Page 114 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

periods between public offices were not unusual for the Roman aristoc-
racy, but it is striking that Maximus, in a time of political and military
disturbance, selected as magister utriusque militiae a provincial so long out
of office. Avitus was living on his country estates when appointed by the
new emperor. 10 Maximus had clientes in Gaul, butthere is no evidence
of patronage or personal connections between Maximus and Avitus. 11
Avitus’ withdrawal to private life may not have been entirely voluntary.
Possibly, like Majorian, he was forced from public life by Aetius, jealous
of rivals for dominance in the western provinces. 12 Unlike Majorian,
however, Avitus came from an aristocratic background. His departure
from office is perhaps best seen as a voluntary and customary retirement
after a successful career, and his selection as magister utriusque militiae by
Maximus as the result of the same close ties between Avitus and the Gothic
courtof Toulouse emphasised by Sidonius in the Panegyric. The deaths
of Aetius and Valentinian III disturbed relations with barbarian groups
13
inside and outside the empire’s borders. Maximus, in choosing Avitus,
was probably mindful of his success in gaining Gothic assistance against
Attila four years previously. Relations with the Goths were important for
the security of the western half of the empire; Avitus’ appointment was
a consequence of this.
The first few months of Avitus’ commission were spent securing peace
with barbarian groups on the empire’s northern borders; possibly Avitus
14
used the former imperial capital of Trier as a base. Probably in late June,

10 Sid. Ap., Carm. vii, 378–87, casting Avitus as a new Cincinnatus.
11 Clientes:Sid.Ap., Ep. ii, 13.1 (the otherwise unattested Serranus); cf. 4 (before his elevation,
Maximus’ patrocinia florebant).
Petronius Maximus and Avitus have recently been described as brothers-in-law: T. S. Mom-
maerts and D. H. Kelley, ‘The Anicii of Gaul and Rome’, in Drinkwater and Elton (eds.),
Fifth-Century Gaul, 111–21,at 118. This lacks foundation. The silence of all sources, especially
of Sidonius (who would thus have been related to the Anicii), is more than usually compelling.
The postulated kinship of Petronius Maximus and Avitus assumes that Maximus was the father
of Magnus, praetorian prefect of Gaul under Majorian and consul in 460 (ibid., 118; PLRE ii,
‘Magnus 2’, 700–1). Sidonius states that, of Magnus’ family, only his grandfather had been consul
before him (Agricola, 421), and that Magnus’ son, Magnus Felix, was the first patricius in the
family since his ancestor Philagrius (dated to the fourth century by PLRE i, ‘Philagrius 4’, 693;
to the third by T. D. Barnes, ‘Patricii under Valentinian III’, Phoenix 29 (1975), 153–4); Sid. Ap.,
Carm. xv, 150–3; Ep. ii, 3.1. Petronius Maximus was twice consul, in 433 and 443,and patricius
by 445; therefore he cannot have been an ancestor of this Gallic family; PLRE ii, ‘Petronius
Maximus 22’, 750. Other claims for ties between Avitus and the Anicii are tendentious, e.g. the
appearance of the name Eparchius among the children of Ruricius, bishop of Limoges, could
indicate a relationship of the family of Avitus with that of Ruricius’ wife Hiberia rather than with
the Ruricii (Mommaerts and Kelley, ‘Anicii’, 111; cf. Sid. Ap., Carm. xvii to Hiberia’s father
Ommatius).
12
PLRE ii, ‘Fl. Iulius Valerius Maiorianus’, 702. Cf. Gibbon, Decline and Fall ii, 363.
13
Cf. above, chapter 2,atnn. 138–41.
14
Sid. Ap., Carm. vii, 369–75, 388–91; Stevens, Sidonius, 27 n. 1; Stein i, 367.
88