Page 191 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

The saint as envoy: bishops’ Lives

late emperors and Odoacer are shown as having respect for Epiphanius
and being guided by his precepts, nevertheless they are at one point dis-
missed, for the convenience of a biblical image, as wicked rulers deposed
for their faults. 214 Neither is Theoderic presented as an ideal ruler; his
obedience to Epiphanius is in the same order as that of all his predeces-
sors, and the praise which Ennodius pays him can be taken as no more
than a sign of the conventional prudence concerning a current ruler. The
necessity to undertake two embassies to Theoderic of itself precludes any
suggestion that he is a model ruler. Theoderic bulks large in the narrative
because he is associated with that mission of Epiphanius which receives
the most attention both in the dictio on the bishop’s anniversary and in
the Vita, namely the redemption of the Italian captives in Gaul. It would
be difficultto imagine Ennodius, in 502/4, feeling compelled to offer
himself as an educator in governance to Theoderic, in view, on the one
hand, of Ennodius’ constant recourse to the patronage of court officials
and even of the king; and on the other, of the prudent statesmanship
displayed by Theoderic in matters including his involvement in both the
Laurentian and Acacian schisms, and his triumphal ceremonial visit to
Rome in 500.
Indeed, a central element of the literary persona of Epiphanius, which
Ennodius modelled on Constantius’ Germanus, strongly limits any po-
tential there may be for the Vita to espouse elaborate political senti-
ments. Epiphanius, like Germanus, resolves disputes through consensus;
he is the concordiae auctor. 215 Achieving consensus implies that both par-
ties at dispute have been at fault; Ennodius consistently portrays all rulers
as partly culpable for the causae discordiae. 216 Ennodius can portray each

214 Ennodius, Vita Epiphani, 129.
215 Cf. Ennodius, Vita Epiphani, 114: inter dissidentes principes solus esset qui pace frueretur amborum.
216 Ricimer and Anthemius: Ennodius, Vita Epiphani, 51–2: invidia et pars dignitas causa discordia...
mutuo bella praepararent. Both Ricimer and Anthemius portray the other as intemperate; 53, 61
(both also exchange conventional ethnic insults: 53, 67; contra e.g. N¨ af, ‘Die Zeitbewusstsein
des Ennodius’, 117, who sees the use of the term Greculus for Anthemius as anti-Byzantine
feeling). Nepos and Euric: though the initiative rests with Gothic raids to which Nepos re-
sponds, hinc utrimque litium coeperunt fomenta consurgere,et dum neutrae partes conceptum tumorem
vincendi studio deponunt,sic exuperabat causa discordiae; 80. Theoderic and Gundobad: Theoderic’s
speech to Epiphanius commissioning the embassy is very circumspect; when the Burgundians
are mentioned, Theoderic immediately implicates himself too, by inaction: haec [sc. the depopu-
lation of Liguria] quamvis Burgundio inmitis exercuit,nos tamen,si non emendamus,admisimus; 139.
Gundobad is made to claim that the Burgundian raid was a response to contumeliam of Theoderic
and his betrayal of their former alliance; 166. Ligurian embassies to Theoderic: the repression
of legal rights of Odoacer’s supporters is described as universa Italia lamentabili iustitio subiacebat;
122. Relief is needed from vix ferenda tributorum sarcina; 182. Discussions of these passages have
generally sought to use them as evidence for the constitutional positions of the emperors and
kings (e.g. Cesa, Commentary to Vita del Epifanio, 169, 185), but constitutional terminology is
not Ennodius’ concern; dramatically, the passages present conflicts arising from the clash of two
antagonists.
165