Nicolò Anegg
Abstract : The Letters of Pope Gelasius (492-496) has only recently been regarded as an important source for studying social conflicts in late 5th century Italy. The paper examines a case of raptio reported in the Gelasian Letters, in which the Pope and the comes Hostilius were set against each other. The case raises several questions: what were the relations between Gelasius and the counts? In what capacity did Gelasius intervene in the matter and, above all, why did Hostilius report the raptum of the young girl? From a comital perspective, the case of raptio can be read through the lens of changes in the marriage strategies of the Kingdom’s officials. Thus, the case of count Hostilus will shed light on an aspect that is otherwise poorly represented in our sources: the role of the comites as husbands and fathers in the Ostrogothic Kingdom.
Key words : Count, Family conflicts, raptio, Letters of Gelasius, Ostrogothic Kingdom.
Nicolò Anegg, born in Trento (Italy) on 15 March 1996, currently enrolled in the fourth year of the PhD program in « Scienze dell’Antichità » at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa with the project “Essere comes nell’Alto Medioevo. Pratiche, ostilità e opportunità di un funzionario in mobilità (sec.V-VII)”. The main interest of my research is the comital office in the Ostrogothic Italy and the Merovingian kingdom studied through a social perspective. Taking part to the PRIN Project: “Ruling in hard times. Patterns of power and practices of government in the making of Carolingian Italy”.
Gelasius’ letters and the Ostrogothic administration
Unlike other 5th century pontiffs, the letters of Pope Gelasius deal largely with the ‘day-to-day’ running of the Roman See[1]. In this respect, scholars have noted that Gelasius’ reign (492-496), though brief, marked a significant shift in the role of the pontiff to being a micro-manager of the Roman church, which, as Bronwen Neil has pointed out, becomes particularly relevant in contexts of crisis[2]. Gelasius’ correspondence is therefore of great value for studying the local societies of the late 5th to early 6th century suburbicarian Italy and their small worlds from a social perspective. Among his extensive correspondence, two letters stand out, which together shed light on a quarrel that arose between Gelasius and Hostilius, a comes of Theoderic, regarding the abduction of a young girl.
In analyzing the case of Count Hostilius, Gelasius’ letters raise several preliminary questions. Modern historians largely agree that Theoderic supported Gelasius’ claims, mainly for political reasons[3]. In contra st, an older scholarly tradition, influenced by Ulmann’s work, has tended to overlook Gelasius’ contacts with the Ostrogothic court, on the basis of ethnic and religious assumptions[4]. This older perspective has had a t least two significant consequences: not only has it prevented a comprehensive study of the Pope’s interactions with civil and military administrations, but it has also cast doubt on the very authenticity of the Gelasian letters themselves[5]. It is therefore important to question this ethnic-centred perspective. In his recent paper, Cohen identified eight letters directly concerning members of the Ostrogothic government: three to Theoderic, two to the king’s mother, the catholic Ereleuva, and three to other members of the royal administration, the comites Teja (two letters) and Agilulf[6]. The scholar has convincingly shown that ethnicity becomes salient only as a tool in the wider discursive strategies that Gelasius implemented in order to assert his authority over specific situations in which Theoderic or his officials were involved[7]. In other words, being part of the royal administration as a gothic comes, and moreover profess Arianism, as Count Teja surely did, seems not to have prevented a priori the establishment of positive relationships with the Pope. Similarly, being Catholic and of Roman origin did not automatically imply favorable treatment from Gelasius[8].
In this respect, regardless of ethnicity, the contacts with members of the administration ‒ including Romans ‒ are not to be underestimated. To the letters mentioned above we can add indirect references to the comes sacrarum largitionum Mastallus[9], to an anonymous Pretorian or Uban prefect[10], to Heortasius, probably the governor of Lucania et Bruttii[11], and a highly controversial reference to Aemilianus magister militum[12]. Thus the papal letters that have come down to us concerning members of the royal administration make up about 10% of Gelasius’ correspondence. Given the evidence of our sources, the counts seem to stand out as the most important recipients of papal letters among members of the administration, at least during the reign of Gelasius. The comites were in fact high ranking officials entrusted with both civil and military powers, and one of the few administrative innovations introduced by Theoderic[13]. One might wonder whether the reason could be found in some kind of ‘structural’ misconduct against Gelasius’ interests. Such a straightforward interpretation needs at least some refinement. Certainly, papal letters report some friction with the counts, but in other cases – notably those of Agilulf and Teja – Gelasius asks the comites to intervene on his behalf, which may suggest that the Pope approached these officials in a more pragmatic way, perceiving them as, if not reliable interlocutors, then at least as necessary ones[14], thus reaffirming the importance of the comites and their prominence in the local context.
While Cohen’s paper shed new light on the topic, it nonetheless fails to consider the letters addressed to the comes Hostilius, whose story has been labelled by S. Bjornlie in a brief footnote a « rather sensational case of raptio »[15]. Hostilius’ dossier consists of two letters – not directly related – preserved in the so called Collectio Britannica [16]. The Collectio is composed of several sections: the letters concerning Hostilius (Loewenfeld n. 4 and Ewald n.73) found in the first, which includes missives attributed to Gelasius and Pelagius I. Letter n. 4, addressed to Bishop Felix, is placed within the section together with other Gelasian letters, and can therefore be ascribed with certainty to Gelasius. On the other hand, letter n. 73, reporting the case of raptio, is placed in an anomalous position, at the end of the Pelagian letters. Despite this – ever since the seminal studies of Ewald and Kaltenbrunner – scholars have tended rightly to consider the attribution to Gelasius as valid, mainly based on internal textual references[17]. Nonetheless, Hostilius’ dossier is relevant not only to study this case of raptio, but also to shed some light on one aspect of comital carriers that, due to the nature of our sources, is difficult to grasp: namely the families of the counts.
Hostilius’ dossier and its context
While letter Low. n. 4, dated late 494/before August 495, has been the subject of a few studies[18], letter 73 – dated generically to the pontificate of Gelasius 492-496 – has only been analyzed by Kristina Sessa, who centers her analysis on how papal authority could cope with the delicate issue of raptio[19]. Ewald, the only one reporting the text of the letter, briefly summarized the case as a girl’s abduction from a monastery[20]. However, this reconstruction seems very unlikely. In fact, the text can be summarized as follows[21]. After a harsh rhetorical opening, in which Gelasius accuses Hostilius of making the charge of raptio out of his commoditas rather than justice, the Pope makes his point against Hostilius. Gelasius states that the union, even if not actually completed (coniugo proxima parte perfecto), cannot be contested because rites such as the velatio had been performed, and the dowry had even been accepted, specifying that « lex illa preteritorum principum ibi raptum dixerit esse commissum, ubi puella, de cuius ante nuptiis nichil actum fuerit, videatur adducta ». Moreover, Gelasius argues that the key requirements of the marriage have been fulfilled, even if excesses and lewd revelries have been rejected, and that rejection of these was particularly suitable for men of the church. Furthermore, after refuting Hostilius’ accusations, the Pope threatens the count with excommunication, and also threatens to inform Theoderic if Hostilius persists in his iniqua intentio[22].
Although clear in its content, the letter does not provide much context. K. Sessa has put forward the hypothesis that Hostilius was a member of Theodoric’s court and comes in Naples[23]. Unfortunately, the exact geographical location of the case is not provided by the text, and the prosopography also poses some problems. However, if we consider Gelasius’ letter Loew. n. 4 to Bishop Felix, which deals, among other subjects, with Hostilius’ misconduct in the election of the lower clergy, some information can be deduced, since Felix can likely be identified with the Bishop of Nepi, a city near Rome[24]. Placing Hostilius in Nepi seems in line with other evidence, as the presence of counts in the area is well documented. A papyrus from Ravenna mentions that comes Gudila, despite the turmoil of the Gothic war (537), held personal property in Nepi and was also able to establish positive connections with both Belisarius and the Pope[25]. Furthermore, Gudila’s connections with Rome and the Papacy appear to be a defining feature. Gudila could indeed have been the same maior domus sent by Theodoric to Rome during the Laurentian Schism, alongside the count Arigern, to ensure order in the City and safeguard Pope Symmachus[26]. This underscores a broader historical pattern for the region and the city of Nepi, which is marked by close contact with Rome, a factor that may explain Gelasius’ intervention in the quarrel with Hostilius[27].
While little can be said about the puella, who remains anonymous, scholars have tried to identify the figure of the abductor. Kristina Sessa highlights the passage quod ecclesie homini convenire potius credendum est, attributing the role to a churchman, or at least a man involved in the administration of the church[28]. Such an involvement wouldn’t have been odd. In a letter written by Cassiodorus, we are informed that John, otherwise unknown, addressed the court claiming that his wife had been abducted by the bishop’s men[29]. Whether they were clerics or not is difficult to determine. In any case, Theoderic entrusted the judgement precisely to . If the involvement of a clergymen cannot be excluded a priori in the case of Hostilius, the passage in letter n. 73 could thus also be interpreted in a more generic way as part of a discursive strategy implemented by the Pope to emphasize the legitimacy of the contested marriage, against Hostilius’ allegations. To fully understand this aspect, it is essential to examine the dynamics that shaped the drafting of Gelasius’ letter.
Raptio and Gelasian correspondence
The accusation of abduction was a serious one. From the time of Constantine’s legislation, which was repeated in late antique epitomes such as the Edictum Theoderici, the crimen of raptio was punished by death[30]. As Sylvie Joye points out, the severity of the punishment was justified by the public nature of the crimen, which was seen as a major threat to social stability[31]. Furthermore, the involvement of a comes could make things even worse. Seen from the king’s perspective, the involvement of one of his officials in a quarrel with Gelasius could place Theoderic in an especially delicate position, due to his desire not to lose the support of the church. Nevertheless, the case of Hostilius represents a quite unique perspective on the crimen of raptio, for several reasons. The letters attributed to Gelasius and the Variae provide no other example of papal involvement in such matters. Even in the abovementioned case of Aurigene, which directly involves ecclesiastical authority, the bishop had been contacted by the court, in turn urged by John. Therefore the involvement of Aurigene must be understood within a larger juridical action managed by the king. On the other hand, in the letter Ewald n. 73, the court of Ravenna is only evoked in the final sentence and the case does not (yet!) seem to have been submitted to the comitatus. Thus, unlike the Variae, Gelasius’ letter 73 does not provide a processual point of view on the abduction. The issue is relevant, as it might explain the Pope’s firm stance on the count’s accusations, as well as the difference in rhetoric chosen to dismiss Hostilius’ claims, which contrasts sharply with similar cases in the Variae, where the abducted party is protected, albeit in some cases morally condemned[32]. As K. Sessa has shown, Gelasius’ intervention in the dispute gave him the opportunity to set the standard for the proper nuptial ritual to be followed, and thus to assert his authoritative opinion on Christian marriage. Gelasius made his case by distinguishing between valid and invalid nuptial rites, that is, between betrothal gifts and the velatio on the one hand, and something like the deductio, or what was generally a feast on the other.[33] In doing so, following earlier precedents, he seeks to equate the betrothal stage and the velatio with the actual marriage. By drawing this distinction, Gelasius dismisses Hostilius’ complaint and advocates for the legitimacy of the marriage. Nevertheless, it was a risky strategy: there was no single set of late antique laws or traditions to demarcate the ritual parameters of marriage. The only fundamental requirement was the consent between the two parties involved in the arrangement of the union. In this respect, Gelasius’ objective in the letter is not to refute the accusation point by point, but to eradicate it completely by asserting that what the count was denouncing was simply not a raptum. Otherwise, the existing laws, including civil laws, would have compelled Gelasius to intervene against the union of the new couple.
Papal intervention in the case of raptio
In this respect one can wonder if Gelasius was initially contacted by Hostilius. The argument is not without merit, as it might clarify the role played by the Pope in the quarrel. The letters by Gelasius make clear that he enjoyed direct communication with the comites, as can be seen from the letter addressed to comes Teja[34]. The count had actually intervened on the sidelines of a dispute between Faustus, defensor ecclesiae, and Eucharistius, a deacon in Volterra who had tried to get elected as bishop. After several hearings, the comes Teja must have sent a letter – now lost – to Gelasius, in which he assumed the defense of the deacon Eucharistius, asserting instead that the allegation by Faustus could not be considered since some of Faustus’ relatives had already been found guilty of crimes in the past[35]. Moreover, the comes must also have reproached the Pope for arrogating such jurisdiction to himself, pointing out that it would have been better for the case to be discussed by the local bishop, rather than in Rome[36]. Responding to this provocation, Gelasius had sent a firm letter commanding the count not to meddle in church affairs, both because he was a civil servant and an adherent of altera communio[37]. In contrast to this case, however, letter n. 73 does not refer to any previous contact from the count Hostilius, or to any claims about jurisdiction. The tone used in the letter is also different: the matter was indeed not the respective jurisdiction, which at least could lead us to the conclusion that it was not a relevant point for either Hostilius or Gelasius to argue in the quarrel.
There were surely other channels, however, and it could also be likely that it was the alleged abductor who contacted Gelasius, not only seeking help and expertise, but also a powerful sponsor, to dismiss comital accusations. Marriage could indeed be a time of confrontation and tension, especially, as mentioned above, in an era lacking a consistent and unified set of norms governing matrimonial practices and rites. In this respect it was not uncommon for both churchmen and laypeople to seek advice on specific problems regarding marriage directly from prominent ecclesiastical figures. The case of Optatus, studied by Kate Cooper and Riccardo Bof, effectively highlighted the bishop’s role in discussing Christian marriage practices related to the problem of unilateral vows[38]. However, Ennodian epistolary provides insight into how matrimonial issues, even those that originated in distant contexts, such as the Burgundian kingdom, could reach the ears of the Pope, either through formal or informal channels. Notably, this case precedes the well-known incest scandals of Vincomalus and Stephanus, studied by Ian Wood[39]. In a letter, Ennodius responds to Laconius, likely a consiliarius at the Gundobad court, who he had met years before on his diplomatic mission to the Burgundians alongside Bishop Epiphanius[40]. We are informed that Laconius sent an indicolus (a booklet) to Ennodius in order to investigate the degree of kinship between Ennodius’ niece and an unidentified member of Ennodius’ family who wanted to marry the girl. This of course raises the suspicion of incestuous marriage. The Milanese deacon, presenting himself as an expert in matrimonial affairs, replies positively to Laconius. Additionally, he informs Laconius at the end of their conversation that he would refer men to Rome to seek Pope Simmachus’ advice on the topic[41]. Without additional data, it is not possible to solve the issue of Gelasius’ intervention in the matter concerning the abduction of the young girl. However, the aforementioned examples demonstrate that matrimonial practices were a topic of discussion, which could have included the issue of raptio. Furthermore, having the Pope’s support could provide not only authoritative backing but also a powerful sponsor to counter Hostilius’ allegations.
The accuser: a comital perspective on the case of raptio
Unlike Gelasius’ perspective, the count’s intentions and his role in the affair have not been the subject of a detailed analysis. Nevertheless, taking into account Hostilius allegations is a key point in order to understand the entire story, as well as to shed some light on a matter usually ignored by scholars: the family of the count. One point that is clear in the text is that Hostilius acted as an accuser[42]. Officials such as counts or provincial governors had to deal with this topic. For example, Adeodatus was forced to confess the abduction of Valeriana after being persecuted by Venantius, the provincial governor of Bruttium[43]. Eventually, during the trial, Venantius’ embezzlement was exposed, and Theoderic, moved by the trial’s failure, commuted the capital punishment to temporary exile. It is unclear whether Venantius was the accuser or an official entrusted with an inquiry, but as suggested by the story it was very likely that some personal interest might lie behind Venantius’ persecution[44]. Moreover, it is possible that the counts enjoyed some sort of social control over the civic community and were thus able to make very precise accusations. Indeed, as seen before, in order to invalidate Faustus allegations, Teja stated that Faustus’ family had a history of numerous crimes, indicating his knowledge of his opponent’s family background[45].
Therefore, the count could have intervened in this affair as an external party, or as a judge attempting to prevent the marriage. In any case, the reference to the royal court, and perhaps to a juridical proceeding, may suggest a key point in the reading of this case . It is likely that the reference to intentio could be interpreted in a juridical sense, thus disclosing Hostilius’ next move[46]. If so, then it would imply that the count did intend to bring his accusation before a judge, or Theoderic himself. This is a relevant point; as can be seen from the Variae, it was the harmed party who had to bring the case before the court which meant: the family of the abducted woman, the husband, or the woman herself. This principle was also affirmed in the extent legislation: it was up to the harmed party to appeal to the judge, otherwise there was the risk of being accused of lenocinium[47]. From this, it can be concluded that Hostilius might have enjoyed family ties with the anonymous puella. Therefore, in his supposed accusation to the comitatus, the count would have assumed the defense of the abducted party.
Count and family: Hostilius’ role in the case of raptio
A matter of perspective: fictive-father or true raptor ?
K. Sessa has proposed that Hostilius may have been related to the girl, or had a generic wardship[48]. This vagueness derives from the total absence in the text of the letter of any reference to family ties between Hostilius and the puella, a fact that indeed seems to suggest that the count was not related by blood to the girl. There are, however, other ways in which Hostilius could have stood up for the young girl in a ‘parental’ role. The first concerns tuitio. As scholars have rightly pointed out, tuitio was a broad sphere of protection, and may represent a parental role for weaker categories[49]. Despite not being an exclusive comital competence, it is referred to twice concerning the comites in the Variae. In the first case, Count Adila is tasked with tuitio following the request of Bishop Eustrogius of Milan, who had asked the court for protection over property and persons of the Milanese church in Sicily[50]. The second case deals with orphans; this time, the royal measure was personal, as it stated that Paula and Maurentius patris auxilio nudati were harmed by many people. Due to their weakness, they had been granted the tutio regis that was to be enacted by Count Osuin[51]. The count, in the event that the two were put on trial – which in the text seems a very concrete possibility – had to send Paula and Maurentius directly to the comitatus, avoiding the local court[52]. Tuitio, moreover, was an ecclesiastical (episcopal) matter, particularly in the case of widows and orphans[53]. Nevertheless, counts could also have been involved in protective actions organized by the ecclesiastical authority, and thus tasked by the Pope with tuitio. Teja is once again mentioned, this time on good terms with Gelasius. A landlady, Theodora, aided by the Archdeacon of Grumentum (in Basilicata), had accused two men who were previously under her dependence and later ordained into the clergy. Expecting a legal procedure, the Pope sought the count’s assistance in protecting the clergymen, probably due to the prominent social position enjoyed by Theodora in the region[54]. Given these examples, tuitio may involve the comites, the court and also the Pope, a scenario that resembled that of Hostilius.
Concerning parental roles, recent studies on orphanhood may provide a useful framework for interpreting the position of the unnamed puella towards Hostilius. G. Nathan has shown that in Late Antiquity, a significant portion of the young people could at some point experience the loss of one or both parents[55]. Considering the age at which marriage typically occurred, as well as life expectancy, it is possible that the young woman mentioned in our source experienced orphanhood at some point. In this respect, Nathan uses the concept of father surrogacy for situations enacted to make up for the loss[56]. This circumstance not only justifies the intervention of the comes, a public official, but also supports his role as a fictive father, whether through tuition or otherwise. If so, the role of Hostilius would have been very close to that of the consiliarius Laconius described by Ennodius in his letters. As already seen, Laconius was a prominent member of the Burgundian court, enjoying a position of proximity to Gundobad. S. Kennel has argued that Laconius was a relative of Ennodius[57]. However, given the fact that, throughout his letters, Ennodius is always the first to reaffirm his family ties (even if in a very loose sense), the lack of any family lexicon in the three letters addressed to Laconius is striking, and might suggest that the consiliarius was not directly related to Ennodius, except for friendship and for the role as fictive father concerning Ennodius’ niece. Moreover, Laconius’ case underscores another key aspect of the « fictive father’s » role, as described by Nathan—namely, the arrangement of a marriage for his son or daughter. In fact, by seeking Ennodius’ guidance, Laconius appears to play an active role in this process[58].
Therefore, although highly speculative, the concept of the fictive father appears to align with Hostilius’ role. How, then, should the case be interpreted in light of Hostilius’ likely position as the fictive father of the puella? Even if seen through the lens of different practice regarding marriages, the letter’s main focus is on the crimen of raptio. The death of the father, as previously shown, could have caused extreme tension for the daughter. She may have been subject to pressure from both family members and external parties[59]. In these terms, the presence of a tutor or important official would have minimized the problem. However, it is possible to reverse the narrative of the case concerning Hostilius. The count, acting as a parental figure, contested a previous union that had already received approval through several steps. In the letter, Gelasius emphasizes the betrothal stage, where the dowry was already given, and it appears that the ceremony of velatio had also occurred. This suggests that there was mutual agreement between the families regarding the new conjugal union. Consent formed the practical and legal foundation of marriage[60]. On the contrary, the lack of consent between parties involved in marriage is explicitly what the crimen of raptio concerns[61]. In any case, the very fact that the comes challenged the union, accusing the girl’s fiancé of raptio, gives the impression that Hostilius was initially not involved in organizing the family’s marriage strategy or, if he was, he changed his mind just before the marriage. It is also possible that following the death of the girl’s father, the count was tasked with tuitio, or assumed a more general role as a fictive father. By doing so, Hostilius may have attempted to alter the puella’s fate in his favor. Thus, the accusation of raptio, with its serious implication concerning the legitimacy of the arranged marriage, could underpin a comital strategy, developed in order to try to retain his ‘parental role’ over the girl, which would otherwise have been lost due to the marriage. If we push this interpretation, that would explain Gelasius’ references to the count and his behaviour as Commoditas tua, Iniqua intentio, Predatio[62], implying that this was a means of taking away possession, or keeping the girl’s wealth (as well as perhaps the girl herself) for himself. In other words, according to Gelasius, the real abductor seems not to be the unnamed fiancé of the young girl, but rather Hostilius.
The comital family
Could the comes, tasked with tuitio or acting as a fictive father, have gone so far as to challenge previously arranged marital agreements? If so, what were his objectives in doing so? We do not know exactly what Hostilius’ aims were, but his objective can be derived from recent studies on family. As stated at the beginning of this paper, the parental role of Hostilius is almost exceptional, given the scarcity of biographical information on the comites and their family. It is indeed striking that, despite their high position in society, their identity as father and husband do not seem to be emphasized in our sources; nor are their choices concerning their conjugal life. Epigraphy records only two inscriptions stressing familiar ties of the counts. An elegant sarcophagus discovered in Syracuse reports the names of Adelfia clarisima femina conpar of Balerius comes, thus emphasizing the husband’s role[63]; and the funerary inscription of Agata stresses the role of count Gattila as a father[64]. Apart from this epigraphic material, the family ties of the counts or high officials are mostly known only when they intertwined with the history of the Ostrogothic kingdom and the royal family. A case in point is that of Tuluin, connected through marriage with a daughter of Theodoric[65]. Although he is never referred to as comes, his only recorded titles are dux and then patricius presentalis; it would thus seem that Tuluin’s position was very similar to that of a comes. Several studies note that, at the outbreak of the Gothic war, Amalasuntha had to face an internal rebellion against three figures: these are usually identified with Tuluin, Arigern and Sigismere, the latter two both comites attested in Rome[66]. In this sense, it is safe to conclude that Tuluin was very likely to be considered a comes, at least from a social perspective. Tuluin’s story was one of success: entering into relationships with royal women could well be a way to broaden one’s social ties and bring honors. But it was not always so: Optari, styled as a man of Vitige, desired to marry a wealthy heiress. The Ostrogothic king Theodatus (534-6) opposed this union and arranged for the woman to marry another man. As a result of his wounded pride, Optari ended up killing the same king. In this case, it is possible that Optari was initially betrothed and then Theodatus changed his decision, due to his love for money, as is stated by Procopius[67]. For Hostilius, this case also shows how disruptive the consequences of competing for a nubile woman could have been when a powerful figure, an Amal, had some sort of control over her. However, it was not only the Amal family that had such an appeal. Entering into a comital household seems to have been a source of pride. This can be observed in a papyrus written in Ravenna ca 542 concerning the settlement of a dispute over the payment for a piece of land between two parties: Riccifrida and her husband Waduulfus, and a shipbuilder named Leo. In the list of testium, Giverich, vir devotus, signs the document as gener comes cessinis[68]. Thus it seems that Giverich prefers to stress his descent from count Cessi, acquired through marriage rather than his own ancestry, identifying himself as a member of the extended family of the count. However, from a comital-parental perspective this may imply the display of a strategy in order to choose the new members of the household.
Therefore, even if underrepresented in our sources, marriage seems to be an important tool in the strategy of counts to establish their position in the local context. This aspect can also be better understood in light of a specific feature of comital office, namely mobility. Comites were a type of officials with wide military and civil duties, directly dependent on the king. Some of them have a rather articulated, career, including Gudila: he is first attested in Rome, then some years later in Faenza, then in northern Italy and ultimately in Nepi or Rome. Gudila may be exceptional, but other comites – Arigernus, attested in Rome and in Gaul; or Osuin, sent twice to Dalmatia – also show a similar pattern[69]. In such an outlined context , it was common for members of the administration to look for hypergamic forms of marriage as a resource to promote their position in a new local context. However, as noted by C. La Rocca, such unequal relationships, which involved uxorilocality, also had consequences since they put husbands – and perhaps fictive fathers – in a new situation, in which they were unable to present themselves as the sole provider for their family, which led them to try to reclaim their masculinity through showy actions, or even by openly rebelling against authority[70]. Indeed, this scenario may also be applied to Hostilius. In letter n. 4, the count is presented alongside a part of the city clergy, illicitly ordaining into church an unfree person. In response, the Pope writes to Bishop Felix, ordering him to « Suspend from their order and from communion also those clerics who it is established offered assistance to the comes Hostilius against the church, lest the evil that has been done spring up anew through the milder punishment of impunity »[71].
Conclusion
Even if the letters concerning Hostilius are not directly related, they may reveal a coherent set of practices that can be explained in the broader context of changes in the marriage strategies of the elite, and especially of the office-holding elite, such as the comites. In this respect, Hostilius’ dossier offers a unique perspective on a subject that is otherwise silent in our sources, namely the family of the count. The reconstruction of the case, although highly hypothetical due to the lack of evidence, has shown that Hostilius may have enjoyed a general, parental role over the young girl. In this respect, his allegation can now be better understood as a means to retain control over the puella, which he would otherwise have lost. Whether Hostilius was a fictive father, a husband, or even a raptor, the loss of control over a young woman – indeed, a treasure – could have been a major impediment in his attempt to establish himself successfully in a new local context.
Bibliography
Sources
Cassiodori Senatoris, Epistulae Theodericianae Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA 12, Berlin, 1894, p. 389–92.
Ewald Paul, « Die Papstbriefe der Britischen Sammlung », Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 5, 1880, p. 274‑414, 505‑596.
Giardina Andrea et Oppedisano Fabrizio (éd.), Varie. 2, Libri III-V / Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro Senatore ; direzione di Andrea Giardina ; a cura di Andrea Giardina[et al.] ; con la collab. di Fabrizio Oppedisano, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2014.
Gioanni Stéphane, Lettres / Ennode de Pavie. 1: Livres III-IV, Paris, Les Belles lettres, 2010.
Jaffé Philipp, Loewenfeld Samuel, Kaltenbrunner Ferdinand et Ewald Paul, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198. Bd. 1. (A S. Petro ad a. MCXLIII), Leipzig, coll.« Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198 », 1885, vol.1.
Loewenfeld Samuel, Epistolae pontificum Romanorum ineditae, Leipzig, 1885.
Thiel Andreas, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II., Braunsberg, 1867.
Studies
Amory Patrick, People and identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489-554, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, vol.4, 33.
Bjornlie Shane, « Law, ethnicity and taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: a case for continuity, adaptation and departure », Early Medieval Europe, 22-2, 2014, p. 138‑170.
Cecconi Giovanni Alberto, « I governatori delle province Italiche », Antiquité tardive, 6, 1998, p. 149‑179.
Cohen Samuel, « Gelasius and the Ostrogoths: jurisdiction and religious community in late fifth-century Italy », Early Medieval Europe, 30-1, 2022, p. 20‑44.
Cooper Kate et Bof Riccardo, « Il caso della moglie di Optato e l’evoluzione del vincolo coniugale nel VI secolo », Genesis, 9-1, janvier 2010, p. 15‑28.
Cosentino Salvatore, « Social instability and economic decline of the Ostrogothic community in the aftermath of the imperial victory: the papyri evidence », Ravenna. Its role in earlier medieval change and exchange, London, Institute of Historical Research, 2016, p. 133‑150,
Cristini Marco, « L’arianesimo degli Ostrogoti nel sesto secolo: fattore identitario o elemento residuale?», Identità Multiple, vol. 2: Tarda Antichità, Medioevo, Storia moderna e contemporanea, Pisa, Pisa University Press, 2021, p. 31-41. »,
Evans-Grubbs Judith, « Abduction Marriage in Antiquity: A Law of Constantine », The Journal of Roman Studies, 79, 1989, p. 59‑83.
Neil Bronwen et Allen Pauline, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of the Church of Rome, Turnhout, Brepols, 2014, vol.1.
Jones Arnold Hugh Martin et Martindale John R., The prosopography of the later Roman empire 2, Cambridge [u.a.], 1980.
Joye Sylvie, La femme ravie: le mariage par rapt dans les sociétés occidentales du haut Moyen Âge, Turnhout, Brepols, 2012, vol.12.
Joye Sylvie, « Le rapt et l’accusation de rapt comme motif de séparation des époux durant l’Antiquité tardive et le haut Moyen Âge », in Répudiation, séparation, divorce dans l’Occident médiéval, Valenciennes, CRHiCC: Presses universitaires de Valenciennes 2007.
Kennell Stephanie Adelaide Hillert, Magnus Felix Ennodius: a gentleman of the church, Ann Arbor, Mich., 2000.
Köpke Jörg, Die italischen Bischöfe unter ostgotischer Herrschaft (490-552 n. Chr.) : Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur Stellung des italischen Episkopats zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, doctoral Thesis, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 1999.
Lafferty Sean D. W., Law and society in the age of Theoderic the Great: a study of the Edictum Theoderici, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
La Rocca Cristina, « Ritornare Fragili. Immagini e Pratiche delle donne prima, durante e dopo la guerra gotica », L’eredità di Giustiniano: l’ultima guerra dell’Italia romana, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2024, 337-370.
Maier Gideon, Amtsträger und Herrscher in der Romania Gothica: vergleichende Untersuchungen zu den Institutionen der ostgermanischen Völkerwanderungsreiche, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005.
Manganaro, « Greco nei pagi e latino nelle città della Sicilia romana tra I e VI secolo d.C », L’epigrafia del villaggio. Atti del Colloquio Borghesi, Forlì 27-30 settembre 1990, Faenza, Stabilimento Grafico Lega, p. 543‑594.
Marconi Giulia, Ennodio e la nobiltà gallo-romana nell’Italia ostrogota, Spoleto, Fondazione CISAM, 2013, vol.27.
Nathan Geoffrey, « Looking for children in Late Antiquity », Children in Antiquity, London, Routledge, 2020.
Nathan Geoffrey Stephen, « Woe to those making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless »: Christian ideals and the obligations of stepfathers in late antiquity », Growing up fatherless in antiquity, Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 273‑292.
Neil Bronwen, « Gelasius I », Great Christian Jurists and Legal Collections in the First Millennium, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 297‑314.
Neil Bronwen, « De profundis: the letters and archives of Pelagius I of Rome (556-561) », Collecting Early Christian Letters. From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 206‑219.
Neil Bronwen, « Crisis in the Letters of Gelasius I (492-96): A New Model of Crisis Management? », The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, 2015, Farnham, Ashgate, p. 155‑175.
Neil Bronwen et Allen Pauline, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of the Church of Rome, Turnhout, Brepols, 2014.
Noble Thomas, «Theoderic and the papacy», Teoderico il Grande e I Goti d’Italia Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Milano 2-6 novembre 1992, Spoleto, CISAM, 1993, p. 395-424.
Pazienza Annamaria, « Residential (Im)mobility and Migrant Grooms: The Example of Lombard Italy (7th-8th centuries) », Masculinities in early medieval Europe. Tradition and innovation 450-1050, Turnhout, Brepols, 2023, p. 43‑62.
Pfeilschifter Georg, Der Ostgotenkӧnig Theoderich der Grosse und die Katholische Kirche, Münster, Heinrich Schӧningh Verlag, 1896.
Pietri Charles, Pietri Luce, Desmulliez Janine, Fraisse-Coué Christiane et Paoli-Lafaye Élisabeth, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. 2, Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne (313-604). 2 , L-Z / sous la dir. de Charles Pietri et Luce Pietri ; par Janine Desmulliez, Christiane Fraisse-Coué, Élisabeth Paoli-Lafaye [et al.], Rome, École Française de Rome, 2000.
Prostko-Prostynski Jan, Utraeque res publicae: the emperor Anastasius I’s Gothic policy ; (491-518), Poznán, coll.« Publikacje Instytutu Historii UAM », 1994, vol.1.
Ritzer Korbinian, Le mariage dans les Églises chrétiennes du Ier au XIe siècle, Paris, Éditions du Cerf, 1970.
Rolker Christof, « III. The Collectio Britannica and its Sources: Reviewing the Trustworthiness of a Key Witness of Medieval Papal Letters », Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung, 108-1, 1 juillet 2022, p. 111‑169.
Sardella Teresa, « La famiglia cristiana: il fidanzamento nella costruzione di una identità religiosa (IV-V secolo) », La famiglia tardoantica. Società, diritto, religione, Milano, LED, 2016, p. 79‑100.
Schoolman Edward M., « Vir Clarissimus and Roman Titles in the Early Middle Ages: survival and Continuity in Ravenna and the Latin West », Medieval prosopography, 32, 2017, p. 1‑39.
Sessa Kristina, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Sotinel Claire, « Les éveques italiens dans la société de l’Antiquité tardive: l’émergence d’une nouvelle élite? », Le trasformazioni delle élites in età tardoantica, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2006, p. 377‑404.
Tabata Kayoko, «I comites Gothorum e l’amministrazione municipale in epoca ostrogota» Humana sapit: études d’Antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout, Belgium, Brepols, 2002, p. 69-78.
Taylor Justin, « The early papacy at work: Gelasius I (492-496) », Journal of Religious History, 8, 1975, p. 317-32.
Ullmann Walter, Gelasius I. (492 – 496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1981.
Vitiello Massimiliano, Amalasuintha. The transformation of queenship in the post-Roman world, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.
Vitiello Massimiliano, Theodahad : a Platonic king at the collapse of Ostrogothic Italy, Toronto (Ont.), University of Toronto Pr., 2014.
Vitiello Massimiliano, « Teoderico a Roma. Politica, amministrazione e propaganda nell’adventus dell’anno 500 (Considerazioni sull’’Anonimo Valesiano II’) », Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 53, 2004, p. 73‑120.
Wickham Chris, Framing the early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400 – 800, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.
Wiemer Hans-Ulrich, Theoderich der Große: König der Goten – Herrscher der Römer: eine Biographie, München, C.H. Beck, 2018.
Wood Ian N., « Incest, law and the Bible in sixth-century Gaul », Early medieval Europe, 7, 1998, p. 291‑303.
[1] On Gelasius see: Bronwen Neil, « Gelasius I », Great Christian Jurists and Legal Collections in the First Millennium, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 297‑314; For a recent study and translation of Gelasian letters dealing with micro-management see: Bronwen Neil et Pauline Allen, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of the Church of Rome, Turnhout, Brepols, 2014.
[2] Bronwen Neil, « De profundis: the letters and archives of Pelagius I of Rome (556-561) », Collecting Early Christian Letters. From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 214‑219; For Gelasius’ role as manager in times of crisis see: Bronwen Neil, « Crisis in the Letters of Gelasius I (492-96): A New Model of Crisis Management? », The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, Farnham, Ashgate, 2015, p. 155‑175.
[3] Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, Theoderich der Große: König der Goten – Herrscher der Römer: eine Biographie, München, C.H. Beck, 2018, p. 473-513. Thomas Noble, « Theoderic and the papacy », Teoderico il Grande e I Goti d’Italia Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Milano 2-6 novembre 1992, Spoleto, CISAM, 1993, p. 395-424.
[4] Walter Ullmann, Gelasius I. (492 – 496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1981, p. 217-226; contra: Patrick Amory, People and identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489-554, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 33; On Arianism: Marco Cristini, « L’arianesimo degli Ostrogoti nel sesto secolo: fattore identitario o elemento residuale?», Identità Multiple, vol. 2: Tarda Antichità, Medioevo, Storia moderna e contemporanea, Pisa, Pisa University Press, 2021, p. 31-41.
[5] Christof Rolker, « III. The Collectio Britannica and its Sources: Reviewing the Trustworthiness of a Key Witness of Medieval Papal Letters », Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung, 108-1, 1 2022, p. 111‑169.
[6] Samuel Cohen, « Gelasius and the Ostrogoths: jurisdiction and religious community in late fifth-century Italy », Early Medieval Europe, 30-1, 2022, p. 20‑44, spec. on the prosopography see n. 12-13-14-15, p. 23-24. On the specific case of Teja, an older historiography argues that Teja is not the name of person but rather the Latin translation of saio, thus an office; see Justin Taylor, « The early papacy at work: Gelasius I (492-496) », Journal of Religious History, 8, 1975, p. 317-322.
[7] S. Cohen, « Gelasius and the Ostrogoths »…, p. 42 «Gelasius modulated his language to rhetorically include or exclude the participation of Gothic officials in the affairs of the church depending on the requirements of specific circumstances».
[8] Conflict arise with the comes sacrarum largitionum Mastallus: Samuel Loewenfeld, Epistolae pontificum Romanorum ineditae, Leipzig, 1885. Ep. 12, p. 7.
[9] Id.
[10] Ibidem., Ep. 5 p. 3.
[11] Andreas Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II., Braunsberg, 1867, Frag. 42, p. 506. For provincial governors and comites see: Giovanni Alberto Cecconi, « I governatori delle province Italiche », Antiquité tardive, 6, 1998, p. 172‑174.
[12] The reference to the office of magister militum held by Aemilianus raises questions about Theoderic’s “constitutional position” in Italy, since Theoderic is known to have held the same position on behalf of the Eastern emperor. Jan Prostko-Prostynski, Utraeque res publicae: the emperor Anastasius I’s Gothic policy ; (491-518), Poznán, Instytut historii UAM, 1994, p. 39-40; Charles Pietri, Luce Pietri, Janine Desmulliez, « et alii », Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire. 2, Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne (313-604). 2 , L-Z / dir. de Charles Pietri et Luce Pietri, Rome, École Française de Rome, 2000, Aemilianus 3, p. 33-34.
[13] Kayoko Tabata, « I comites Gothorum e l’amministrazione municipale in epoca ostrogota », Humana sapit: études d’Antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout, Brepols, 2002, p. 69-78; Gideon Maier, Amtsträger und Herrscher in der Romania Gothica: vergleichende Untersuchungen zu den Institutionen der ostgermanischen Völkerwanderungsreiche, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005, p. 210-225.
[14] Agilulf: Andreas Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, 1867, Frag. 2, p. 484; Teja: Ibidem, Ep., 24, p. 390.
[15] Shane Bjornlie, « Law, ethnicity and taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: a case for continuity, adaptation and departure », Early Medieval Europe, 22-2, 2014, p. 142 n. 12.
[16] Paul Ewald, « Die Papstbriefe der Britischen Sammlung », Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 5, 1880, Ep.73 p. 562; Samuel. Loewenfeld, Epistolae pontificum Romanorum, Ep. 4, p. 2. Translated in B. Neil et P. Allen, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496), p. 197. The Collectio Britannica is preserved in a single manuscript (London, BL, Add. MS 8873) dated to the 12th century, though it is possible that the first compilation may date back to the mid-11th century in the context of the Gregorian reform, given that the Collectio Britannica has long been regarded as a forgery. For a discussion see: C. Rolker, « III. The Collectio Britannica and its Sources »…, p. 141-143.
[17] Paul Ewald, « Die Papstbriefe »…, p. 562; For more discussion see: C. Rolker, « III. The Collectio Britannica and its Sources »…, p. 151 n. 131.
[18] Philipp Jaffé, Samuel Loewenfeld, Ferdinand Kaltenbrunner et Paul Ewald, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198. Bd. 1., Leipzig, 1885, n 644 and 692 (ep.73 Ewald); Georg Pfeilschifter, Der Ostgotenkӧnig Theoderich der Grosse und die Katholische Kirche, Münster, Heinrich Schӧningh Verlag, 1896, p. 35; Korbinian Ritzer, Le mariage dans les Églises chrétiennes du Ier au XIe siècle, Paris, Éditions du Cerf, 1970, p. 228; P. Amory, People and identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489-554… », p. 473; Claire Sotinel, « Les éveques italiens dans la société de l’Antiquité tardive: l’émergence d’une nouvelle élite? », Le trasformazioni delle élites in età tardoantica, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2006, p. 400.
[19] K. Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy. Roman Bishops and the domestic sphere, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 136-137; 210-211.
[20] P. Ewald, « Die Papstbriefe »…, p. 562-563.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] K. Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority, p. 210.
[24] Jörg Köpke, Die italischen Bischöfe unter ostgotischer Herrschaft (490-552 n. Chr.): Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur Stellung des italischen Episkopats zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, doctoral Thesis, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 1999, p. 259. In this respect is more cautious Charles Piétri et Luce Piétri, Prosopographie de l’Italie chrétienne, Claudius 4, p. 449.
[25] For a recent reconstruction: Salvatore Cosentino, « Social instability and economic decline of the Ostrogothic community in the aftermath of the imperial victory: the papyri evidence », Ravenna. Its role in earlier medieval change and exchange, London, Institute of Historical Research, 2016, p. 140-147.
[26] H.-U. Wiemer, Theoderich der Große, p. 513-537 notably p. 518-519.
[27] On the subregional lasting connection between Nepi and Rome see: Chris Wickham, Framing the early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400 – 800, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 209, n. 47.
[28] K. Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority, p. 136; 210.
[29] Cassiod. Var., III,14 The edition and translation used in this paper is that of Andrea Giardina et alii : Andrea GIARDINA, Giovanni Alberto CECCONI, Ignazio TANTILLO (dir.), Cassiodoro Varie. Volume II, Libri III-V, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2014.
[30] Sylvie Joye, La femme ravie: le mariage par rapt dans les sociétés occidentales du haut Moyen Âge, Turnhout, Brepols, 2012, p. 272-282; Judith Evans-Grubbs, « Abduction Marriage in Antiquity: A Law of Constantine », The Journal of Roman Studies, 79, 1989, p. 71‑81; on family in the Edictum Theoderici see: Sean D. W. Lafferty, Law and society in the age of Theoderic the Great: a study of the Edictum Theoderici, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 175-204.
[31] S. Joye, La femme ravie, p. 267-288.
[32] Relevant in this respect is Agapitas’ dossier Cassiod., Var. II,10; II,11; IV,40. On the different approaches dealing with sexual scandal see S. Bjornlie, « Law, ethnicity and taxes in Ostrogothic »…, p. 138-170.
[33] Teresa Sardella, « La famiglia cristiana: il fidanzamento nella costruzione di una identità religiosa (IV-V secolo) », La famiglia tardoantica. Società, diritto, religione, Milano, LED, 2016, p. 79‑100 ; K. Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority, p. 130-139.
[34] Massimiliano Vitiello, « Teoderico a Roma. Politica, amministrazione e propaganda nell’adventus dell’anno 500 (Considerazioni sull’Anonimo Valesiano II’) », Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 53, 2004, p. 112 ; Gideon Maier, Amtsträger und Herrscher, p. 223.
[35] Cassiodori Senatoris, Epistulae Theodericianae Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA 12, Berlin, 1894, p. 389–90.
[36] Id.
[37] On the implication of altera communion instead of Arianism see the comment made by S. Cohen, « Gelasius and the Ostrogoths »…, p. 37-39.
[38] Kate Cooper et Riccardo Bof, « Il caso della moglie di Optato e l’evoluzione del vincolo coniugale nel VI secolo », Genesis, 9-1, 2010, p. 15‑28.
[39] Ian N. Wood, « Incest, law and the Bible in sixth-century Gaul », Early medieval Europe, 7, 1998, p. 291‑303.
[40] Arnold Hugh Martin Jones et John R. Martindale, The prosopography of the later Roman empire 2, Cambridge, 1980, Laconius p. 654 .
[41] Ennod., Ep. V,24 «Divinis tamen legibus cognationem indiculo comprehensam in matrimonio licere sociari, sine dubitatione noveritis. Sed continuo ad urbem Romam homines meos dirigo, exacturus a venerabili papa super hac parte responsum, ut animum vestrum potioris praecepti firmet auctoritas». The edition and translation used in this paper is that of Stéphane Gioanni, Lettres / Ennode de Pavie. 1: Livres III-IV, Paris, Les Belles lettres, 2010.
[42] Sylvie Joye, « Le rapt et l’accusation de rapt comme motif de séparation des époux durant l’Antiquité tardive et le haut Moyen Âge », in Répudiation, séparation, divorce dans l’Occident médiéval, Valenciennes, CRHiCC: Presses universitaires de Valenciennes 2007, p. 35‑51.
[43] Cassiod. Var., III, 46.
[44] Commentary in Andrea Giardina et Fabrizio Oppedisano (éd.), Varie. 2, Libri III-V…, p. 230-231.
[45] See above n. 35.
[46] P. Ewald, « Die Papstbriefe»…, p. 562 « Et ideo ab hac iniqua te intentione convenit abstinere ne ad dominum filium meum magnificum regem ex hac parte relationem dirigam et perpetua, si non desisteris, communione suspendam..».
On this specific usage see the commentary to Cassiod. Var., IV, 22 , 2 in Andrea Giardina et Fabrizio Oppedisano (éd.), Varie. 2, Libri III-V / Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro Senatore ; direzione di Andrea Giardina ; a cura di Andrea Giardina[et al.] ; con la collab. di Fabrizio Oppedisano, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2014, p. 344-345.
[47] S. Joye, La femme ravie, p. 274-275.
[48] K. Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority, p. 136.
[49] On tuitio see G. Maier, Amtsträger und Herrscher, p. 171-174 .
[50] Cassiod. Var., II, 29.
[51] Cassiod. Var., IV, 9.
[52] id.
[53] Andreas Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, Frag. 31, p. 500.
[54] Ibidem, Ep. 24 p. 390.
[55] Geoffrey Nathan, « Looking for children in Late Antiquity », Children in Antiquity, London, Routledge, 2020, p. 134-149. Geoffrey Stephen Nathan, « Woe to those making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless »: Christian ideals and the obligations of stepfathers in late antiquity », Growing up fatherless in antiquity, Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 273‑276.
[56] Id.
[57] Stephanie Adelaide Hillert Kennell, Magnus Felix Ennodius: a gentleman of the church, Ann Arbor, Mich., 2000, p. 32-33 makes Laconius a relative of Ennodius; contra Giulia Marconi, Ennodio e la nobiltà gallo-romana nell’Italia ostrogota, Fondazione CISAM, Spoleto, 2013, p.138; see also Gideon Maier, Amtsträger und Herrscher, Stuttgart, 2005, p. 126.
[58] Ennod., Ep. II,5; III,16; V,24.
[59] For intra-family pressure see the case of Olibula: Andreas Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, Ep. 40, p. 453.
[60] S. Joye, La femme ravie, p. 20-27.
[61] Id.
[62] P. Ewald, « Die Papstbriefe»…, p. 562.
[63] Giacomo Manganaro, « Greco nei pagi e latino nelle città della Sicilia romana tra I e VI secolo d.C », L’epigrafia del villaggio. Atti del Colloquio Borghesi, Forlì 27-30 settembre 1990, Faenza, Stabilimento Grafico Lega, p. 586-587.
[64] CIL V, 6176= ILCV, 116.
[65] John Robert Martindale (dir.), The prosopography…, Tuluin p.1131-1132.
[66] Massimiliano Vitiello, Amalasuintha. The transformation of queenship in the post-Roman world, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017, p 114.
[67] Procop. Goth. 1, 11, 6-9 More context in Massimiliano Vitiello, Theodahad: a Platonic king at the collapse of Ostrogothic Italy, Toronto, University of Toronto Pr., 2014, 157-163.
[68] Brief commentary in: Edward M. Schoolman, « Vir Clarissimus and Roman Titles in the Early Middle Ages: survival and Continuity in Ravenna and the Latin West », Medieval prosopography, 32, 2017, p. 3-4.
[69] John Robert Martindale (dir.), The prosopography…, Arigernus p.141; Osuin p. 815.
[70] Annamaria Pazienza, « Residential (Im)mobility and Migrant Grooms: The Example of Lombard Italy (7th-8th centuries) », Masculinities in early medieval Europe. Tradition and innovation 450-1050, Tunhout, Brepols, 2023, p. 43‑62. Cristina La Rocca, « Ritornare fragili immagini e pratiche delle donne prima, durante e dopo la guerra gotica », Justinian’s legacy: the last war of Roman Italy = L’eredità di Giustiniano: l’ultima guerra dell’Italia romana, Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, p. 346.
[71] B. Neil et P. Allen, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496), p. 197.
