Delphi Complete Works of Sidonius Apollinaris, page 125
In 472 Ricimer, whom no Emperor could satisfy in the long run, brought about the fall and assassination of Anthemius. A few weeks later he himself died, and before the end of the year the Emperor whom he had set up, Olybrius (who, as we have seen, had been Geiseric’s nominee) was also no more. Four months later (March, 473) the Burgundian Gundobad, Ricimer’s successor as Patrician, caused the comes domesticorum Glycerius to be proclaimed Emperor by the troops in Ravenna. This election, however, was not recognised by the eastern Emperor, Leo I, who nominated Julius Nepos, a nephew of Marcellinus. Glycerius could offer no resistance, and was put out of harm’s way by being consecrated Bishop of Salona, in Dalmatia. Nepos seems at first to have planned vigorous measures against the Goths, and he made the heroic Ecdicius magister militum praesentalis and Patrician. But a change soon occurred, the details of which are not entirely clear. Whatever the reason, Ecdicius soon lost his new dignities and was replaced by Orestes, a Roman from Pannonia, who had once been Attila’s secretary. Nepos, in agreement with the Burgundian king, sought to arrange terms of peace with Euric (475). The negotiations were entrusted to a delegation of bishops. They arranged that Auvergne should be surrendered, while the Empire should still rule in southern Provence, including Arles and Marseilles. It was a bitter blow to the Arvernians to be thus sacrificed by an Empire for which they had fought and suffered so long. The rule of Rome in the west was now crumbling to pieces. The Danubian provinces had actually, if not nominally, thrown off their allegiance, and Spain was lost.
The rest of the miserable tale may be told in a few words. Orestes rose against Nepos, compelling him to take refuge in Dalmatia. Preferring to remain Patrician, he elevated to the Imperial throne, on 31st October, 475, his son Romulus, who is generally designated by the nickname given him in pity or contempt for his youth, Augustulus. Less than a year sufficed to end this usurping reign. The “barbarian” mercenaries quartered in Italy, unable to obtain pay from a depleted exchequer, demanded that one third of the land should be made over to them. When their demand was refused they rose in rebellion and proclaimed their leader, the Scirian Odovacar, King of Italy. Augustulus was mercifully allowed to retire into private life. In this situation Euric found an opportunity of winning the coveted strip of Provence for which the Romans had recently sacrificed Auvergne (476 or 477).
Nepos was still legally Emperor, and thus the eastern Emperor had a colleague until the death of Nepos in 480. Even apart from this, as modern historians do not fail to point out, it is incorrect to speak of the year 476 as marking the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Nevertheless, the events of that year were of immense significance. Italy, the ancient home of the Empire, now saw one third of her land in possession of “barbarians,” and began to suffer the fate which had already overtaken the proud lands of Gaul and Africa. She had a foreign ruler in her midst, unhampered by the presence even of a puppet-Emperor such as Ricimer had liked to set up. It is true that the Roman Empire continued to exist in the West even after the death of Nepos. Legally the lack of a western Emperor did not matter; the Emperor who ruled in Constantinople ruled also in Italy, and even “barbarian” rulers such as Odovacar and Theodoric the Ostrogoth found it expedient to acknowledge his sovereignty. But such legal technicalities and such ostentatious deference cannot hide the fact that the substance of power was in other hands and that a momentous change had taken place.
II. LIFE AND WORKS OF SIDONIUS
GAIUS SOLLIUS MODESTUS(?) APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS was born at Lyons (Lugdunum) on the 5th of November; the year is uncertain, but it must have been about A.D. 430. His family was one of considerable distinction. His great-grandfather had held an official position of some importance, his grandfather, the first of his family to adopt the Christian religion, had been Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, and his father held the same exalted position when Sidonius was little more than a boy. His mother was connected with the distinguished house of the Aviti. We do not know where he received his education; some think it was partly at Lyons and partly at Arles. The great institutions of higher learning in Gaul, which had flourished so long under Imperial patronage, seem by this time to have fallen on evil days, but the upper classes still retained their predilection for the traditional training of pagan Rome as represented in the schools of grammar and rhetoric. Sidonius went through the usual courses in grammar, literature, rhetoric, philosophy (with its satellites arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music) and law. He has recorded the names of two of his teachers, Hoënius, who taught him poetry, and Eusebius, who taught him philosophy. He mentions Claudianus Mamertus, the famous author of the De Statu Animae, as having conducted edifying philosophical disputations with him and other ardent students; but it is not certain that Claudianus held any official post as a teacher, or that this seminar, as one might call it, formed part of Sidonius’s regular course of higher education; it may have taken place later and in a different place. Certainly these teachers never made Sidonius a philosopher. He seems to have learnt enough Greek to construe Menander without much difficulty.
A good deal of the learning acquired in the schools at this time was somewhat superficial, and much of it was in “tabloid” form. Historical examples were a regular part of the educational course; Sidonius was always ready to produce one or a dozen at the shortest notice (though not always accurately) to embellish his writings. The way in which he repeats the same stock illustrations time after time casts some light on the nature of the instruction received. The case was somewhat similar with myths and legends, which sprout up everywhere in his poetry, and with literary criticism, in which lists of past authors with brief ready-made descriptions were served up to the student. Nevertheless a great deal of literature was read, with comments on diction, style, and subject-matter, great emphasis being placed on antiquarian details, especially those dealing with mythology. Sidonius shows an intimate acquaintance with many writers, especially poets, and he must have acquired much of it in his student days. Among the poets, Virgil, Horace, Lucan, Juvenal, Martial, Statius, Ausonius, Claudian and others were known to him at first hand, most of them intimately. Among the prose authors whom he knew well were Pliny the Younger, Apuleius, and Symmachus. But the letter counted for more than the spirit. The authors of the past were treasures from which to steal subject-matter, learned allusions, and tricks of diction. The highest compliment which could be paid by one fifth-century writer to another was that he recalled one or more of the ancients. Creative work in the true sense was not fostered in the schools. The training in rhetoric had the same tendency as that given by the grammaticus. The study of rhetoric, though not without good points, had for centuries emphasized the importance of form rather than of matter. A straining after effect, an ostentatious and often unnatural use of words, forced antithesis, far-fetched conceits, silly paradoxes, over-elaboration and a constant sacrifice of clearness to cleverness — these were some of the features which this training too often produced. They are all found abundantly in Sidonius, and, strange to say, his contemporaries admired them, even if they did not always understand what he meant.
Amid the almost complete silence of Sidonius about his formative years we read of one trivial incident which gave him much pleasure. At the beginning of the year 449 the new consul Astyrius inaugurated his office in an imposing ceremony at Arles, and the young Sidonius, whose father was Praetorian Prefect of Gaul at the time, occupied a place of great honour, being allowed to stand beside the curule chair. There is no doubt that the young man was already planning to follow the family tradition by entering the government service and attaining to high office, perhaps even to the consulship itself, which none of his family had reached. His prospects, already bright, were soon greatly enhanced when he married Papianilla, daughter of Avitus. The marriage, which was obviously a happy one, brought him the delightful estate of Avitacum, near Clermont-Ferrand. Auvergne, in which it was situated, thus became “a second fatherland” to this young Lyonese, who was destined to have a pathetic opportunity of showing his devotion to it. There seem to have been four children of the marriage, a son and three daughters.
Avitus was proclaimed Emperor in July, A.D. 455, and his proud son-in-law accompanied him to Rome. On the first of January in the following year the new Emperor assumed the consulship, and Sidonius delivered to an applauding throng a long panegyric in verse (Carmen 7). The honour of a bronze statue in the Forum of Trajan was decreed to the young poet, whose fortune now seemed to be made. But his elation was short-lived. The fall of Avitus and the subsequent rebellion in Gaul have already been described. Sidonius might well be excused for joining in the insurrection. Petrus, the Imperial secretary, who seems to have arranged the terms of capitulation, would no doubt recognise this; moreover he was a literary man himself, and he probably admired the young poet who had so recently won the plaudits of the Romans. It seems certain that he secured pardon for Sidonius at the earliest opportunity. When Majorian arrived in Lyons late in the year 458 Sidonius, already pardoned (see Carm. 4), delivered a panegyric in his honour (Carm. 5). The concluding lines of the poem show that Majorian had not yet fully decided the fate of Lyons and of the insurgent Gallo-Romans. The poet seeks to arouse his pity, and professes to detect in the Imperial countenance a look of compassion. Whether the poet’s pleading worked on Majorian or not, it is certain that he was merciful, though he imposed a heavy tax as a punishment. In Carmen 13, which was in all probability composed very soon after the panegyric, Sidonius pleads for a remission of this burden, and it seems safe to conclude that his plea was successful. Although it must have been very hard to forgive the man who had conspired with Ricimer to bring about the downfall of Avitus, the generosity of Majorian, his innate nobility of character and his attractive personality won the heart of Sidonius, and Majorian did what he could to cement their friendship. In the following year or in the year 460 we find Sidonius occupying a government post at Rome, and in the year 461 we find that he has the title of Count (Comes), which, if not given in virtue of a definite office of state, betokened at least that he was an accepted member of the court circle. In that year he travelled from Auvergne to Arles, where Majorian was sojourning after the disastrous failure of his expedition against Geiseric, and he has left us a long and interesting account of an Imperial dinner-party at which he was a guest. But the end of Majorian was at hand, and in August of that year Sidonius was once more bereft of an Imperial patron.
How he spent his time in the ensuing six years may be partially inferred from his own writings, several of which, both poems and letters, must have been written in this period, although anything like an accurate dating is generally impossible. It seems certain that he lived partly in the old family home at Lyons and partly at Avitacum, and that from time to time he visited numerous friends in different parts of the country, passing many a happy day like those which he spent with Tonantius Ferreolus and Apollinaris (Epist. II. 9). His visit to Bishop Faustus at Riez (Carm. 16. 78-88) almost certainly took place in the same period. It is quite possible that the visit to the court of Theodoric II at Toulouse (Epist. I. 2) occurred in one of these years, and he may well have combined it with a series of visits to friends in Bordeaux and its neighbourhood, including a stay with Pontius Leontius at Burgus, which he celebrates in Carm. 22. We learn from Carm. 22 epist. § that he spent a considerable time at Narbonne, where Consentius and many other friends lived, in A.D. 462 or a very little later. In all probability this was the occasion on which he enjoyed the hospitality which he celebrates in Carm. 23. 434-506.
The murder of Theodoric, the accession of Euric (466), and the elevation of Anthemius to the Imperial throne (April 12, 467) have been related elsewhere. Early in the new reign Sidonius was commissioned by the Arvernians to present to the Emperor a petition, the subject of which he does not disclose. He has described his journey in a long and interesting letter (I. 5), which was supplemented early in the following year by another (I. 9). He arrived in Rome at a time when the whole city was joyfully celebrating the marriage of Ricimer to Alypia, the daughter of Anthemius. To further the business with which he was entrusted, Sidonius attached himself to two powerful senators, Gennadius Avienus and Caecina Basilius. As the 1st of January, 468, approached, on which date Anthemius was going to assume the consulship, Basilius suggested to Sidonius that it would be profitable for him to “bring out the old Muse” and compose a panegyric. This he did, and once more he stood before a Roman throng to sing the praises of an emperor-consul. He must surely have spoken with a lump in his throat as he thought of that other New Year’s Day, twelve years before, when he had stood before a similar gathering and prophesied a glorious reign for Avitus. But his facile Muse did all that was necessary, and his reward came promptly in his appointment as Prefect of the City. This preferment may have been designed to please the Gallo-Roman nobles as well as to recognise the virtues of the panegyric, but it obviously gave him great delight. The office of Prefect of the City was still one of the most exalted in the Empire. The Prefect was President of the Senate and also head of the judicature and of the police both in Rome and for a hundred miles around it. Besides this he was controller of the food-supply. This was a worrying responsibility in a period when the hostility of Geiseric might at any time cause a shortage, and we read of one occasion when Sidonius feared an outcry from the populace and anxiously awaited the arrival of five ship-loads of wheat and honey.
He tells us no more of his prefectship, which he held for a year. We may imagine that he was glad to be freed from a rather thankless office and to leave Rome with the prestige of an ex-prefect and the honourable title of Patrician. He had another reason for preferring Gaul to Rome in the year 469, for it was then that his friend Arvandus was brought to Rome for trial on a serious charge and so conducted himself that it was impossible to save him. Arvandus had become Praetorian Prefect of Gaul in A.D. 464, and had given such satisfaction at first that his term of office was increased to five years. But his conduct had undergone a change, and his oppression and malversation could no longer be borne. He was arrested by order of the Council of the Seven Provinces and sent to Rome for trial. Meanwhile the three delegates sent from Gaul to prosecute him were furnished with evidence which made the charge against him infinitely more serious. A letter from him to Euric had been intercepted, in which he advised the Gothic king to abandon his pacific attitude toward the “Greek Emperor” (Anthemius), to attack the Bretons, and to arrange a division of Gaul between the Goths and the Burgundians.
Sidonius was in an embarrassing position. The three accusers sent from Gaul were old friends of his, but he had also been on friendly terms with Arvandus. Along with some others he did all that was possible to help the prisoner by advising him to make no admissions and to be wary of any traps that might be set for him. Their advice was received with scorn by Arvandus, whose arrogance and self-confidence almost passed belief. Sidonius left Rome before the trial came on. Arvandus was condemned on a charge of High Treason and sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted to one of exile.
We next find Sidonius (apparently in A.D. 469 or 470) enthroned at Clermont as Bishop of the Arverni. We do not know what immediately led to this change, but he was not the first or the last noble who abandoned the honours of state for the responsibilities of a see. There were various reasons which made such a translation desirable. The weakening power of the Empire was bitter to all who loved the Roman name. As the Imperial power declined, it was the Church above all that upheld the standard of Roman civilisation and maintained and diffused the Roman spirit amid “barbarian” surroundings. To Sidonius this must have meant much. Again, the bishop was a great refuge in time of trouble. He could aid the distressed in a very special way and stand up to the oppressor, whether Roman official or barbarian potentate. It had long been the custom to vest certain judicial powers in him. He also administered large funds, which might be used both for the relief of distresses and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, but which too often tempted greedy intriguers to possess themselves of a diocese. In Gaul, Euric, a fanatical Arian, was hostile to the orthodox church, seeing in it not only the promoter of a hated creed but the fosterer of the Roman, “anti-barbarian” spirit. There was, therefore, plenty of work to challenge the zeal of a patriot who cared also for religion. In countries like Gaul it was not merely the man of piety that was required for this task. It was often not only a great advantage but a necessity to have as bishop a man of rank and wealth, a man who could face even Euric himself and command respect, and who could, through his experience as an administrator backed by his own generosity, provide the means to resist aggression and to help the ruined and homeless outcasts whose numbers were being multiplied by the excesses of friend and foe alike. Sidonius must have felt all this. At the same time he felt how ill-fitted he was for the task. A sense of his own unworthiness to be a spiritual guide oppressed him not only now but to the end. The worldly ambitions which were characteristic of his class might often be patriotic, but they were not set upon the “City of God.” Moreover he was now asked to become a bishop so suddenly that any adequate preparation for his ecclesiastical duties was out of the question. In entering the Church he would be entering a world which was strange to him, and in which he would have much both to learn and to unlearn. And he was no theologian. His poem to Faustus (Carm. 16) shows not only an imperfect knowledge of the Scriptures but a naïve unorthodoxy which would have drawn from a less tolerant ecclesiastic a horrified rebuke. He remained a close friend both of the heretical Faustus and of Claudianus Mamertus, who dedicated to Sidonius the De Statu Animae, in which the views of Faustus are vigorously assailed. This impartiality does credit to his heart; at the same time it cannot be said with certainty that he really understood what the controversy was all about. Nevertheless, the poem to Faustus shows Sidonius as a devout Christian with a profound admiration for the saintly character, and there is plenty of other evidence that along with all his enthusiasm for the pomp and pageantry of power and amid all his literary preoccupation with the products of heathen mythology he retained a sense of humble dependence on a divine Providence. It is easy to be cynical and point out that the position of a bishop gave both dignity and (what offices of state did not always give) comparative safety. It must, however, be remembered that he felt both then and even later the glamour of the government service, and as far as we know he might have looked forward to further distinctions, perhaps even to the most coveted honour of all, that of the consulship. Be that as it may, we cannot deny that he was renouncing much; his domestic and social life could not be quite the same as before, his liberty was curtailed, his wealth might have to be sacrificed, and there were dangerous times ahead in Auvergne, which he cannot have failed in some measure to foresee and to fear. The insinuation of some historians that Sidonius sought the episcopal throne, and that he did so from motives of worldly prudence, is not justified either by his own words or by intrinsic probability.
