Page 192 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

ruler, depending on the dramatic needs of each scene, as pious or enraged,
excellentor treacherous. 217 There is very little scope, within this fictive
construct of consensus and the rhetorical description of Epiphanius’ pro-
tagonists, for the author to prefer any model of rule or political figure
over another.
It is striking, in a work which takes pains to praise its hero above all
for his success as an envoy, that several of Epiphanius’ missions appear
spectacularly unsuccessful to modern expectations. Epiphanius’ embassy
to Anthemius did not prevent the ultimate outbreak of civil war and
the murder of the reigning emperor; his journey to Toulouse did not
avert Gothic annexation of parts of Gaul. 218 The key to understanding
how these legations were claimed as successes lies in Ennodius’ regional
perspective. Civil war erupted in Italy between Anthemius and Ricimer
some eight to eleven months after Epiphanius’ embassy to Rome. 219
The consequential siege of Rome by Ricimer was recalled in Ennodius’
lifetime as one of three catastrophes with which divine judgement had
struck Christian Rome, alongside Alaric’s infamous sack of the city. 220
Ennodius does not ignore this enormity. Anthemius, after agreeing to
observe peace, is made to declare to Epiphanius: ‘Henceforth, if Ricimer
has deceived even you with the cunning of his wonted guile, let him
take up the battle, wounded as he is.’ 221 Ricimer did, indeed, take up the
battle, bringing war to Rome instead of fighting defensively in northern
Italy. The words which Ennodius gives to Anthemius are not neutral,
nor do they bring closure to the episode; rather, they anticipate future
events. The purpose of Epiphanius’ mission on behalf of his patria was to
restrain the emperor from attacking his rebellious subject in Milan, and so
forestall civil war being brought to northern Italy and Liguria becoming
a theatre of war, as Rome would be. 222 The aim of Epiphanius’ embassy
in 471 was to protect Liguria, and in this he succeeded. 223
217 E.g. Gundobad: Epiphanius is warned by bishop Rusticius of Lyons of the astutiae regis (Ennodius,
Vita Epiphani, 151), yet when the bishop meets the king sua utrique visione laetati sunt (153);
Gundobad is later called rex probatissimus (164).
218
Cf. Cesa, Introduction to Vita del Epifanio, 31: as ‘Ennodio . . . mira a presentare come un successo
tutte le azioni del suo eroe’, his accounts of Epiphanius’ dealings with Anthemius and Euric are
‘difficilimente interpretabili’.
219
Epiphanius leftRome on 9 March 471; Ricimer began his siege of the city in either November
471 or February 472, depending on two variant chronologies in Priscus, Fr., 64.
220
Gelasius, Lettre contre les lupercales,ed. G. Pomar` es (Sources chr´ etiennes 65; Paris, 1959), 13. The
third catastrophe is the pestilence of 467. Oddly, Gelasius does notinclude Geiseric’s sack of
Rome in 455.
221
Ennodius, Vita Epiphani, 70: postremo si solitae calliditatis astutia etiam te fefellerit,certamen iam
vulneratus adsumat.
222
Patria: Ennodius, Vita Epiphani, 57.
223
The account of Epiphanius’ mission to Rome is followed by the only break in the narrative of his
public deeds during episcopate: a description of the sanctity of his sister Honorata, her spiritual
166