisation von Herrschaft um 500, Stuttgart, 523–43. Pavan, A. (2005) ‘Consenzio o le virtù dell’auriga: Una rielaborazione della gara delle quadrighe di Stat. Theb. VI in Sid. Ap. carm. 23 ad Consentium 304–427’, Aevum Antiquum n.s. 5, 227–50. Pavlovskis, Z. (1967) ‘From Statius to Ennodius: A Brief History of Prose Prefaces to Poems’, Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo 101, 535–67. Pears, I. (2002) The Dream of Scipio [novel], London. Pellegrin, É. (1955) ‘Manuscrits d’auteurs latins de l’époque classique conservés dans les bibliothèques de Suède’, RHT 3, 7–32. — (1961) ‘Manuscrits de Pétrarque dans les bibliothèques de France’, IMU 4, 341–431. — (1978) ‘Le manuscrit Paris Bibl. nat. lat. 2389 et ses “membra disiecta”’, RHT 8, 295–302. — (1988) Bibliothèques retrouvées: Manuscrits, bibliothèques et bibliophiles du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance, Paris. — and J.-P. Bouhot (2010) Catalogue des manuscrits médiévaux de la bibliothèque municipale d’Orléans, Paris. — et al. (1975–2010) Manuscrits classiques latins de la bibliothèque Vaticane, Paris Pellizzari, A. (1998) Commento storico al libro III dell’Epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco, Pisa. Pelttari, A. (2014) The Space that Remains: Reading Latin Poetry in Late Antiquity, Ithaca. — (2016) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris and Horace, Ars poetica 14–23’, Philologus 161, 322–36. Percival, J. (1976) The Roman Villa, London. — (1992) ‘The Fifth-Century Villa: New Life or Death Postponed?’, in Drinkwater and Elton (1992) 156–64. — (1997) ‘Desperately Seeking Sidonius: The Realities of Life in Fifth- Century Gaul’, Latomus 56, 279–92. Pereiro, J. (2007) ‘Ethos’ and the Oxford Movement: At the Heart of Tractarianism, Oxford. Pérez Sánchez, D. (1997) ‘Realidad social, asentamiento bárbaro y prejuicios ideológicos en la Galia del siglo V a través de la obra de Sidonio Apolinar’, Gerión 15, 223–41. — and M. Rodríguez Gervás (2007) ‘Caridad cristiana e interiorización de la dependencia: Sidonio Apolinar’, Studia Historica: Historia Antigua 25, 331–40. Perfilova, T.B. (2003) ‘Воспоминания Авзония и Аполлинария Сидония о преподавателях высших школ Галлии IV–V вв.’ [Ausonius’ and Sidonius’ Memories of Teachers of the Higher Schools in Fourth-/ Fifth- Century Gaul], Ярославский педагогический вестник [Yaroslavl Teachers’ Gazette], 2.35, 14–21.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 780

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

781

— (2004) ‘Высшее образование в Римской империи: культурологический аспект’ [Higher Education in the Roman Empire: The Cultural Aspect], dissertation, Yaroslavl. Pernot, L. (1993) La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain, 2 vols, Paris. Perrelli, R. (1992) I proemi claudianei: Tra epica ed epidittica, Catania. — (1999) ‘Panegirici e propaganda’, in Mazzoli and Gasti (1999) 143–9. Perret, J. (1954) ‘Mots et fins des mots trochaïques dans l’hexamètre latin’, REL 32, 182–99. — (1955) ‘Le partage du demi-pied dans les anapestiques et dans l’hexamètre’, REL 33, 352–66. Perrini, G. (2014) ‘Apollinare Sidonio, Panegirico dell’imperatore Giulio Valerio Maggioriano: Introduzione’, Hellenismo - Pyanepsion 2790, 28, . Pertz, G.H. (1841) ‘Burchard of Worms, Letter to Alpert’, in Alpertus monachus Sancti Symphoriani, De diversitate temporum libri II, MGH SS 4, Hanover, 700–23. Peter, H. (1901) Der Brief in der römischen Literatur, Leipzig. Petrovskiı˘, F.A. (1970) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий’ [Sidonius Apollinaris], in M.E. Grabar’-Passek and M.L. Gasparov (eds), Памятники средневековой латинской литературы IV–IX веков [Monuments of Medieval Latin Literature of the Fourth to Ninth Centuries], Moscow, 88–101. — (1998) ‘Сидоний Аполлинарий‘ [Sidonius Apollinaris], in S.S. Averintsev and M.L. Gasparov (eds), Памятники средневековой латинской литературы IV–VII веков [Monuments of Medieval Latin Literature of the Fourth to Seventh Centuries], Moscow, 292–307. Peyrafort-Huin, M. (2001) La bibliothèque médiévale de l’abbaye de Pontigny (XIIe–XIXe siècles): Histoire, inventaires anciens, manuscrits, Paris. Pfaff, R.W. (1973) ‘The Library of the Fathers: The Tractarians as Patristic Translators’, Studies in Philology 70, 329–44. Pfeiffer, R. (1976) History of Classical Scholarship 1300–1850, Oxford. Piacente, L. (1998) ‘Sopravvivenze dei classici: I Logistorici di Varrone’, InvLuc 20, 191–9. — (2001) ‘Un frammento di Sidonio e l’epistola LI di Avito’, InvLuc 23, 183–6. — (2003) ‘Libri e letture di Sidonio Apollinare’, in S. Rocca (ed.), Latina Didaxis 18, Genoa, 119–32. — (2005) ‘In viaggio con Sidonio Apollinare’, in A. Gargano and M. Squillante (eds), Il viaggio nella letteratura occidentale tra mito e simbolo, Naples, 97–106. — (2016) ‘Equimulgae ed equi epoti’, in A. Setaioli (ed.), Apis Matina: Studi in onore di Carlo Santini, Trieste, 532–7. Piazza, E. (2006) ‘La battaglia del vicus Helena: Un episodio trascurato dell’espansione territoriale dei Franchi Salii nella Gallia del V secolo’, Annali della Facoltà di Scienze della Formazione: Università degli Studi di Catania 5, 47–58. Pichon, R. (2012) ‘The Origin of the Panegyrici Latini Collection’, in Rees (2012a) 55-74. Pieroni, S. (2010) ‘Nos as Expression of the “Ego” in Cicero’s Letters to Atticus (Books I–IV)’, in P. Anreiter and M. Kienpointner (eds), Latin Linguistics Today, Innsbruck, 599–611. — (2014) Persone e testi: Sulla correlazione tra io e tu, specialmente in latino, Pisa. Pietri, L. (1983) La ville de Tours du IVe au VIe siècle: Naissance d’une cité chrétienne, Rome. — (1998) ‘Le sort des églises de l’extrême Occident: B: La Gaule’, in Histoire du Christianisme, vol. 3 Les églises d’Orient et d’Occident (432–610), Paris, 207–46. — and M. Heijmans (2013) Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, vol. 4 La Gaule chrétienne (314–614), 2 parts: A–H, I–Z, Paris. Pietrini, S. (2014) ‘Situazione della giustizia e diritto nella Gallia romana della seconda metà del V secolo: La testimonianza di Sidonio Apollinare: Alcune osservazioni’, Koinonia 38, 205–33. — (2015) ‘Il processo di Arvando: Il racconto di Sidonio Apollinare’, in G. Bassanelli (ed.), Ravenna capitale: Giudizi, giudici e norme processuali in Occidente nei secoli IV–VIII, vol. 1 Saggi, Santarcangelo di Romagna, 301–21. Pikin, A.V., and É.M. Manukyan (2016) ‘Римско–готские переговоры 474–475 гг. глазами Эннодия и Сидония Аполлинария’ [Roman-Gothic Negotiations 474–475 Through the Eyes of Ennodius and Sidonius Apollinaris], История 4, 74–81.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 781

13/02/20 4:39 PM

782

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pio, G.B. (1498) Sidonii Apollinaris poema aureum eiusdemque epistole, Milan. — (1511) In Carum Lucretium poetam commentarii a Ioanne Baptista Pio editi: Codice Lucretiano diligenter emendato: Nodis omnibus et difficultatibus apertis: Obiter ex diuersis auctoribus tum Grecis tum Latinis multa leges enucleata: Que superior etas aut tacuit aut ignorauit, Bologna. — (1542) C. Sollii Sidonii Apollinaris, Arvernorum episcopi, . . . lucubrationes . . . Item Ioannis Baptistae Pii commentaria, quae impedita expediunt, et obscura reconditaque in lucem proferunt, Basel. — (1597) C. Sollii Sidonii Apollinaris, Arvernorum episcopi, . . . lucubrationes . . . cum Ioannis Baptistae Pii commentariis, quae impedita expediunt, et obscura reconditaque in lucem proferunt. Nunc a multi mendis, quibus scatebant, vindicatae, Basel. Pisano, C. (2014) ‘Gutture sulphureas lente exhalante mefites: Anatomia simbolica e rappresentazioni latine del crapulone’, BStudLat 44, 557–65. Pithou, P. (1590) Epigrammata et poematia vetera, Paris; repr. Lyon, 1596. Platnauer, M. (1951) Latin Elegiac Verse: A Study of the Metrical Usages of Tibullus, Propertius & Ovid, Cambridge. Ploton-Nicollet, F. (2012) ‘La topique de la “nourrice divine”: Un motif récurrent dans la poésie d’éloge depuis Stace jusqu’à Sidoine Apollinaire’, in N. Catellani-Dufrêne and M. Perrin (eds), La lyre et la pourpre: Poésie et politique de l’Antiquité tardive à la Renaissance, Rennes, 33–57. — (2016) ‘Les Huns franchissent le cours gelé du Danube: Note critique et esthétique à Sidoine Apollinaire, carm. 2, 269–271’, in Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard and Stoehr-Monjou (2016) 245–61. Poble, P.-É. (2016) ‘Les frontières des territoires locaux dans l’espace gaulois de Sidoine Apollinaire à Grégoire de Tours’, in N. Baron et al. (eds), Reconnaître et délimiter l’espace localement au Moyen Âge: Limites et frontières, Lille, 19–34, . Pohl, W. (2002) Die Völkerwanderung: Eroberung und Integration, Stuttgart. — et al. (eds) (2018) Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities, Berlin. Poignault, R., and A. Stoehr-Monjou (eds) (2014) Présence de Sidoine Apollinaire, Caesarodunum 44–5 bis, Clermont-Ferrand. Polak, E.J. (1993) Medieval & Renaissance Letter Treatises & Letter Forms: A Census of Manuscripts Found in Eastern Europe & the Former USSR, Leiden. Polara, G. (1989) ‘I palindromi’, Vichiana 18, 323–32 (repr. in Studi di Filologia Classica in Onore di G. Monaco, vol. 3, Palermo (1991) 1335–43). Polguère, A. (2016) ‘À propos des éléments de langage’, in The Languages of Politics/La politique et ses langages, vol. 2, Cambridge, 47–65, . Portmann, W. (1988) Geschichte in der spätantiken Panegyrik, Bern. Poster, C. (2007) ‘A Conversation Halved: Epistolary Theory in Greco-Roman Antiquity’, in C. Poster and L.C. Mitchell (eds), Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present, Columba, SC, 21–51. Powell, J.G.F. (1996) ‘Prose-Rhythm, Latin’, in Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn, Oxford. Pozzi, G. (1973) Hermolai Barbari Castigationes Plinianae et in Pomponium Melam, Padua. Prakken, D.W. (1954) ‘Feminine Caesuras in Horatian Sapphic Stanzas’, CPh 49, 102–3. Prchlík, I. (2007) ‘Sidonius or Flavianus: By Whom Was Philostratus’ “Vita Apollonii” Translated into Latin?’, Graecolatina Pragensia 22, 199–210. Prete, S. (1984) ‘De Herculis aerumnis apud Sidonium Apollinarem’, in N. Sallmann and R. Schnur (eds), Acta Treverica 1981, Leichlingen, 115–19. Prévot, F. (1993a) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et l’Auvergne’, Revue d’Histoire de l’Église de France 79, 243–59 (repr. in Fizellier-Sauget (1999) 63–80). — (1993b) ‘Deux fragments de l’épitaphe de Sidoine Apollinaire découverts à Clermont-Ferrand’, AnTard 1, 223–9. — (1995) ‘Origène, Lactance, Jérôme et les autres: La culture chrétienne de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 215–28. — (1997a) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire pasteur d’âmes’, AnTard 5, 223–30. — (1997b), ‘RICG VIII, 21: Clermont-Ferrand, Saint-Saturnin (?)’, no. 21 in RICG, vol. 8 Aquitaine première, Paris, 116–26.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 782

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

783

— (2004) ‘Faut-il réhabiliter le fils de Sidoine Apollinaire? Shall we clear the name of Sidonius Apollinaris’ son?’, in C. Balmelle et al. (eds), Mélanges d’Antiquité Tardive: Studiola in honorem Noël Duval, Turnhout, 251–60. — (2013a) ‘La construction de son image par Sidoine Apollinaire à travers la publication de sa correspondance’, in S. Benoist and C. Hoët-Van Cauwenberghe (eds), La vie des autres: Histoire, prosopographie, biographie dans l’Empire romain, Villeneuve d’Ascq, 231–48. — (2013b) ‘Sidonius 1’, in PCBE 4 (= Pietri and Heijmans (2013)), 1759–1800. Pricoco, S. (1965) ‘Studi su Sidonio Apollinare’, Nuovo Didaskaleion 15, 71–150, comprising four articles: — (1965a) ‘Sidonio Apollinare traduttore della “Vita di Apollonio di Tiana” di Filostrato’, 71–98. — (1965b) ‘Un esercizio di “parallelo” retorico (Sidonio, Epist., IV, 12, 1–2)’, 99–112. — (1965c) ‘Sidonio Apollinare tra Claudiano Mamerto e Fausto di Riez e la datazione del “De spiritu sancto”’, 113–40. — (1965d) ‘Sidonio Apollinare, Girolamo e Rufino’, 141–50. — (2014) Eucherio: Elogio dell’eremo, Bologna. Primmer, A. (1968) Cicero Numerosus: Studien zum antiken Prosarhythmus, ÖAdW, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 257, Vienna. Prinz, F. (1969) Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich: Kultur und Gesellschaft in Gallien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung (4. bis 8. Jahrhundert), Munich. — (1975) ‘Aristocracy and Christianity in Merovingian Gaul: An Essay’, in K. Bosl (ed.), Gesellschaft, Kultur, Literatur: Rezeption und Originalität im Wachsen einer europäischen Literatur und Geistigkeit: Beiträge K. Wallach gewidmet, Stuttgart, 153–65. Privitera, T. (1993) ‘Ipotesi sulla “memoria glossografica” di Sidonio Apollinare’, GIF 45, 133–50. Purgold, K. (1878) Archäologische Bemerkungen zu Claudian und Sidonius, Gotha. Pyle, C.M. (1991) ‘Per la biografia di Baldassare Taccone: Con un appendice di documenti nuovi’, Archivio Storico Lombardo 117, 391–413. Quadlbauer, F. (1980) ‘Purpureus pannus: Zum Fortwirken eines horazischen Bildes in Spätantike und Mittelalter’, MLatJb 15, 1–32. Quantin, J.-L. (1998) ‘Jérôme Vignier (1606–1661): Critique et faussaire janséniste?’, BECh 156, 451–79. Rackley, S.A. (1986) ‘The Amatory Excerpts of Ovid in the Florilegium Gallicum: Evidence of the Knowledge of this Poet in the Twelfth Century’, Florilegium 8, 71–112. Radice, B. (2012) ‘Pliny and the Panegyricus’ in Rees (2012a) 77–84. Raga, E. (2009) ‘Bon mangeur, mauvais mangeur: Pratiques alimentaires et critique sociale dans l’œuvre de Sidoine Apollinaire et ses contemporains’, RBPh 87, 165–96. — (2019) ‘Romans and Barbarians at the Table: Banquets and Food as Tools of Distinction According to Sidonius Apollinaris (Fifth-Century Gaul)’, in Y. Fox and E. Buchberger (eds), Inclusion and Exclusion in Mediterranean Christianities, 400–800, Turnhout, 239–58. Rahner, H. (1935) Die gefälschten Papstbriefe aus dem Nachlass von Jérôme Vignier, Freiburg im Breisgau. Raimondi, E. (1972) Politica e commedia: Dal Beroaldo al Machiavelli, Bologna. Ramsby, T., and A. Vasaly (eds) (2018) Epistolary Realities and Fictions: Essays on Roman Letters in Honour of Eleanor Winsor Leach, BICS 61.2. Rapp, C. (2005) Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley. Ravenna, G. (1990) Le nozze di Polemio e Araneola (Sidonio Apollinare, Carmina XIV–XV), Bologna. — (2004) ‘Quos tamen chordae nequeunt sonare, / corda sonabunt: Sidon. epist. IX 16,3 vers. 83–84 (Sidonio Apollinare giudica la sua poesia)’, Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica 3, 315–26. Rebenich, S. (2008) ‘Pars melior humani generis: Aristokratie(n) in der Spätantike’, in H. Beck et al. (eds), Die Macht der Wenigen: Aristokratische Herrschaftspraxis, Kommunikation und ‘edler’ Lebensstil in Antike und Früher Neuzeit, Munich, 153–75. Rebuffat-Emmanuel, D., and R. Rebuffat (1978) ‘De Sidoine Apollinaire à la tombe François’, Latomus 37, 88–104.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 783

13/02/20 4:39 PM

784

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rees, R. (2011) ‘Afterwords of Praise’, in P. Roche (ed.), Pliny’s Praise: The Panegyricus in the Roman World, Cambridge, 175–88. — (ed.) (2012a) Latin Panegyric, Oxford. — (2012b) ‘The Modern History of Latin Panegyric’, in Rees (2012a) 3–48. Reeve, M.D. (1977) ‘Statius’ Silvae in the Fifteenth Century’, CQ 27, 202–25. Renaud, J.F. (1998) Lugdunum christianum: Lyon du IVe au VIIIe s.: Topographie, nécropoles et édifices religieux, Paris. Rexin, G. (2015) ‘Zur Geschichte einiger lateinischer Palindrome’, MLatJb 50, 39–58. Reydellet, M. (1981) La royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville, Rome. Reynolds, L.D. (ed.) (1986) Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford. Richardson, E.C. (1896) Hieronymus liber De viris illustribus: Gennadius liber De viris illustribus, Leipzig. Richardson-Hay, C. (2006) First Lessons: Book 1 of Seneca’s Epistulae Morales, Bern. Riché, P. (1976) Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: Sixth through Eighth Centuries, tr. J.J. Contreni, Columbia, SC (original Éducation et culture dans l’occident barbare, VIe–VIIIe siècles, Paris, 1962; 3rd rev. and corr. edn Paris, 1973). Ricoeur, P. (2004) Memory, History, Forgetting, tr. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer, Chicago (original La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, Paris, 2000). Riedel, V. (2000) Antikenrezeption in der deutschen Literatur von Renaissance-Humanismus bis zur Gegenwart: Eine Einführung, Stuttgart. Riess, F. (2013) Narbonne and its Territory in Late Antiquity: From the Visigoths to the Arabs, Farnham. Riikonen, H. (1978) Die Antike im historischen Roman des 19. Jahrhunderts: Eine literatur- und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Helsinki. Rijser, D. (2013) ‘The Poetics of Inclusion in Servius and Sidonius’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 77–92. Risselada, R. (2013) ‘Applying Text Linguistics to the Letters of Sidonius’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 273–303. Ristuccia, N.J. (2018) Christianization and Commonwealth in Early Medieval Europe: A Ritual Interpretation, Oxford. Rivolta-Tiberga, P. (1992) Commento storico al libro V dell’Epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco, Pisa. Robert, R. (2011) ‘La description du Burgus de Pontius Leontius: Entre réalité et objet de mémoire littéraire (Sidoine Apollinaire, carm. 22)’, in C. Balmelle et al. (eds), Décor et architecture en Gaule entre l’Antiquité et le Haut Moyen Âge, Pessac, 377–90. Roberto, U. (2017) ‘Dépouiller Rome? Genséric, Avitus et les statues en 455’, Revue Historique 684, 775–801. Roberts, M. (1989) The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity, Ithaca. — (2001) ‘Rome Personified, Rome Epitomized: Representations of Rome in the Poetry of the Early Fifth Century’, AJPh 122, 533–65. — (2009) The Humblest Sparrow: The Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus, Ann Arbor. Robin du Faut, P. (1903) ‘Epistre de Gay Sovley Apolinaire, Evesque de Clermont en Auuergne’ [1589], repr. in Varia 1897–1902 from L’Auvergne historique, littéraire et artistique, Riom. Roda, S. (1979) ‘Alcune ipotesi sulla prima edizione dell’epistolario di Simmaco’, PP 34, 31–54. — (1981) Commento storico al libro IX dell’Epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco, Pisa. Roller, O. (1933) Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe, Stuttgart. Rosati, G. (2003) ‘La strategia del ragno, ovvero la rivincita di Aracne: Fortuna tardo-antica (Sidonio Apollinare, Claudiano) di un mito ovidiano’, in L. Casarsa et al. (eds), Culture europee e tradizione latina, Trieste, 119–41 (= Dictynna 1 (2004) 63–82). Rose, S.M. (1985) ‘Same- and Cross-Sex Friendships and the Psychology of Homosociality’, Sex Roles 12, 63–75. Rose, V. (1893) Verzeichniss der lateinischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Erster Band: Die Meermann-Handschriften des Sir Thomas Phillipps, Berlin. Rosenmeyer, P. A. (2001) Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature, Cambridge. Rosenwein, B. (2006) Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages, Ithaca.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 784

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

785

Ross, A.J. (2020) ‘The Audience in Imperial Panegyric’, in A. Omissi and A.J. Ross (eds), Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, Liverpool, 257–80. Rossiter, J.J. (1991) ‘Convivium and Villa in Late Antiquity’, in W. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor, 199–214. Rotter, E., and F. Staab (1994) ‘Der Autor Embricho’, in Staab (1994) 123–37. Rouland, N. (1987) Soleils barbares. Roman [novel], Paris. Rouse, R. (1979) ‘Florilegia and the Latin Classical Authors in 12th- and 13th-Century Orléans’, Viator 10, 131–60. — and M. Rouse (1976) ‘The Florilegium Angelicum: Its Origin, Content, and Influence’, in Alexander and Gibson (1976) 66–114. Rousseau, P. (1976) ‘In Search of Sidonius the Bishop’, Historia 25, 356–77. — (2000) ‘Sidonius and Majorian: The Censure in Carmen V’, Historia 49, 251–7. — (ed.) (2009) A Companion to Late Antiquity, Malden. Roux, M. (2014) ‘Les ralliements d’aristocrates à des usurpateurs dans la Gaule du Ve siècle: Des choix politiques contraignants pour leurs descendants?’, in A. Bodin and T. Moreau (eds), Réseaux sociaux et contraintes dans l’Antiquité Tardive, RET suppl. 1, 83–100. Rubinstein, N. (1987) ‘Classical Themes in the Decoration of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 50, 29–43. Rudd, N. (1989) Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones (‘Ars Poetica’), Cambridge. Russell, D.A. (1964) ‘Longinus’: On the Sublime, Oxford. — and N.G. Wilson (1981) Menander Rhetor, Oxford. Russo, A. (2019) ‘Il Florilegium Thuaneum: Nuovi argomenti per una vecchia crux stemmatica’, RHT n.s. 14, 177–208. Rutherford, H. (1938) Sidonius Apollinaris: Étude d’une figure gallo-romaine du Ve siècle, Clermont-Ferrand (original ‘Sidonius Apollinaris, l’homme politique, l’écrivain, l’évêque: Étude d’une figure galloromaine du Ve siècle’, dissertation, Clermont-Ferrand, 1938). Sabbadini, R. (1885) Storia del Ciceronianesimo e di altre questioni letterarie nell’età della Rinascenza, Turin. — (1996) Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, 2 vols, Florence (original 1905–14). Sabbah, G. (1984) ‘De la rhétorique à la communication politique: Les panégyriques latins’, BAGB, 363–88. Salway, B. (1994) ‘What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to 700 A.D.’, JRS 84, 124–45. Salzman, M.R. (2018) ‘Symmachus’ Varro: Latin Letters in Late Antiquity’, BICS 61, 92–105. — and M. Roberts (2011) The Letters of Symmachus Book 1, Leiden. Sánchez León, J.C. (1996) Los Bagaudae, Jaén. Santelia, S. (1998) ‘Le dichiarazioni del poeta: Il carme IX di Sidonio Apollinare’, InvLuc 20, 229–54. — (1999a) ‘Sidonio Apollinare e gli dei pagani (a proposito di Carm. 9, 168–180)’, InvLuc 21, 341–55. — (1999b) ‘Note sul culto di san Giuliano di Brioude: Sidonio Apollinare Carm. 24, 16–19’, VetChr 36, 287–96. — (2000) ‘Sidonio Apollinare ed i bybliopolae’, InvLuc 22, 217–39. — (2002a) Sidonio Apollinare: Carme 24, Propempticon ad libellum, Bari. — (2002b) ‘Quando il poeta parla ai suoi versi: I carmi 8 e 3 di Sidonio Apollinare’, InvLuc 24, 245–60. — (2005a) ‘Storie di libri nella Gallia del V secolo: Testimonianze a confronto’, Romanobarbarica 18, 1–29. — (2005b) ‘Maioriano-Ercole e Sidonio supplex famulus (Sidon. carm. 13)’, AFLB 48, 189–208. — (2005c) Per amare Eucheria: Anth. Lat. 386 Shackleton Bailey, Bari. — (2007) ‘Sidonio Apollinare autore di una epigrafe per l’ecclesia di Lione: Epist. 2, 10,4 (= Le Blant ICG 54)’, VetChr 44, 305–21. — (2008) ‘Una voce fuori dal “coro”: Sidonio Apollinare e gli spectacula theatri (carm. 23, 263–303)’, BStudLat 32, 43–56. — (2010a) ‘Per un approdo sicuro tra pericoli e tempeste (Sidon. Apoll. Carm. 11,1–7)’, QS 72, 227–37. — (2010b) ‘Vocatio ad cenam: Spigolando tra i modelli di Sidonio Apollinare, carm. 17’, AFLB 52–3, 169–80.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 785

13/02/20 4:39 PM

786

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— (2011) ‘L’aristocrazia galloromana celebra se stessa: L’epitalamio per Ruricio ed Iberia (Sidon. Apoll. carm. 11)’, BStudLat 41, 103–14 (= Santelia 2014). — (2012) Sidonio Apollinare: Carme 16, Eucharisticon ad Faustum episcopum: Introduzione, traduzione e commento, Bari. — (2013) ‘Sidonius in Italy’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 47–59. — (2014) ‘L’aristocratie Gallo-Romaine s’auto-célèbre: L’épithalame pour Ruricius et Hiberia (Sidoine Apollinaire, carm. 11)’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 333–48 (= Santelia 2011). — (2015) ‘Laus est ardua dura sustinere: Riprese e originalità nell’elogio sidoniano di Narbona (carm. 23, 37–96)’, in L. Cristante and T. Mazzoli (eds), Il calamo della memoria: Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella Tarda Antichità 6, Trieste, 189–204. — (2016) ‘Sidonio Apollinare, carm. 23.101–66: Una “proposta paideutica”?’, Lexis 34, 425–44. Santos, D. (2009) ‘La ideología de los senadores galos en la visión de Sidonio Apolinar’, Estudios Interdisciplinarios de Historia Antigua, vol. 2, Universidad de Córdoba. Sas, M. (2009) ‘Pozycja i rola biskupa w mieście galijskim w upadającym Zachodnim Cesarstwie Rzymskim: Analiza dzieł Sydoniusza Apollinarisa’ [The Position and the Role of the Bishop in the Cities of Gaul During the Decline of the Western Roman Empire: An Analysis of the Works of Sidonius Apollinaris], Teka Historyka 38, 311–20. Sauvigny, E.[-L.] Billardon de: see Billardon de Sauvigny, E.[-L.]. Savaron, J. (1598) Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera Io. Savaronis studio et diligentia castigatius recognita, Paris. — (1599) Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera Io. Savaro . . . multo quam antea castigatius quam antea recognovit et librum commentarium adiecit, Paris. — (1609) Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera . . . II. Editio multis partibus auctior & emendatior; accesserunt indices locupletissimi, Paris. Savon, H. (1995) ‘Saint Ambroise a-t-il imité le recueil de lettres de Pline le Jeune?’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques 41, 3–17. Scarcia, R. (1971) Sidonio Apollinare: Antologia di versi, Rome. — (1991) ‘Sub imagine frondis (nota a Sidonio Apollinare)’, Euphrosyne 19, 325–33. Scharf, R. (2005) Der Dux Mogontiacensis und die Notitia Dignitatum, RGA Ergänzungsband 50, Berlin. Schetter, W. (1964) ‘Der Gallische Dichter Secundinus’, Philologus 108, 153–6 (repr. in Schetter (1994) 257–9). — (1992) ‘Zur Publikation der Carmina minora des Apollinaris Sidonius’, Hermes 120, 343–63 (repr. in Schetter (1994) 237–56). — (1994) Kaiserzeit und Spätantike: Kleine Schriften 1957–1992, ed. O. Zwierlein, Stuttgart. Schierl, P. (2013) ‘Roma renascens bei Rutilius Namatianus und Prudentius’, in H. Harich-Schwarzbauer and K. Pollmann (eds), Der Fall Roms und die Wiederauferstehungen in Antike und Mittelalter, Berlin, 232–58. Schindler, C. (2009) Per carmina laudes: Untersuchungen zur spätantiken Verspanegyrik von Claudian bis Coripp, Berlin. — (2015) ‘Pagane Mythen - christliche Herrscher: Mythos und Mythologie in den politischen Dichtungen Claudians’, in Leppin (2015) 19-42. Schlapbach, K. (2020) ‘Veriora nomina Camenarum: Uncertainty and Cognitive Displacement as Poetic Strategies in Sidonius Apollinaris’, JLA 13. Schlesier, R. (ed.) (2011) A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin. Schmid, W. (1957) ‘Claudianus Mamertus’, in RAC 3, 170–9. — (1959) Über die klassische Theorie und Praxis des antiken Prosarhythmus, Hermes Einzelschriften 12. Schmidt, J. (1928) ‘Das Ende der Römerherrschaft in Gallien (Chlodowech und Syagrius)’, Historisches Jahrbuch 48, 611–18. Schmidt, P.L. (2000) ‘De honestis et nove veterum dictis: Die Autorität der veteres von Nonius Marcellus bis zu Matheus Vindocinensis’, in P.L. Schmidt (ed.),Traditio Latinitatis: Studien zur Rezeption und Überlieferung der Lateinischen Literatur, Stuttgart, 103–21.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 786

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

787

Schmidt-Hofner, S. (2014) ‘Der defensor civitatis und die Entstehung des Nobabelnregiments’, in M. Meier and S. Patzold (eds), Chlodwigs Welt: Organisation und Herrschaft um 500, Stuttgart, 487–522. Schmitzer, U. (2015) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris: Unfruchtbare Muse oder Erneuerung der Poesie im Zeichen des Mythos?’, in Leppin (2015) 71–92. Schönfeld, M. (1911) Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen, Heidelberg. Schor, A. (2007) ‘Theodoret on the “School of Antioch”: A Network Approach’, JECS 15, 517–62. — (2011) Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria, Berkeley. Schultze, C. (2007) ‘Charlotte Yonge and the Classics’, in J. Courtney and C. Schultze (eds), Characters and Scenes: Studies in Charlotte M. Yonge, Abingdon, 159–88. Schuster, M. (1905, 1906) ‘De C. Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii imitationibus studiisque Horatianis’, Programm Staatsgymnasium Mährisch Ostrau, part 1 (1905) 3–44; part 2 (1906) 5–30 (repr. Vienna (1908)). — (1940) ‘Die Hunnenbeschreibungen bei Ammianus, Sidonius und Iordanis’, WS 58, 119–30. Schwitter, R. (2013) ‘Briefe, Bildung, und Identitäten im merowingischen Gallien: Zum Briefcorpus des Desiderius von Cahors’, JbAC 56, 86–100. — (2015) Umbrosa lux: Obscuritas in der lateinischen Epistolographie der Spätantike, Stuttgart. — (2020) ‘Rival Friends: Sidonius Apollinaris and Literary Competitiveness in Late Antique Gaul’, JLA 13. Scott, I. (1910) Controversies over the Imitation of Cicero as a Model for Style and Some Phases of their Influence on the Schools of the Renaissance, New York. Scott, J., and P.J. Carrington (eds) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, London. Scourfield, J.H.D. (1993) Consoling Heliodorus: A Commentary on Jerome Letter 60, Oxford. Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts, Cambridge. Seeck, O. (1910–21) Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, 6 vols, Berlin. — (1919) Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr., Stuttgart. Semino, E., and J. Culpeper (eds) (2002) Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, Amsterdam. Semple, W.H. (1930) Quaestiones Exegeticae Sidonianae, Being New Interpretations of Difficult Passages in the Works of Apollinaris Sidonius, Cambridge. — (1967) ‘Apollinaris Sidonius, a Gallo-Roman Seigneur’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 50, 136–58. Settipani, C. (1988) ‘Apollinaires et Polignac: État actuel d’une légende’, Héraldique et Genéalogie 106, 32–5. — (1989) ‘Les Polignac: Quelques orientations pour la recherche historique et généalogique’, in L. Brook (ed.), Studies in Genealogy and Family History in Tribute to Charles Evans on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, London, 327–53. — (2007) ‘Les Aviti et les évêques de Clermont’, in A. Dubreucq et al. (eds), Saint Julien et les origines de Brioude, Brioude, 131–70. Shackleton Bailey, D.R. (1965–70) Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, 6 vols, Cambridge. — (1976) ‘Notes, Critical and Interpretative, on the Poems of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Phoenix 30 (1976) 242–51 (repr. in Shackleton Bailey (1997) 22–34). — (1977) Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares, 2 vols, Cambridge. — (1981) Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum, Cambridge. — (1982) ‘Notes, Critical and Interpretative, on the Letters of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Phoenix 36, 344–57 (repr. in Shackleton Bailey (1997) 159–75). — (1997) Selected Classical Papers, Ann Arbor. Shanzer, D.R. (2005) ‘Augustine’s Disciplines: Silent diutius Musae Varronis?’, in K. Pollmann and M. Vessey (eds), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, Oxford, 69–112. — and Wood, I. (2002) Avitus of Vienne: Letters and Selected Prose, Liverpool. Shelton, J.-A. (2013) The Women of Pliny’s Letters, Abingdon. Sheridan, J.J. (1973) Alan of Lille. Anticlaudianus or The Good and Perfect Man, Toronto. Sherwin-White, A.N. (1966) The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary, Oxford.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 787

13/02/20 4:39 PM

788

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shkarenkov, P.P. (2018) ‘Образ Теодориха II в сочинениях Сидония Аполлинария: римская civilitas вестготского rex’ [Theodoric II’s Portrait in the Writings of Sidonius Apollinaris: Roman civilitas of a Visigothic rex’], Литература. Литературоведение. Устное народное творчество, Вестник РГГУ [Literature, Literary Criticism, Folklore. Journal of the RGGU] 2.2, Moscow. Shooner, H.-V. (1981) ‘Les Bursarii Ovidianorum de Guillaume d’Orléans’, MS 43, 405–42. Short, W.M. (2018) ‘Fundamentals for a Cognitive Semantics of Latin: Image Schemas and Metaphor in the Meaning of the Roman Animus-Concept’, in J. Lauwers et al. (eds), Psychology and the Classics: A Dialogue of Disciplines, Berlin, 13–31. Siewierska, A. (2004) Person, Cambridge. Simons, R. (2008) ‘Sidonius’ Satirenbrief epist. 1,11: Berechtigung und Grenzen de Spotts in der römischen Rhetorik’, in U. Baumann et al. (eds), Streitkultur: Okzidentale Traditionen des Streitens in Literatur, Geschichte und Kunst, Göttingen, 79–95. Sirks, A.J.B. (1993) ‘Reconsidering the Roman Colonate’, ZSS RA 110, 331–69. — (2013) ‘The episcopalis audientia in Late Antiquity’, Droit et Cultures 65, 79–88. Sirmond, J. (1614) C. Sollii Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera, Iac. Sirmondi Soc. Iesu presb. cura et studio recognita, notisque illustrata, Paris. — (1652) C. Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum episcopi opera, Iac. Sirmondi Soc. Iesu presb. cura et studio recognita, notisque illustrata. Editio secunda, ad eiusdem autographum praelo iampridem paratum diligenter exacta, Paris. Sivan, H.S. (1989a) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris, Theodoric II, and Gothic-Roman Politics from Avitus to Anthemius’, Hermes 117, 85–94. — (1989b) ‘Town, Country, and Province in Late Roman Gaul: The Example of CIL XIII 128’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79, 103–14. — (1993) Ausonius of Bordeaux and the Genesis of a Gallic Aristocracy, London. Sivonen, P. (1997) ‘The Good and the Bad, the Civilised and the Barbaric: Images of the East in the Identities of Ausonius, Sidonius, and Sulpicius’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 8, Brussels, 417–40. Skinner, S.A. (2004) Tractarians and the ‘Condition of England’: The Social and Political Thought of the Oxford Movement, Oxford. Slotty, F. (1927) ‘Die Stellung des Griechischen und anderer indogermanischer Sprachen zu dem soziativen und affektischen Gebrauch des Plurals der ersten Person’, Indogermanische Forchungen 43, 348–63. Smith, R.R.R., and B. Ward-Perkins (2016) The Last Statues of Antiquity, Oxford. Smith, T.A. (1990) De gratia: Faustus of Riez’s Treatise on Grace and its Place in the History of Theology, Notre Dame. Smolak, K. (2008) ‘“Wer sind denn die schon?“ Barbaren in satirischer Kleindichtung der lateinischen Spätantike (zu Sulpicius Lupercus und Sidonius Apollinaris)’, in T. Haye and F. Schnoor (eds), Epochen der Satire: Traditionslinien einer literarischen Gattung in Antike, Mittelalter und Renaissance, Hildesheim, 35–54. — (2011) ‘De patronis septipedibus Sidonii Apollinaris’, in J.-W. Beck (ed.), Ad fines imperii Romani anno bismillesimo cladis Varianae, Leuven, 235–44. Smythe, D. (2008) ‘Prosopography’, in E. Jeffreys et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 176–81. Snell, B. (ed.) (2014) Leben und Meinungen der Sieben Weisen: Griechische und lateinische Quellen, 4th edn, Berlin. Sogno, C. (2006) Q. Aurelius Symmachus: A Political Biography, Ann Arbor. — (2014) ‘The Ghost of Cicero’s Letters: Epistolography and Historiography in Senatorial LetterWriting’, JLA 7, 201–22. — (2017) ‘The Letter Collection of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 175–89. — , B.K. Storin, and E.J. Watts (eds) (2017a) Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide, Berkeley.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 788

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

789

— , —, and — (2017b) ‘Introduction’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 1–12. Sol, E. (1936) ‘Saint Didier, évêque de Cahors (636–655)’, Bulletin de la Société des Études Litteraires, Scientifiques et Artistiques du Lot 57, 536–51. Soler, J. (2005) Écritures de voyage: Héritages et inventions dans la littérature latine tardive, Paris. Sorabji, R. (2002) Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation, Oxford. Souter, A. (1915) Review of Dalton (1915), CR 29, 154. Southern, R.W. (1962) Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, MA. Spatzek, F. (1912) ‘De clausulis Plinianis’, in R.C. Kukula (ed.), C. Plini Caecili Secundi epistularum libri novem, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 2nd edn, Leipzig, vii–xv. Speyer, W. (1964) ‘Zu einem Quellenproblem bei Sidonius Apollinaris (Carmen 15, 36–125)’, Hermes 92, 225–48. Squillante, M. (2009a) ‘La biblioteca di Sidonio Apollinare’, Voces 20, 139–59. — (2009b) ‘Il luogo perfetto: La fama di Baia alle soglie del Medioevo. Ricreare Baia nell’animo: Sidonio Apollinare’, in R. Valenti (ed.), Memorie dell’acqua e della terra, Naples, 45–8. — (2010a) ‘Geografia e memoria letteraria nell’epistolario di Sidonio Apollinare’, in S. Rocca (ed.), Latina Didaxis 25, Genoa, 83–98. — (2010b) ‘. . . de hymno tuo si percontere quid sentiam: L’inno secondo Sidonio Apollinare’, Paideia 65, 449–63. — (2014a) ‘. . . tanta curiositate discusserat atque intellexerat, ut . . . paratum haberet competens sine aliqua dilatione responsum: L’uomo di cultura tra V e VI sec.’, in A. De Vivo and R. Perrelli (eds), Il miglior fabbro: Studi offerti a Giovanni Polara, Amsterdam, 273–86. — (2014b) ‘Giochi d’acqua tra invenzione e citazione’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 215–25. — (2016a) ‘Le siluulae di Stazio per Sidonio Apollinare’, in A. Setaioli (ed.), Apis Matina: Studi in onore di Carlo Santini, Trieste, 669–78. — (2016b) ‘Modello lucreziano e superstitio nell’epistolario sidoniano’, in L. Cristante and V. Veronesi (eds), Forme di accesso al sapere in età tardoantica e altomedievale, vol. 6, Trieste, 179–88. — (2018a) ‘Dalla poetandi ineptia di Ausonio alle nugae poetarum cantilenosae di Sidonio Apollinare’, in É.Wolff (ed.), Ausone en 2015: Bilan et nouvelles perspectives, Paris, 367–76. — (2018b) ‘Vanescentium litterarum vestigia . . .’, InvLuc 40, 125–34. Squire, M. (2013) ‘Ars in their “I”s: Authority and Authorship in Graeco-Roman Visual Culture’, in A. Marmodoro and J. Hill (eds), The Author’s Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity, Oxford, 357–414. — (ed.) (2016) Sight and the Ancient Senses, London. St John Mildmay, A.N. (1899) ‘Five Difficult Passages in Apollinaris Sidonius (Ob. 488)’, CR 13, 434–6. Staab, F. (ed.) (1994) Auslandsbeziehungen unter den salischen Kaisern: Geistige Auseinandersetzungen und Politik, Speyer. Stähle, A.-K. (2020) ‘Apollo Apollinaris’, JLA 13. Starr, R.J. (1987) ‘The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World’, CQ 37, 213–23. Stasyulevich, M.M. (1862–65) История Средних веков: От падения Западной Римской империи до Карла Великого (476–768 гг.) [History of the Middle Ages: From the Fall of the Western Roman Empire to Charlemagne (476–768)] (3rd edn of vol. 1, text unchanged with illustrations, Moscow-St Petersburg, 2001). Stauber, R. (1908) Die Schedelsche Bibliothek, Freiburg im Breisgau. Stein, C. (2015) ‘Épigraphie et mise en scène de la domination sociale dans la Gaule méridionale tardive (IVe–VIe s.): À propos de la tombe du grand-père de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in S. Agusta-Boularot and E. Rosso (eds), Signa et tituli: Monuments et espaces de représentation en Gaule Méridionale sous le regard croisé de la sculpture et de l’épigraphie, Paris, 191–205. Stein, E. (1928) Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches, vol. 1 Vom römischen zum byzantinischen Staate (204–476 n. Chr.), Vienna. — and J.-R. Palanque (1959) Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2 vols, tr. J.-R. Palanque, Brussels. Steinacher, R. (2016) Die Vandalen: Aufstieg und Fall eines Barbarenreiches, Stuttgart.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 789

13/02/20 4:39 PM

790

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stephens, L. (1986) ‘The Shortening of Final -o in Classical Latin: A Study in Multiple Conditioning and Lexical Diffusion of Sound Change’, Indogermanische Forschungen 91, 236–58. Stevens, C.E. (1933) Sidonius Apollinaris and his Age, Oxford. Stickler, T. (2002) Aëtius: Gestaltungsspielräume eines Heermeisters im ausgehenden Weströmischen Reich, Munich. Stillingfleet, E. (1685) Origines Britannicae, or, the Antiquities of the British Churches, London. Stirewalt, M.L. (1993) Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography, Atlanta. Stirling, L.M. (2005) The Learned Collector: Mythological Statuettes and Classical Taste in Late Antique Gaul, Ann Arbor. Stirnemann, P., and D. Poirel (2006) ‘Nicolas de Montiéramey, Jean de Salisbury et deux florilèges d’auteurs antiques’, RHT, n.s. 1, 173–88. Stoehr-Monjou, A. (2009a) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire, Carmina I–VIII’, in O. Devillers and A. Stoehr-Monjou, Silves latines 2009–2010, Clefs concours lettres classiques, Neuilly, 95–205. — (2009b) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et la fin d’un monde: Poétique de l’éclat dans les panégyriques et leurs préfaces’, REL 87, 207–30. — (2012) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire, ep. 5, 8: Constantin le Grand, nouveau Néron’, in Guillaumont and Laurence (2012) 239–60. — (2013) ‘Sidonius and Horace: The Art of Memory’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 133–69. — (2014) ‘Traditions littéraires et renouvellement de la figure de Fabricius chez Sidoine Apollinaire: Construire l’image d’Avitus ambasssadeur et consul pauper (carm. 7)’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 89–110. — (2017) ‘L’épitaphe funéraire en l’honneur de Sidoine Apollinaire, entre manuscrits, fragments de la stèle et tradition littéraire: À qui l’hommage est-il rendu?’, Bulletin de l’Association Antiquité tardive 26, 74–9, . — (2018) ‘Le rôle du poète dans la Gaule du Ve siècle: Sidoine Apollinaire et son public’, InvLuc 40, 135–68. — (2020) ‘Jeux de mémoire dans les récits de voyage de Sidoine Apollinaire (en particulier epist. 1, 5)’, Viatica hors-série 4, . Stohlmann, J. (1973) ‘“Deidamia Achilli”: Eine Ovid-Imitation aus dem 11. Jahrhundert’, in A. Önnerfors et al. (eds), Literatur und Sprache im Europäischen Mittelalter: Festschrift für Karl Langosch zum 70. Geburtstag, Darmstadt, 195–231. Stone, L. (1971) ‘Prosopography’, Daedalus 100, 46–71. Stover, J.A. (forthcoming) ‘The Book in the Roman and Post-Roman World’, in Kelly and Pelttari (forthcoming). Stowers, S.K. (1986) Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia. Stratmann, M. (1998) Flodoard of Reims, Historia Remensis ecclesiae, MGH SS 36, Hanover. Stroheker, K.F. (1937) Eurich, König der Westgoten, Stuttgart. — (1948) Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien, Tübingen (repr. Darmstadt, 1970). Sturtevant E.H. (1939) ‘Horace, Carm. 3.30.10–14, and the Sapphic Stanza’, TAPA 70, 295–302. Styka, J. (1999) ‘La culture littéraire romaine dans la Gaule du Ve siècle selon le témoignage de Sidoine Apollinaire’, Terminus 1, 43–62. — (2002) ‘Die Poetik des Mythos bei Sidonius Apollinaris’, Classica Cracoviensia 7, 33–43. — (2003) ‘Epische Ästhetik von Sidonius Apollinaris: Kaiserliche Panegyrika’, Classica Cracoviensia 8, 55–90. — (2007) ‘Epitalamio tardoantico tradizionale e cristiano: Sidonio Apollinare e Paolino di Nola’, in V. Panagl (ed.), Dulce Melos: La poesia tardoantica e medievale, Alessandria, 103–19. — (2008a) Sydoniusz Apollinaris i kultura literacka w Galii V wieku, with a resumé in German, ‘Sidonius Apollinaris und die literarische Kultur im Gallien des 5. Jh.’, Cracow. — (2008b) ‘Römische Schule der Spätantike im Lichte der Briefe von Sidonius Apollinaris’, Classica Cracoviensia 12, 157–75. — (2011) ‘Cursus honorum im spätantiken Gallien im Lichte der Briefe Sidonius Apollinaris’, in Studies of Greek and Roman Literature and Culture: Essays in Honour of Józef Korpanty, Classica Cracoviensia 14, 303–18.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 790

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

791

— (2014) ‘Claudianus Mamertus in the Eyes of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Classica Cracoviensia 17, 189–201. — (2015) ‘Late Ancient Collegia Poetarum According to Sidonius Apollinaris’, Classica Cracoviensia 18, 377–90. Sulowski, J. (1972) Ralph of Longchamp, In Anticlaudianum Alani commentum, Wrocław. Sundwall, J. (1915) Weströmische Studien, Berlin. Swoboda, A. (1995) Pojęcie przyjaźni w listach św. Paulina z Noli i św. Sydoniusza Apolinarego [The Concept of Friendship in the Letters of St Paulinus of Nola and St Sidonius Apollinaris], Poznań. Sykutris, J. (1931) ‘Epistolographie’, RE, suppl. 5, 185–220. Syme, R. (1958) Tacitus, Oxford. — (1982) ‘The Career of Arrian’, HSCP 86, 181–213 (repr. in A.R. Birley (ed.) (1988) R. Syme, Roman Papers 4, Oxford, 21–49). — (1985) ‘Correspondents of Pliny’, Historia 34, 324–59 (repr. in A.R. Birley (ed.) (1988) R. Syme, Roman Papers 5, Oxford, 440–77). Szwarc, E., and J.-M. Payet (1993) Sidoine Apollinaire: Un Gaulois contre les barbares, Paris. Taisne, A.-M. (2014) ‘Présence de Stace dans les Carmina de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 283–93. Tamburri, S. (1996) Sidonio Apollinare: L’uomo e il letterato, Naples. Tatarkiewicz, W. (2005) History of Aesthetics, vol. 2, New York. Teillet, S. (1984) Des Goths à la nation gothique: Les origines de l’idée de nation en Occident du Ve au VIIe siècle, Paris. Teitler, H.C. (1992) ‘Un-Roman Activities in Late Antique Gaul: The Cases of Arvandus and Seronatus’, in Drinkwater and Elton (1992) 309–18. — (2011) ‘Tacitus in de late oudheid: Kanttekeningen bij een brief van Sidonius Apollinaris’, Hermeneus 83, 142–7. ter Kuile, E.H. (1976) De tijd van Rome’s laatste keizers: Brieven van Apollinaris Sidonius uit de jaren 455–475, Zutphen. Thevet, A. (1584) Vrais Pourtraits et Vies des Hommes Illustres Grecz, Latins et Payens, vol. 3, Paris. Thomas, R. E. (1986) ‘Virgil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference’, HSCP 90, 171–98. Thompson, E.A. (1948) A History of Attila and the Huns, Oxford. — (1984) Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain, Totowa. Thorsteinsson, R. (2013) ‘Epistolography (Ancient Letters)’, Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies . Thraede, K. (1970) Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik, Munich. Tolan, J. (1996) ‘Anti-Hagiography: Embrico of Mainz’s Vita Mahumeti’, Journal of Medieval History 22, 25–41. Tommasi, C.O. (2014) ‘L’utilisation du passé pour célébrer le présent: Esquisses d’histoire romaine chez Sidoine Apollinaire’, in A. Delattre and A. Lionetto (eds), La Muse de l’éphémère: Formes de la poésie de circonstance de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Paris, 185–202. — (2015) ‘Teo-teleologia in Sidonio Apollinare: Tra modulo encomiastico e provvidenzialità dell’impero’, in F. Gasti and M. Cutino (eds), Poesia e teologia nella produzione latina dei secoli IV–V, Pavia, 73–105. — (2016) ‘Coping with Ancient Gods, Celebrating Christian Emperors, Proclaiming Roman Eternity: Rhetoric and Religion in Late Antique Latin Panegyrics’, in M. Kahlos (ed.), Emperors and the Divine: Rome and its Influence, Collegium 20, 177–209. Tordeur, P. (2007) Deux études de métrique verbale, Brussels. Toste, M. (2003) ‘Baptista Pius Bononiensis’, in CALMA 1.5, 657–68. Tougher, S. (2015) ‘Robert Graves as Historical Novelist: Count Belisarius: Genesis, Gender, and Truth’, in A.G.G. Gibson (2015) 77–98. Tränkle, H. (2008) ‘Modestus und Kaiser Valens (Amm. 34,4,2)’, Hermes 136, 505–8. Trapp, M.B. (2003) Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translation, Cambridge.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 791

13/02/20 4:39 PM

792

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Traub, H. W. (1955), ‘Pliny’s Treatment of History’, TAPhA 86, 220–32 (repr. in Gibson and Whitton (2016) 123–45). Trout, D.E. (1999) Paulinus of Nola: Life, Letters, and Poems, Berkeley. — (2009) ‘Inscribing Identity: The Latin Epigraphic Habit in Late Antiquity’, in Rousseau (2009) 170–86. — (2017) ‘The Letter Collection of Paulinus of Nola’, in Sogno et al. (2017a) 254–68. Trukhina, N.N. (2004) ‘Христианская церковь поздней империи’ [The Christian Church in the Later Roman Empire], in V.I. Kuzishchin (ed.), История Древнего Рима: Тексты и документы: Учебн [History of Ancient Rome: Texts and Documents: A Reader], Moscow, 392–401. Tschernjak, A. (2003) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris und die Burgunden (Sid. Ap. carm. 12)’, Hyperboreus 9, 158–68. Uggeri, G. (1966) ‘Lussorio, Sidonio Apollinare e un’iconografia di Diogene e Laide’, Studi Italiani di Filologia 38, 246–55. Uhalde, K. (2007) Expectations of Justice in the Age of Augustine, Philadelphia. Ullman, B.L. (1951) Colucii Salutati De laboribus Herculis, Padua. — (1955) Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Rome. Uytterhoeven, I. (2007) ‘Housing in Late Antiquity: Thematic Perspectives’, in L. Lavan et al. (eds), Housing in Late Antiquity: From Palaces to Shops, Leiden, 25–66. Valois, N. (1881) ‘Étude sur le rhythme des bulles pontificales’, BECh 42, 161–98, 257–72. van Dam, H.-J. (1984) P. Papinius Statius, Silvae Book II: A Commentary, Leiden. van Thienen, G., and J. Goldfinch (1999) Incunabola Printed in the Low Countries: A Census, Nieuwkoop. van Waarden, J.A. (2010, 2016a) Writing to Survive: A Commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris, Letters Book 7, 2 vols: vol. 1 The Episcopal Letters 1–11; vol. 2 The Ascetic Letters 12–18, Leuven. — (2011a) ‘Sidonio Apollinare, poeta e vescovo’, Vetera Christianorum 48, 99–113. — (2011b) ‘Episcopal Self-Presentation: Sidonius Apollinaris and the Episcopal Election in Bourges AD 470’, in J. Leemans et al. (eds), Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, Berlin, 555–61. — (2013) ‘Sidonius in the 21st Century’, in van Waarden and Kelly (2013) 3–19. — (2016b) ‘Sidonius Edifies German Nuns’ [blogpost], . — (2018a) ‘“Il tempo invecchia in fretta”: La biografia di Sidonio Apollinare nella sua corrispondenza’, InvLuc 40, 187–98. — (2018b) ‘Gaul’, in D.G. Hunter et al. (eds), Brill Encylopedia of Early Christianity Online, . — (2020) ‘Amicitia, otium and the Chronotope of Sidonius’ Correspondence’, JLA 13. — (forthcoming a) ‘The Emergence of the Gallic Rogations in a Cognitive Perspective’, in A.C. Geljon and N.M. Vos (eds), Tradition and Transformation: Rituals in Early Christianity, Leiden. — (forthcoming b) ‘Rutilius Namatianus’ Vividness: Cognition and Intertextuality’, in É. Wolff (ed.), Rutilius Namatianus, aristocrate païen en voyage et poète, Bordeaux. — (n.d.) Sidonius Apollinaris [website], . — and G. Kelly (eds) (2013) New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris, Leuven. van den Berg, C. (2014) The World of Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus: Aesthetics and Empire in Ancient Rome, Cambridge. Varin, P. (1849) ‘Vie de saint Eutrope, évêque d’Orange’, Bulletin du Comité Historique des Monuments Écrits de l’Histoire de France 1, 52–64. Vassili, L. (1936) ‘Il comes Agrippino collaboratore di Ricimero’, Athenaeum 14, 175-80. — (1937) ‘Rapporti fra regni barbarici e impero nella seconda metà del V secolo’, Nuova Rivista Storica 21, 51–6. Vecce, C. (1988) Iacopo Sannazaro in Francia: Scoperte di codici all’inizio del XVI secolo, Padua. Venuti, L. (2008) The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation, 2nd edn, Abingdon. Vera, D. (1981) Commento storico alle Relationes di Quinto Aurelio Simmaco, Pisa. Verbaal, W. (2011) ‘Een blijk van innerlijke waardigheid: Sidonius Apollinaris, Latijns dichter’, Hermeneus 83, 110–14. Vercauteren, F. (1926) ‘Cataplus et catabolus’, ALMA: Bulletin du Cange 2, 98–101. Verdière, R. (1983) ‘Caesarea puella’, Helmántica 34, 619–24.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 792

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

793

Veremans, J. (1991) ‘La présence de Virgile dans l’oeuvre de Sidoine Apollinaire, évêque de ClermondFerrand’, in M. Van Uytfanghe and R. Demeulenaere (eds), Aevum inter utrumque: Mélanges offerts à Gabriel Sanders, Steenbrugge, 491–502. Vergin, W. (2013) Das Imperium Romanum und seine Gegenwelten: Die geographisch-ethnographischen Exkurse in den ‘Res Gestae‘ des Ammianus Marcellinus, Berlin. Vernet, A. (1979–98) La bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux du XIIe au XVIIIe siècle, 2 vols, Paris. Vessey, D.W.T. (1974) ‘Sidonius, Polla and Two Poets’, CB 50, 37–9. Vessey, M. (2001) ‘The Epistula Rustici ad Eucherium: From the Library of the Imperial Classics to the Library of the Fathers’, in Mathisen and Shanzer (2001) 278–97. Viellard, D. (2014) ‘La fonction de l’évêque dans la Gaule du Ve siècle d’après la correspondance de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 41–54. Villey, P. (1908) Les sources et l’évolution des Essais de Montaigne, Paris. Vinchesi, M.A. (1995) ‘Il rapporto tra cristianesimo e cultura pagana in Paolino di Nola (con un’analisi tematica del propemptikon per Niceta, carm. 17)’, in F.E. Consolino (ed.), Pagani e cristiani da Giuliano l’Apostata al sacco di Roma, Soveria Mannelli, 299–310. Vinet, E. (1552) Caii Sollii Apollinaris Sidonii Arvernorum Episcopi: Opera castigata et restituta, Lyon. Visser, J. (2014) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. II.2: The Man and his Villa’, JLARC 8, 26–45. Vogt-Spira, G. (2009) ‘Les Saturnales de Macrobe: Une poétique implicite de l’Antiquité tardive’, in Galand-Hallyn and Zarini (2009) 263–77. von Albrecht, M. (1964) Silius Italicus: Freiheit und Gebundenheit Römischer Epik, Amsterdam. von (der) Woweren, J. (1598) C. Sollii Sidonii Apollinaris Arvernorum episcopi opera, es veteribus libris aucta et emendata, notisque Petri Colvii Burgensis illustrata, Lyon and Paris. von Falke, J. (1858) Die deutsche Trachten- und Modenwelt: Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Culturgeschichte 1, Leipzig. von Moos, P. (1988) Geschichte als Topik: Das rhetorische Exemplum von der Antike zur Neuzeit und die historiae im ‘Policraticus’ Johanns von Salisbury, Hildesheim. von Ramdohr, F.W.B. (1787) Über Mahlerei und Bildhauerarbeit in Rom für Liebhaber des Schönen in der Kunst, vol. 2, Leipzig. von Rummel, P. (2007) Habitus barbarus: Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert, Berlin. Waddell, H. (1954) The Wandering Scholars, Harmondsworth (original London, 1927). Waerzeggers, C. (2014) ‘Social Network Analysis of Cuneiform Archives’, in H.D. Baker and M. Jursa (eds), Documentary Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman Economic History, Oxford, 207–33. Waitz, G. (1851) ‘Hugh of Fleury, Modernorum regum Francorum actus’, in MGH SS 9, Hanover, 376–95. Walckenaer, C.A. (1839) Atlas de la géographie ancienne historique et comparée des Gaules cisalpine et transalpine, Paris. Walde, C. (ed.) (2012) The Reception of Classical Literature, tr. D. Smart and M.H. Wibier, Brill’s New Pauly, suppl. 5, Leiden (original Die Rezeption der antiken Literatur, 2010). Waldron, H.N. (1976) ‘Expressions of Religious Conversion among Laymen Remaining within Secular Society in Gaul, 400–800 AD’, dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus. Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. (1962) The Long-Haired Kings, and Other Studies in Frankish History, London. Ward-Perkins, B. (2005) The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford. Ware, C. (2012) Claudian and the Epic Tradition, Cambridge. Wasserman, S., and K. Faust (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge. Watson, L. (1996) ‘Hallowed Words or Melting Pot? Sidonius Apollinaris’ Use of the Poetic Tradition’, in L. Hardwick and S. Ireland (eds), Classical Receptions in Drama and Poetry in English from c. 1970 to the Present: The Reception of Classical Texts and Images, Milton Keynes, . — (1997) ‘Sidonius Apollinaris’ Carmina 1 and 2: A Commentary’, thesis, University of London. — (1998) ‘Representing the Past, Redefining the Future: Sidonius Apollinaris’ Panegyrics of Avitus and Anthemius’, in M. Whitby (ed.), The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, Leiden, 177–98. Watt, W.S. (1999) ‘Notes on Sidonius Apollinaris’, Revue Bénédictine 109, 5–16.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 793

13/02/20 4:39 PM

794

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Weaver, R.H. (1996) Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy, Macon, GA. Webb, R. (2009) Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice, Farnham. — (2016) ‘Sight and Insight: Theorizing Vision, Emotion and Imagination in Ancient Rhetoric’, in Squire (2016) 205–19. Weidemann, M. (1982) Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit nach den Werken Gregors von Tours, Mainz. Weigel, G. (1938) Faustus of Riez: An Historical Introduction, Philadelphia. Wendel, C. (1954) ‘Bibliothek’, in RAC 2, 231–74. Werner, K.F. (1997) ‘L’apport de la prosopographie à l’histoire sociale des élites’, in K. Keats-Rohan (ed.), Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, Woodbridge, 1–12. Weyman, C. (1926) Beiträge zur Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie, Munich. White, H. (2010) ‘Textual Problems in the Poems of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Veleia 27, 347–54. White, H.V. (1986) Auch Klio dichtet oder die Fiktion des Faktischen: Studien zur Tropologie des historischen Diskurses, tr. B. Brinkmann-Siepmann and T. Siepmann, Frankfurt (original Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism, Baltimore, 1978). White, J.L. (1986) Light from Ancient Letters, Philadelphia. White, P. (2010) Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic, Oxford. — (2018) ‘Senatorial Epistolography from Cicero to Sidonius: Emergence of a Genre’, in Ramsby and Vasaly (2018) 7–21. White, S. (1995a) Legacy [novel], Wake Forest, NC. — (1995b) Debt of Ages [novel], Wake Forest, NC. Whittaker, C.R. (1987) ‘Circe’s Pigs: From Slavery to Serfdom in the Later Roman World’, Slavery and Abolition 8, 88–122. Whitton, C.L. (2010) ‘Pliny, Epistles 8.14: Poetics, Politics and the Agricola’, JRS 100, 118–39. — (2013) Pliny the Younger: Epistles Book II, Cambridge. — (2019) The Arts of Imitation in Latin Prose: Pliny’s Epistles/Quintilian in Brief, Cambridge. Wickham, C. (2005) Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800, Oxford. Wijnendaele, J.W.P. (2015) The Last of the Romans: Bonifatius: Warlord and Comes Africae, London. Wikenhauser, A. (1956) Die Christusmystik des Apostels Paulus, Freiburg. Wilcox, A. (2012) The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome: Friendship in Cicero’s ad Familiares and Seneca’s Moral Epistles, Madison. Wilkinson, G.A. (1948) ‘The Trisyllabic Ending of the Pentameter: Its Treatment by Tibullus, Propertius and Martial’, CQ 42, 68–75. Wilkinson, L.P. (1963) Golden Latin Artistry, Cambridge. Williams, M.S. (2012) ‘Augustine as a Reader of his Christian Contemporaries’, in M. Vessey (ed.), A Companion to Augustine, Oxford, 227–39. Williams, S. (1967) ‘Apollinaris Sidonii epistola ad Domnulum IV, 25’, Manuscripta 11, 48–51. Willis, J. (1983) Martianus Capella: De Nuptiis Mercurii et Philologiae, Leipzig. Wills, J. (1996) Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion, Oxford. — (1998) ‘Divided Allusion: Virgil and the Coma Berenices’, HSCP 98, 277–305. Wilmart, A. (1936) ‘Le florilège de Saint-Gatien: Contribution à l’étude des poèmes d’Hildebert et de Marbode’, RBen 48, 3–40.147–81.235–58. — (1937–45) Codices Reginenses Latini, Vatican City. Wiseman, T.P. (1983) ‘Domi nobiles and the Roman Cultural Elite’, in M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni, Les ‘bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier siècles av. J.-C., Paris, 299–307. Wolff, É. (2009) ‘Quelques jeux sur les mots et les noms dans les préfaces des panégyriques de Sidoine Apollinaire’, VL 180, 33–8. — (2012a) ‘Deux éloges de Narbonne aux IVe et Ve siècles, par Ausone et Sidoine Apollinaire’, Lucida Intervalla 41, 115–29.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 794

13/02/20 4:39 PM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

795

— (2012b) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et l’histoire à travers sa correspondance’, in Guillaumont and Laurence (2012) 43–54. — (2012c) ‘La description par Sidoine de son voyage à Rome (Lettres I, 5)’, Itineraria 11, 1–11. — (2014a) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et la poésie épigraphique’, in A. Pistellato (ed.), Memoria poetica e poesia della memoria: La versificazione epigrafica dall’antichità all’umanesimo, Venice, 207–18. — (2014b) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire lecteur de Martial’, in Poignault and Stoehr-Monjou (2014) 295–303. — (2014c) ‘Quelques jalons dans l’histoire de la réception de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in Formisano and Fuhrer (2014) 249–62. — (2015a) ‘Martial dans l’Antiquité tardive (IVe–VIe siècles)’, in L. Cristante and T. Mazzoli (eds), Il calamo della memoria: Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità 6, Trieste, 81–100. — (2015b) ‘The Image of Augustus in the Work of Sidonius Apollinaris’, Acta Antiqua 55, 469–75. — (2015c) ‘La lettre VIII, 11 de Sidoine Apollinaire sur le rhéteur Lampridius’, in A. Canellis et al. (eds), Caritatis scripta: Mélanges de littérature et de patristique offerts à Patrick Laurence, Turnhout, 191–7. — (2016) ‘Sidoine Apollinaire voyageur’, AnTard 24, 193–201. — (2018) ‘Qui était André Loyen, l’éditeur français de Sidoine Apollinaire?’, InvLuc 40, 211–16. — (2020a) ‘Plaisanterie, humour et liberté de ton dans la correspondance de Sidoine Apollinaire’, in É. Gavoille (ed.), Liberté de ton et plaisanterie dans la lettre, Tours. — (2020b) ‘Quelques remarques sur la lettre V, 14 de Sidoine Apollinaire et les rogations’, in M. Lencou-Barême and É. Wolff (eds), Mélanges en l’honneur de Charles Guittard, Paris. Wolff, J. (1901) ‘De clausulis Ciceronianis’, Jahrb. f. cl. Phil., suppl. 26, 623–7. Wolfram, H. (2009) Die Goten: Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts: Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, 5th edn, Munich (1st edn Munich, 1979; tr. T.J. Dunlap as History of the Goths, Berkeley, 1988). Woloszyn, M. (2009) Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th Century, Cracow. Wood, I.N. (1992) ‘Continuity or Calamity: The Constraints of Literary Models’, in Drinkwater and Elton (1992) 9–18. — (2013) The Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages, Oxford. Woolf, G. (1998) Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge. — (2011) Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West, Chichester. — (2012) Rome: An Empire’s Story, Oxford. Yonge, C.M. (1877) Aunt Charlotte’s Stories of Roman History for the Little Ones, London [also published as Young Folks’ History of Rome]. — (1890) ‘The Price of Blood’, in More Bywords [short stories], London, 1–46. Zakharova, E.A. (2015) ‘Юмор в письмах Сидония Аполлинария’ [Humour in the Letters of Sidonius Apollinaris], Philologia Classica 10, 235–44. Zanker, P. (1995) Die Maske des Sokrates: Das Bild des Intellektuellen in der antiken Kunst, Munich. Zarini, V. (2000) ‘Les Préfaces des poèmes épico-panégyriques dans la latinité tardive (IVe–VIe s.): Esquisse d’une synthèse’, in L. Kohn-Pireaux (ed.), Le texte préfaciel, Nancy, 35–47. — (2002) ‘À la plus grande gloire de Martin? Deux epigrammata de la basilique de Tours au Vème siècle’, in J. Dion (ed.), L’épigramme de l’Antiquité au XVIIème siècle ou Du ciseau à la pointe, Nancy, 247–62. — (2008) ‘Les préfaces dans la poésie panégyrique de la latinité tardive’, in B. Bureau and C. Nicolas (eds), Commencer et finir: Débuts et fins dans les littératures grecque, latine et néolatine, Paris, vol. 1, 175–86. — (2012) ‘Épique et épidictique dans la poésie latine de l’Antiquité tardive’, in N. Catellani-Dufrêne and M. Perrin (eds), La lyre et la pourpre: Poésie latine et politique de l’Antiquité tardive à la Renaissance, Rennes, 17–32. Zecchini, G. (1983) Aezio: L’ultima difesa dell’occidente romano, Rome. — (1993) ‘Traiano postumo (con un’appendice su Adriano)’, in G. Zecchini, Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica, Rome, 125–45. Zehnacker, H. (2009–12) Pline le Jeune: Lettres I–IX, 3 vols (French tr. N. Méthy from vol. 2), Paris. Zelazowski, J., and R. Zukowski (2005) ‘Deux plats en argent de l’Antiquité tardive au Musée national de Varsovie’, Archéologia 56, 107–31.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 795

13/02/20 4:39 PM

796

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zelzer, K. (1989) ‘Plinius Christianus: Ambrosius als Epistolograph’, Studia Patristica 23, 203–8. — and M. Zelzer (2002) ‘Retractationes zu Brief und Briefgenos bei Plinius, Ambrosius und Sidonius Apollinaris’, in W. Blümer et al. (eds), Alvarium: Festschrift für Christian Gnilka, Münster, 393–405. Zelzer, M. (1995) ‘Der Brief in der Spätantike: Überlegungen zu einem literarischen Genos am Beispiel der Briefsammlung des Sidonius Apollinaris’, Wiener Studien 108, 541–51. — (1997) ‘Die Briefliteratur’, in L.J. Engels and H. Hofmann (eds), Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, vol. 4 Spätantike, Wiesbaden, 321–53. Zieliński, T. (1904) ‘Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden: Grundzüge einer oratorischen Rhythmik’, Philologus, suppl. 9.4, 589–844. — (1914) ‘Der constructive Rhythmus in Ciceros Reden: Der oratorischen Rhythmik zweiter Teil’, Philologus, suppl. 13.1. Zilliacus, H. (1953) Selbstgefühl und Servilität: Studien zum unregelmässigen Numerusgebrauch im Griechischen, Helsingfors. — (2001) ‘Anredeformen’, in RAC 1, 465–97. Ziolkowski, J. M. (1998) ‘Mnemotechnics and the Reception of the Aeneid in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages’, in P. Knox and C. Foss (eds), Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen, Stuttgart, 158–73. Zorzetti, N. (1980) ‘Dimostrare e convincere: L’exemplum nel ragionamento induttivo e nella comunicazione’, in Berlioz and David (1980) 33–65.

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Bibligraphy.indd 796

13/02/20 4:39 PM

Index locorum

Republican or early imperial authors are listed under the most commonly used name, whether nomen or cognomen; English forms in common usage are preferred (e.g. Aristotle, Augustine, Sallust). Late antique authors are generally listed by the last name, in accordance with onomastic norms, except when another name is in general use (e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus, Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius). ABELARD see PETER ABELARD AGROECIUS De orthographia praef., 52 AL see ANTHOLOGIA LATINA ALAN OF LILLE (Alanus ab insulis) Anticlaudianus 2.343–62, 670 2.357, 669 3.240–7, 669 3.242, 316 ALC. AVIT. see AVITUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS AMBROSE OF MILAN De paenitentia 2.5, 310 2.8, 310 Enarratio in psalmum David 118 21.10–12, 224 AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS Res gestae 14.6.8 and 18, 214 15.5–6, 199 16.7.9, 259, 314 25.4.3, 284 30.4.2, 242 30.9.1, 240 ANACREON fr. 43 D = 11a Page, 285, 370, 459 ANTHOLOGIA LATINA (AL) [see also LUXORIUS] 390 Riese = 386 SB, 481 391B Riese = 387 SB, 17, 481 395.6 Riese = 391.6 SB, 399 762 Riese = CIL 12.2130, 612 APOLLODORUS Epitome 3.7, 245 APPIAN Mithridatic Wars 70, 253

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 797

APULEIUS Apologia pro se de magia 4.8, 400 10, 299 10.6, 400 64.7, 309 92.8, 400 De deo Socratis 5, 400 15, 401 Florida 3, 300 3.1, 400 Metamorphoses 1.1, 312, 314 1.12.1, 400 6.1.3, 403 8.1, 300 8.1.14, 312 9.30.1, 314 9.38.3, 401 10.2.4, 314 10.28.1, 401 11.23.5, 314 ARATOR Epistula ad Parthenium, 666 ARISTOTLE Rhetorica 1394a, 335 ATHENAEUS Deipnosophistae 10.457e, 288 AUGUSTINE De civitate dei 8.2, 256 21.6, 653 De doctrina christiana 2.60, 224 De musica 1.2, 440

13/02/20 4:53 PM

798 De natura et origine animae 4.7.9, 288 Epistulae 3–14, 385 23, 376 82.2, 380 166.13, 440 Sermones 61 Dolbeau.25–6, 312 AUSONIUS, DECIMIUS MAGNUS Caesares, 170, 484, 489, 492–3, 496, 501, 544 35, 442 Cento nuptialis 139.4, 216 Eclogae 20.5–6, 454 Epistulae 9b, 354 9b.104, 401 13, 349 13.83, 455 15.29, 401 17.13–14, 233 19b, 354 19b.14, 401 Epigrammata 1.8, 351 Gratiarum actio 31–2, 546 Ludus septem sapientum, 256 Mosella 122–4, 295 Ordo nobilum urbium, 293 Praefationes variae 4, 348, 354 4.1–6, 349 4.4, 354 Protrepticus ad nepotem, 225 AUSPICIUS OF TOUL Epistula ad Arbogastem, 42 AVITUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS (of Vienne) Carmina 4.499, 282 6.655–9, 56 Epistulae 24, 16 36, 16 43, 16, 54 51, 16, 54, 57, 231 52, 16, 56 BACCHYLIDES fr. 21 Maehler, 285, 355 BIBLE see VULGATA BOETHIUS De consolatione philosophiae 3.1.1–2, 328 CAESARIUS OF ARLES (Caes. Arel.) Sermones 1.5–7, 265 CAESIUS BASSUS Fragmentum de metris GLK 6.258.17–259.4, 453, 454 CALLIMACHUS fr. 612 Pfeiffer, 279 Hymn 5.55–6, 279

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 798

INDEX LOCORUM CARMINA LATINA EPIGRAPHICA 1365, 361 1387, 361 1389, 361 CASSIUS DIO Roman History 68.15.4–16, 240 CASSIANUS, IOHANNES Collationes patrum 11.10, 49 CASSIODORUS Chronicon s.a. 469, 82 Institutiones 2.5.2, 440 Variae 8.13.4, 240 11 praef. 2, 384 CATULLUS 1, 351, 354 1.1, 292 1.1–2, 349 2.1, 230 12.1, 455 16.6–11, 216 22.10, 399 42.1, 455 50.4–6, 351 64.130–44, 300 64.402, 442 68, 358 68.112, 283 CATO Praecepta ad filium 78, 232 CENSORINUS De die natali 10.3, 440 CHRONICON GALLICUM A. 511 s.a. 473, 48 CICERO Ad Atticum 1.1.16, 641 1.10[1].5, 420 2.19.5, 18 Ad familiares 2.4.1, 249 2.4.1–2, 383 4.5, 385 4.12, 385 4.13.1, 383 6.10.4, 383 8, 385 15.21.4, 383 De officiis 1.139, 249 3, praef., 249 De oratore (De orat.) 2.85, 232 2.357, 236 In Verrem 3.131, 641 4.4.30, 400 5.7.7, 400 5.25.64, 400 5.28.73, 400

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM Orator (Orat.) 37, 240 169, 335 204–26, 462 Pro Cluentio 164–6, 248 Pro Flacco 37, 383 60, 254 Tusculanae disputationes 2.13, 249 CIL see CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM LATINARUM CLAUDIAN Carmina minora 13, 358 13.3–4, 448 25.41, 292 30 (= Laus Serenae).70–82, 302 45, 234, 357 De bello Getico (Get.) 138–44, 303 240–57, 309 319–63, 304 321–48, 309 356–63, 308 629, 407 De bello Gildonico (Gild.) 17–25, 300, 301 27, 283 28–127, 300 31, 283 111, 337 134–39, 301 De consulatu Stilichonis (Stil.) 1.51–7, 303 1.61–62, 303 1.120–1, 299 1.286, 302 2.227–62, 301 praef. 3.21–4, 303 De raptu Proserpinae (Rapt.) 1.212, 443 3.1–17, 301 Epithalamium pro Nuptiis Honorii Augusti (Nupt.) 87–91, 297 In Eutropium (Eutr.) 2.526–30, 300 Panegyricus de tertio consulatu Honorii Augusti (III Hon.) 4, 401 22–8, 299 124, 294 Panegyricus de quarto consulatu Honorii Augusti (IV Hon.) 466, 235 Panegyricus de sexto consulatu Honorii Augusti (VI Hon.) 30–1, 296 162–8, 301 194–7, 311 494–522, 312 641, 302 Panegyricus dictus Manlio Theodoro consuli (Theod.) 94, 443 Panegyricus dictus Olybrio et Probino consulibus (Olybr.) 1–5, 302 87–95, 301 96–9, 301 214–25, 301

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 799

799

CLAUDIANUS, MAMERTUS De statu animae (Anim.) praef., 15, 23, 238, 259 3.11, 314 Epistulae 1 (= Sidonius Ep. 4.2), 15, 82, 219, 261, 415, 605 1 (= Sidonius Ep. 4.2).2, 220 1 (= Sidonius Ep. 4.2).3, 261, 265 1 (= Sidonius Ep. 4.2).4, 305, 402, 644 2, 238 CLE see CARMINA LATINA EPIGRAPHICA COLLATIO LEGUM MOSAICARUM ET ROMANARUM 2.5.4, 37 CODEX THEODOSIANUS (CTh) 1.1.6.2, 34 1.6.3, 34 1.22.1, 38 7.18.1, 38 9.42.22, 235 11.16.15, 36 11.16.18, 36 13.3.11, 36 CONSULARIA ITALICA s.a. 413, 19 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM LATINARUM 2.7.439, 37 3.14406, 47 5.5214, 47 8.24069, 46 10.1354, 47 13.128, 38 DIO CHRYSOSTOM Orationes 46.7, 255 DIOMEDES Ars GLK 1.475.9–476.6, 456 GLK 1.502.30, 447 GLK 1.518.32–519.6, 457 EBERHARD THE GERMAN Laborintus 645–6, 667 EMBRICO OF MAINZ Vita auctoris 9–14, 644 13–14, 667 ENNODIUS Carmina 1.9, 665 1.9.12–13, 665 1.9.18–19, 665 1.9.36–7, 665 Opuscula 6.11, 259 Vita Epifanii 54, 325 EUCHERIUS Epistula ad Valerianum p. 716, 49 p. 717, 49 EURIPIDES Bacchae 14–23, 254

13/02/20 4:53 PM

800 FAUSTUS OF RIEZ (Faust. Reien.) Epistulae 15, 227 ‘Admiranda mihi’, 52 ‘Gratias ad vos’, 55 ‘Gratias domino’, 55 ‘Honoratus officio’, 55 ‘Licet per’, 55 ‘Propitia divinitate’, 55 ‘Quod pro sollicitudine’, 52 ‘Tanta mihi’, 55 FESTUS De significatione verborum 363.37, 454 FLODOARD OF REIMS Historia Remensis ecclesiae 1.12, 666 FLORUS Epitome historiae Romanae praef., 338 praef. 8, 302, 339 1.40 (3.5).16, 253 FORTUNATIANUS Ars rhetorica 3.14, 288 FRONTINUS (Fron.) Stratagemata 1.13.6, 253 FRONTO Ad Antoninum imperatorem 2.4–5, 388 FULGENTIUS Mythologiae, 666 prol., 666 GELLIUS, AULUS Atticae noctes 4.9.12, 402 12.15, 402 19.7.5, 402 19.7.15, 402 GENNADIUS De viris illustribus 92, 16, 62, 237, 666 GRAECUS OF MARSEILLE Epistula ‘Gratias domino’, 55 GREGORY OF TOURS De virtutibus sancti Iuliani 2.2, 634 Epistulae 8.28, 37 Gloria martyrum 64, 45 77, 51 91, 231 Histories 1.36, 37 2.9, 53 2.20, 240 2.21, 262 2.21–3, 614, 704 2.21–4, 612 2.21–5, 16 2.22, 224, 262, 264, 688 2.22–3, 262, 666 2.23, 17, 24, 28, 222 2.24, 224, 225, 633, 634 2.24–5, 633

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 800

INDEX LOCORUM 2.25, 634 2.26, 222, 223 2.34, 274 2.37, 231 3.2, 45 3.12, 45, 640 3.22, 37 4.5, 274 4.12, 634 5.11, 720 6.7, 16, 635 Vita patrum 1.5, 236 3, 633 GUIBERT OF NOGENT Dei gesta per Francos 2.2, 669 HA see HISTORIA AUGUSTA HERODOTUS Histories 9.122, 232 HIERONYMUS see JEROME HILARUS Epistula ‘Qualiter contra sedis’, 51 HINCMAR OF REIMS Vita Remigii, 663 HISTORIA AUGUSTA Caracalla 4.5, 33 Maximini duo 27.5, 546 HOMER Iliad 6.466–75, 299 13.5, 399 21.362–5, 315 Odyssey 13.81–3, 315 HORACE Ars poetica 14–16, 299, 366 15–16, 237, 238 21–2, 368 75, 448 251–2, 457 441, 442 Carmen saeculare (Saec.) 55–6, 346 Carmina / Odes 1.1, 457 1.1.1, 291 1.1.35–6, 387 1.3, 353 1.6.1–4, 318 1.14, 368 1.16.24, 457 1.17.17–18, 283 1.27, 459 1.36.14, 401 2.1.33–6, 312 2.6.13, 293 2.17, 291, 292 2.17.3–4, 183, 291, 343 3.12.10, 448 3.27, 353 3.30, 457 4.2.25, 294

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM 4.3.27–32, 288 4.4.65, 302 4.8, 457 4.15, 294 4.15.32, 368 Epistulae 1.14.19, 287 1.14.21–3, 293 1.16.27–9, 318 1.18.84–5, 229 1.20, 353, 354, 357 2.3 see Ars poetica Saturae 1.5, 311 1.5.7, 311 1.5.30, 311 1.5.49, 311 1.5.77, 312 1.5.87–8, 442 2.1.82–3, 305 2.7.86, 454 HUGH OF FLEURY Modernorum regum Francorum actus 4.382, 659 HYDATIUS Chronicon 46, 19 120, 214 ILIAS LATINA, 285 INSCRIPTIONES LATINAE SELECTAE (= ILS) 8454, 47 IORD. see JORDANES ISIDORE OF SEVILLE Etymologiae 1.21.1, 649 5.27.23, 655 15.1.38, 654 IULIUS VICTOR see VICTOR, IULIUS IUVENALIS see JUVENAL JEROME Epistulae 22.30, 266 125.12, 388 JOHN OF SALISBURY Metalogicon 2.29, 669 JORDANES Getica 24.35, 666 45.237–8, 660 JUVENAL Satires 1.5–6, 305 3.20, 292 3.77, 401 5.121, 401 6.118, 282, 399 7.62, 305 8.144–5, 282 LAEVIUS fr. 26 and 28 Courtney, 458 LAUS PISONIS, 318 LIBELLUS DE ECCLESIIS CLAROMONTANIS 22, 17 LONGINUS On the Sublime 7.2, 314

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 801

801

LUCAN Pharsalia / De bello civili 1.187–8, 301 1.214–16, 311 1.220–66, 309 1.427, 310 1.427–8, 305 1.429, 239 1.484–98, 309 1.584–638, 309 5.322–3, 305 6.109–17, 310 6.126–7, 287 10.116, 252 10.122–5, 310 10.155–68, 310 10.159–67, 310 Laudes Neronis, 318 LUCILIUS 228–9 Marx, 442 LUCRETIUS 1.926–7 = 4.1–2, 350 1.933–50, 328 LUPUS OF TROYES Epistula ‘Commonitorium quod’, 52 ‘Epistula 1’ (early modern forgery), 619 LUXORIUS Septem sapientium sententiae (= AL 351 Riese), 256 MACROBIUS AMBROSIUS THEODOSIUS Saturnalia praef. 4–9, 288 1.5.7, 388 1.6.8, 652 5.11.21, 315 5.11.23, 315 MAMERTUS CLAUDIANUS see CLAUDIANUS, MAMERTUS MANILIUS Astronomica 4.884, 442 MALLIUS THEODORUS see THEODORUS, MALLIUS MARIUS VICTORINUS see VICTORINUS, MARIUS MARIUS OF AVENCHES Chronicon s.a. 455, 241 MARTIAL Epigrams 1.3, 354, 358 1.3.5–6, 291 1.4.8, 216 1.27.4, 292 1.49, 250 1.70, 355 1.90.7, 282 1.107.4, 358 3.2, 349, 358 3.2.1, 349 3.5, 355 3.5.7–8, 353 3.56, 311 3.57, 311 3.57.1, 312 3.93.8–9, 416 4.64.18–22, 362 4.64.28, 401 4.86, 355

13/02/20 4:53 PM

802 Epigrams (cont.) 5.58.4, 293 6.42, 251, 367 8.36, 367 8.55.7–8, 311 8.76, 284 8.76.1, 292, 349 9.16–17, 367 9.36, 367 9.64, 367 9.75.2–3, 295 10.12.9–10, 250 10.30, 367 10.48, 355 10.76.4, 416 10.104, 353 11.1.10, 292 MARTINUS OF BRAGA In refectorio, 613, 666 MARTYROLOGIUM HIERONYMIANUM X Kal. Sept., 17 MENANDER RHETOR Analysis of Epideictic Speeches 2.368.8–369.5, 344 2.373.17, 338 2.395.5–12, 352 MEROBAUDES Panegyric 2.121–4, 303 2.132–40, 303 2.134–5, 303 2.68, 299 2.98–9, 303 NOVELLAE VALENTINIANI (NVal) 1.3.4, 34 OLYMPIODORUS OF THEBES Historical Materials fr. 16, 19 ORIGEN (transl. RUFINUS) In Exodum 5.5, 313 OROSIUS Historia adversus paganos 6.2.14, 253 7.34.5, 239 OVID Amores 1.1.1–4, 447 3.1.10, 447 Ars amatoria 2.481, 650 Fasti 3.471–6, 300 3.865, 401 5.7, 399 Metamorphoses 1.572–3, 287 1.747–2.366, 289 1.778–9, 294 2.1–18, 296 2.113–14, 296 6.24–145, 298 6.103–14, 295 8.236–59, 650 8.562–3, 293 11.592–615, 296 13.130, 442

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 802

INDEX LOCORUM Epistulae ex Ponto (Pont.) 4.5.3, 447 4.5–6, 354 4.12.1–16, 442 Remedia amoris 377–8, 457 546, 650 Tristia 1.1, 354 2.224, 403 3.1, 354 PANEGYRICI LATINI, 318 2[12].14.2, 337 8[5].14.2, 248 9[4].18.2, 336 PANEGYRICUS MESSALAE, 318 PAULINUS OF BORDEAUX Epistula ‘Scribere vobis’, 52 PAULINUS OF NOLA Carmina 17, 353 22.125, 443 Epistulae 13.2, 245 16.11, 224 29.13, 252 34.7, 224 PAULUS Sententiae 5.4.14, 37 PAUL THE DEACON Historia Romana 15.4, 51 PERSIUS Satirae 1.1, 295 PETER ABELARD Theologia Christiana 2.106, 668 PETER OF POITIERS Panegyricus ad Petrum Venerabilem 71–2, 668 PETER THE VENERABLE Adversus calumniatores, 668 Epistulae 4.17, 668 PETRONIUS Satyrica 72.4, 416 PETRARCA Epistolae familiares 1.1.2, 282 1.1.32, 672 22.2.11, 288 22.2.12–14, 281 23.19.13–14, 673 32, 388 PHILODEMUS Anthologia Palatina 11.44, 355 PHILOSTRATUS OF LEMNOS De epistulis 2.257–8 Kayser, 388 PHILOSTRATUS Heroicus 11.2, 245 Imagines 1.5, 315 Vita Apollonii, 18, 247

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM Vitae sophistarum 1.7, 255 2.30.1, 247 PLAUTUS Amphitruo 1011–13, 312 Aulularia 525, 402 Bacchides 551, 402 701, 402 Casina 52–7, 313 106–10, 313 Pseudolus 432, 402 PLINY THE ELDER Natural History 7.210, 256 PLINY THE YOUNGER Epistulae 1.1, 377 1.1.1, 166, 306 1.1.1–2, 306 1.3, 382 1.3.1, 230 1.5.1, 400 1.5.2, 546 1.5.12, 247 1.5.13, 400 1.9.5, 249 1.10.11, 182 1.13.1, 216 2.1.1, 244 2.1.12, 377 2.11–12, 389 2.16, 406 2.17, 250 2.17.1, 307 2.17.4, 252 2.17.5, 251 2.17.7, 252 2.17.11, 252 2.17.17, 251 2.17.20, 251 2.20.9, 377 3.14, 406 3.18, 319 3.18.1–2, 318 3.18.4, 318 3.19.2, 311 4.1, 406 4.11, 307 4.14, 352 4.14.3, 378 4.14.5, 216 4.14.8–9, 369 4.15.1, 307 4.19.2, 242 4.19.3, 244 4.27.1, 378 4.28.1, 256 4.28.2, 238 4.30.2, 250 5.6, 250, 406 5.6.2, 312 5.6.3, 250 5.6.4, 251

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 803

803

5.6.4–40, 250 5.6.13, 250 5.6.25, 252 5.6.28, 251 5.6.35, 259 5.6.44, 259, 313 5.6.45–6, 249 5.8.1, 247 5.8.12, 246 5.10.2, 400 5.16.10, 400 5.20, 381 6.6.3, 238 6.16, 184, 247 6.16.1, 247 6.16.22, 377 6.17, 380 6.17.3, 311, 400 6.17.4, 382 6.20, 184, 247 6.20.1, 311 6.20.20, 247 6.21.1, 240, 257, 306 6.21.3, 311 6.23.5, 238 6.33.11, 248, 287 6.33.2, 248 7.2.3, 375 7.9.5, 375 7.11.6–7, 227 7.19.1, 307 7.28.2, 380 8.8.1, 307 8.8.4, 311 8.8.5, 312 8.12.1, 238, 257, 307 8.14.5, 246 9.2, 381, 388 9.3.1, 307 9.4.1, 377 9.5.2, 311 9.7, 250 9.7.4, 250 9.11.2, 216 9.27, 382 9.27.1–2, 246 9.31.1, 400 9.32, 375 Panegyricus 1.5, 339 7.1, 339 9, 309 10, 319 13.4, 337 14, 319 14–15, 339 15.4, 308 21.1, 319 53.1, 248 67, 319 67.8, 240 85, 319 88, 319 89.2, 324 PLOTIUS SACERDOS De metris GLK 6.497.15, 456

13/02/20 4:53 PM

804 PORPHYRIO Ad Horatii Carmina 4.9.9 p. 167.3–4 Holder, 370 PRIAPEA, 285 PROCOPIUS Wars 3.3.15, 198 PROPERTIUS Elegies 1.8a, 353 2.10.24, 293 4.6.77, 399 4.9.65–6, 293 PRUDENTIUS Cathemerinon 7.81–195, 309 Contra Symmachum 2.479, 443 2.894, 443 Hamartigenia praef. 17–18, 257 Peristephanon 4.163, 443 6.160–2, 454 6.162, 455 Psychomachia 851–61, 298 PS.-ACRO Scholia in Horatium 356.6–7 Keller, 370 PS.-DEMETRIUS De elocutione 222, 314 223, 384 223–35, 388 227, 245 228, 374 230–1, 377 231, 377 Typoi epistolikoi, 383 PS.-HIERONYMUS De septem ordinibus ecclesiae, 36 PS.-HILARY OF POITIERS (Ps.-Hil. Pict.) De evangelio 105–7, 282 PS.-LIBANIUS Formae epistolares 48–9, 375 51, 376 QUINTILIAN Institutio oratoria 1.1.30, 316 1.6.35, 402 3.8.9, 240 5.11, 239 5.11.1, 335 6.2.32, 236 8.2.21, 314 10.1.7, 316 10.1.107, 388 10.4.4, 240 11.2.18, 292 11.2.27, 316 11.2.39–41, 288 11.3.76, 251 12.1, 232 RHETORICA AD HERENNIUM 4.5, 335

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 804

INDEX LOCORUM 4.57, 335 RICHARD DE BURY Philobiblon 474, 673 RURICIUS Epistulae 1.1, 273 1.1–2, 55 1.2, 272, 273 1.3, 243 1.3–5, 55 1.4, 15, 632 1.8, 15, 55, 190, 274, 427, 632 1.8.1, 15 1.8.3–4, 632 1.9, 15, 55, 274, 427, 632 1.10, 55 1.10.3, 638 1.15, 55 1.16, 15, 55, 427, 632 1.17, 273 2.1–5, 55 2.7, 55, 231, 273 2.9, 273 2.13, 273 2.15, 273 2.20, 55 2.23.6, 55 2.24, 219 2.26, 15, 427 2.26.2, 2 2.26.3, 282, 633, 666 2.26.8, 238 2.26–7, 55 2.27, 427 2.30, 273 2.32, 55, 273 2.41, 55, 427 2.43, 219 2.49, 55 2.51, 55 2.54, 55 2.57–8, 171 2.62, 55 2.65, 55, 223 5.15, 15 RUSTICUS Epistula ad Eucherium Lugdunsensem, 255 RUTILIUS NAMATIANUS De reditu suo 1.115–6, 302 1.122–4, 302 1.139–40, 302 1.140, 239 1.419–20, 442 2.49, 235 SACERDOS Artes grammaticae GLK 6.536.23–24, 457 SALLUST De coniuratione Catilinae (Catil.) 20.4, 305 SALUTATI, COLUCCIO Epistulae 6.3, 673 8.10, 674 9.9, 675 9.10, 675

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM SCHOLIA IN LYCOPHRONEM 815, 245 SENECA THE YOUNGER Epistulae morales 45.13, 375 84.2–10, 288 SERGIUS De littera GLK 4.475.7, 316 SERVIUS Commentarius in artem Donati GLK 4.425, 447 SIDONIUS Carmina Carm. 1: Preface to the Panegyric of Anthemius, 341 1.1–2, 323 1.1–22, 322 1.6, 322, 450 1.11.13–14, 356 1.13, 404 1.19, 409, 731 1.23, 326 1.24, 168, 293, 327 1.25, 731 1.25–8, 323 1.29, 326 1–2, 80, 590, 677 Carm. 2: Panegyric of Anthemius, 1, 27, 341 2.1, 412 2.1–8, 321 2.6, 446 2.8, 168 2.13, 168, 325, 327 2.14, 327 2.15, 446 2.15–16, 331 2.18, 446 2.25, 326 2.27, 327 2.30–67, 325 2.30–98, 324 2.30–306, 330 2.34–46, 303 2.35–55, 325 2.48, 446 2.71, 443 2.75, 444 2.75–7, 325 2.75–9, 302 2.78, 443 2.80, 401 2.87, 303 2.92, 443 2.94, 326 2.94–8, 324 2.99–100, 325 2.99–105, 326 2.99–192, 324 2.102–33, 324 2.105–11, 302 2.115, 731 2.120, 337 2.121–6, 337 2.129, 325, 327 2.134–92, 299 2.138–92, 324

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 805

805

2.149, 446 2.155–92, 241 2.156, 731 2.156–65, 256 2.157–81, 410 2.159, 443, 446 2.161, 443 2.169, 443 2.171, 443 2.175, 442 2.176, 443 2.178, 443 2.182–92, 324 2.185, 731 2.192, 244 2.193–4, 324 2.198–306, 324 2.204, 411 2.208–9, 303 2.213–19, 325 2.216–19, 325 2.236, 324 2.239–42, 231 2.243–87, 20 2.245, 666 2.268–9, 410 2.269–71, 332 2.269–87, 332 2.295, 680 2.300–4, 337 2.307–9, 296 2.307–16, 331 2.314, 325 2.315, 326 2.317, 209 2.317–18, 225, 331 2.317–87, 330 2.318–31, 301 2.327–8, 300 2.352, 327 2.358–9, 39 2.358–86, 331 2.383–4, 303 2.388–406, 330 2.391–404, 301 2.395–6, 301 2.402, 731 2.405–35, 294 2.407–35, 296 2.407–523, 330 2.408, 443 2.412–15, 409 2.412–16, 296 2.440, 283 2.440–5, 338 2.440–77, 334 2.440–78, 334 2.447, 401 2.467–8, 337 2.478, 283 2.478–9, 300 2.479, 326 2.484–86, 210 2.500, 731 2.509, 338 2.509–10, 338 2.523, 442 2.524–35, 337

13/02/20 4:53 PM

806

INDEX LOCORUM

Carm. 2: Panegyric of Anthemius (cont.) 2.524–36, 331, 335 2.526–7, 337 2.526–9, 337 2.527, 337 2.527–9, 337 2.529, 412 2.535–6, 337 2.537–9, 331 2.538, 323 2.540, 326 2.542, 225 2.543, 327 2.544, 337 2.544–6, 323 2.544–80, 168 2.547, 326 2.548, 323 Carm. 3: Editio ad libellum, 1, 169, 290, 341, 358 3.1, 290 3.4, 291 3.5, 169, 291, 327 3.6, 291 3.8, 291 3–5, 591 Carm. 4: Preface to the Panegyric of Majorian, 1, 290, 291, 341, 626 4.1, 292 4.1–10, 323 4.2, 450 4.3–10, 337 4.4, 620 4.6, 291 4.7, 620 4.10, 622 4.11, 285 4.11–12, 620 4.11–18, 323 4.12, 326, 410 4.14, 322 4.16, 620 4.17–18, 326 4–5, 106 Carm. 5: Panegyric of Majorian, 1, 27, 178, 341 5.1, 331 5.1–39, 626 5.2, 322 5.4–5, 621 5.6, 322 5.7–8, 327 5.7–12, 326 5.8–12, 322 5.9, 326 5.11–12, 621, 623 5.12, 622 5.12–369, 330 5.13–32, 301 5.16, 403 5.21–30, 301, 625 5.22, 621 5.25–30, 301 5.31–40, 625 5.34–6, 252 5.35, 443 5.36, 332 5.38, 624 5.41–53, 301

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 806

5.42–50, 320, 409 5.49–56, 621 5.51, 621 5.53–62, 301 5.63–4, 302 5.71, 622 5.72, 621 5.72–6, 621 5.75–6, 622 5.76–80, 621 5.87, 444 5.90–1, 287 5.90–8, 332 5.100–4, 304 5.102–3, 304 5.104, 326 5.107–15, 324 5.107–25, 324 5.107–327, 330 5.109, 446 5.124, 624 5.130, 443 5.132–9, 331, 413 5.140, 333, 446 5.143–274, 331 5.145, 326 5.148–97, 324 5.153–4, 17, 332 5.162, 404 5.164–206, 324 5.198–290, 205 5.198–327, 324 5.199–202, 331 5.207–11, 332 5.211–54, 332 5.219, 237 5.220, 64 5.238–53, 693 5.239–40, 689 5.275–93, 331 5.276, 624 5.280, 326 5.284, 443 5.290, 442 5.293–300, 337 5.295–8, 325 5.299, 338 5.300–4, 337 5.317, 337 5.317–18, 241 5.318–19, 319 5.320–7, 338 5.321, 443 5.326, 241 5.327–41, 337 5.336–7, 409 5.342–6, 337 5.347–9, 304 5.351–67, 330 5.353, 326 5.356, 339 5.356–63, 338 5.363, 236 5.369, 288 5.370–4, 330 5.370–552, 324 5.371, 324

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM 5.372, 334 5.372–3, 331 5.374–572, 330 5.378, 329 5.384, 329 5.385–424, 48 5.387, 326 5.389, 48 5.424–30, 337 5.448–61, 338 5.451, 338 5.453, 412 5.453–4, 338 5.470–83, 333 5.473–7, 232 5.474–7, 409 5.490, 404 5.497, 404 5.505–8, 337 5.510–52, 304, 332 5.518–39, 48 5.520–38, 331 5.522–3, 413 5.532–4, 303 5.535–8, 338 5.540–2, 304 5.543–7, 304 5.549, 304 5.553–4, 22 5.553–7, 327, 337 5.555–7, 409 5.557, 337 5.558–63, 327 5.560–1, 319 5.561, 240 5.564–73, 169, 327 5.567, 319 5.571, 326 5.572, 327 5.574, 326 5.574–600, 1 5.575, 169 5.576, 326, 327 5.578, 326 5.582, 326 5.582–6, 322 5.583–5, 21 5.585, 326 5.586, 326 5.590, 557 5.594, 304, 446 5.596–9, 328 5.599, 325 5.600–4, 322 5.601, 48 Carm. 6: Preface to the Panegyric of Avitus, 341 6.1, 407 6.1–28, 322 6.5, 322 6.14, 401 6.15, 336 6.29–32, 322 6.29–36, 168 6.31, 322, 327 6.31–2, 322 6.33, 322 6.35, 319, 322, 325

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 807

807

6.36, 323 6–7, 85 6–8, 593 Carm. 7: Panegyric of Avitus, 27, 341 7.1, 331 7.5–7, 302 7.7, 239 7.7–9, 321 7.8, 168, 327 7.10–11, 302 7.11, 168 7.14, 331 7.17–19, 333 7.17–38, 301 7.17–40, 239 7.17–598, 329 7.18, 412 7.20, 401 7.24, 397 7.29–34, 409 7.31, 443 7.38–45, 301 7.40–4, 1 7.44, 396 7.45–9, 334 7.45–598, 239 7.51–118, 336 7.55–116, 334 7.65–73, 336 7.66, 397 7.68, 337 7.70–1, 338 7.72–3, 336 7.74–5, 409 7.75, 443, 446 7.79–82, 320, 337, 410 7.80, 443 7.80–2, 320 7.86–118, 338 7.92–5, 337 7.104, 443 7.104–18, 338 7.110–11, 241 7.112, 319 7.114–15, 339 7.114–17, 337 7.116–17, 241 7.116–18, 241, 302 7.117–18, 339 7.119–20, 327 7.120, 327 7.123–440, 329 7.127–8, 336 7.127–35, 336 7.127–9, 336 7.128–9, 336, 337 7.129–34, 336, 337 7.133–64, 336 7.136, 446 7.138, 444 7.139, 339 7.139–44, 339 7.139–63, 324 7.147, 332 7.148, 326 7.148–52, 339 7.150, 339

13/02/20 4:53 PM

808 Carm. 7: Panegyric of Avitus (cont.) 7.150–2, 337 7.153, 339 7.153–4, 325 7.154–7, 34 7.161, 326 7.161–2, 324 7.162–3, 324 7.164, 35 7.165–70, 324 7.171–206, 324 7.174–7, 324 7.207–440, 324 7.212–14, 325 7.214, 324 7.214–15, 330 7.214–16, 330 7.215–20, 67 7.218–19, 329 7.218–29, 329 7.219, 236 7.219–25, 303 7.220–6, 21 7.223–9, 336 7.226–9, 337 7.230–40, 20 7.232, 445 7.234, 444 7.241–94, 332 7.248–59, 20 7.250, 319 7.251, 48 7.260–1, 330 7.280–4, 330 7.294, 332 7.297–8, 294 7.315–60, 205 7.319–28, 332, 700 7.327–35, 20 7.328–56, 333 7.336–53, 206 7.339, 326 7.348–56, 332 7.361, 444 7.361–8, 295 7.363, 232, 285 7.363–8, 298, 332 7.373–5, 231 7.378–87, 337 7.381, 338 7.382–7, 337 7.383, 337 7.399, 327 7.405–10, 413 7.411–16, 48 7.430–6, 319 7.435, 51 7.435–8, 241 7.436–40, 339 7.441–51, 207 7.441–57, 23 7.441–584, 329 7.444, 304 7.450–2, 330 7.452–602, 207 7.460–86, 330 7.471–84, 329

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 808

INDEX LOCORUM 7.495–6, 235 7.495–8, 232, 329 7.513–14, 330 7.516–19, 241 7.519, 51, 326 7.520, 339 7.525, 327 7.532–43, 338 7.540–1, 215 7.546, 544, 680 7.557, 330 7.561–4, 337 7.572, 330 7.575, 327 7.585, 325, 330 7.585–6, 327 7.595–8, 301 7.597–8, 338, 339 7.598, 325 7.599, 327 7.599–600, 168, 322 7.601, 326 7.602, 288, 332, 340 Carm. 8: Editio libelli, 125, 169, 341, 357 8.1–2, 291 8.7–8, 1, 169 8.7–10, 17, 328 8.9, 326 8.9–10, 322 8.16, 412 Carm. 9: Excusatoria ad v.c. Felicem, 95, 171, 174, 175, 284, 341, 348, 594, 666, 673, 676 9.1–3, 349 9.1–18, 348 9.4, 291 9.4–13, 349 9.9, 171 9.9–10, 351 9.10–11, 612 9.11, 351 9.14.6, 452 9.15, 314 9.16–18, 348 9.16–317, 350 9.19–210, 348 9.19–317, 348 9.23, 295 9.54, 443 9.65–9, 409 9.76–81, 350 9.82–104, 349 9.127–9, 413 9.130–45, 350 9.168–77, 409 9.180, 455 9.211–16, 285 9.211–317, 348 9.214, 457 9.226, 284 9.227, 401 9.229, 251 9.234, 443 9.259–317, 33 9.259–60, 285 9.265–6, 285 9.268, 284 9.277, 19

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM 9.289–301, 319 9.296–301, 319 9.299–301, 214 9.302–17, 351 9.308, 327 9.318–46, 348 9.319, 175 9.334, 455 9.339–40, 314 9.341, 351 9.342–3, 291 9.343, 455 Carm. 10: Preface to the Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia, 4, 15, 267, 342, 347, 348 10–11, 55, 100, 118, 171, 174, 570, 595, 632 Carm. 11: Epithalamium for Ruricius and Hiberia, 4, 15, 284, 342, 347 11.1–6, 615 11.1–13, 283 11.16–17, 295 11.17–28, 296 11.18, 443 11.51–4, 34 11.60, 398 11.87–8, 294 11.104, 402 11.113–21, 409 Carm. 12: Epigramma ad v.c. Ommatium, 87, 171, 174, 176, 341, 358, 595, 691, 694, 697 12.1–4, 237 12.2, 455 12.4, 238 12.6–7, 48, 232 12.8–11, 445 12.9–11, 233 12.10–11, 358, 412 12.14, 232 12.21, 455 Carm. 13: Epigram to Majorian, 1, 21, 22, 106, 172, 174, 176, 283, 332, 342, 359, 596, 675 13.15–16, 359 13.17–18, 17 13.21–2, 292 13.23–4, 21, 216 Carm. 14: Preface to the Epithalamium for Polemius and Araneola, 4, 176, 342, 347, 348 14 praef., 453, 597 14 praef. 3, 33 14.3, 371 14.26–30, 323 14–15, 82, 115, 172, 174, 568, 596 Carm. 15: Epithalamium for Polemius and Araneola, 4, 176, 342, 347 15.30, 443 15.42–50, 256 15.42–96, 612 15.43, 411 15.44, 443 15.44–50, 410 15.64, 443 15.79–98, 691 15.88, 442 15.96, 443 15.141–3, 409 15.145–59, 172 15.146, 407 15.147–8, 298

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 809

809

15.151, 327 15.175, 295 15.201, 288 Carm. 16: Euchariston ad Faustum episcopum, 4, 25, 95, 172, 174, 175, 283, 286, 289, 342, 363, 569, 597, 613, 665 16.1, 364 16.1–5, 364 16.1–67, 363 16.2, 295 16.5, 363, 364 16.5–6, 224 16.5–67, 365 16.5–69, 364 16.7–10, 286 16.63–67, 364 16.68, 55 16.68–9, 363 16.69–70, 363 16.71–7, 59, 172 16.71–88, 363 16.71–128, 363 16.72, 173 16.75, 395 16.78, 172 16.78–88, 224 16.85, 270, 272 16.87–8, 266 16.89–90, 363 16.91, 287 16.91–103, 363 16.99–102, 409 16.104–15, 363 16.109–10, 413 16.110–15, 286 16.115, 52 16.116–26, 363 16.127–8, 363 Carm. 17: Birthday invitation to Ommatius, 110, 172, 174, 285, 355, 613, 632, 666 17.1, 45 17.3, 27, 172 17–21, 342, 597 Carm. 18: The baths of his villa, 174, 355 18.1–4, 250 18.5–6, 251 18.6, 450 18.8, 251 18–21, 173 Carm. 19: On the swimming pool, 174, 355 19.3–4, 251 Carm. 20: To Ecdicius, 91, 174, 355 Carm. 21: On fish caught at night, 174, 355 21.3, 446 Carm. 22: Burgus Pontii Leontii, 1, 4, 104, 173, 174, 175, 176, 194, 279, 284, 342, 365, 367, 568, 598, 613, 666 22. ep. 1–3, 365 22. ep. 2, 243, 254 22.5, 254 22.22–46, 254 22.33, 292 22.44, 292 22.99–100, 255 22.117–19, 255 22.128, 248 22.131–2, 287 22.136–41, 298 22.141, 252

13/02/20 4:53 PM

810

INDEX LOCORUM

Carm. 22: Burgus Pontii Leontii (cont.) 22.158, 401 22.158–68, 253, 254 22.173, 292 22.180, 248 22.187, 248 22.218, 223 22.220–2, 293 22.230, 254 22.233, 401 22.279–80, 254 22. ep. 5, 254, 365, 401 22. ep. 5–6, 668 22. ep. 6, 237, 299 Carm. 23: Ad Consentium civem Narbonensem, 88, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 194, 341, 343, 598 23.1–31, 344 23.2, 183, 291, 292 23.3, 401 23.20–8, 345 23.22–8, 447 23.25–6, 412 23.25–7, 453 23.27, 455 23.29–31, 345 23.32–6, 344 23.32–433, 345 23.37–96, 344 23.39–44, 409 23.62, 689 23.70–1, 20, 291, 292 23.71–2, 235 23.97–169, 243, 344 23.99–100, 243 23.104–7, 409 23.108, 443 23.113, 443 23.114, 395 23.127, 443 23.131, 445 23.143–4, 412 23.153–4, 244 23.165–6, 697 23.170–7, 344 23.178–9, 291, 344 23.178–203, 344 23.181–94, 296 23.210–13, 222 23.224–7, 344 22.226, 292 23.228–62, 344 23.255, 222 23.263–303, 344 23.301, 401 23.304–427, 344 23.428–33, 344 23.430–1, 20 23.436–86, 344 23.436–506, 345 23.443, 43 23.446–9, 231 23.454, 294 23.485–6, 441 23.487–506, 344 23.500–1, 223 23.507, 405 23.507–12, 344

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 810

23.508, 455 23.512, 292, 455 Carm. 24: Propempticon libelli, 4, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 341, 352, 484, 569, 599, 631, 718 24.5, 350, 354 24.10, 173 24.15, 353 24.27, 173 24.31, 353 24.34–6, 173 24.35, 219 24.46–7, 295 24.81–3, 228 24.84, 53 24.86–7, 58 24.88–9, 58 24.90, 173 24.94, 353 24.95, 59, 355 24.95–8, 244 Carm. 25 (in Ep. 1.11.14), 342, 356 Carm. 26 (in Ep. 2.8.3), 61, 178, 342, 360, 603 26.1–4, 360 26.8–11, 360 26.15, 360 Carm. 27 (in Ep. 2.10.4), 178, 219, 343, 362, 604 27.1–2, 633 27.3, 455 27.22–7, 362 Carm. 28 (in Ep. 3.12.5), 61, 178, 343, 360 28.1–2, 361 28.9, 455 28.11, 292 Carm. 29 (in Ep. 4.8.5), 178, 343, 356, 606 29.3–8, 356 29.9–12, 356 Carm. 30 (in Ep. 4.11.6), 19, 61, 178, 343, 361 30.4–5, 256 30.17–18, 224 30.22, 314, 397 Carm. 31 (in Ep. 4.18.5), 178, 343, 362, 606 Carm. 32 (in Ep. 5.17.10), 178, 343, 356 Carm. 33 (in Ep. 7.17.2), 61, 178, 343, 361 33.1–12, 633 33.19, 399 33.21, 293 33.22, 412 Carm. 34 (in Ep. 8.9.5), 178, 291, 343, 346 34.1–11, 346 34.4–5, 346 34.12–20, 346 34.21–54, 346 34.34, 358 34.50, 402 34.55–9, 346 34.57, 291, 292 Carm. 35 (in Ep. 8.11.3), 178, 343, 369 35.4–6, 293 35.29, 455 35.35–36, 55 Carm. 36 (in Ep. 9.13.2), 178, 188, 285, 343, 369, 454, 457 36.1–4, 458 36.5–9, 314 36.5–13, 458 36.8, 398 36.14–19, 466 36.24, 458

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM 36–7, 611 Carm. 37 (in Ep. 9.13.5), 178, 188, 343, 370, 458 37.89, 395 37.97, 399 37.105–6, 34 Carm. 38 (in Ep. 9.14.6), 343, 452 38–9, 178, 611 Carm. 39 (in Ep. 9.14.6), 343, 356, 452 Carm. 40 (in Ep. 9.15.1), 178, 188, 343, 370 40.1–14, 370, 456 40.5, 401 40.15–34, 243 40.15–49, 370 40.19–49, 254 40.22, 188 40.44, 221 40.44–9, 243 40.54, 370 Carm. 41 (in Ep. 9.16.3), 178, 188, 343, 367, 459, 611 41.1–4, 395 41.1–32, 367 41.21–8, 1, 169, 326 41.22, 398 41.23–4, 34 41.25–8, 17, 328 41.27–8, 214 41.33, 445 41.33–40, 459 41.33–48, 367 41.41–4, 371 41.42, 306 41.49–56, 367 41.55–6, 170, 267 41.57–60, 459 41.57–84, 18 41.65–76, 368 41.65–84, 368 41.77, 443 41.77–84, 368 Epistulae Liber 1, 4, 20, 27, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191–3, 194, 235, 378, 390–1, 437, 466, 474–5, 487, 547, 560, 571, 601–3, 660, 661 1.1, 89, 219, 376, 388, 472, 601, 677 1.1.1, 33, 35, 181, 187, 215, 305, 306, 308, 319, 369, 402, 405, 406, 677, 690 1.1.1–2, 672 1.1.2, 33, 247, 376, 397, 550, 677 1.1.3, 182, 186, 219, 238, 377, 400 1.1.3–4, 414 1.1.4, 400, 411 1.2, 1, 20, 21, 55, 77, 192, 206, 234, 236, 329, 434, 602, 645, 668, 669, 700 1.2.1, 235 1.2.1–3, 472 1.2.2–3, 711 1.2.4, 48, 235, 556, 557 1.2.4–9, 234 1.2.5, 549 1.2.6, 234 1.2.8, 234 1.2.9, 397, 405, 554 1.3, 20, 114, 175, 181, 431 1.3.1, 19, 34, 57 1.3.2, 35, 398, 660 1.3.3, 202 1.4, 16, 20, 98, 311, 431

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 811

811

1.4a, 181 1.4a.1, 233 1.4b, 181 1.4b.3, 45, 555 1.5, 1, 22, 99, 179, 180, 181, 184, 210, 310, 472, 602, 735 1.5.1, 311, 400, 550 1.5.2, 216, 221, 311, 472 1.5.3, 210 1.5.4, 311 1.5.5, 305, 311, 397 1.5.6, 311, 398 1.5.7, 311 1.5.8, 311, 312 1.5.9, 221, 270, 312 1.5.10, 312, 416, 417, 659 1.5.11, 413 1.6, 20, 94, 180, 181, 184, 417, 602 1.6.1, 652 1.6.2, 35, 215, 404 1.6.3, 299, 398, 400 1.6.4, 298, 398 1.6.5, 42, 659 1.7, 20, 22, 48, 127, 179, 181, 184, 602, 712 1.7.1, 307, 660 1.7.2, 398 1.7.3, 313, 397 1.7.4, 53 1.7.5, 48, 64, 192 1.7.7, 434 1.7.11, 654, 660 1.7.11–13, 35 1.7.12, 401, 645 1.8, 87, 179, 181, 221, 415, 429 1.8.1, 216, 415, 661 1.8.2, 416, 661 1.8.3, 416 1.9, 1, 22, 99, 169, 179, 180, 181, 184, 210, 319, 334 1.9.1, 192, 221, 243, 403, 417, 652 1.9.2, 34, 221, 236 1.9.6, 74, 221, 323 1.9.6–7, 328 1.9.6–8, 210 1.9.7, 243, 425, 445 1.9.8, 179, 220, 240, 400, 402, 689 1.10, 23, 87, 179, 181, 184, 210, 603 1.10.1, 226, 227 1.11, 1, 21, 109, 179, 181, 184, 208, 434, 603, 694, 715 1.11.1, 305 1.11.3, 34, 35, 172 1.11.4, 74 1.11.5, 46, 217, 408 1.11.6, 21, 54 1.11.7, 305 1.11.11, 34, 38 1.11.12, 398 1.11.13, 690 1.11.14 v. (Carm. 25), 177–8, 342, 356 1.11.15, 21 1.11.16, 552 1.11.17, 35 Liber 2, 176, 184, 185, 189, 191–4, 378, 547, 560, 603–4 2.1, 22, 91, 180, 191, 414, 483, 603, 639 2.1.1, 231, 412 2.1.2, 634, 641 2.1.3, 231, 232, 641, 698 2.1.4, 23, 192, 226, 230, 641 2.2, 1, 90, 173, 180, 183, 194, 406, 431, 434, 603, 618

13/02/20 4:53 PM

812

INDEX LOCORUM

Liber 2 (cont.) 2.2.1, 307 2.2.1–10, 468, 472 2.2.2, 251, 253, 283 2.2.3, 250, 251 2.2.4, 252, 471 2.2.5, 544, 545, 554 2.2.5–8, 252 2.2.6, 252 2.2.7, 252, 355 2.2.8, 251, 252 2.2.9, 38, 251 2.2.10, 64, 251 2.2.10–11, 251 2.2.12, 250 2.2.13, 403 2.2.14, 251, 612 2.2.16, 251, 287, 398 2.2.17, 250 2.2.19, 253, 259, 287 2.2.20, 250, 313, 404 2.3, 95, 427, 722 2.3.1, 35, 229 2.4, 120 2.4.1, 34 2.4.3, 49 2.5, 113 2.6, 113 2.6.1–2, 49 2.7, 94, 272 2.8, 90, 175, 177, 603 2.8.1, 45, 402 2.8.1–3, 38 2.8.2, 18, 171, 175, 176, 177, 226, 360, 397, 408, 412, 454 2.8.3, 3, 64 2.8.3 v. (Carm. 26), 61, 178, 342, 360, 603 2.8.3 vv. 1–4, 360 2.8.3 vv. 8–11, 360 2.8.3 v. 15, 360 2.9, 91, 173, 266, 571, 603 2.9.1, 307 2.9.3, 58 2.9.4, 38, 234, 255, 256, 383, 647 2.9.5, 383, 400, 648 2.9.6, 35, 64, 405 2.9.7, 255 2.9.8, 313 2.10, 55, 100, 433, 604 2.10.1, 35, 237, 238, 395 2.10.3, 71, 219, 362, 403, 662 2.10.3–4, 223 2.10.4, 64, 362, 402 2.10.4 v. (Carm. 27), 178, 219, 343, 362, 604 2.10.4 vv. 1–2, 633 2.10.4 v. 3, 455 2.10.4 vv. 22–7, 362 2.10.5, 33, 242, 383, 399, 407, 408 2.10.5–6, 242, 407 2.10.6, 285, 697 2.11, 55, 119, 389, 431 2.12, 55, 77, 389 2.12.2, 45, 657 2.12.3, 64, 65, 559, 649 2.13, 21, 23, 121, 185, 207, 604, 699 2.13.4, 35 2.13.5–6, 434 2.13.6, 310

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 812

2.13.7, 310 2.13.8, 35 2.14, 107 2.14.2, 398, 399 Liber 3, 4, 185, 191, 361, 378, 389, 547, 560, 572, 604–5 3.1, 1, 84, 210, 428, 429 3.1.1, 60 3.1.2, 182 3.1.3, 225 3.1.5, 401 3.2, 89, 219 3.2.1, 220, 308, 410 3.2.2, 34, 219, 220, 230 3.2.3, 309 3.2.4, 219 3.3, 91, 225, 414, 544, 604 3.3.1, 230 3.3.2, 396 3.3.2–7, 48 3.3.3, 34, 309, 634 3.3.3–6, 230 3.3.4, 410, 411 3.3.5, 401 3.3.7–8, 230 3.3.8, 659 3.3.9, 405, 414 3.3–6, 309 3.4, 95, 180, 230, 428 3.4.1, 227, 427 3.5, 101, 544 3.5.1, 34, 419 3.5.3, 419 3.6, 20, 94, 180, 544 3.6.3, 35, 413 3.7, 230, 427 3.7.1, 35 3.7.4, 402 3.8, 92, 180 3.8.1, 240, 244, 306 3.9, 118, 179, 431, 659, 699 3.9.1, 33, 402 3.9.2, 48, 64, 227, 228 3.10, 123 3.10.1, 34, 227 3.10.3, 228 3.11, 122 3.11.1–2, 59 3.12, 19, 58, 120, 184, 605, 711 3.12.1–2, 64, 65 3.12.1–3, 59 3.12.2–3, 65 3.12.3, 65 3.12.5 v. (Carm. 28), 61, 178, 343, 360 3.12.5 vv. 1–2, 361 3.12.5 v. 9, 455 3.12.5 v. 11, 292 3.12.6, 58 3.13, 22, 54, 55, 81, 189, 414, 428, 605, 669 3.13.7–9, 410 3.13.9, 404 3.14, 114, 189 3.14.1, 171, 190, 191, 351, 398, 401 3.14.2, 395 Liber 4, 4, 378–82, 383, 384, 560, 571, 605–7 4.1, 115 4.1.1, 59 4.1.2, 403, 405, 408

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM 4.1.3, 400 4.1.4, 232, 399, 408 4.1.5, 408, 411 4.2 (Claudianus to Sidonius), 15, 82, 219, 261, 415 4.2.2, 220 4.2.3, 261, 265 4.2.4, 305, 402, 644 4.2–3, 605 4.3, 15, 88, 266, 267, 361, 379, 380, 382, 405, 406, 414, 429, 675 4.3.1, 33, 35, 383, 435 4.3.3, 402, 410 4.3.4, 314 4.3.5, 284, 400, 405, 410, 650 4.3.5–6, 670 4.3.6–7, 408, 410, 413 4.3.7, 52, 284, 382, 383 4.3.8, 441 4.3.9, 170, 287, 402, 403 4.3.10, 396, 410 4.4, 41, 81, 122, 389, 428, 605 4.4.1, 34, 37, 404 4.4.1–2, 227 4.4.10, 305 4.5, 95, 180, 427 4.5.1, 227, 428 4.6, 383 4.6.1, 227 4.6.2, 38, 690 4.7, 122, 380, 605 4.7.1, 218, 404 4.7.1–3, 227 4.7.2, 68, 210, 401, 405 4.7.3, 68, 218 4.8, 94, 179, 381, 606 4.8.1, 210, 404 4.8.1–2, 65 4.8.3, 227, 409, 659 4.8.4, 35 4.8.5, 53, 234, 357, 405, 442 4.8.5 v. (Carm. 29), 178, 343, 356, 606 4.8.5 vv. 3–8, 356 4.8.5 vv. 9–12, 356 4.9, 101, 267, 379, 383 4.9.3, 223 4.9.4, 45 4.9.5, 33, 413 4.10, 2, 95, 381, 427 4.10.1, 35, 191, 396 4.10.2, 190, 237 4.11, 15, 113, 267, 380, 606, 695 4.11.1, 224, 243, 307, 658 4.11.2, 399 4.11.6, 36, 226, 256, 305 4.11.6 v. (Carm. 30), 19, 61, 178, 343, 361 4.11.6 vv. 4–5, 256 4.11.6 vv. 17–18, 224 4.11.6 v. 22, 314, 397 4.11.7, 423 4.12, 41, 81, 122, 265, 382, 428, 606 4.12.1, 45, 55 4.12.1–2, 285 4.12.2, 225, 227, 434 4.12.2–4, 68 4.12.3, 227, 399, 414 4.13, 126, 378, 379 4.13.1, 34

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 813

813

4.13.2, 410 4.13.3, 397 4.14, 115, 381, 383, 431, 606 4.14.1, 33, 244, 245, 305 4.14.2, 244, 245, 383 4.14.3, 35 4.14.4, 245, 246 4.15, 55, 91, 378, 406 4.15.1, 223 4.15.2, 223, 268 4.15.3, 305, 654 4.16, 15, 55, 118, 190, 382, 632 4.16.1, 632 4.17, 82, 209, 378, 382, 691 4.17.1, 35, 227, 405, 416 4.17.1–2, 396, 397 4.17.2, 233, 238, 242, 382 4.17.3, 43, 187, 266, 379, 648 4.18, 105, 380, 606 4.18.2, 38, 65, 217 4.18.3, 398, 405 4.18.4, 51 4.18.5, 223, 447 4.18.5 v. (Carm. 31), 178, 343, 362, 606 4.19, 96, 380, 383, 423 4.20, 90, 257, 381, 607, 697 4.20.1, 235, 554 4.20.2, 235 4.20.3, 235 4.21, 381 4.21.3–6, 434 4.21.4, 44, 60, 216, 267, 379 4.21.5, 218, 414 4.21.6, 34 4.22, 104, 381, 429, 431, 607 4.22.1, 55, 190, 242, 435 4.22.2, 33, 215, 216, 244, 246, 319, 383, 406 4.22.3, 231 4.22.4, 191 4.22.5, 35, 37, 246 4.23, 116, 221, 380 4.23–4, 607 4.24, 125, 380 4.24.1, 305, 401 4.24.2–3, 223 4.24.3–4, 268, 379 4.24.4, 36, 65 4.24.6, 396, 434, 435 4.25, 24, 90, 379, 607, 695 4.25.4, 36, 49 Liber 5, 560, 607–8 5.1, 113, 189 5.1.1, 190 5.1.2, 37, 265 5.2, 15, 110, 267 5.2.1, 35, 224, 238, 313, 408, 440 5.3, 81 5.3.1, 59 5.3.2, 305 5.3.3, 272 5.3.3–4, 28 5.3–4, 389 5.4, 122 5.4.2, 59, 398 5.5, 122, 209, 607, 697, 719 5.5.1, 42 5.5.2, 397, 403

13/02/20 4:53 PM

814 Liber 5 (cont.) 5.5.3, 231, 233, 242 5.6, 81, 179 5.6.1, 48, 53, 58, 409 5.6.2, 652 5.7, 208, 414 5.7.1, 652 5.7.2, 472 5.7.4, 232, 414 5.7.5, 408 5.7.7, 44, 58, 236, 403, 651 5.8, 120, 607 5.8.1, 445, 454 5.8.2, 32, 403 5.8.3, 399, 411 5.9, 19, 82 5.9.1, 19, 307 5.9.1–3, 35 5.10, 120, 431 5.10.1, 307 5.10.2, 50 5.10.3, 57 5.10.4, 55 5.11, 115 5.11.3, 55 5.12, 86 5.12.1, 48, 230 5.13, 22, 111, 607 5.13.1, 307, 398 5.13.2, 398 5.14, 265 5.14.1, 223, 398, 399 5.14.3, 265 5.15, 15, 55, 118, 223, 226, 632, 638 5.15.1, 266, 403, 421 5.15.1–2, 3, 64 5.15.2, 421 5.16, 23, 111, 428, 431, 658 5.16.1, 230 5.16.3, 403 5.16.4, 23, 45, 61 5.16.4–5, 45 5.16.5, 60 5.17, 92, 175, 265, 695 5.17.4, 33, 235, 398 5.17.5, 398 5.17.6, 235 5.17.6–7, 45 5.17.7, 34, 305, 398, 647 5.17.8, 398 5.17.8–10, 435 5.17.9, 35, 74 5.17.9–10, 715 5.17.10, 64, 397 5.17.10 v. (Carm. 32), 178, 343, 356 5.17.11, 308, 402 5.18, 83, 431 5.18.1, 35 5.19, 65, 117, 607 5.19.1–2, 38, 64, 65 5.19.2, 228 5.20, 111 5.20.3, 49 5.21, 41, 103, 119, 173, 243 5.21.1, 222 Liber 6, 181, 378, 391, 560, 608, 637–8 6.1, 25, 105, 187, 220, 270, 426, 619

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 814

INDEX LOCORUM 6.1.1, 270, 412 6.1.1–5, 436 6.1.2, 270, 305, 398 6.1.3, 398, 404, 651 6.1.3–4, 269 6.1.4, 270, 404 6.1.5, 271 6.1.6, 271, 403 6.2, 66, 115 6.2.1–2, 267 6.2.1–4, 38, 44 6.2.2, 45 6.3, 52, 55, 104 6.3.1, 37 6.3.2, 228, 404 6.4, 105, 204, 608, 619 6.4.1, 66, 404, 698 6.4.1–3, 64 6.4.2, 66, 404 6.5, 124 6.5.1, 228, 404 6.6, 94, 414 6.6.1, 67, 218, 308, 402 6.6.1–2, 227 6.6.2, 398, 414, 623 6.7, 96 6.7.1, 414 6.8, 55, 99, 426, 608 6.8.1, 64, 67, 404 6.8.1–2, 67 6.9, 105, 619 6.9.1, 47, 227 6.9.2, 623 6.9.3, 34 6.10, 55, 87 6.10.1, 36, 404 6.10.1–2, 66, 228 6.11, 91, 430 6.11.1–2, 229 6.12, 112, 633 6.12.1, 265, 269, 307 6.12.3, 269 6.12.4, 659 6.12.5, 220, 224, 633 6.12.6, 222, 224, 405, 408 6.12.7, 267 6.12.9, 269 Liber 7, 4, 25, 181, 185, 186, 187, 308, 361, 378, 384, 390, 391, 465, 466, 468, 474–5, 484, 487, 495, 501, 506–7, 544, 560, 571–2, 608–9 7.1, 1, 28, 106, 211, 265, 309, 376 7.1.1, 309 7.1.3, 274, 309, 313, 401 7.1.4, 310 7.1.5, 33, 274, 310 7.1.6, 274, 310 7.1.7, 265, 383, 634 7.1–11, 571 7.2, 55, 67, 93, 99, 228, 269, 426, 608 7.2.1, 67, 312, 405, 419 7.2.2, 313, 419, 435 7.2.3, 47, 67 7.2.6, 401 7.2.7, 313, 408 7.2.8, 45, 400, 402 7.2.9, 222, 312 7.3, 108, 309

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM 7.3.1, 222, 308, 398, 419 7.3.2, 403 7.4, 96 7.4.4, 58, 229, 467, 472 7.5, 1, 23, 28, 52, 78, 211 7.5.1, 35 7.5.5, 423 7.6, 1, 25, 85, 210, 211, 275 7.6.1, 472 7.6.2, 298 7.6.2–3, 231 7.6.3, 272 7.6.4, 313 7.6.5, 272 7.6.6, 222, 403 7.6.6–10, 634 7.6.7, 24, 36, 222 7.6.8, 222 7.6.9, 222 7.6.10, 52, 55, 71, 230 7.7, 1, 55, 99, 179, 217, 266, 272, 310, 608, 712 7.7.1, 67, 228, 313, 402 7.7.2, 212, 239, 253, 305, 310, 339 7.7.3, 310 7.7.6, 212 7.8, 1, 23, 28 7.8.2, 34 7.8.2–3, 226 7.9, 1, 23, 28, 51, 113, 264, 695 7.9.1, 224 7.9.2, 398 7.9.3, 35 7.9 speech (= 5–25), 465, 467 7.9.5, 669 7.9.6, 52 7.9.8, 222 7.9.9, 264 7.9.14, 37, 74 7.9.16, 36 7.9.18, 34 7.9.19, 236 7.9.24, 38 7.10, 55, 99, 272 7.10.1, 67, 229 7.10.2, 218, 272 7.11, 84 7.11.1, 217, 230 7.12, 96, 183, 191, 219, 430 7.12.1, 33, 219 7.12.3, 20, 205 7.12.3–4, 223 7.12.4, 37, 219, 404 7.12–18, 571 7.13, 122 7.13.1, 187, 217 7.14, 24, 114, 183, 608 7.14.1, 34, 49, 232 7.14.3, 398 7.14.4, 398 7.14.7, 42, 232 7.14.8, 257 7.14.9, 49, 225 7.14.10, 37, 232, 242 7.15, 120 7.16.1, 409, 412 7.16.2, 282, 399 7.17, 55, 127, 265, 633, 714

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 815

815

7.17.1, 35, 37, 170, 218, 442 7.17.1–2, 362 7.17.2, 225 7.17.2 v. (Carm. 33), 61, 178, 343, 361 7.17.2 vv. 1–12, 633 7.17.2 v. 19, 399 7.17.2 v. 21, 293 7.17.2 v. 22, 412 7.17.4, 223 7.18, 89, 186, 193, 219, 436 7.18.1, 305, 306, 375, 377, 390, 399, 419 7.18.2, 245, 314, 378, 384, 435 7.18.4, 377 Liber 8, 28, 186–8, 189, 547, 560, 609–10 8.1, 113, 188, 436 8.1.1, 33, 181, 186, 377, 390 8.1.2, 400, 402, 403 8.2, 102, 187, 197 8.2.1, 217, 238, 307 8.2.2, 42, 217, 243, 256, 257 8.2.3, 314, 397 8.3, 2, 28, 104, 187, 287, 431, 609, 691 8.3.1, 18, 30, 247, 411 8.3.2, 45, 233, 398, 409, 412 8.3.3, 33, 231, 244, 383 8.3.4, 247 8.3.5, 225 8.3.6, 247, 314 8.4, 188, 268 8.4.1, 35, 223, 249, 256 8.4.2, 255, 442, 448, 454 8.4.3, 170 8.4.4, 222, 224 8.5, 97, 183 8.5.1, 220, 221, 291, 292 8.5.5, 1 8.6, 55, 109, 187, 609, 718 8.6.2, 34, 42, 187, 197, 305 8.6.3, 257 8.6.5, 19, 26, 234 8.6.5–9, 197 8.6.6, 234, 403 8.6.9, 409 8.6.10–13, 243 8.6.12, 55 8.6.12–13, 400 8.6.13, 48, 231 8.6.13–15, 64 8.6.15, 698 8.6.16, 230 8.6.18, 243, 395 8.7, 83, 179, 187, 221 8.7.4, 45 8.8, 122, 187, 609, 719 8.8.1, 34, 240 8.8.2, 240 8.8.3, 34, 413 8.9, 187, 287, 609 8.9.1, 218, 305, 400 8.9.2, 50, 60, 232, 346 8.9.3, 347 8.9.5 v. (Carm. 34), 178, 291, 343, 346 8.9.5 vv. 1–11, 346 8.9.5 vv. 4–5, 346 8.9.5 vv. 12–20, 346 8.9.5 vv. 21–54, 346 8.9.5 v. 34, 358

13/02/20 4:53 PM

816

INDEX LOCORUM

Liber 8 (cont.) 8.9.5 v. 50, 402 8.9.5 vv. 55–9, 346 8.9.5 v. 57, 291, 292 8.10, 15, 55, 118, 247, 632, 638 8.10.1, 245, 247, 282, 305, 383 8.10.2, 632 8.10.3, 33, 240, 247, 318, 383 8.11, 55, 106, 173, 187, 406, 610 8.11.2, 57, 171, 612 8.11.3, 233, 254 8.11.3 v. (Carm. 35), 178, 343, 369 8.11.3 vv. 4–6, 293 8.11.3 v. 29, 455 8.11.3 vv. 35–36, 55 8.11.5, 445, 454, 657, 658 8.11.5–7, 451, 460 8.11.6, 398 8.11.7, 355, 403 8.11.8, 254, 410 8.11.9, 254 8.11.9–10, 405 8.11.11, 39, 64 8.12, 125, 187 8.12.2, 638 8.12.3, 398, 409 8.12.5, 52, 283, 401 8.13, 51, 109 8.13.1, 308 8.13.3, 227 8.14, 80, 265, 662, 700 8.14.2, 36, 187, 662 8.14.5, 273 8.14.8, 218, 229 8.15, 18, 116, 205 8.15.1, 187, 225 8.15.2, 400, 413 8.16, 89, 186 8.16.1, 305, 377, 436 8.16.2, 170, 314, 399 8.16.3, 399 8.16.5, 257, 279, 371 Liber 9, 28, 63, 178, 186–9, 294, 368, 372, 378, 391, 427, 437, 466, 474–5, 485, 506, 560, 610–11 9.1, 96, 431, 436, 610 9.1.1, 35, 186, 377, 383, 406 9.2, 188, 265, 610 9.2.2, 254, 383 9.3, 2, 55, 95, 188, 426, 610 9.3.1, 229, 307 9.3.2, 230, 398 9.3.3, 404, 412 9.3.4, 28, 266, 269, 272, 398 9.3.5, 237 9.3.6, 405 9.4, 55, 99, 188 9.4.1, 67, 218, 229 9.5, 103, 188 9.6, 66, 79, 188 9.6.1, 183 9.6.1–2, 47, 313 9.6.4, 398 9.7, 405, 406, 430, 644, 662, 667 9.7.1, 64, 183, 287, 402 9.7.2, 411 9.7.3, 398 9.7.4, 423

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 816

9.7.5, 398 9.8, 265, 662 9.9, 55, 95, 188, 265, 405, 427, 610, 692 9.9.1, 398, 401, 419 9.9.2, 305, 419 9.9.3, 436 9.9.4, 404 9.9.6, 403 9.9.8, 64 9.9.12–15, 267 9.9.13, 234 9.9.14, 397, 658 9.9.15, 224, 398 9.9.16, 49 9.10, 55, 82 9.10.1, 308 9.10.1–2, 64 9.11, 105, 187, 220, 426, 619, 623, 648 9.11.1, 631 9.11.2, 400 9.11.4, 398 9.11.5, 220 9.11.5–6, 435 9.11.6, 233, 648, 659, 660 9.11.9, 398 9.11.10, 398 9.12, 24, 28, 110, 188, 189 9.12.1, 37, 221, 225, 308, 378, 390 9.12.1–2, 170 9.12.2, 1, 15, 63 9.13, 21, 124, 179, 188, 189, 428, 611 9.13.1, 403, 425, 435 9.13.2, 401, 442, 457, 467 9.13.2 v. (Carm. 36), 178, 188, 285, 343, 369, 454, 457 9.13.2 vv. 1–4, 458 9.13.2 v. 5–9, 314 9.13.2 vv. 5–13, 458 9.13.2 v. 8, 398 9.13.2 vv. 14–19, 466 9.13.2 v. 24, 458 9.13.4, 169, 327, 400 9.13.5, 370 9.13.5 v. (Carm. 37), 178, 188, 343, 370, 458 9.13.5 v. 89, 395 9.13.5 v. 97, 399 9.13.5 vv. 105–6, 34 9.13.6, 179, 181, 225 9.14, 86, 188, 233, 544, 545, 611 9.14.2, 234 9.14.3, 35, 45, 67, 398, 423 9.14.4, 404, 451, 657, 658 9.14.5, 452 9.14.6 vv. (Carm. 38 and 39), 178, 343, 356, 452, 611 9.14.8, 42, 49 9.15, 96, 98, 183, 188, 434 9.15.1, 74, 220, 395, 456 9.15.1 v. (Carm. 40), 178, 188, 343, 370 9.15.1 vv. 1–14, 370, 456 9.15.1 v. 5, 401 9.15.1 vv. 15–34, 243 9.15.1 vv. 15–49, 370 9.15.1 vv. 19–49, 254 9.15.1 v. 22, 188 9.15.1 v. 44, 221 9.15.1 vv. 44–9, 243 9.15.1 v. 54, 370 9.16, 187, 188, 189, 611

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX LOCORUM 9.16.1, 35, 71, 219, 220 9.16.2, 2, 181, 398, 402 9.16.3, 210, 265, 293 9.16.3 vv. (Carm. 41), 178, 188, 343, 367, 459, 611 9.16.3 vv. 1–4, 395 9.16.3 vv. 1–32, 367 9.16.3 vv. 21–8, 1, 169, 326 9.16.3 v. 22, 398 9.16.3 vv. 23–4, 34 9.16.3 vv. 25–8, 17, 328 9.16.3 vv. 27–8, 214 9.16.3 v. 33, 445 9.16.3 vv. 33–40, 459 9.16.3 vv. 33–48, 367 9.16.3 vv. 41–4, 371 9.16.3 v. 42, 306 9.16.3 vv. 49–56, 367 9.16.3 vv. 55–6, 170, 267 9.16.3 vv. 57–60, 459 9.16.3 vv. 57–84, 18 9.16.3 vv. 65–76, 368 9.16.3 vv. 65–84, 368 9.16.3 v. 77, 443 9.16.3 vv. 77–84, 368 9.16.4, 238, 401 Ep. (Carm. 22) 1–3, 365 2, 243, 254 5, 254, 365, 401 5–6, 668 6, 237, 299 SILIUS ITALICUS Punica 2.333, 304 3.476–556, 332 3.477–556, 304 3.518–20, 304 3.630–46, 304 7.530, 304 9.293, 443 11.173–82, 310 17.124, 304 17.317–19, 304 STATIUS, PUBLIUS PAPINIUS Achilleid 1.476–9, 303 2.70, 292 Silvae 1 praef., 308, 388 1.2, 284 1.2.18, 401 1.2.148–53, 297 1.4.19–20, 364 1.4.19–36, 364 1.4.22, 364 1.5, 251 1.5.34–9, 298 2 praef., 308 2.2.85–94, 297 2.3, 366 2.4, 366 2.7.48–53, 350 2.7.9–11, 293 2.7.53, 350 3.1, 3673.1.17, 296 3.2, 353 3.3.167, 326

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 817

817

4.2, 363, 364 4.2.1, 291 4.2.1–10, 364 4.2.18–37, 364 4.2.38–56, 364 5.1, 348 Thebaid 1.404, 401 1.628, 401 2.210, 401 6.394–403, 344 6.570, 401 STRABO Geography 7.4.3, 255 SUETONIUS Domitian 8.1, 641 SYMMACHUS, Q. AURELIUS Epistulae 1.1–12, 391 1.2, 391 1.14.1, 447 1.23.1, 308 2.32.1, 308 2.35.1, 376 3.14, 307 3.74.1, 308 4.23.2, 218 5.5, 225 7.1–14, 391 7.55, 308 7.66, 218 7.129, 218, 245 8.18, 307 9.15.1, 307 TACITUS, CORNELIUS Dialogus de oratoribus, 384 41.5, 244 Historiae 1.1.4, 246 5.26.2, 245 TERENCE (PUBLIUS TERENTIUS AFER) Adelphoe 413, 305 Eunuchus 107, 253 Hecyra 610, 402 Phormio 190, 400, 402 830, 442 TERENTIANUS MAURUS De litteris, syllabis et metris 1383–4, 457 1893, 33 1945, 455 2545, 455 2545–55, 453 2545–71, 454 THEOCRITUS Idylls 17, 317 THEODORUS, MALLIUS De metris GLK 6.590, 453

13/02/20 4:53 PM

818 THUCYDIDES History 1.138, 248 VALERIUS FLACCUS Argonautica 5.448, 401 VENANTIUS FORTUNATUS Carmina 3.12, 613, 666 4.26, 361 Vita Germani Parisiensis 1, 46 VERGIL Aeneid 1.12–13, 304 1.22–3, 304 1.50–81, 333 1.227–53, 301, 339 1.228–96, 333 1.257–95, 300 1.343, 443 1.499, 443 2.57, 292 2.89–90, 245 2.355–9, 298 3.56, 442 3.97, 255 3.544, 407 4.216, 325 4.512, 295 4.625–9, 304 5.144–7, 315 5.151–243, 253 6.674, 311 6.847–52, 242 7.37–45, 334 7.462–6, 315 7.759, 312 8.51–4, 241, 339 8.114, 217 8.359–69, 309 8.425, 295 8.592–3, 309 9.59–60, 286 9.603–4, 303 10.1–117, 301 10.180–1, 658 11.653–4, 310 12.131, 309 12.433–4, 299 Eclogues 1.11, 291 1.23, 305 1.44, 293 1.70–1, 347

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 818

INDEX LOCORUM 3.84, 291 4.1, 290 4.5, 302 8.11, 186, 305, 306 8.27, 296 9.27, 311 10.19, 300 Georgics 1.57–9, 301 1.508, 298 2.40–1, 291 4.176, 305 4.566, 290 VICTOR, SEXTUS AURELIUS De Caesaribus 13.8, 240 13.9, 240 VICTOR, IULIUS Ars rhetorica 26–7, 247, 375, 376, 384, 388 VICTORINUS, MARIUS Ars grammatica 1.11 (GLK 6.44.20–1), 456 3.5.10–7.4 (GLK 6.113–4), 452 4 (GLK 6.148), 453 VITA VIGORIS 5, 223 VITA VIVIANI, 51 VIVES, JUAN LUIS De ratione dicendi 3.7, 684 VULGATA Exodus 14.15–30, 313 Ioel 3.10, 299 Ionas 1.2, 309 Michaea 4.3, 299 Matthaeus 10.16, 298 Lucas 5.8, 305 5.12, 305 7.37–8, 310 11.5, 305 16.19, 313 16.20, 313 WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY Gesta regum Anglorum 2.134.6, 659 XENOPHON Symposion 3.5, 288

13/02/20 4:53 PM

Geographical Index

Achaea, 136 Adda (Addua), river, 155, 311 Adige (Athesis), river, 156, 311 Adour (Atur), river, 156 Aedui see Autun Africa, 39, 46, 83, 86, 103, 110, 120, 136, 153, 158, 160, 163, 202, 204, 208, 301, 303, 304, 330 Aire-sur-l’Adour (Atura), 156 Aix (Aquae Sextiae), 85, 108, 163 Alba see Viviers Albis see Elbe Alingo see Langon Allier (Elaver), river, 159 Alps (Alpes), 145, 155, 199, 206, 212, 217, 304, 309, 311, 330, 331, 332, 416, 592 Cottian Alps (Alpes Cotti), 158 Aniene (Anio), river, 155, 312 Antiochia, 102, 577 Apt (Apta), 155 Aquae Sextiae see Aix Aquileia council of, 381 CE, 103 sack of, 452 CE, 206 Aquitania, 22, 29, 51, 52, 86, 94, 126, 156, 200, 201, 204, 211, 212, 220, 221, 222, 231, 237, 255 Aquitanica I, 78, 218, 231, 245 Aquitanica II, 221 Arar see Saône Arausio see Orange Ar(e)morica, 48, 118, 150, 156, 204, 224, 659, 660 Ariminum see Rimini Arles (Arelate), 1, 26, 29, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 121, 124, 130, 138, 143, 147, 148, 156, 179, 197, 198, 200, 202, 205, 207, 208, 221, 223, 228, 229, 234, 241, 243, 363, 583, 694, 715, 725 council of, 470s CE, 24, 51, 103 literary circle, 243 Arras (Atrebates), 88, 156, 237, 592 Arverni see Clemont Arvernia see Auvergne Asia, 103, 136, 254 Atax see Aude Athens (Athenae), 110, 137

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 819

Athesis see Adige Atrebates see Arras Atur see Adour Atura see Aire-sur-l’Adour Aude (Atax), river, 156 Aureliani see Orléans Autissiodorum see Auxerre Autun (Aedui), 35, 78, 80, 83, 93, 116, 122, 138, 155, 249, 431 Auvergne (Arvernia), 3, 9, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 40, 48, 60, 67, 77, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 90, 91, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 120, 124, 125, 126, 130, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 152, 153, 156, 171, 172, 179, 187, 211, 218, 220, 225, 228, 230, 231, 236, 308, 309, 310, 326, 338, 339, 414, 434, 573, 576, 606, 632, 668, 675, 688, 690, 692, 693, 701, 705, 711, 712 Auxerre (Autissiodorum), 66, 87, 98, 141, 228 Avignon (Avennio), 112, 157, 721, 722 Avitacum see Aydat Aydat (Avitacum), 17, 27, 38, 90, 145, 157, 173, 174, 218, 248, 250, 631 church of Saint-Sidoine, 17 estate, 27, 249, 250, 251, 253, 257, 258, 313, 355, 468, 554, 582, 603, 612 lake, 27, 160 Baetis see Guadalquivir Baia (Baiae), 157, 250, 251, 581 = Vichy (Aquae Calidae), 80, 155 Bayeux (Baiocasses), 55, 105, 145, 152, 157, 217, 223 Bayonne (Lapurdum), 160 Bazas (Vasates), 124, 125, 151, 164, 222, 638 Beaucaire (Viernum), 165, 330 Belgica, 83, 88, 157, 199, 200, 238 Belgica II, 199 Béziers (Biterra), 86, 88, 157 Bithynia, 253 Bituriges see Bourges Bordeaux (Burdigala), 77, 78, 84, 90, 97, 104, 105, 112, 119, 125, 126, 128, 144, 150, 152, 158, 173, 217, 221, 222, 227, 230, 249, 253, 254 literary circle, 27, 218, 243, 254 naval base, 231

13/02/20 4:53 PM

820

GEOGRAPHICAL INDEX

Bourges (Bituriges), 24, 38, 78, 122, 129, 135, 137, 146, 147, 149, 154, 157, 218, 222, 223, 240, 254 episcopal election, 1, 28, 35, 36, 37, 92, 111, 122, 154, 226, 263, 264, 430, 465, 467, 578 Bourg-sur-Gironde (Burgus), 104, 112, 128, 158, 173, 223, 248, 249, 253, 254, 287, 298, 342, 365, 446, 569, 598, 666 Brescello (Brixillum), 157 Brindisi (Brundisium), 158, 602 Brioude (Brivas), 20, 27, 103, 157, 599 Brixillum see Brescello Britain, 19, 39, 89, 95, 98, 118, 199, 201, 660 Brundisium see Brindisi Burdigala see Bordeaux Burgus, estate see Bourg-sur-Gironde Byrsa, 158 Cabillonum see Chalon-sur-Saône Cadiz (Gaditani), 159 Cadurci see Cahors Caesarea, 85 Caesena see Cesena Cahors (Cadurci), 86, 120, 137, 158, 640 Calabria, 158 Calpis see Gibraltar Campi Canini, 153 Cantilia see Chantelle-la-Vieille Carcassonne, 28, 233 Carthage (Carthago), 136, 144, 204, 207, 211, 239, 589 Cesena (Caesena), 87, 158, 221, 415, 416 Chalon-sur-Saône (Cabillonum), 112, 149, 158 episcopal election, 24, 49, 102, 263, 578 Chantelle-la-Vieille (Cantilia), 98, 135, 141, 158, 223 Clausetia, 94, 158 Clermont (Arverni), 156 and passim church of St Saturninus, 17 monastery, 84 Clitis, river, 158 Clitunno (Clitumnus), river, 158 Constantinople, 16, 39, 77, 80, 88, 91, 93, 102, 104, 115, 124, 125, 127, 133, 184, 202, 208, 209, 211, 212, 241, 321, 325, 333, 334, 591, 727 Byzantium, 158 Cottion, estate, 84, 145, 158, 249 Cremona, 158, 311 Cuticiacum, estate, 59, 84, 145, 158, 225, 249 Dacia, 39, 77, 83, 89, 101, 107, 125, 133, 136, 145, 353 Dalmatia, 134, 135, 158, 209, 212 Danube (Danubius), river, 39, 125, 158, 205, 591 Decaniacum, estate, 249, 640 Dordogne (Duranius), river, 112, 158, 255, 287 Douzens see Livia(na) Duranius see Dordogne Ebreuil (Eborolacum), 159 Egypt, 103, 373 Elaver see Allier Elbe (Albis), river, 155, 593 Eridanus see Po Etruria see Tuscany Euphrates, river, 159, 670 Europe, 159, 203, 257, 322, 327

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 820

Fano (Fanum Fortunae), 159 Farfa (Fabaris), river, 159 Gabales see Javols Gaditani see Cadiz Gard (Vardo), river, 164 Garonne (Garumna), river, 38, 112, 125, 159, 217, 249, 254, 255 Gaul (Gallia), 159 and passim Cisalpine Gaul, 159 Gergovia, 160, 339 Germania, 154, 199 Germania I, 203 Germania II, 199, 200 Gibraltar (Calpis), 125, 158, 173 Gothia, 160 Gratianopolis see Grenoble Greece (Graecia), 160, 387, 408 Grenoble (Gratianopolis), 114, 160, 190, 191, 217 Grigny (Grinicum), 160 Guadalquivir (Baetis), river, 157 Hyrcania, 160 Illyricum, 39, 100, 106, 109, 125, 136 Italy, 24, 39, 44, 48, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 95, 96, 97, 101, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 113, 118, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 129, 134, 135, 137, 141, 146, 147, 149, 151, 160, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 217, 220, 221, 293, 303, 304, 309, 311, 416, 417, 570, 576, 656, 714 Javols (Gabales), 103, 119, 159, 222, 598 Jura (Iura), 90, 160, 217 Laesora see Lozère Lago delle Marmore (Velinus lacus), 165 Lambro (Lambrus), river, 160, 311 Langon (Alingo), 125, 151, 155 Lapurdum see Bayonne Laz (Ledus), river, 160 Lemovicum see Limoges Lepcis (Leptis Magna), 160 Lérins, monastery, 25, 36, 74, 80, 87, 92, 95, 100, 101, 105, 107, 161, 267, 269, 270, 273, 286, 363, 413, 572, 638 Liger see Loire Liguria, 116, 117, 160, 217, 243 Limoges (Lemovicum), 100, 111, 118, 249 Livia(na), fortress, 28, 30, 146, 161, 232, 233, 246, 691, 714, 715 Loire (Liger), river, 50, 51, 150, 160, 209, 213, 217, 229, 400, 593 Lozère (Laesora), mountain, 160 Lugdunensis, 139, 200, 201, 212 Lugdunensis II, 105, 199, 203, 204 Lugdunensis III, 161, 204 Lugdunensis IV (Senonia), 78 Lyon (Lugdunum), 161 and passim church and tomb of St Justus, 92, 112, 114, 147, 149, 163, 265, 435, 606 revolt of, 458 CE, 21, 22, 27 Marne (Matrona), river, 161

13/02/20 4:53 PM

GEOGRAPHICAL INDEX Marseille (Massilia), 16, 41, 55, 67, 79, 93, 99, 131, 137, 140, 149, 161, 162, 228, 229, 312, 574 Matrona see Marne Maxima Sequanorum, 203, 205, 212 Médoc (Medulorum litus), 161 Mesopotamia, 39, 77, 362, 714 Metauro (Metaurus), river, 161, 312 Meuse (Mosa), river, 161, 593 Mincio (Mincius), river, 161, 311 Mosa see Meuse Moselle (Mosella), river, 161, 201, 233, 396 Nar see Nera Narbonensis, 201, 204, 221 Narbonensis I, 200 Narbonne (Narbo), 26, 30, 43, 50, 53, 59, 77, 82, 88, 92, 95, 99, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 112, 115, 123, 128, 130, 135, 138, 161, 173, 221, 249, 330, 344, 345, 599, 631, 689, 713, 715 churches (St Felix), 105, 221 literary circle, 27, 53, 218, 223 praise of, 335, 344, 409, 598, 599 siege of, 20 Neckar (Nicer), river, 161 Nemausus see Nîmes Nera (Nar), river, 161 Nicer see Neckar Nicomedia, 103 Nîmes (Nemausus), 80, 90, 95, 96, 111, 124, 130, 142, 148, 161, 221, 222, 228, 249, 255, 635, 639, 690 Nitiobroges see Périgueux Nola, 112 Novempopulana, 38, 51, 200 Noviodunum see Soissons Numidia, 46, 203, 204, 298 Octavianus ager, estate, 88, 162, 249 Oléron (Olario), Île d’, 55, 109, 139, 162, 243, 718 Orange (Arausio), 94, 112, 156, 227 Orléans (Aureliani), 116, 157 battle of, 22, 79, 225 Padus see Po Palestine, 100, 118 Pannonia, 162, 202, 203, 206 Pavia (Ticinum), 163 Périgueux (Nitiobroges), 55, 79, 106, 112, 162, 222, 638 Phocis, 162 Piacenza (Placentia), 108, 212 battle of, 456 CE, 27, 108, 208, 323 Picenum, 162 Pictavum see Poitiers Placentia see Piacenza Po (Eridanus/Padus), river, 159, 162, 301, 311, 661 Poitiers (Pictavum), 100 Pontus, 254 Provence (Provincia), 17, 23, 28, 67, 200, 211, 221, 229, 719, 721, 722 Prusianum, estate, 96, 124, 162, 243, 249, 255, 256, 604 Pyrenees (Pyrenei), 162, 200, 217

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 821

821

Ravenna, 23, 87, 90, 104, 134, 162, 169, 205, 221, 311, 312, 325, 415, 416, 417, 661 court, 201, 202, 221, 226, 416, 712 Reii see Riez Rhine (Rhenus), river, 20, 162, 201, 202, 235 Rhineland, 199, 200, 205, 209, 238 Rhodanusia, 99, 162, 216 Rhône (Rhodanus), 59, 124, 130, 141, 148, 162, 217, 218, 220, 222, 224, 311 Riez (Reii), 29, 49, 55, 95, 107, 112, 118, 138, 162, 172, 363 baptistery, 27, 270 Rimini (Ariminum), 156, 309 Rodez (Ruteni), 55, 91, 95, 96, 111, 124, 130, 163, 222, 223, 406 Rome (Roma), 163 and passim Forum of Trajan, 1, 17, 27, 168, 169, 323, 328 patron saints Peter and Paul, 22 urbs aeterna, 338, 588, 590, 615 Vandal sack, 455 CE, 20, 23, 338 Rubico(n), river, 163, 301, 309, 311 Ruteni see Rodez Saintes (Santones), 109, 154, 243 Saint-Lézer (Bigorra), 157 Saint-Maximin-en-Provence, 17 St-Paul-Trois-Châteaux (Tricastini), 164 Santones see Saintes Saône (Arar), river, 156, 218, 224, 416 Sapaudia, 205, 208, 222 Sardinia, 110 Seine (Sequana), river, 163, 209 Sens (Senonia), 53, 78, 163 Septem Provinciae, 22, 98, 110, 111, 120, 136 Septimania, 163 Sequana see Seine Serdica see Sofia Sicily, 208, 211, 400 Sofia (Serdica), 89, 136, 332 Soissons (Noviodunum), 108, 115, 139, 229, 663 battle of, 486/487 CE, 17, 28 kingdom of, 50 Spain, 19, 39, 80, 97, 110, 117, 120, 124, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 144, 145, 160, 173, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 213, 217, 221, 656 Susa, 163 Syrtes, 163 Taionnacus, estate, 122, 163, 249 Tarn (Tarnis), river, 163 Tarraconensis, 110, 117, 163, 221, 727 Thracia, 39, 77, 80, 91, 93, 102, 104, 115, 120, 127, 133, 354 Tiber (Tiberis), river, 160, 163, 217, 301, 330, 396, 668 Tiber Island, 160 Ticinum see Pavia Toulouse (Tolosa), 30, 52, 53, 65, 93, 94, 100, 104, 108, 117, 123, 124, 144, 145, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 164, 241, 246, 256, 303, 319, 329, 336, 368, 556, 573, 593 Tours (Turoni), 55, 105, 106, 107, 113, 127, 164, 222, 223, 261, 633, 656 church of St Martin, 606 Tres Villae, estate, 53, 59, 123, 128, 164, 249 Trevidon/-s, estate, 96, 124, 164, 249

13/02/20 4:53 PM

822

GEOGRAPHICAL INDEX

Tricasses see Troyes Tricastini see St-Paul-Trois-Châteaux Triobris see Truyère Troy (Troia), 164, 298, 413 Troyes (Tricasses), 66, 97, 100, 102, 105, 116, 117, 122, 130, 142, 143, 150, 151, 164, 206 Truyère (Triobris), river, 164 Tuncrum, river, 164 Turoni see Tours Tuscany (Etruria), 159, 313, 406 Tyrrhenian Sea, 164 Umbria, 164 Vacalis see Waal Vaison (Vasio), 53, 56, 59, 80, 81, 88, 96, 98, 122, 130, 148, 149, 154, 165, 179, 227, 229, 652, 719, 720, 721, 722 Valence (Valentia), 112, 164 Vannes, council of, 461/91 CE, 51

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 822

Vardo see Gard Vasates see Bazas Vasio see Vaison Velinus lacus see Lago delle Marmore Vialoscum see Volvic Vichy (Aquae Calidae), 80, 155; see also Baia Vicus Helena, 88, 106, 133, 145, 160, 591, 592 Vienne (Vienna), 15, 51, 59, 88, 95, 103, 106, 113, 120, 123, 137, 139, 165, 221, 223, 224, 256, 274, 309, 310, 313, 675 Viennensis, 221 Viernum see Beaucaire Visurgis see Weser Viviers (Alba), 112, 155 Volvic (Vialoscum), 165 Vorocingus, estate, 80, 165, 249, 604, 690 Vouillé, Battle of, 507 CE, 231 Waal (Vacalis), river, 164 Weser (Visurgis), 165

13/02/20 4:53 PM

Index of Personal Names (Antiquity)

This index aims to give reasonably comprehensive coverage of ancient persons named in the text. Polyonymous individuals are identified by the most familiar name (Marcus Aurelius under M), but in doubtful individuals from the late Roman period are normally identified, in accordance with onomastic norms, by the last of their names (e.g. Julius Nepos comes under N). Details of major offices held are given selectively along with dates in office (note that MVM = Magister utriusque militiae; PPG = Praefectus praetorio Galliarum; PVR = Praefectus urbi Romae). The entry on Sidonius (which is inevitably more selective than those for other individuals) has separate headings dealing with family, life and career, lost or unwritten works, manuscripts, and surviving works. For further information on individuals marked with an asterisk (*) see also the Index locorum. Ablabius (cos. 331), 32, 77, 89, 95, 607 Abraham, abbot of Clermont (d. c. 477), 77, 84, 127, 293, 448, 633, 714 epitaph (*Sidon. Carm. 33), 61, 178, 293, 343, 361–2, 390, 445 Achilles, 303, 332, 650, 691 Adelphius, rhetor, 77 Aegidius, MVM (456/7–?465), 22, 50, 51, 208–9 Aeneas, 217, 241, 255, 298, 299, 301, 309, 325, 332, 339, 593 Aëtius, MVM (433–54), 19, 20, 77, 79, 85, 86, 97, 106, 117, 124, 125, 198, 202–7, 326, 329, 331, 333 death, 125, 206–7, 295 panegyrics of, 303, 319 wife, 132–3, 324, 326, 331, 333; see also Pelagia Afranius Syagrius (cos. 382) see Syagrius Africa, personification, 301, 304, 326, 329, 330, 331, 592 Agricius or Agroecius, rhetor, 33, 78 Agricola (cos. 421), 77, 82 Agricola, brother-in-law of Sidonius, 21, 41, 55, 64, 77, 85, 91, 111, 121, 141, 192, 234, 389, 426, 428, 434, 439, 657 Agrippinus, MVM (c. 452–6/7, c. 461), 50 Agrippinus, priest, 78, 94, 115, 130 Agroecius of Narbonne (?), 52–3 *Agroecius, author of De orthographia, bishop of Sens, 52–3, 74, 78 Agroecius, primicerius notariorum, 53 Agroecius see Agricius Alamanni, 86, 153, 240 Alaric I, king of the Goths (d. 410), 123, 124, 199, 200, 201–2, 303, 309, 702 Alaric II, king of the Visigoths (484–507), 93, 117, 213, 231 Albiso, priest, 78, 116 Alcima, daughter of Sidonius, 27, 45, 57, 78, 81, 111, 128, 134, 576, 640 Alcimus (?), father of Sidonius, 1, 19, 26, 29, 35, 57–60, 65, 83, 85, 101, 109, 117, 134, 136, 137, 197, 205, 692, 723, 724 Alcimus Avitus see Avitus, bishop of Vienne, and Index locorum

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 823

Alcinous, 364 Alethius, decurio, 78, 94, 113 Alethius, Latinus Alcimus, rhetor, 57, 78 Alypia, daughter of Anthemius, 80, 93, 117, 127, 184, 210 Amantius, lector, 45, 47, 67, 79, 93, 99, 131, 137, 140, 141, 149, 228, 312–13, 426 Ambrosius, bishop of Cahors, 66 *Ambrosius, bishop of Milan (374–97), 32, 36, 40, 79, 386–7, 576, 728 correspondence, 374–5, 379, 383, 386, 388–9, 600 model for Sidonius, 286, 310, 578 prose rhythm, 464 reception, 713 Ambrosius, bishop, correspondent, 46, 66, 79, 140, 430 Ambrosius Aurelianus, 725 *Ammianus Marcellinus, historian, 199, 214, 232, 259, 284, 289, 290, 386, 464, 590, 591 Ampelius, PVR (371–2), 79 An(n)ianus, bishop of Orléans, 18, 79, 116 vita, 225, 263 Anicii, family, 118, 207 Anthedius, poet, 79, 171, 243, 715 Anthemiolus, son of emperor Anthemius, 211 Anthemius (cos. 405), 80 Anthemius, emperor (467–72), 16, 21, 22–3, 27, 80, 81, 82, 101, 120, 136, 151, 170, 179, 185, 191, 192, 208, 209–11, 220, 236, 241, 320–1, 334, 337–8, 412, 556, 573–4, 590–1, 602, 641, 712 at war with Ricimer, 24, 51, 211 family of, 93, 115, 117, 133, 302, 324, 325, 326 daugher Alypia’s marriage to Ricimer, 22, 80, 117, 127, 184, 192, 210, 312, 415, 417, 60 Panegyric of (*Sidon. Carm. 1–2), 20, 23, 27, 80, 81, 168–70, 177, 189, 194, 282, 283, 293, 299, 300–2, 319, 322–8, 330–4, 335, 337–8, 343, 345, 348, 442, 588–90, 666, 669, 677, 730–2

13/02/20 4:53 PM

824

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY )

Anthemius, emperor (cont.) Sidonius appointed prefect, 23, 30, 81, 210, 220, 417 Sidonius’ attitude, 22, 192, 210, 241, 602 Antiolus, bishop, correspondent, 80, 115, 117 Antoninus Pius, emperor (138–61), 248 Aper, correspondent, 41, 80, 84, 97, 129, 138, 265, 434, 636–7 Aphrodite see Venus Apollinares, family, 13, 19, 575–6, 690 Apollinaris, bishop of Valence, 56 Apollinaris, cousin/uncle of Sidonius, 38, 41, 48, 58–9, 68, 71, 80–1, 88, 92, 95, 96, 98, 122, 123, 134, 143, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 173, 227, 249, 272, 307, 383, 389, 426, 428, 603, 604, 647, 652, 690 Apollinaris, grandfather of Sidonius, 19, 26, 57–8, 59, 65, 80, 89, 90, 98, 102, 120, 150, 200, 343, 361, 575, 605, 711, 690, 711, 713 epitaph (*Sidon. Carm. 28), 19, 58, 61, 123, 178, 343, 360, 372, 454 Apollinaris, son of Sidonius, 2, 15, 16, 27, 45, 54, 55–7, 81, 96, 99, 109, 111, 115, 127, 129, 134, 139, 231, 253, 282–3, 427, 42 8, 575, 577, 580, 605, 633, 690, 712, 715, 724 Apollo (Phoebus), god, 126, 241, 254–5, 256, 293, 296, 302, 331, 334, 344, 365, 369, 569, 620, 709 nickname for Sidonius, 254, 369, 598, 638 Apollonius of Tyana, 96, 104, 126, 225, 244, 247, 255, 609, 677, 691 Aprunculus, bishop of Langres and Clermont, 28, 55, 82, 86, 101, 171, 222, 712 *Apuleius, 33, 242, 312, 314, 400, 402, 404, 407, 464, 545, 547, 578, 682–3, 684, 689, 691 model of Sidonius, 286, 299–300, 305, 312, 400–1, 402, 403, 551, 578–9, 586, 610 style, 679 Araneola, wife of Polemius, 44, 77, 82, 95, 110, 115, 172, 327, 596 Epithalamium (*Sidon. Carm. 14–15), 172, 295, 298, 347–8, 371, 568, 570, 595, 596–7 Arbogastes, comes civitatis, 35, 82, 84, 92, 105, 199, 217, 227, 233, 242, 691 Argentaria Polla, 697 Ariadne, 300 Ariadne, daughter of the emperor Leo, 212 Arvandus, PPG (464–8), 20–1, 22, 23, 27 38, 53, 82, 83, 84, 93, 96, 113, 123, 127, 142, 150, 173–4, 179, 192, 210, 230, 263, 313, 434, 602, 645, 654, 660, 661, 668, 712 Asellus, friend of Arvandus, 83 Astyrius (cos. 449), 29, 83, 109, 147, 197, 205, 234, 257 *Athanasius, Life of Antony, 286 Athaulf, king of the Visigoths (411–15), 200–1, 205 Athenius, guest of Majorian, 83 Attalus, Gregorius, comes civitatis, 35, 83, 431 Attalus, Priscus, usurper, 201 Attica, wife of Magnus Felix, 95, 128, 244 Attila, king of the Huns (434–53), 20, 32, 44, 48, 85, 79, 83, 116, 203, 204, 205–6, 221, 332, 337, 666, 702 Audax, PVR (474/5), 45, 83, 146, 149, 179, 187, 221 Audentia, mother of Avitus of Vienne, 56, 57, 60 *Augustine, bishop of Hippo (395–430), 36, 40, 50, 83, 226, 256, 269, 288, 312, 383, 403, 410, 417, 596, 599, 604, 616, 651, 653, 674 correspondence, 374–6, 90, 379, 380, 383, 385–8, 483 prose rhythm, 464 reception, 713, 720, 728

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 824

Augustus (Octavian), emperor (27 BCE–14 CE), 215, 239, 242, 248, 290, 293, 318, 323, 334, 337, 338, 346, 592, 598, 620 Aurora, personification, 241, 283, 294, 296, 300, 301, 326, 330, 331, 333–4, 338, 591 *Ausonius (cos. 379), poet, 84, 216, 226, 244, 354, 366, 371, 401, 484, 574, 575, 617, 621 Caesares transmitted with Sidonius, 170, 484, 492, 501, 544, 546, 548 career, 42, 199 correspondence, 220, 401, 601 editions, 501 epitaphs, 360, 361 metre, 349, 442, 450–1, 454 model of Sidonius, 225, 256, 285, 293, 295, 314, 319, 349, 351, 354, 358, 359, 362, 401, 407, 442, 454, 455, 551, 553, 562, 569, 580, 598–9, 601 prefaces, 348, 349 style, 24, 579 Auspicia, grandmother of Aper, 44, 80, 84, 97, 129 *Auspicius, bishop of Toul, 42, 52, 71, 82, 84, 114, 648 Auxanius, monastic supervisor, 36, 40, 77, 84, 127, 134, 223 Avienus (cos. 450), 84, 113, 147, 221 Avita (?), mother of Sidonius, 19, 26, 59–60, 128 Aviti, family, 19, 26, 60, 251, 324, 646 *Avitus, bishop of Vienne, 8, 16, 18, 24, 54–7, 60, 78, 90, 121, 134, 274, 441, 575, 612, 613, 614, 642 correspondence, 56, 57, 417, 442, 580, 583, 599, 601, 613, 665 poetry, 583, 597, 599, 613, 614 Avitus of Cottion, cousin (?) of Sidonius, 59, 60, 84, 96, 109, 123, 128, 145, 182, 225, 428–9 Avitus, Eparchius, emperor (455–6), Sidonius’ father-in-law, 20–1, 23, 27, 29–30, 48, 50, 60, 81, 84–5, 89, 108, 123, 135, 141, 144, 145, 147, 150, 181, 192, 206, 207–8, 230, 236, 240, 252, 262, 319, 320–2, 573, 577, 582, 593, 702, 711 and Avitacum, 27, 249–50, 252–3 fall and death, 20–1, 27, 54, 85, 103, 106, 107, 208, 573 family and ancestors, 33, 34, 35, 50, 55, 60, 67, 77–8, 91, 95, 108, 111, 114, 124, 125, 128, 130, 146, 192, 234, 249, 250; see also Aviti officials, 54, 84, 87, 88, 94, 108, 110, 122, 123, 222, 344–5 Panegyric of, 1, 17, 20, 23, 67, 81, 85, 167–70, 177, 205, 240–1, 282, 289, 300–3, 317–40, 343, 345, 357, 417, 490, 556, 573, 576, 582, 588–90, 592–4, 700 Avitus, bishop of Clermont (572–94), 720 Bacaudae (or Bagaudae), 20, 204 Bacchus, god, 254, 256, 293, 364, 365, 409, 569, 598 nickname, 254, 598 Basilius, bishop of Aix, 71, 85, 95, 108, 230, 272, 275, 634–5 Basilius, bishop of Caesarea, 32, 85 Basilius, Fl. Caecina Decius (cos. 463), 85, 113, 221, 323 Bigerrus, friend of Paeonius, 85 Bonifatius (Boniface), MVM (432), 86, 120, 132, 137, 198, 202–3 Burco, comes, 86, 153, 329 Burgundians, 19, 21, 24, 28, 39, 44, 48, 81–2, 87, 111, 119, 121, 122, 132, 144, 148, 153, 154, 171, 188, 200, 203, 205, 208, 211, 213, 215, 222, 226, 229, 231, 232–3, 235, 236, 237, 239–40, 264, 358, 381, 399, 412, 414, 445, 595, 596, 633, 651–2, 691, 694, 697, 712, 721 Burgundio, correspondent, 45, 49, 54, 67, 86, 188, 233, 234, 444, 451, 611

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY ) Caelestius, cleric, 86 Caesar, Julius, 45, 86, 605 *Caesarius, bishop of Arles, 265, 574 Calminius, soldier, 50, 86, 230 Camillus, PPG (before 457?), 86, 95, 136 Camillus, M. Furius, republican role model, 240, 336–7, 339 Campanianus, correspondent, 87, 135 Candidianus, correspondent, 87, 221, 415–16, 429 Caprasius, monk, 87 Caretena, wife of Chilperic II, 44, 87, 111, 132, 361 *Cassiodorus, 179, 384, 492, 562 Catullinus, senator, 35, 87, 171–2, 341, 358, 595 *Sidon. Carm. 12, 371, 445, 595 *Catullus, poet, 216, 283, 284, 285, 345, 349, 352, 358, 416, 450, 460 metre, 444, 450, 454–5, 460 model of Sidonius, 285, 288, 291–2, 349, 351–2, 358, 454, 462, 586 Censurius (or Censorius), bishop of Auxerre, 51, 55, 66, 87, 89, 141, 228 Chariobaudus, abbot, 87, 152 Chilperic II, king of the Burgundians (472–93), 32, 87, 132, 148, 211, 236, 257, 400, 651–2 Chilperic, king of Neustria (567–84), 652 Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia, 286, 578 Chrysostomus, bishop of Constantinople, 102 *Cicero (cos. 63 BCE), orator, 232, 239, 240, 288, 317, 335, 373, 375, 376, 377, 380–9, 420, 438, 462, 546, 547, 549, 551, 553, 597, 670, 671, 672, 674, 681, 683, 689 correspondence, 18, 166, 218, 375, 380–1, 383, 385–6, 388, 420, 645 exemplum, 239, 242, 243, 247–8, 407 model of Sidonius, 218, 249, 286, 305, 388, 400, 546, 549, 603, 605, 607, 690 prose rhythm, 462–3, 468, 469, 471, 472 reciting by heart, 288 Somnium Scipionis, 720 Cincinnatus, republican role model, 337, 339, 412, 590 *Claudian (Claudius Claudianus), poet, 137, 214, 265, 284, 310. 379–80, 429, 435, 441, 591, 675, 696, 715, 719, 728 epic panegyric, 2, 7, 318, 328, 333, 589 epithalamia, 289, 300, 347–8, 568 metre, 444, 450 model of Sidonius, 2, 7, 168, 234, 240, 281, 283, 285, 286, 289, 292, 294, 296–304, 309, 311, 312, 314, 319, 322, 328–9, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 345, 348, 350, 356–7, 358, 406, 407, 448, 454, 568, 570, 579, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 592, 593, 595 statue, 17, 214, 328 *Claudianus Mamertus (or Mamertus Claudianus, see xiii, 35), priest, 15, 26, 27, 35, 36, 51, 74, 79, 85, 88, 92, 93, 99, 100, 102, 103, 106, 110, 112, 113, 118, 120, 183, 191, 224, 226, 238, 256, 261, 267, 275, 284, 307, 335, 361, 380, 382, 402, 405, 410, 413, 415, 429, 441, 556, 582, 583, 608, 610, 668, 675, 695 archaism, 579, 586 De statu animae, 15, 23, 88, 110, 286, 314, 379, 380, 405, 414, 602, 605, 650, 695 epitaph (*Sidon. Carm. 30), 61, 113, 178, 267, 314, 343, 361–2, 454, 569 hymn, 587 letters, 51–2, 74, 88, 120, 167, 219, 220, 261, 286, 380, 415, 605 Neoplatonism, 608, 610, 658

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 825

825

Cleopatra, 310, 338 C(h)loio(n)/Chlodio/Chlogio, king of the Franks, 32, 88, 592 Clovis, king of the Franks (481–511), 50–1, 87, 117, 229, 663, 691 Consentius the Elder, poet, 88, 102, 130, 243, 344, 599 Consentius, cura palatii, 20, 35, 88, 125, 137, 173, 183, 188, 222–3, 243, 249, 255, 256, 291, 343–5, 442, 453, 598–9, 715 eulogy (*Sidon. Carm. 23), 173–4, 183, 341, 343–6, 367, 371–2, 445, 446–7, 453, 582, 598–9 Constans, Caesar (408–9/10), 80, 200 Constans, lector, 68, 88, 122, 143, 227 Constantinus I, emperor (306–37), 32, 77, 89, 95, 607, 694, 702 Constantinus III, usurper (407–11), 19, 89, 119, 199–201, 607 Constantius II, emperor (324–61), 702 Constantius III, emperor (421), 85, 89, 198, 200–2, 205 Constantius, priest, dedicatee of the correspondence, 34, 35, 41, 71, 87, 89, 181–3, 186, 219–20, 223, 238, 257, 268, 279, 305, 306, 308–9, 314, 378, 389, 390, 426, 427, 435, 439, 600–1 poem for the church of Lyon, 112, 219, 223, 362 Vita Germani, 51, 55, Constantius, son of Ruricius, 219 Crispus, Caesar (316–26), 32, 77, 89 Crocus, bishop of Nîmes (?), 89, 222 Cyprianus Gallus, Heptateuchos, 345 Damocles, 21, 108, 310, 434 Dardanus, Claudius Postumus, PPG (412–3) 19, 89, 102, 200–1 Decimius Rusticus see Rusticus Delphidius, rhetor, 33, 90 Desideratus, correspondent, 90, 114 Desiderius, bishop of Cahors, 483, 632, 637, 640 Dido, 304, 364, 597 Dionysos see Bacchus Domitian, emperor (r. 81–96), 241, 318, 364 Domitius Apollinaris, correspondent of Pliny, 183, 250 Domitius, grammaticus (or rhetor), 90, 173, 183, 250, 253, 258–9, 431, 434 Domnulus, quaestor sacri palatii, 90, 98, 104, 121, 124, 637, 715 Donatus, Aelius, grammarian, 645, 651, 656, 658 Donatus, Tiberius Claudius, grammarian, 315 Donidius, correspondent, 90–1, 101, 124, 139, 143, 146, 152, 228, 439, 571 Drepanius, Latinius Pacatus see Pacatus Ecdicius, MVM (474–5), brother-in-law of Sidonius, 34, 41, 45, 55, 60–1, 77, 80, 85, 91, 104, 111, 120, 128, 129, 134, 148, 355, 396, 414, 426, 428, 604, 639–41, 657, 691 military and political career, 48, 91, 112, 120, 150, 212, 224–5, 230, 309, 396, 633–6 Elaphius, correspondent, 55, 91, 223, 231, 406, 654 Eleutherius, bishop, correspondent, 91, 143, 229, 430 Eminentius, decurio, 91–2, 227, 233 Ennius, poet, 285, 288, 482, 557, 715 *Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, 8, 24, 54, 96, 217, 325, 441, 674 correspondence, 599, 601, 613 reception of Sidonius, 613, 642, 665, 685 style, 259, 314, 417 Eparchius Avitus see Avitus, emperor Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, 211, 230, 665, 724 Epiphanius, scribe, 92 Eriphius, husband of Philomathia, 92, 114, 431, 439 *Eucherius, bishop of Lyon, 51, 52, 74, 92, 151, 154, 382 De contemptu mundi, 49, 357 Laus eremi, 286

13/02/20 4:53 PM

826

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY )

Eucherius, correspondent, 92, 240, 637 Eucherius, son of Stilicho, 299 Eudocia, daughter of Valentinian III, 127, 207, 209 Eudoxia, empress, 43, 127, 203, 207, 209, 726 Eulalia, cousin of Sidonius, 44, 58–9, 92, 115, 134, 355 ‘Athenian Minerva’, 243–4 Euphemia, empress, 44, 93, 133 Euphronius, bishop of Autun, 52, 78, 93, 105, 116, 426, 439 co-author with Lupus of Ep. ‘Commonitorium quod’, 52, 93, 105, 619 Euric (Euricus, also Evarix, Eoricus), king of the Visigoths (466/7–84), 48, 93, 210–13, 215, 217, 229, 607, 691, 701, 724–5 accession and dynastic relationships, 51, 123, 124, 179, 210, 234 eulogy (*Sidon. Carm. 34), 28, 81, 93, 178, 217, 234, 291, 292, 343, 346–7, 610 Law Code, 231, 232, 239 Roman relations with: ‘activist policy’, 21, 24, 27: attacks on Auvergne (see also Visigoths), 28, 93, 229, 230, 272, 396, 712, 721; bishops’ embassy, 71, 76, 85, 95, 104, 229, 230, 272; ‘collaborators’, 22, 150, 210, 603; clients and courtiers, 55, 94, 104, 109, 187, 210, 225, 231, 243, 718; criticised by Sidonius, 217, 239, 246–7, 286; exiles Sidonius, 81, 230, 713, 728; petitioned by Sidonius, 127 (and see Euric, eulogy, above); relationship with catholic church, 16, 21, 89, 91, 93, 109, 122, 128, 210, 222, 226, 229, 230, 234, 576, 634 wife, 94, 117, 144, 178, 179, 234, 256, 356, 381, 714; see also Ragnahilda, and *Sidon. Carm. 29 Eusebius Gallicanus, sermon collection, 274 Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, 32, 93, 11 Chronicle translated by Jerome, 109, 243, 382, 654–6 Eusebius, rhetor, 93, 115 Eustachius, bishop of Marseille, 79, 93 Eutropia, widow, 38, 44, 45, 50, 66, 78, 94, 115, 130, 139, 148, 267 Eutropius, bishop of Orange, 67, 94, 143, 226, 414 Eutropius, author of Breviarium, 119, 655, 656 Eutropius, PPG (?470), 35, 41, 94, 119, 180, 417, 426 Evander, mythical founder of Pallanteum, 217, 241, 309, 339 Evanthius, governor, 94 Evodius, correspondent, 35, 53, 94, 117, 142, 210, 227, 356, 439, 714 Explicius, advocate, 78, 94, 113 Fabricius Luscinus, Gaius, republican role model, 239–40, 241, 321, 336, 339, 590, 593 Fates (Parcae), goddesses, 412 Fausta, empress, 32, 44, 77, 89, 95 Faustinus, priest, 34, 67, 81, 95, 122, 227, 380 *Faustus, bishop of Riez, 95, 118, 151, 720 abbot of Lérins, 74, 269, 272–3, 286, 363, 597 admired by Sidonius, 27, 237, 266, 267, 269, 426, 658 correspondence, 562 De gratia, 52, 224 De spiritu sancto, 118, 224, 610 embassy to Euric, 71, 230, 231 exile, 222 Eucharist(ic)on (*Sidon. Carm. 16), 25, 172, 224, 266, 270, 272, 286, 342, 363–5, 367, 372, 569–70, 587, 597, 610 funerary oration for Honoratus, 286 letters composed, 52, 55, 92, 99, 112, 227, 562, 635 letters transmitted in Sangallensis 190, 483, 632, 635–6

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 826

letters received from Paulinus, 52, 112; from Ruricius, 54, 55, 272–3; from Sidonius, 41, 49, 99, 419, 426–7, 437 library, 234 theology, 267, 270, 602, 658, 695 treatise intercepted, 405, 427, 436, 610 veneration as saint, 224 Felix, Fl. Constantius, MVM (425–30), 198 Felix, Magnus, PPG (469), 35, 41, 95 dedicatee of *Sidon. Carm. 9 and Carmina minora, 171–4, 177, 284, 285, 341–2, 348–50, 352, 353–4, 367, 372, 594, 621 family, 77, 82, 85, 86, 87, 95, 99, 114, 115, 117, 128, 136, 146, friendship with Sidonius, 26, 35, 95, 229, 381, 426, 427, 428, 431 froideur, 95, 174, 190, 230, 381 letter carriers, 99, 180 praetorian prefecture, 171, 173–4 Felix, Pollius, addressee of Statius, 297, 697; see also Argentaria Polla Ferreolus, bishop of Uzès, 16, 635 Ferreolus, saint, 33, 50, 95, 106, 265 Ferreolus, Tonantius, PPG (451/3), 20, 33, 40–1, 44, 50, 53, 82–3, 95, 111, 117–18, 122, 124, 130, 137, 142, 146–8, 152, 173, 183, 191, 205, 219, 223, 234, 249, 255, 430, 657 asceticism, 223 ended siege of Arles, 124, 233 family, 44, 50, 111, 122, 124, 130, 137, 146–7, 148, 249, 647 helped defeat Attila, 20, 83, 205, 223 library, 38, 83, 117, 118, 234, 255, 256 named in Carm. 24, 173 prosecutor of Arvandus, 53, 82 receives letter from Sidonius, 33, 40, 183, 191, 219, 430 villa (Prusianum), 142, 148, 151–2, 255, 256, 307, 603, 604, 657 Fidulus, nobleman, 50, 96, 123 Firminus, bishop of Viviers, 134 Firminus, correspondent, 35, 41, 71, 96, 98, 293, 426–7, 431, 439 dedicatee of Book 9, 182, 183, 186–7, 368, 378, 389, 600, 610 Flavianus see Nicomachus Flavianus Florentinus, correspondent, 50, 96, 423–4 Fonteius, bishop of Vaison, 41, 58, 96, 122, 127, 143, 229, 414, 426 Fortunalis, correspondent, 97, 183, 220, 221, 291 Franks, 17, 32, 39, 106, 202, 205, 213, 222, 229, 231, 233, 239, 240, 332, 591, 592, 613, 656, 659–60, 663, 690, 69 1, 693, 697, 704 (for individual Franks or persons of Frankish origin, see Arbogastes, Meroboaudes, Sigismer) Frederic, brother of Theoderic II, 51, 123, 124, 144, 206, 207, 209, 241, 556, 593 Frontina, daughter of Fronto and Auspicia, 44, 80, 84, 97, 129, 130, 139, 267 Fronto, grandfather of Aper, 80, 84, 97, 129 *Fronto, rhetor, 33, 104, 244, 247, 248, 383, 388, 402 correspondence, 376, 387–9 model of Sidonius, 286, 305, 388, 402, 578, 580 panegyrics, 319 *Fulgentius, mythographer, 545, 612, 666, 680, 682, 683, Fulgentius, quaestor sacri palatii, 97 Gaetulicus, early imperial poet, 285, 408 Galla Placidia see Placidia Gallicinus, bishop of Bordeaux, 97

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY ) Gallus, bishop of Clermont, 274 Gallus, decurio, 47, 97, 130, 227 Gaudentius, son of Aëtius, 97, 132, 204, 207 Gaudentius, vicarius, 35, 98, 431, 660, 769 Geiseric, king of the Vandals, 23, 120, 202–5, 207–11, 323, 330–1, 336–7, 557, 589–91, 726 compared to Hannibal, 336–7 family, 39, 132, 144, 207, 209 sack of Rome in 455, 127, 207, 334 Gelasius I, bishop of Rome, letter-writer, 665 Gelasius, correspondent, 50, 54, 96, 98, 124, 183, 220, 434, 439, 455–6 *Sidon. Carm. 40, 370, 456 *Gellius, Aulus, 689 archaisms, 402 model of Sidonius, 286, 402 Genesius, client, 81, 98 *Gennadius of Marseille, 16, 612 De viris illustribus, 15, 62, 66, 237, 556, 666 Germanicus, church inspector, 98, 126, 135, 141 Germanicus Caesar (d. 19), exemplum, 229 Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, 36, 40, 98, 362 Germanus, bishop of Paris, 46 Gerontius, MVM (407–11), 98, 200 Glycerius, emperor (473–4), 51, 211–13, 712 Gnatho, epitome of vices, 22, 81, 99, 645, 663, 669 Godegisel, king of the Burgundians (d. 501), 87, 144 Gozolas, cliens, 32, 67, 96, 99, 180, 227 *Graecus, bishop of Marseille, 41, 54–5, 67, 79, 99, 149, 188, 229–30, 272, 419, 426, 430, 439, 712 envoy to Euric, 71, 95, 99, 229, 272, 426, 712 Gratianensis, guest of Majorian, 99 Gratian, emperor (367–83), 43, 133, 199, 319 Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus, 32, 99 *Gregory, bishop of Tours, 37, 43, 107, 652, 654, 656, 662 reception of Sidonius’ works, 614, 633–5, 640, 646, 685, 691 source for late antique Gaul, 264, 274, 576, 652 source for Sidonius and his family, 16–7, 127, 129, 171, 189, 261–2, 275, 550, 552, 575, 576, 612, 666, 688, 704, 720 Gundioc, king of the Burgundians (436–73), 87, 121, 144, 171, 208–9 Gundobad, king of the Burgundians (473–516), 87, 209, 211–13, 720 Hadrian, emperor (117–38), 458, 724 Hannibal, 217, 239, 302–4, 310, 336–7, 589, 590, 592 Hector, 299 Heliodorus, contact person, 99 Hercules, 283, 293, 359, 365, 367, 409, 638, 658, 675 Hermes, bishop of Narbonne, 135 Hermes, god see Mercury Hermes, letter carrier of Pliny, 227 Hermes, letter carrier of Sidonius, 227 Herodotus, historian, 233, 234 Heronius, correspondent, 41, 99, 169, 180, 184, 221, 243, 426, 439 Hesperius, rhetor, 34, 35, 55, 71, 100, 104, 223, 242, 433, 632, 623 Hesychius, bishop of Vienne, 54, 57, 60 Hiberia, wife of Ruricius, 44, 54, 100, 110, 118, 172, 249, 632 Epithalamium Carm. 10–11, 100, 171, 174, 283, 284, 289, 348, 570, 595, 632 *Hieronymus (Jerome) of Stridon (d. c. 420), 100, 266, 375, 380, 383, 386, 388, 401, 585, 603, 648

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 827

827

Chronicon, 243, 286, 655; see also Eusebius, Chronicon correspondence, 90, 374–5, 379–80, 383, 386–8, 417 model of Sidonius, 284, 286, 374, 383 prose rhythm, 464 reception, 613, 673, 674, 714, 728, 713 Vitae, 286 Hilarius, bishop of Arles, 93, 100, 105 Life of Honoratus, 286 Hilarius, bishop of Poitiers, 33, 100, 282, 382 Hilarius, bishop of Rome, 23 Himerius the Elder, 100, 122 Himerius, priest, 100, 122 Hoenius, grammaticus, poet, 101, 171 *Homer, 288, 299, 314, 315, 316, 332, 336, 399, 696, 715, 719 Honoratus, bishop of Arles, 101, 286, 363 Honoria, Justa Grata, empress, 202, 205–6 Honorius, emperor (393–423), 19, 46, 53, 85, 101, 136, 198–202, 206, 214, 297, 298, 299, 312, 319, 692, 712, 724 *Horace, poet, 256, 288, 318, 387–8, 461, 568, 620, 667, 673, 700, 715 Ars poetica, 237, 299, 366, 547, 584 Epistles, 375 metre, 349, 369, 454, 457–58, 460–1 model of Sidonius, 183, 237, 243, 281, 283, 285, 287, 289–94, 299, 302, 305, 311–12, 316, 323, 343–4, 353–4, 357–8, 366, 368, 369, 370, 387, 390, 401, 407, 442, 448, 457–8, 460–1, 547, 569, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 584, 593, 602, 611, 620, 734 Odes, intervallum lyricum, 390 Satires, 305, 311, 602 Horatius Cocles, republican role model, 336, 621 Hormidac, dux, 32, 101, 136, 231 Huns, 20, 32, 48, 77, 202–6, 223, 225, 590, 591, 732 Hypatia of Alexandria, 714, 719, 728 Hypatius, advocatus, 90, 101, 146, 419 Iamlychus, bishop of Trier, 135 Industrius, correspondent, 50, 101, 126 Iniuriosus, parishioner, 82, 86, 101 Innocentius, citizen of Troyes, 102 Innocentius, subdeacon, 105 Iohannes, bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône, 36, 49, 102 episcopal election, 93 Iohannes, defendant, 102, 113 Iohannes, grammaticus, 42, 50, 93, 102, 217, 238, 243, 307, 396 Iohannes, usurper (423–5), 202 Iovinus (cos. 367), 32, 88, 102, 130 Iovinus, usurper (411–13), 19, 32, 53, 80, 89, 102, 119, 200–1, 243 Italia, personification see Oenotria Iulianus of Toledo, 674 Iulianus, bishop, correspondent, 103 Iulius Nepos see Nepos Iulius Titianus see Titianus Iulius Victor see Victor Iustinus, correspondent, 41, 103, 119, 126, 131, 173 Iustus, bishop of Lyon, 33, 103 church of St Justus, 292, 112, 114, 147, 149, 163, 219, 223, 265, 435 see also Patiens, bishop of Lyon Iustus, correspondent of Ambrose, 387 Iustus, physician, 65, 103, 649–50

13/02/20 4:53 PM

828

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY )

Janus, god, 168, 302 Julian of Brioude, saint, 33, 95, 103, 106, 264, 265, 569 tomb, 20, 27, 599 Julian the Apostate, emperor (361–3), 78, 284–5 correspondence, 392, 677 Juno, goddess, 333 Jupiter, god, 1, 168, 239, 295, 300, 301, 305, 322, 323, 325, 326, 329–30, 331, 333, 336, 337, 339, 409 412 *Juvenal, satirist, model of Sidonius, 282, 285, 292, 305, 399, 401, 416 Lactantius, 32, 103, 286, 382, 410, 673 Lampridius, rhetor and poet, 90, 104, 121, 144, 151, 171, 178, 579, 609, 610, 715 addressee of *Sidon. Carm. 35, 178, 355, 369 murdered by slaves, 39, 104, 152, 406, 451, 610 poet, 171, 254, 355, 445, 448, 451, 454, 457, 460–1, 638, 657, 715 receives *Sidon. Carm. 34 in praise of Euric, 291, 343, 346–7 recipient of letter from Sidonius, 439, 609, 610 work for Euric, 230–1 nicknamed ‘Orpheus’, 369, 638 Leo, correspondent, 41, 71, 104 adviser of Euric, 28, 104, 210, 225, 230–1, 246: intercedes for Sidonius, 28, 246; later advises Alaric II, 231 alleged descendant of Fronto, 33, 244, 383 poet and man of letters, 104, 171, 244 sent Vita Apollonii by Sidonius, 104, 225, 247 suggests unsuccessfully that Sidonius write history, 81, 100, 104, 190, 246–7, 429, 431, 435, 439, 607 Leo I, bishop of Rome (440–61), 23, 206 Leo I, emperor (457–74), 16, 27, 62, 104, 208–9, 211–2, 321–2, 327, 602 Leo II, emperor (474), 211–12 Leontius, bishop of Arles, 37, 52, 55, 104, 143, 227, 254, 632 embassy to Euric, 71, 95, 104, 230 Leontius, brother of Ruricius of Limoges, 118, 632 Leontius, Pontius, owner of Burgus, 52, 55, 79, 104–5, 112, 119, 125, 128, 173, 223, 227, 248–9, 254, 287, 293, 598 Burgus Pontii Leontii (*Sidon. Carm. 22), 173, 223, 252, 287, 293, 298, 342, 365, 598, 666 circle of, 55, 79, 119, 125, 173, 254–5 family and ancestry, 52, 105, 112, 128, 227 Libius Severus, emperor see Severus Licinia Eudoxia, empress see Eudoxia Licinianus, quaestor sacri palatii, 104 Limpidius, citizen of Narbonne, 105, 138 Litorius, comes rei militaris, 20, 85, 105, 204 Livia, mother of Pontius Leontius, 44, 105 Livius, contemporary poet (?), 105 Livius Andronicus, early Latin poet, 606 Livy (T. Livius), historian, 126, 674, 689, 719 model of Sidonius, 239, 241, 307, 286 *Lucan, 309, 318, 350, 408, 697 model of Sidonius, 285, 287295, 301, 305, 309–11, 318, 407, 594 prosody, 444 Lucilius, addressee of Seneca, 375, 387 *Lucilius, poet, 285, 416 Lucontius, correspondent, 38, 105, 145, 439 Lucumo see Tarquinius Priscus *Lupus, bishop of Troyes, 105 correspondent of Sidonius, 41, 71, 74, 102, 105, 305, 412, 426, 430, 435, 439, 619, 631, 636–8, 648, 651: receives

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 828

letter about Gallus’ marriage, 47, 97, 130, 227; receives letter about kidnapped women, 66. 117. 132, 151 doyen of Gallic bishops, admired by Sidonius, 105, 188, 220, 269, 270–2, 619, 651 letter written with Euphronius, 52, 93, 105, 619 receives letter collection, 138–9, 187, 188, 219–20, 435, 631, 648 spurious letter, 619, 689 Lupus, rhetor, 55, 57, 106, 406, 638 *Macrobius, 288, 290, 315, 316, 673 Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, 720 prose rhythm, 464 Saturnalia, 288, 651–2, 656, 662 Magnentius, usurper 350–3, 199 Magnus the Elder (cos. 460), 106, 172, 240, 244, 327 family, 77–8, 82, 86, 95, 115, 136, 172, 244, 327 Magnus, rhetor, 106 Maiorianus (Majorian), emperor (457–61), 20–2, 27, 107, 207–9, 573 appoints Sidonius comes, 30, 81 arrival in Gaul, 21, 208, 300, 319, 321 attitude of Sidonius to, 1, 230, 290, 320, 328, 573 banquet in Arles in 461, 83, 86, 99, 110, 121, 138, 148, 179, 434, 694; improvised couplet (*Sidon. Carm. 25), 342, 356; Sidonius accused of satire, 17, 21, 171, 179, 434 banquet to celebrate Petrus’ book in 459 (see *Sidon. Carm. 37), 21, 178, 179, 188, campaigns, 125, 145, 208, 209, 338 courtiers and officers of, 48, 84, 86, 87, 114, 135, 169, 240, 290, 327, 329, 358; see also banquet in Arles death, 27, 171, 209, 345 early career, 77, 88, 132, 133, 145, 591–3 family, 106, 129, 137, 324 forms of address, 35, 326 invective epigram ascribed to Sidonius by Pithoeus, 17, 481 overthrow of Avitus, 20, 29, 85, 169, 208, 230, 338, 573 Panegyric of Majorian (*Sidon. Carm. 3–5), 21, 81, 167–9, 170, 177, 205, 208, 240, 290, 300, 301, 303–4, 319, 320–2, 323, 324, 326–8, 329, 330–9, 343, 345, 348, 357–8, 359, 490, 576, 585, 588–90, 591–3, 613, 618, 620–1, 625–7, 693, 735 plea for tax remission (*Sidon. Carm. 13), 21, 169, 172, 218, 283, 292, 342, 596, 675 reception, 690, 693, 694, 711–12, 715, 725–6, 728, 729 Maiorianus, MVM (379), 106, 324 Mamertus Claudianus see Claudianus Mamertus Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, 51, 95, 103, 106, 137, 265, 269, 274, 309–10, 313, 430, 634, 635 Marcellinus, advocatus, 106, 108, 121, 138 Marcellinus, patricius, 209, 211 Marcellus (of Narbonne?), conspirator, 54, 107, 573, 711 Marcellus, bishop of Die, 51, 54, 107 Marcellus, PPG (?441/3), 53–4, 107 Marcianus, emperor (450–7), 43, 93, 133, 207–9 Marcus Aurelius, emperor (r. 161–80), 248 Marinus, host of Sidonius, 107, 138 Mars, god, 330, 331 Marsus, poet, 285 *Martial, poet, 175, 216, 314. 366, 715 epigramma, 347, 362, 366–7 metre, 348, 450–1, 453–4

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY ) model of Sidonius, 250, 281–2, 283, 284–5, 288, 289, 291–2, 293, 295, 300, 304, 311, 312, 345, 347–9, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356–9, 361, 362, 371, 372, 375, 401. 407, 416, 551, 569, 579, 583, 586, 587, 592, 596 Martianus Capella, 228, 599, 656, 682, 696 De nuptiis, 649, 653, 656 *Martinus, bishop of Braga, 685 In basilica, 666 In refectorio, 613, 666 Martinus, bishop of Tours (d. 397), 36, 40, 107, 112, 264 *Sidon. Carm. 31 for the church in Tours, 113, 178, 343, 362–3, 380, 447, 448, 604, 606 Martius Myro, host of Sidonius, 107, 713, 715 Maurusius, correspondent, 107 Maximus, bishop of Riez, 74, 107, 363 Maximus, priest, 36, 40, 107–8, 125, 223, 267–8 Magnus Maximus, emperor (383–8), 43, 124, 133, 199 Maximus, Petronius, emperor (455), 20–1, 23, 85, 97, 106, 108, 121, 144, 153, 207, 329 Megethius, bishop, correspondent, 108, 430, 439 Megethius, cleric, 108, 227 Menstruanus, friend of Sidonius, 49, 108, 113 Mercury (Hermes), god, 364, 653 *Merobaudes, MVM (443), panegyrist, 134, 205, 214, 284, 294, 299, 328 model of Sidonius, 285, 303, 319 statue, 17, 134, 214, 328 Messianus, MVM (456), 108 Minerva, goddess (also Pallas), 172, 241, 244, 255–6, 298, 322, 347, 350, 364, 371, 407, 665 Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus, 253–5, 338, 410 Modaharius,Visigoth, 85, 108, 231 Montius, correspondent, 35, 54, 109, 439, 694 Muses, goddesses, 223, 224, 322, 326–7, 330–1, 355, 364, 581–2, 587, 715 Calliope, 322 Clio, 243, 331 Terpsichore, 351 Thalia, 97, 233, 293, 343, 350, 358 Namatius, admiral of Euric, 48, 55, 109, 139, 187, 197, 230, 243, 400, 439, 718 Namatius, bishop of Clermont, builder of cathedral, 24 *Nepos, Cornelius, 256, 349, 354, 551 Nepos, Iulius, emperor (474–5, d. 480), 28, 30, 49, 81, 91, 99, 109, 135, 154, 187, 212–13, 229–30, 327, 712 Nepotianus, MVM (458), 22, 134, 327, 337 Nero, emperor (54–68), 415 Nicetius, bishop of Lyon, 361 Nicetius, panegyrist, 34, 109, 147, 187, 234 Nicetius, testator, 84, 109 Nicomachus Flavianus (cos. 394), 96, 104, 126, 391, 609 Nicomachus Flavianus, PPo Italiae (431–2), 391 Nunechius (Nonnechius), bishop of Nantes, 51, 109, 116, 430, 638 Nymphidius, correspondent, 88, 109 Octavian see Augustus Odoacer, patricius, 212–13, 712, 714 Odysseus see Ulysses Oenotria, personification of Italy, 300–1, 303, 326, 329–31, 338 Olybrius, emperor (472), 211, 712 Ommatius, father of Hiberia, 34, 45, 54, 91, 100, 110, 146, 172, 371, 598, 632, 666

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 829

829

Optantius, vir clarissimus, 110, 116, 120, 129 Oresius, correspondent, 53, 63, 110, 188, 221, 439, 637 Orestes, MVM (475–6), 212 Orientius, historian, poet, 20, 286, 369 *Orosius, historian, 110, 382, 654, 656 Orpheus, 296, 315, 322, 344, 590, 593 nickname, 638, 715, 369 *Ovid, poet, 314, 401, 481, 562, 598, 644, 645, 650–1, 655–6, 662, 667, 671, 673, 675, 681 metre, 349, 354, 372, 444, 447–8, 450, 457 model of Sidonius, 285, 287, 289, 293–8, 334, 347, 353, 354, 399, 403, 407, 569, 570, 578, 579, 580, 583, 591, 593, 594, 595, 734 Pacatus signo Drepanius, Latinius, panegyrist (*Panegyrici Latini 2[12]), 33, 91, 348–9, 354 Paeonius, PPG (456/7), 46, 86, 109, 110, 131, 138, 140, 148, 217 Palladii, family, 129, 147 Palladius, addressee of Claudian, 595 Palladius, agricultural writer, 110, 464 Palladius, rhetor, 110 Pallas (Athena) see Minerva Pallas, son of Evander, 217 Pannychius, correspondent, 34, 111 Papianilla, wife of Sidonius, 27, 29, 44, 55, 60, 77, 81, 85, 91, 111, 118, 121, 129, 145, 173, 207, 221, 428, 430, 578, 657–8, 724 Papianilla, wife of Tonantius Ferreolus, 44, 96, 111, 249, 657 Parcae see Fates Pastor, correspondent, 49, 111, 130, 141, 148 Paterninus, letter carrier, 111 Patiens, bishop of Lyon, 65, 112, 220, 224, 268–9, 430, 633 munificence, 265, 267–8, 634–5 ordination at Chalon-sur-Saône, 24, 93, 102 *Sidon. Carm. 27 for the church of St Justus, 112, 178, 223, 362, 604 Patroclus, 332 Paulinus of Pella, 363–4 Paulinus of Périgueux, rhetor, 57, 112 poem for St Martin in Tours, 363, 606 Vita Martini, 107, 112 Paulinus, Pontius, founder of the Pontii Leontii family, 104, 112, 253, 255 *Paulinus, Pontius Meropius, bishop of Nola, 36, 40, 112, 224, 233, 252, 254, 353, 354, 362, 374, 382, 383, 483, 615 correspondence, 386–7 epithalamium, 595 metre, 450 model of Sidonius, 285, 359, 383 *Paulinus of Bordeaux, son of Pontius Leontius, 92, 112, 128, 254 author of ‘Scribere vobis’, 52, 112 Paulus, bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône, 102, 112 Paulus, decurio (?), 78, 94, 112–3 Paulus, Fl. Synesius Gennadius, PVR (before 467), 113, 221, 243, 652, 654 Pedo, poet, 285 Pelagia, wife of Aëtius, 97, 106, 132–3, 324, 326, 331, 333 Perpetuus, bishop of Tours, 51, 74, 113, 127, 223, 430, 439 commissions *Sidon. Carm. 31 for the church of St Martin, 105, 113, 362–3, 447, 448

13/02/20 4:53 PM

830

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY )

*Persius, 673 model of Sidonius, 285, 295, 579, 582, 605 Petreius, nephew of Mamertus Claudianus, 50, 113 *Petronius, author, model of Sidonius, 285, 304 Petronius, legatus provinciae, 41, 102, 113, 127, 143, 190, 228, 426, 439 dedicatee of Book 8, 113, 186, 190 prosecutor of Arvandus, 53, 82, 113 Petronius Probus see Probus, Petronius Petrus, magister epistularum, 21, 34, 41, 98, 113–4, 124, 169, 327, 715, 725–8 dedicatee of *Sidon. Carm. 3, 169, 290–1, 358, 490, 592 new book prompted poetry competition and *Sidon. Carm. 37, 21, 90, 104, 124, 370, 458, 713, 715 Petrus, tribunus et notarius, 114, 227, 230 Philagrius, correspondent, 37, 42, 49, 114, 225, 232, 242 fictitious addressee?, 24, 183 Philagrius, patricius, 85, 95, 114, 115 Philomathia, matrona, xiii, 38, 44, 45, 92, 114, 131, 138, 147, 175 epitaph (*Sidon. Carm. 26), 61, 90, 114, 175, 177, 178, 342, 360, 361, 371, 372, 454, 603 Philomathius, assessor, 45, 57, 92, 114, 131, 175, 431 poem on a face towel (*Sidon. Carm. 32), 178, 343, 356, 448, 582 Phoebus see Apollo *Philostratus, Lucius Flavius, 33, 247, 253, 315, 677 Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 18, 96, 104, 126, 247, 580, 609 Placidia, Galla, Augusta, 198, 200–2, 204–5, 724 Placidia, daughter of Valentinian III, 127, 204, 207, 209, 211 Placidina, great-granddaughter of Sidonius, 576 Placidina, wife of Apollinaris, 81, 129, 640 Placidus, correspondent, 114, 190–1 Placidus Valentinianus see Valentinianus III *Pliny the Younger, 215, 220, 230, 247, 250–1, 253, 256, 287, 376, 383, 388, 646, 672, 673, 674, 677, 710 age of Trajan and exemplary Romanness, 214–60, esp. 215–17, 238, 242, 244, 257–9, 571 cited by Sidonius, 182, 186, 193, 246–8, 287, 305, 383, 406, 407 correspondence, 166, 374, 381, 385–6, 388, 391, 646 model of Sidonius, 2, 6, 7, 24, 33, 182–4 193, 215, 218–19, 237–8, 240, 244, 246, 249–51, 258–6, 286, 305–9, 319, 337, 339, 352, 369, 370, 372, 373–92, 400, 401, 403, 405, 406, 546, 551, 553, 578, 599, 600, 605, 607, 609, 610, 611, 690: cover letter, 169; prefatory letter, 166, 306, 387, 601, 690; villa letters, 183, 249–53, 258, 307, 313, 406, 603; see also age of Trajan, structural similarities panegyric, 248, 304, 308, 318–19, 322, 324, 337, 338–9 play on names, 182, 227, 389–90, 391, 600, 611 prose rhythm, 463, 468 structural similarities to Sidonius, 166, 182, 186–7, 191, 193, 257, 305, 389–91, 406, 600 Polemius, PPG (?471–2), 33, 82, 95, 110, 115, 230, 244–5, 305, 347, 431, 596 *Epithalamium Carm. 14–15, 172, 347–8, 363, 371, 404, 568, 570, 595–6 Pontius Leontius see Leontius Potentinus, correspondent, 115 Pragmatius, bishop, 78, 115 Pragmatius, consiliarius, 50, 115, 120, 125, 131 Principius, bishop of Soissons, 71, 80, 108, 115, 117 139, 269, 273, 426, 430, 638, 639, 662–3, 691 Priscus Valerianus see Valerianus

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 830

Probus, son of Magnus, 58, 77, 82, 92, 93, 95, 115, 134, 348, 352–3, 355, 380, 411 Probus, Petronius (cos. 371), 354, 551, 553 Procopius, MVM (422–4), 80, 115, 302 Proculus, addressee of Martial, 355 Proculus, correspondent, 116, 140, 221 Proculus, deacon, 78, 116 Proculus, poet, 116, 221, 243, 715 Proiectus, suitor, 34, 110, 116, 120, 129, 135, 136 Proiectus, deacon, 105 Promotus, letter carrier, 32, 67, 109, 116, 227 *Propertius, poet, 285, 353, 408 metre, 450 model of Sidonius, 285, 293, 580, 581, 582, 610 Prosper of Aquitania, 458, 699 Prosper, bishop of Orléans, 71, 98, 105, 116 invited Sidonius to write history, 81, 83, 116, 205 Providence (personification), 337–8, 339 Prudens, merchant, 66, 116, 151 *Prudentius, poet, 314, 457, 706, 707 in library of Tonantius Ferreolus, 117, 256 metre, 450, 460 model of Avitus, 614 model of Sidonius, 18, 282, 285, 294, 298, 304, 309, 365, 368–9, 453, 455, 459–60 Pudens, correspondent, 38, 65, 117, 132, 142, 151, 228 Quintianus, poet, 117, 284, 293, 319 *Quintilian, rhetor, 239, 240 288, 292, 314, 316, 335, 388, 553, 671, 681, 689 model of Sidonius, 402 Ragnahilda, wife of Euric, 44, 50, 93–4, 117, 144, 234, 356, 714 inscription (*Sidon. Carm. 29), 53, 178, 179, 381, 448, 569, 606 Remigius, bishop of Reims, 71, 115, 117, 139, 144, 287, 405, 411, 430, 637, 639, 662–3 Ricimer, patricius, MVM (456–72), 117, 207–11, 257, 321, 720. 724 ancestry, 117, 126, 133, 145 appointment as patricius, 208 marriage to Alypia, 22, 80, 117, 127, 184, 192, 210, 235, 312, 415, 417, 602 overthrows Anthemius, 24, 211 overthrows Avitus, 20, 27, 29, 85, 106, 208 overthrows Majorian, 106, 209 promotes Severus, 121, 205 Sidonius’ ambivalent treatment in Panegyric of Anthemius, 24, 327, 331, 591 successes under Avitus, 23, 208 Riochatus, priest, 95, 118, 151 Riothamus, king of the Bretons, 48, 118, 140, 152, 179, 228, 431, 659–60, 699 Roma, goddess/personification, 239, 241, 283, 294, 296, 300–2, 304, 325, 326, 329–31, 332, 333–4, 336, 337, 338–9, 588, 590 bellatrix, 301, 334, 588 Romulus, founder of Rome, 34, 241, 332, 336, 652 Romulus Augustulus, emperor (r. 475–6), 212, 712, 725, 728 Roscia, daughter of Sidonius, 27, 44–5, 60, 81, 111, 118, 128, 145 Rufinus, writer, translator, 118, 286, 313, 382, 603, 648

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY ) *Ruricius, bishop of Limoges, 2, 8, 15, 41, 54–5, 77, 95, 99, 108, 109, 111, 118, 142, 171, 223, 226, 242, 247–9, 266, 272–4, 282, 421, 426,–7, 572, 612, 635, 638–40, 642, 666 correspondence, 54–5, 91, 118, 417, 483, 562, 599, 612–13, 632, 635, 639, 640, 665 Epithalamium (*Sidon. Carm. 10–11), 15, 100, 118, 171, 283, 284, 289, 348, 427, 440, 570, 595, 632 family, 77, 100, 110, 118, 171, 219, 242, 249, 632 letters to Sidonius, 15, 54–5, 190, 247–8, 274, 632–3, literary circle, 641 prose rhythm, 463 Rusticiana, wife of Symmachus, 44, 118, 123, 242 *Rusticus, bishop of Lyon, 119, 255 Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne, 53 Rusticus, Decimius, PPG (407), 53, 80, 82, 119 Rusticus, addressee of Jerome, 388 Rusticus, neighbour of Pontius Leontius, 55, 119, 150, 226, 389, 431 *Rutilius Namatianus, PVR (414), poet, 728 metre, 450 model of Sidonius, 239, 285, 302, 442, 580, 593 Sabinianus, member of senatorial family, 119, 413 Sabinus, member of senatorial family, 119, 413 Sabinus, Antonius Caecina (cos. 316), 112, 119 Sacerdos, correspondent, 41, 103, 119, 126, 131, 173 Sagittarius, tutor, 49, 110, 116, 119 *Sallust, historian, 388, 397, 689 model of Sidonius, 286, 305, 603 Sallustius, brother of Iovinus, 200 Sallustius (cos. 363), 78 Salonius, correspondent, 50, 120, 139 Salvianus of Marseille, 233, 574 Sanctio, bishop of Orléans, 486 Sapaudus, rhetor, 52, 57, 77–8, 88, 90, 106, 111, 115, 120, 126, 238, 286, 431, 582 Saturn, god, 323, 409 Saturninus, bishop of Toulouse, 264, 367–8, 587 Scipio Africanus, 249, 303, 592, 720 Sebastianus, MVM (432–50), 3, 120, 200 Secundinus, correspondent, 120, 411, 604, 607, 662 poem for the church of Lyon, 112, 120, 219, 223, 362 Secundus, nephew of Sidonius, 58, 59, 65, 80, 120, 138, 173 *Seneca the Younger, 317, 683 correspondence, 373, 375–6, 387, 388, 670–1, 674, 677, 696 model of Sidonius, 285, 288, 596 Seronatus, vicarius VII provinciarum (469?/472?), 22, 91, 94, 111, 120–1, 191–2, 231–2, 307, 412, 414, 603, 607 Serranus, correspondent, 35, 106, 108, 121 Serranus, republican role model, 239, 240 *Servius, 315, 352, 547, 553, 562, 587–8, 675 model for Sidonius, 295, 311 Severiana, daughter of Sidonius, 27, 44, 45, 65, 81, 103, 111, 121, 649–50, 657–8 Severianus, rhetor, 90, 98, 104, 121, 124, 171 Severinus (cos. 461), 121, 715 Severus, Libius, emperor, 121, 209 *Sidonius Apollinaris, family, 56–61 ancestors see Apollinares, Aviti brother, 59, 120, 138, 173 brothers-in-law see Agricola, Ecdicius

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 831

831

children see Alcima, Apollinaris, Roscia, Severiana; ambitions of Sidonius for, 23, 81; poem for birthday (29 July), 45, 172–3, 177, 355; twins? 27, 172, 177 cousins (male)/uncles see Apollinaris, Simplicius, Thaumastus cousin (female) see Eulalia father see Alcimus (?) father-in-law see Avitus, Eparchius mother, 19, 26, 27, 45, 59–60, 118, 428 mother-in-law, 50, 60, 128, 232, 346 paternal grandfather see Apollinaris nephews, 59–60 and see Avitus of Vienne, Secundus sisters, 59–60, 145 wife see Papianilla Sidonius, life and career, 1–2, 13–28 chronology, 26–28 day and year of birth (5 November 429/32), 2, 6, 26, 40, 197, 578–9 date of death (21 August 479/86), 6, 14–15, 17, 28, 30, 61–4, 81, 189, 213, 665 early life and education, 3, 20, 26–7, 197–8, 222, 242, 266–7, 440 episcopate, 1, 15, 23–4, 28, 36, 63, 180, 189, 191, 262, 266, 569, 574, 577, 597, 608 epitaph, 6, 14–15, 61–2 with fig. 2.2 and 2.3, 188–9, 239, 584, 612, 665 exile, 1, 28, 30, 50, 76, 81, 87, 146, 180, 185–6, 188, 191, 230, 22–3, 246, 378, 381, 427, 691, 703, 712, 714–5 literary pursuits, 42, 256–7, 284–6 model of Avitus, 614 native city Lyon, 1–2, 29, 81, 218 nostalgia, 3, 198, 210, 213, 215 ordained, 28, 104, 170, 176–8, 180, 190, 191, 192–3, 228, 263, 267, 270 ordains Simplicius at Bourges, 1, 23, 24, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 78, 81, 92, 111, 113, 122, 135, 137, 147, 149, 154, 226, 263–4, 465, 467, 578 other sources for Sidonius’ life, 14–17 poetry, (partial) renunciation, 24, 63, 170, 176, 177, 178, 189, 225, 333, 367–8, 390 religious commitment, 25, 221–2, 258, 261–75 retirement in 460s (including otium), 24, 27, 42, 184, 191, 223, 249, 253, 256, 345, 581, 584, 714 rogation ceremonies, 28, 106, 223, 265, 309, 701, self-fashioning, 3, 13, 18–25, 253–7, 273, 733–4 social network, 41–56, 68–74, 217–22 statue, 1, 13, 17, 27, 169, 214, 328, 700, 712, 734 travels to Bordeaux and Toulouse, 65, 243, 253–4, 573 travels to Rome in 467, 22–3, 27, 210, 319, 602 Sidonius, lost or unwritten works Contestationes/Missae, 16, 18, 81, 108, 262, 264, 430, 578, 580; see also rogation liturgy hymn(s) (?), 18, 205, 367–8, 459, 587 history (declined), 81, 83, 100, 104, 116, 225, 246–7, 429, 430, 700 lacuna in Ep. 1.4, 16, 167 letters outside the collection, 16, 18 more occasional poetry, 18, 360 scriptural exegesis (declined), 82, 379 rogation liturgy, 28, 106, 223, 265, 269, 309, 701 sermons, 264, 266, 273–4 translatio of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 18, 96, 104, 126, 247, 580, 609 Vita Anniani (?), 18, 81, 116, 263

13/02/20 4:53 PM

832

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY )

Sidonius, manuscripts and transmission, 508–42 (census), 479–507 (account of transmission), 730–2 (there follow only manuscripts discussed in detail or relevant to constitution of the text) Florence, BML, S. Marco 554 (= M ), 485, 490–1, 494–7, 515, 546, 581, 667–8 London, BL, Royal 4.B.IV (= B or Roy), 488–9, 496, 505, 517, 612, 643–64, 730 Madrid, BNE, 9448 (= C), 14, 30, 61, 481, 497, 518, 544, 556, 575, 583, 612 Oxford, Bodleian, Laudianus latinus 104 + Erlangen, UB, 2112 n. 7 (= L), 126, 219, 480, 483, 485, 497, 522, 567, 571, 643 Oxford, Bodleian, Rawl. G. 45, 488–90, 505, 526, 646, 730–2 Paris, BNF, Parisinus Latinus 2781 (= P ), 497, 524, 731 Paris, BNF, Parisinus Latinus 9551 (= F), 488–90, 505, 526, 646, 730–2 Paris, IRHT, CP 347 (= Schøy), 14, 30, 62 and fig. 2.3, 185, 188, 496, 497, 527, 544, 583, 584, 665 Sankt Gallen, MS 190, 15, 483, 612, 632, 635–42 Vatican City,Vat. Lat. 1661, 168, 497, 499–505, 533, 678, 730–1 Vatican City,Vat. Lat. 3421 (= A), 497, 499–504, 533, 549, 647, 655, 660, 730 Sidonius, style, rhetoric, and literary features alliteration, 12, 223, 255, 411, 416 allusion see intertextuality archaism, 286, 287, 397, 400, 402, 415, 416, 579, 580, 586, 610, 624, 705–6 assonance, 411 catalogues see lists comparisons see exempla euphony, 411, 436 exempla and comparisons, 222, 239–41, 247, 250, 267, 268, 283, 291, 298, 300, 302, 303, 313, 320, 321, 325, 331–2, 334–40, 347–8, 409, 410, 413, 416, 557, 589, 590, 591, 593, 603, 608, 638, 733; see also lists hapax legomena, 397, 398–400, 405, 409, 412, 455, 585, 586, 588, 648, 651 homoeoteleuton, 399, 409, 411–12 images, 413 intertextuality and allusion, 2–3, 5, 6–7, 14, 169, 183, 187, 232, 237–59, 279–392, 400, 407, 447, 448, 570, 578–84, 586–611, 614, 621, 710, 733–4 lists (catalogues, enumerations), 33, 77, 78, 79, 83, 85, 90, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112, 114, 118, 121, 123, 126, 134, 171, 232, 239, 243, 252, 267, 331, 332–3, 335, 336, 338, 382, 408, 570, 588, 599, 610, 652, 670, 733 metaphors, 2, 181, 186, 189, 224, 229 231, 234, 254, 291, 293, 331, 368, 395, 396, 397, 403–4 413–15, 442, 546, 598, 623, 624, 673, 700 metonymies, 252, 404, 413, 557 neologisms, 300, 309, 398–9, 401, 415 obscuritas, 24, 238, 258, 282, 601, 633, 733 paronomasia, 324, 397, 399, 402, 408, 409, 411–12, 415 personification, 267, 300–2, 333–4, 414, 588, 589, 590, 591, 753; see also Africa; Aurora; Oenotria; Roma; Tiber point/pointe, 258, 357, 359, 413, 705–6 polyptoton, 408–11; see also wordplay quotation and citation by name, 182, 186, 245, 247, 248, 266, 284, 285, 290–2, 304–5, 306, 310, 313, 365, 368, 383, 395, 441, 469

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 832

redundancy, 409, 411, 587, 588 scriptural quotation and language, 238, 266–7, 286, 293, 299, 305, 313, 365, 404, 414, 415, 597 word play, 223, 238, 250, 397, 408, 410, 412–3, 415, 559, 589, 593, 605, 621, 623, see also polyptoton Sidonius, surviving works: Letters, 373–91, 599–611 (for individual letters see Index locorum) allusiveness, 3, 214–59, 304–13, 373–91 dating, 28, 166–7, 179–94: of books 1–7, 28, 185; of book 1, 28, 189–93, 235; of book 2, 28, 235, 189–93; of book 8, 28, 186–8; of book 9, 15, 24, 28, 63, 188–93 fictitious elements, 24, 181–5 letter carriers, 32, 67–8, 81, 98, 99, 122, 142, 143, 151, 180, 228, 229–30, 265, 403, 404, 658 models for the collection, 2, 6, 14, 182, 214–59, 305–8, 373–91; see also allusiveness above and s.vv. Pliny and Symmachus number of letters, 29, 185, 219, 375 omissions, 3, 5, 18–24, 336, 377, 378 ordering, 390, 506–7 politeness, 25, 26, 218, 418–39 prose rhythm, 462–75 translations, 618–27 Sidonius, surviving works: Panegyrics, 317–40, 588–94 associated poetry, 167–9, 322–4, 341, 357–8 date and context of delivery, 167–9, 320–8 date of publication, 169–70 exempla, 240–1, 334–40 models, 283, 300–4, 317–20, 328–4; see also Claudian ordering, 170, 341–2, 506–7 Sidonius, surviving works: shorter poems, 341–72, 594–99 dating, 171–4, 342 ordering, 175–7, 341–2 epigrams, 173, 355–60 epitaphs and epigraphic poems, 177–8, 360–3 epithalamia, 347–8, 595–7 models, 300, 341–72 passim order in collection, 175, 341–2, 506–7 poems in letters, xiii–xiv, 177–8, 342–3, 346–7, 356–8, 360–3, 367–70 Sigismer, Burgundian (?) prince, 90, 121, 235–6, 257, 381, 607, 697 *Silius Italicus, poet, 239, 416 model of Sidonius, 239, 285, 295, 304, 310, 332, 339, 592 Silvia, noblewoman, 361 Simplicius, bishop of Bourges, 1, 23, 24, 28, 34, 36–7, 40, 81, 113, 122, 149, 222 his family, 122, 130, 135, 137, 146, 147 his wife, 38, 129, 147 Simplicius, bishop of Rome, 23 Simplicius, cousin/uncle of Sidonius, 41, 58–9, 68, 80, 88, 92, 95, 96, 122, 123, 130, 134, 138, 143, 227, 389, 426, 428, 636 Simplicius, friend of Augustine, 288 *Statius, 296, 303, 353, 364, 387–8, 650, 671, 697 epithalamia, 289, 297, 300, 347, 568, 595 Eucharisticon, 364 metre, 445 model for Sidonius, 2, 285, 289, 304, 401, 404, 407, 445, 578, 584, 595, 598; in Silvae, 2, 283, 287, 284–5, 291, 292, 293–4, 295, 297–8, 300, 303, 306, 308, 326, 347–8, 349–51, 364, 365–7, 387, 568–9, 570, 582–4, 611 Silvae, 251, 318, 375 (and see model for Sidonius above) Stilicho, MVM (394–408), 199–200, 206, 235, 299–300, 303, 304, 309, 319

13/02/20 4:53 PM

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY ) *Suetonius, historian, 415, 484, 654–6, 662 De vita Caesarum, 656 model of Sidonius, 286 Syagrius, advocatus, 34, 41, 42, 122, 134, 153, 209, 231, 240, 242, 249, 396, 426–7, 607, 609, 697, 719 Syagrius, Fl. Afranius (cos. 382), 32, 96, 122, 130, 134, 146, 240, 249 Syagrius, ruler of the Kingdom of Soissons, 50, 209 *Symmachus, Q. Aurelius (cos. 391), letter-writer, 5, 44, 122–3, 220, 612, 674, 677 correspondence, 94, 111, 119, 220, 225, 229, 375–7, 380–3, 385–8, 390–1, 395, 403, 417, 447, 646, 671, 672 epistolary style, 182, 306, 377, 403, 417. 601, 672 model of Sidonius, 7, 182, 186, 193, 218, 238, 286, 305–6, 308, 319, 369, 375–5, 376, 390–1, 400, 401, 406, 546, 551, 553, 554, 610; unknown fragment quoted by Sidonius, 305 oratory, 319, 383, 407 prose rhythm, 464 system of address, 420, 422, 423, 438 wife, 118, 123, 242; see also Rusticiana Synesius of Cyrene, 719–20 *Tacitus, P. Cornelius, historian, 289, 382, 386, 397, 679 alleged ancestor of Polemius, 33, 115, 244, 305 cited by Sidonius, 241, 244, 246–7, 305, 606 model for Sidonius, 33, 245, 383 Tanaquil, wife of Tarquinius Priscus, 44, 111, 132, 651–2 Tarquinius Priscus, fifth king of Rome, 111, 651–2 Tarquinius Superbus, seventh king of Rome, 651–2, 655 Tatius, Titus, king of the Sabines, 241 *Terentianus Maurus, 33, 285, 453, 454, 456–7, 459 model of Sidonius, 284, 456 Tetradius, advocatus, 71, 96, 123, 124, 228 Thaumastus, cousin/uncle of Sidonius, 53, 58, 59, 80, 92, 123, 128, 134, 149, 154, 426, 428, 637, 652 Thaumastus, uncle of Sidonius, 52–3, 58–9, 82, 92, 123, 128, 134, 249 Theoderic I, king of the Visigoths (418–51), 21, 85, 123, 124, 144, 202–6, 329, 331 Theoderic II, king of the Visigoths (453–66/7), 20–1, 77, 85, 93, 123, 124, 144, 173, 179, 206–10, 241, 257, 291, 319, 321, 326, 329–31, 556, 573, 576, 593, 602, 605, 645, 663, 668, 669, 700, 711 described by Sidonius, 1, 20–1, 48, 77, 149, 152, 154, 192, 234–6, 434, 568, 573, 576, 700, 711 Theoderic, king of Italy, 702 Theodorus, hostage, 67, 123, 124 Theodorus, seeking legal advice, 34, 123, 124, 227 Theodorus, Manlius (Mallius), 453, 719 Theodosius I, emperor (379–95), 46, 91, 106, 124, 133, 207, 239, 241, 560, 702 Theodosius II, emperor (402–50), 43, 46, 52, 127, 133, 197, 202, 204, 234 Theodosius, child of Athaulf and Galla Placidia, 201 Theoplastus, bishop of Geneva (?), 91, 124, 143, 152, 228 Theseus, 293, 300 Thetis, mother of Achilles, 332 Thorismodus (Thorismund), king of the Visigoths, 123, 124, 206, 223 Tiber, rivergod, 301, 303, 330, 331 Tibullus, poet, 408 metre, 450 model of Sidonius, 285

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 833

833

Titianus, Iulius, orator, 33, 354, 376, 387–88, 546, 550, 553, 562, 672 Apologi (Fables), 354 Tonantius, son of Tonantius Ferreolus, 96, 98, 111, 124, 148, 183, 369, 428, 439, 458, 582 *Sidon. Carm. 36, 124, 183, 369–70, 457–8 *Sidon. Carm. 37, 124, 370, 458 Trajan, emperor (98–117), 215, 216, 238, 240–1, 244, 255, 302, 322, 339, 374, 386, 581, 593, Forum of, 1, 17, 27, 168, 169, 323, 328, 336, 337, 338–9, 386, 734 Panegyric on, 248, 308–9, 318–19 Trygetius, correspondent, 104, 124, 151, 173, 638 Tuldila, king of the Huns, 32, 125 Turnus, correspondent, 125, 130, 138 Turnus, early imperial poet, 295 Turpio, tribunus et notarius, 108, 125, 130, 138 Ulysses (Odysseus), 245, 582 Valamer, king of the Ostrogoths (447–69), 125, 136 Valentinianus I, emperor (364–75), 206, 319, 702 Valentinianus II, emperor (375–92), 43, 124, 133 Valentinianus III, emperor (424–55), 16, 19, 53, 77, 88, 125, 127, 133, 134, 136, 197, 202–7, 211, 223, 249, 325, 329, 726, 728 Valentinus,Vettius Iunius, PVR (455–6), 207 Valerianus, Priscus, PPG (before 456), 50, 85, 115, 125, 131, 146, 169, 291, 357, 490 Vallia, king of the Visigoths (415–18), 32, 117, 126 Vandals, 48, 153, 199, 200–1, 203–4, 207–8, 322, 332, 338, 589–90, 592, 724 defeat Anthemius, 23, 211 early fifth century, 126, 199–202 Geiseric and family, 132, 144, 202–3, 207 in Sidonius’ panegyrics, 301, 304, 322, 330, 332, 338, 352, 589–90, 592, 698 sack of Rome in 455, 20, 23, 207, 298, 300, 301, 3221, 577, 724, 727 Vargi, bandits, 66, 116, 132, 142–3, 151, 204, 698 Varro, antiquarian, 256, 545, 547, 599, 609, 680 Hebdomades, 391 Libri logistorici, 109, 243, 285 Vectius see Vettius *Venantius Fortunatus, poet, 346, 361, 362, 457, 496, 557, 576, 611, 613, 621, 666, 718 Venus, goddess, 235, 255, 295, 298, 301, 332–3, 339, 347, 356, 371, 460, 595 temple, 295–6, 595 Veranus, bishop of Vence, 51 *Vergil, poet, 242–3, 288, 290, 353, 588, 590, 623, 677, 683, 715 cited in later scholarship or responses to Sidonius, 553, 644, 645, 651, 655, 658, 667, 675, 678, 696, 711 comparison of Sidonius to Tityrus/Vergil, 290–1, 293, 346–7, 620–1 metre and prosody, 442–3 model of Sidonius, 169, 242, 251, 285–6, 288, 291–3, 295, 296, 298–9, 303, 310, 311, 315, 316, 323, 324, 329, 330, 332, 334, 346–7, 358, 364, 407, 442, 579, 407, 579, 580, 590, 591, 592, 593, 611 quotations from, 186, 217, 245, 290–2, 305, 306 Vespasian, emperor (69–79), 241, 338

13/02/20 4:53 PM

834

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( ANTIQUITY )

Vettius, correspondent, 45, 98, 101, 126, 128, 129, 152, 223, 267, 380, 383 Vettius Iunius Valentinus see Valentinus ‘Victor’ (?), quaestor sacri palatii, 126, 169, 323, 557, 731 *Victor, Iulius, rhetor, 249, 375–6, 384, 388 Victorianus, Tascius, editor, 96, 104, 126, 247 Victorius, comes civitatis, 37, 77, 81, 92, 126, 225, 230, 231, 362, 712 Victorius, poet, 103, 119, 126, 131, 243 Victorius, rhetor, 126 *Victorinus, Marius, 285, 452, 453, 456 Vincent, martyr, 29

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 834

Vincent of Lérins Commonitorium, 369 Vincentius, MVM (?), 29, 48, 127, 211 Vindicius, deacon, 37, 96, 113, 127, 139, 227, 228 Visigoths, 15, 20–2, 25, 28–9, 32, 48, 50, 179, 188, 191–2, 223, 226–7, 229–32, 234, 237, 239–40, 245, 257, 259, 302–3, 309 Vivianus, bishop of Saintes, 51 Volusianus, bishop of Tours, 35, 38, 55, 77, 105, 127, 145, 152, 217, 222, 223, 362, 439, 442, 633, 635 Vulcan, god, 295–6 Zeno, emperor (474–91), 15, 16, 62–3, 185, 188–9, 212–13, 665

13/02/20 4:53 PM

Index of Personal Names (After Antiquity)

This index is very selective in including modern scholars, and focuses mainly on editors and translators whose work is discussed at length in the text. Asterisks (*) indicate authors also included in the Index locorum. Abbot, John, 699 Abelard see Peter Abelard Accorso, Mariangelo, 682 *Alan of Lille, Anticlaudianus, 663, 669, 671 Alberti, Leon Battista, 612 Alexander Neckam, 645, 667 Alfonso de la Torre, Visión deleytable, 678 Anderson, W. B., Loeb edition 1936–65, 3, 566, 622–3 Anglade, Jean, Sidoine Apollinaire, 711–13, 722, 728–9 Azaïs, Guy, Sidoine Apollinaire, mémoires imaginaires and Sidoine Apollinaire, Que le jour recommence, 715, 723–5, 728–9 Baesecke, Georg, 698 Barbaro the Elder, Filippo, 690 Barbaro, Ermolao, 678 Baret, Eugène, editions 1878 and 1887 with translation, 166, 557–62, 568, 619, 620–2, 624, 685, 695, 698 Bayle, Pierre, 691 Bellès, Joan, edition 1989–99, 566–7, 618, 624, 640 Bérault, Nicolas, 689 Beroaldo the Elder, Filippo, 544, 547, 679 Billardon de Sauvigny, Edme, translations 1787–92, 558, 619 Bolland, Jean, 689 Breyer, Rémy, 558, 618 Brożek, Mieczysław, 568, 595, 615, 618, 624 Brunner, Heinrich, 698 Buchan, John, ‘The Wind in the Portico’, 614, 708–9 Castellesi, Adriano, De sermone latino, 682–4 Castelli, Giulio, Il romanzo dell’Impero romano and ‘Il leviatano negligente’, 718, 725–6, 728–9 Chabron, Gaspard, 690 Chaix de Lavarène, Louis-Antoine, 692 Chateaubriand, François-René de, 613, 691, 693–4, 698 Colvius, Petrus, commentary, 550–1, 553, 554, 555 Corvinus, Gottlieb Siegmund, 697 Dalton, O. M., translation 1915, 566, 570, 622–3 de Gourmont, Remy, Le Latin mystique, 706–7

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 835

de Witt née Guizot, Henriette, 703 de Zamora see Juan Gil de Zamora de la Torre see Alfonso de la Torre Derème, Tristan, 614, 708, 710 Diderot, Denis, and Jean d’Alembert, Encyclopédie, 692 Drumont, Édouard, La dernière bataille, 708 Du Bos, Jean Baptiste, 691–2, 693, 698 Duchesne, André, 689, 691 Dumas père, Alexandre, 694 *Eberhard the German, 645, 667 Elmenhorst, Gerhard, edition 1617, 555 *Embrico of Mainz, Vita Mahumeti, 644, 667 Enoch of Ascoli, 612, 678 Erasmus, 684 *Flodoard of Reims, History of the Church of Reims, 644, 666 Galland, André, edtion 1774, 557–8 Geisler, Eugen, 562 Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Poetria nova, 409, 645, 669 Gerald of Wales, 669 Gibbon, Edward, 698–700 Giron, Aimé, and Albert Tozza, L’Augustule, 475–476, 708 Gottsched, Johann Christoph, 696 Graves, Robert, Count Belisarius, 708–10, 713, 720, 729 Grégoire, J.-F., and F.-Z. Collombet, translation 1836, 557–9, 560, 562, 619–20, 686, 695 Grimm, Jacob, 697 Grupe, Eduard, 562 *Guibert of Nogent, 669 Guizot, François, Histoire de la civilisation en France and L’Histoire de France racontée à mes petits-enfants, 560, 620, 686, 693–5, 702–4 Helinand of Froidmont, 669 Hernández Lobato, Jesús, 618, 624–5 *Hincmar of Reims, 663 Hodgkin, Thomas, 622

13/02/20 4:53 PM

836

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES ( AFTER ANTIQUITY )

Hugh Capet, king of the Franks, 663 *Hugh of Fleury, 659 Hugh of St Victor, 653 Huysmans, Joris-Karl, À rebours , 705–7, 709 Jaucourt, Louis, 692 *John of Salisbury, Metalogicon and Policraticus, 538, 645, 669, 673 Juan Gil de Zamora, 671 Julian of Toledo, 674 Julius II, pope, 682 Ketelaer, Nicolaes, and Geraert van Leempt, editio princeps , 500, 543–4, 680 Köhler, Helga, 618 Kretzschmer, Andreas, 697 Le Guillou, Jean, 711 Le Nain de Tillemont, Louis-Sébastien, 692, 699 Lemaître, Jules, 706 Leo X, pope, 682 Leo, Friedrich, 480, 544, 562 López Kindler, Agustín, 624 Louÿs, Pierre, 708 Loyen, André, Budé edition 1960–70, 3, 480, 566–7, 624 Lütjohann, Christian, MGH edition 1887, 3, 479–80, 508, 544, 562, 566 Marcel, Jean, Sidoine ou La dernière fête and Triptyque des temps perdus, 709, 712–16, 718, 729 Matthew of Vendôme, 645 Ménage, Gilles, 690 Migne, Jacques Paul, reprint of Sirmond in PL 58, 558 Mohr, Paul, Teubner edition 1895, 480–1, 499, 508, 552, 563, 566, 568, 571, 578, 640 Mommsen, Theodor, 562, 698 Montaigne, Michel de, 689 Montebello, Denis, Au dernier des Romains, 712, 717–19, 729 Morhof, Daniel Georg, 696 Neckam see Alexander Neckam Nordau, Max, Entartung, 707–8 Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici imperatoris, 668 *Paul the Deacon, 179, 655, 656 Pears, Iain, The Dream of Scipio, 613, 719–23, 728–9 *Peter Abelard, 668, 669 Peter Damian, 667 *Peter of Poitiers, 668

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 836

*Peter the Venerable, 668 *Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca), 281, 28 2, 288, 388, 539, 546, 54 7, 549, 612, 613, 672–3, 677, 680, 690, 721 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, 678 Pio, Giovanni Battista, edition 1498, reprints 1542 and 1597, 500, 544–48, 549, 550–1, 552, 553, 554, 556–7, 613, 662, 679–84 Polignac, dukes of, 690 Poliziano, Angelo, 388, 543, 547, 612, 676–8, 679, 681, 682, 690 Rahewin of Freising, 668 Ralph de Diceto, 668 *Richard de Bury, 673 Robin du Faut, Pascal, 618 Sainte-Marthe, Scévole de, 689 Salutati, Coluccio, 613, 673–5 Savaron, Jean, edition 1598, 1599 with commentary, reprint 1609, 3, 549, 550, 551–5, 556-7, 558, 561, 592, 662, 689, 690, 691, 692, 697 Scaliger, Julius Caesar, 684–5 Semple, W.H., 566, 623 Sigibert of Gembloux, 668 Sirmond, Jacques, editions 1614 and 1652, 3, 549, 552, 555, 556–59, 560, 561, 689, 690, 691, 692, 697, 699, 700 Stephen of Tournai, 669 Stillingfleet, Edward, 699 Tailhade, Laurent, 708 Thevet, André, 687–8 Urban II, pope, 646 Vignier, Jérôme, 619, 689 Vinet, Élie, edition 1552, 549, 552 *Vives, Juan Luis, 684 von (der) Woweren, Johann, edition 1598, 492, 549–56 von Falke, Jakob, 697 von Ramdohr, Friedrich, 696 Waddell, Helen, The Wandering Scholars, 709 Warmington, E.H., 566, 623 *William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum, 646, 659, 664, 668 Yonge, Charlotte Mary, ‘The Price of Blood’, The Heir of Redclyffe, and Young Folks’ History of Rome, 686, 688, 695, 699, 701–4, 709, 729 Yourcenar, Marguerite, Mémoires d’Hadrien, 723

13/02/20 4:53 PM

Index of Topics

This index aims to collect certain broad historical and scholarly topics not associated with names of individuals or with particular authors: these are gathered under the headings ‘Church’, ‘Historical phenomena and events’, ‘Illustrations’, ‘Ranks and social groups’, ‘Reception and intellectual movements since Antiquity’, ‘Scholarly methodologies’.

Church bishops, elections, 1, 35–6, 39, 78, 81, 93, 102, 149, 175–80, 222, 226, 263–4, 267, 578, 695; see also Index of Personal Names (Antiquity) s.v. Sidonius, life and career bishops in exile, 1, 28, 30, 50, 76, 81, 87, 89, 93, 99, 103, 122, 146, 180, 185–6, 188, 191, 222, 230, 232–3, 246, 378, 381, 327, 703, 712, 714–15 bishops’ secular power, 35–7, 40, 44, 220, 264, 266, 577, 619 church councils, 18, 24, 51, 103, 264 conversi and ascetics, 221–2, 223, 258, 265, 267–71, 274–5, 390, 414; see also monastics deacons, 28, 36–7, 39, 66, 67, 78, 87, 102, 105, 116, 127, 141, 228, 264, 265, 266 homoian Christians, 32, 76–154, 210, 231 monastics, 25, 36, 39, 40, 74, 92, 100, 101, 105, 107, 118, 223, 226, 267–9, 273–5, 362, 363, 379, 388, 390, 398, 403, 448, 597 priests, 35–7, 39–41, 56–61, 67, 78, 88, 89, 94, 95, 98, 100, 105, 107–8, 110, 115, 116, 118, 125, 127, 130, 141, 149, 219, 223–4, 262, 264, 267, 269, 275, 361, 375–6, 379, 380, 413, 435, 675, 701; see also Index of Personal Names (Antiquity) s.v. Constantius

Historical phenomena and events battle of Orléans (c. 463), 22 battle of Placentia (456), 108, 208, 323 battle of Soissons (486/7), 17, 28, 50 battle of the Catalaunian Fields (451), 77, 206 battle of Vicus Helena, 88, 106, 108, 133, 145, 591–2 battle of Vouillé (507), 81, 231 Council of the Seven Provinces, 111, 202 coniuratio Marcell(ini)ana, 21, 27, 51, 54, 107, 110, 208, 573, 603, 711 sack of Rome (410), 200, 302 sack of Rome (455), 20, 23, 127, 207, 300, 301, 321, 329, 334, 37, 338, 577, 724 siege of Aquileia (451), 200

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 837

siege of Arles (411), 200 siege of Arles (471), 211 siege of / attacks on Clermont (470s), 28, 48, 219, 229, 230, 308–10 siege of Milan (451), 200 siege of Narbonne (437/9), 20, 85 siege of Orléans (451), 79, 225

Illustrations Map of Sidonius’ Gaul c. 380–c. 480, xviii Fig. 2.1 The ‘Thaumastus Disk’ from Toulouse, 52 Fig. 2.2 The Sidonius epitaph from Madrid 9448, 61 Fig. 2.3 The Sidonius epitaph from Paris CP 347, 62 Figs 2.4–2.8 Network diagrams of Sidonius and his recipients, 69–74 Fig. 16.1 Stemma of the so-called ‘fourth family’, 488 Fig. 16.2 Stemma of the English family, 490 Fig. 16.3 Stemma of descendants of Stockholm KB Va 26a, 494 Fig. 16.4 Stemma of the manuscripts with Carm. 2 complete, 496 Fig. 16.5 Stemma of ancestors and descendants of archetype κ, 499 Fig. 16.6 Stemma of the complete manuscripts, 504 Fig. 16.7 General stemma (simplified), 506 Fig. 20.1 Codex Sangallensis 190 pp. 2–3, 637

Ranks, social group and social phenomena address, forms of, 25, 33–8, 269–73, 418–39 barbarians (including ‘alterity’ and ‘otherness’), 6, 31, 43–4, 48, 112, 120, 154, 215, 230–6, 237–8, 239, 242, 255, 257, 261, 266, 272, 275, 309, 310, 330, 346, 347, 357, 358, 382, 396, 573–4, 576, 583, 590, 593, 594, 596, 689, 693, 697, 708, 710, 714, 729, 734

13/02/20 4:53 PM

838

INDEX OF TOPICS

consul (non-imperial), 23, 29, 30, 32, 34, 41, 61, 77, 78 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 94, 96, 102, 106, 109, 119, 121, 122, 123, 130, 134, 146, 147, 172–3, 191, 197, 203, 205, 221, 234–5, 240, 244, 318, 319, 327, 337, 387, 389 councils and decurions, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39. 46–7, 49, 64, 67, 78, 79, 91, 92, 97, 100, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 122, 131, 138, 140, 141, 149, 183 governors of provinces, vicarii, etc., 22, 35, 40, 79, 94, 98, 110, 112, 117, 120, 136, 231, 431 identity (including ‘self-fashioning’, Roman, senatorial), 6, 13, 14, 216, 220, 231–3, 237, 239–41, 242, 248–9, 253–5, 258, 273, 319, 368, 379, 581, 590, 606, 608, 617, 733, 734–5 Master of the Offices, 57, 119 Masters of the Soldiers (magister militum, etc.), 20, 22, 32, 48, 49, 50, 57, 77, 85, 86, 87, 91, 98, 104, 108, 113, 115, 117, 120, 127, 134, 144, 171, 198, 202, 203, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 327, 337: duces (Roman rank), 30, 40 48, 77, 98, 109, 126, 136, 153, 209, 231; comites (military), 34, 436, 48, 51, 52, 54, 57, 67, 79, 81, 85, 86, 92, 105, 111, 1626, 137, 209, 217, 225, 227, 233, 238, 321, 362, 367, 396, 431, nicknames, 79, 110, 138, 254, 325, 369, 598, 638 praetorian prefects, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 50, 51, 53, 57, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 94, 95, 96, 107, 109, 110, 115, 119, 125, 134, 136, 146, 171, 173, 197, 200, 210, 219, 221, 223, 234, 244, 245, 255, 327, 381, 427, 430, 431, 692; staff of, 114, 115, 431 prefects of Rome, 30, 34, 36, 81, 134, 169, 179, 274, 187, 192, 207, 210, 220, 221, 226, 243, 245, 328, 364, 570, 576, 692 prefect of the Annona, 87, 135, 226–7 senators, clarissimi, and illustres, 29, 33–40, 45, 46, 47, 50, 66–7, 76–154, 168, 171–2, 175, 184, 198–9, 201, 207, 208, 209, 210, 214, 220, 223, 226, 227, 230, 232, 233, 235, 237–8, 240, 241, 242, 243, 282, 300, 327, 330, 337, 339, 341, 343, 356, 358, 380, 388, 392, 427, 428, 431, 573, 575, 576, 577, 587, 588, 613, 632, 652, 666, 724 slaves, 30, 38–9, 44, 46, 49, 36, 64–8, 79, 91, 104, 118, 124, 140, 142, 150–1, 152, 204, 215, 227, 228, 313, 406, 451: coloni, 38, 44, 65, 117, 132, 142, 228; freedmen/freedwomen, 65, 132, 151, 152, 607

Reception and intellectual movements since Antiquity earliest reception, 631–42, 665–6 Gregory of Tours, 633–5 Ruricius of Limoges and his archive, 2, 15, 238, 632–3, 638–40 Sidonius’ letters in the Codex Sangallensis, 190, 483–4, 635–9

6255_Kelly and van Waarden_Index.indd 838

reception in the Middle Ages, 643–64, 665–71 Florilegium Angelicum, 613, 644 Florilegium Gallicum, 536, 540, 541, 644 Florilegium Thuaneum, 481, 540 glosses on Sidonius’ letters, 646–61 School of Chartres, 667 Sidonius’ Golden Age, 667–71 reception in the Renaissance, 671–85 Bolognese school, 3, 544, 682 Ciceronianism, 678, 682, 684, 685, 688 Humanism, Italian, 613, 672, 673, 678, 679–81, 682–3 Petrarch and the irrisio Ciceronis, 672, 677, 680 reception 16th–19th centuries, 686–704 France, 687–95 Germany, 695–8 Great Britain, 698–704 Oxford Movement, 701 Romanticism, 686, 693, 696 Sidonius as a historical source, 686, 688, 697–8 reception late 19th–21st centuries, 705–29 Auvergnat local pride, 711–12 Decadentism, 705–8 ‘Sidonius, the last Roman’, 567, 712–19 (esp. 717), 723–8

Scholarly methodologies archaeology and art history, 3, 6, 9, 248–53, 734–5 ekphrasis, 252–4, 258, 332, 333, 355, 356, 362, 367, 584 belatedness, 197–8, 388 cognitive turn, 735 editing Sidonius, early modern, 543–57, 679–80 editing Sidonius, modern, 479–82, 558–63, 566–8, 730–2 emotions, cognitive study of, 735 intertextuality, 733–4, 279–316, 317–40, 341–72, 373–92 linguistic turn, 7, 733–4 memory studies, 197, 214–16 narratology, 392, 585, 735 politeness theory, 418, 422–3 pragmatic linguistics, 418–39, 585, 735 prosopography, 29–164, 166–7, 260, 546, 556, 562, 574, 577, 601, 731 reception studies, 8–9, 216, 234, 631–729; see also chapters 17–19 on history of scholarship and translation and separate reception section of this index ritual studies, 735 semantics, 735 Social Network Analysis (SNA), 68–75 sociolinguistics, 418, 420 structuralism (functionalism), 384 translation, approach to, 625–6

13/02/20 4:53 PM