Page 193 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

The saint as envoy: bishops’ Lives

The problematic praise of Epiphanius’ embassy to Euric is clarified by
attention to the regional focus of Vita Epiphani and to the wording of the
text. Among the most famous of the letters of Sidonius Apollinaris are
those describing first his hopes, then his disappointment in negotiations
¸
overseen by four Provencal and Gallic bishops, which resulted in the ced-
ing of the Auvergne to Euric. 224 The accounts by Ennodius and Sidonius
of negotiations with Euric have traditionally been read together, but they
can be squared only awkwardly, usually by assuming that Epiphanius’
mission in fact surrendered the Auvergne, an arrangement subsequently
confirmed by the Gallic bishops. 225 Ennodius’ youth was probably spent
in that part of Gaul taken over by the kingdom of Toulouse shortly after
the appeasement of Euric failed to satisfy the king; it is difficult to see
how he could genuinely have regarded such a mission on the part of
Epiphanius as a success from the point of view of the empire. In fact, the
activity of Euric which precipitates conflict with Nepos in Vita Epiphani
is not the king’s attempts to annex parts of Gaul, naturally of concern to

instructor Luminosa, and Epiphanius’ own alms-giving. The narrative then resumes, with the
tumultuous deaths of Anthemius and Ricimer mentioned solely as time indicators; Ennodius,
Vita Epiphani, 76–9. The unique digression perhaps serves to underscore the omission of civil
warfare. Honorata and Luminosa feature again in Odoacer’s siege of Pavia: 97, 99.
224
Sid. Ap., Ep. vii, 6, 7. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders ii, 501–7, esp. 504 n. 1; Seeck vi, 376–7;
Bury, LRE i, 343; Stevens, Sidonius, 158, 198–9, 207–11; Ludwig Schmidt, Geschichte der
deutschen St¨ amme bis zum Ausgang der V¨ olkerwanderung i: Die Ostgermanen (Munich, 1934–41),
491–2; Sundwall, Eurich, 77–81; Cook, Life of St Epiphanius, 187–9; Anderson, Sidonius ii, 322–3
n. 2; Courcelle, Histoire litt´ eraire, 180; Stein i, 396, 604 n. 182;Loyen, Sidoine: Lettres ii, 20–1;
Demougeot ii, 604–5; Harries, Sidonius, 237.
Sidonius does not, as is often assumed, state that the four bishops went as envoys to Euric, or,
more importantly, that they acted at the behest of the emperor Nepos. The bishops are described
as having a supervisory role in the exchange of embassies and the making of treaties, perhaps
by virtue of their senior position in a provincial concilium (Ep. vii, 6.10, 7.4: cum in concilium
conventis ...primi comprovincialium. Sirmond, PL 58, 573 n. b and Loyen, Sidoine: Lettres iii, 191
n. 36, see this as a council of the bishops of the diocese of Arles, but Sidonius characterises the
proper concern of the concilium as publicis . . . periculis, which seems more pertinent to a provincial
than an ecclesiastical council; cf. Anderson, Sidonius ii, 329 n. 4). The bishops have authority with
regard to negotiations quamquam principe absente (Ep. 7.4). Sidonius never otherwise mentions
the emperor; he blames the surrender of the Auvergne region on the bishops’ pursuit of personal
interests. Elsewhere, Sidonius expresses concern that intermediaries between the empire and the
Goths sought personal profit rather than the empire’s interests; Ep. iii, 7.3.
The only other source for the Gothic annexation of the Auvergne is the very different sce-
nario of Jordanes, Get., 238–41: Euric conquered the Auvergne, in face of opposition from the
patricius and magister utriusque militiae Ecdicius (Sidonius’ brother-in-law), who was compelled to
withdraw from the region. Nepos had appointed Ecdicius magister utriusque militiae in Gaul in
recognition of his earlier private efforts, under Anthemius, to resist Euric’s expansionism (Sid.
Ap., Epp. iii, 3; v, 16; PLRE ii, ‘Ecdicius 3’, 384). According to Jordanes, after Euric’s annexation
of the Auvergne and Ecdicius’ retreat, Nepos transferred military command from Ecdicius to
Orestes (Get., 241); PLRE ii, ‘Orestes 2’, 811, sees this as command in Gaul. If this scenario is
accurate, it indicates that Nepos intended to continue the defence of Gaul, through Orestes, and
was not party to the surrender of the Auvergne.
225
Cf. Cesa, Commentary to Vita del Epifanio, 166–8.
167