Page 236 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

embassy to Clovis would not include representatives of his antagonists,
the Visigoths, but only envoys of five nations not directly involved in the
conflict. The letter to Clovis urges him to choose arbitrators (iudices, medii)
from among these friendly nations in order to mediate the dispute. 124 Cas-
siodorus refers to such arbitration as leges gentium, a phrase reminiscent
of the ius gentium of classical jurisprudence, with strong contemporary
moral force. 125 This image of an assembly of kings acting as moderators
may have been a tactful way of presenting a hoped-for military alliance
against Clovis; there are, however, comparable instances of similar inter-
state arbitration, involving the Ostrogothic monarchs. 126
Whatever the underlying causes of the conflict, it was precipitated only
by a diplomatic insult, not a physical act of aggression by either side. 127
Theoderic therefore reprimands Clovis for not attempting to resolve the
dispute himself by diplomatic negotiations with Alaric: ‘it lacks sense to
set arms in motion immediately at the first embassy’. 128 The four letters
are more explicit than many in the Variae in describing their circumstances
and the aim of their dispatch. Nevertheless, the success of the mission rests
on the envoys, for whose oral persuasions the letters act as validations. 129
Two letters of Ennodius, one to Senarius, the other to his friend Pam-
phronius, suggest that Senarius was involved in this lengthy mission. The
letters, sent to Ravenna soon after 1 September 506, express Ennodius’
greatrelief atSenarius’ recentreturn from ‘the distantborders of the
gentes’ and ‘the farthest parts of the world’. 130 Such allusions to the offi-
cial duties of Ennodius’ correspondents or to current political events are
124 Cass., Variae iii, 4.3.
125 Cass., Variae iii, 3.2: leges gentius quaerat [Luduin]. See below, chapter 6 atnn. 181–94.
126 Procopius, Wars iv, 5.12–25 (Amalasuntha suggests arbitration by Justinian over occupation of
Sicily). Cf. Procopius, Wars vii, 34.26–7, 34 (Gepid envoys to Justinian protest that they have
sought and been refused arbitration by their enemies, the Lombards, as a ploy to claim moral
ascendancy); cf. Fredegar, Chron. ii, 58 (a burlesque).
127 Cause: not a Catholic crusade, as represented by Gregory of Tours, Hist. ii, 37; cf. Moorhead,
Theoderic, 178–9. No physical aggression yet: Cass., Variae iii, 1.3.
128 Cass., Variae iii, 4.3: impatiens sensus est ad primum legationem arma protinus commouere.
129
Cass., Variae iii, 1.4, 2.3, 3.4, 4.4.
130
Ennodius, Ep. v, 15: de prolixis gentium finibus; 16: ab ultimus terrarum partibus. Date: Sundwall,
Abhandlungen, Table 77, 37–8, followed by PLRE ii, ‘Pamphronius’, 825, ‘Senarius’, 989. Ref-
erence to Pamphronius’ recent appointment to a palatine office simultaneous with the return of
Senarius fixes the date to about 1 September, the beginning of the indiction; Ennodius, Ep. v,
16.3. The year can be deduced from the manuscript order of Ennodius’ works, which appears to
retain the chronological order of their composition between 503 and 513; Vogel, Introduction to
Ennodius, Opera, liii–liv; Vogel, ‘Chronologische Untersuchungen zu Ennodius’, Neues Archiv
23 (1898), 53–4. The firmest termini for the two letters are provided by contempory references to
the western consuls of 506 and 510; Ennodius, Carm. ii, 32, Ep. viii, 1; Vogel, ‘Untersuchungen’,
53. Epp. v, 15 and 16 were written after the death of bishop Marcellianus of Aquileia, a supporter
of the schismatic antipope Laurentius, c. late 505/early 506 (Sundwall, Abhandlungen, 32–4), and
the commencement of the quaestorship of Eugenes, which apparently began at an irregular time
early in 506 (Vogel, ‘Untersuchungen’, 63–74; Sundwall, Abhandlungen, 35–6, 115; followed by
210