Andrés Mánguez Tomás

 

---

Abstract : Based on a case study carried out in the north of the Iberian Peninsula, from the Atlantic to the Pyrenees, we analyse the social mechanisms and relationships established between the Church and these societies between the 5^th and 7^th centuries. Using sources such as the vitae of saints (Emilian and Valerius) and archaeology (Alegría-Dulantzi), we examine the different ways in which families, peasants and nobles, and the ecclesiastical institution coexisted. The Christianisation of Late Antique families in rural areas is the main subject of this article. A scenario of saints, oratories, and churches appears in the countryside, in contrast to traditional historiography which defends a Christianism confined within urban walls.

Key Words :  family, Church, landscape, Iberian peninsula, Late Antiquity.

---

Andrés Mánguez Tomás (1999) is a doctoral student in “Europa y el Mundo Atlántico: Poder, Cultura y Sociedad” at the University of Valladolid, under the direction of Dr. Poveda Arias and Dr. Díaz Martínez. He graduated from the University of Zaragoza and obtained a master’s degree at the University of Salamanca. His research areas include various cultural studies related to the spread of Christianity by the Western Roman Empire and its influence on Late Antique Society. Recently, his work has focused on the Christianization of families in post-roman Europe and the role of churches in Visigothic landscapes, examining them as elements which organize both space and populations. He has also explored the meaning of Late Antiquity in the Spanish historiography.

ID Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1226-0657

andres.manguez.tomas@uva.es

---

Introduction

One of the traditional causes of the disappearance of Roman state power, together with the irruption of « barbarian peoples », has been attributed to the spread of Christianity inside and outside Roman boundaries. However, we must not conceive that the message of Christianity spread only by the « grace of God ». It is a well-known fact, that ideas are transmitted by individuals, and although it may seem obvious, theoretical models of historians sometimes overlook this appreciation that places the human being as the main figure in historical research. This is precisely what we intend to focus on in this work —placing the spotlight on different human communities and their reception of Christianity and the ecclesiastical institution. The « Christianization » of societies took place in a moment of extreme crisis, at least from a traditional and political perspective, and in a geographical area that has been labelled as « problematic » by Late Antique historians. Indeed, the northern Iberian Peninsula, defined as the territory delimited by the Atlantic Ocean to the west and north, the Douro River to the south, and the Arga River and the Iberian System to the east, presents one of the most turbulent and agitated regions between the 5^th and 7^th centuries^[1].

The object of this study is the Christianization of families. First and foremost, it should be noted that, in the Iberian context, there have been many studies on Christianity and its diffusion on the Iberian Peninsula, but very few on the situation of the late antique Hispanic family. In contrast to the European boom in cultural historiography on the family in the 1980s^[2], studies on the family in Spain and Portugal remained tied to Legal History and the Early Middle Ages (from the 9^th century onwards, precisely when more sources and cartularies were preserved^[3]).  Nevertheless, Peninsular historiography on the families of the Visigothic period in northern Hispania has undergone changes^[4]. At the beginning of the 20th century, Germanic theories permeated Peninsular historiography^[5], i.e., they observed a predominance of extended families in which the authority of the father and the memory of lineage prevailed over the influence of Roman culture (also supported by a view of limited Romanization and Christianization of northern peoples). Since the mid-20^th century, Romanists distanced themselves from these Germanic survivals and advocated for a concept of the nuclear and conjugal family^[6], as we will see later.

To delve into these matters regarding the family and Christianization in the post-Roman world, I have structured the document through four main points: first, I will briefly present the characteristics of family in Late Antiquity; second, I will be explaining how certain rejections and dissent arose in the face of the arrival of Christianity within families; third, I will be exploring the Christian approaches and devotions of aristocratic and peasant families; and fourth, based on the analysis of the Regula communis, I will be presenting how peasant and neighbouring families became « monasteries » to continue exerting control over their heritage and territory. In order to achieve this, we are going to make use of two main types of sources: the first is the hagiographic genre^[7], and the second, the material record. As far as hagiographies or lives of saints are concerned, we have used the following corpus of documents, in chronological order of writing: the Vita Sancti Aemiliani, written by Bishop Braulius of Zaragoza (in the mid-7^th century), which shows an area of action in the territories of the upper course of Ebro river^[8]; and, the writings of Valerius, an ascetic and Galician monk from the second half of the 7^th century, which narrate events in a specific region of the northwest of the peninsula, the Bierzo^[9]. The cohesion in the use of these sources lies in the fact that, unlike other peninsular vitae, they present their events in rural settings and in a very specific geographical area. These two sources are well known to historiography but until now they have not been looked at through the prism of analysing the family and what Christianisation does to them. The other type of source comes from the archaeological studies that are taking place in the Basque area, specifically in the present-day village of Alegría-Dulantzi, where the remains of a late-antique church were discovered in the 2010s. A further sign of the renewed interest in the archaeology of post-roman societies in the Iberian Peninsula, thanks to the discovery of new churches^[10].

Late antique family : a brief look

To understand the topic of family better, we must clarify what we mean by the family in this post-Roman context. The family, although not defined at this time as we understand it today, would correspond to the husband-wife-children group, thus forming the nuclear family. Already in the 2^nd century AD, Modestinus introduces a definition of marriage, the element that would underpin the subsequent nuclear family: « Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and a partnership for life, a sharing of both divine and human law »^[11]. The monogamous family, delimited exclusively to husband and wife, stands as the first cell of the citizenry, and this formation will continue to be the principal social component after the disintegration of the Roman Empire^[12]. We should not view this social unit as the family in its classical Roman sense, meaning all those who were under the potestas – authority – of the pater familias, whether by blood (exclusively agnatic) or by filiation (dependence and alliance). From the 3^rd century onwards, there is a weakening of this authority, partly due to the spread of philosophical currents from the Eastern Empire – primarily Stoicism – and the spread of Christianity, which rejected certain practices of the father’s authority – such as infanticide or the sale of children^[13] –. Over the decades, this debilitation of patria potestas gave rise to what historians have called « paterna pietas », infusing new moral values into the concept of the family^[14]. A family that also shrinks in terms of its extension, as it would encompass three generations and also opens up to cognatic relationships, no longer distinguishing whether relatives are male or female^[15]. In the 5^th-7^th centuries, we find, as we will later confirm, northern societies that, whether due to the inherent dynamics of the Roman Mediterranean family or their own internal dynamics^[16], have reduced their extension, shifted towards cognatism^[17], and forgotten the worship of ancestors, a fact that will be evidenced by the analysis of the Dulantzi necropolis, allowing us to speak of « families without memory »^[18]. The small size of families at this time and place can be observed in the works of Valerius of Bierzo^[19]. It narrates how his nephew, John, the son of his brother Montanus, left his wife and children to join Valerius’ retreat, accompanied by a servant named Euagrio. Here we can see the three generations of a family appear: Valerius, his brother Montanus, who is already a grandfather, his son John, and the children of the latter. From this passage, it can be understood that the three generations did not live together because John separated from his wife and children, but not from his father Montanus. Therefore, the unity of residence would be another characteristic of the nuclear family typical of these centuries^[20]. Indeed, a new family can only be formed when spouses achieve independence from their parents^[21]. In this case, at least economic independence is implied since the three generations do not share the same dwelling. We can keep this family in mind as a prototype of the family concept for the development of this article.

Mistrust

In the first place, it must be pointed out that the documentary sources show us throughout the 5^th to 7^th centuries that the society in the vast majority of these territories, predominantly rural and with a handful of urban centres and episcopal seats, continued to be, for the traditional historiography, « culturally pagan »^[22]. Here we must clarify that while other authors have emphasized the persistence of paganism well into the 7^th century^[23], we prefer to align ourselves with authors like Díaz Martínez, who prefer to view this dynamic as the continuity of an ingrained culture that ecclesiastical leaders attempted to control and modify^[24]. Thus, we can speak of an officially Christian society with characteristics of an earlier, Roman culture, and even in certain areas, pre-Roman, but not of the maintenance of ancient cults in abundance. Various canons and writings attempted to correct practices that were occurring, especially in rural areas, and that showed how the faithful but also the rural presbyters were far from the orthodoxy demanded by the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the urban episcopal sees^[25]. These regulations promoted by the bishops even sought to penetrate the most intimate family and female world because, following the work of Bishop Martin of Braga (in the second half of the 6^th century), they aimed to eliminate certain practices carried out by women^[26].

A passage that shows rejection, or at least mistrust, on the part of society towards the holy man and, by extension, towards Christianity, appears in the Vita Sancti Aemiliani. In it, we are told how the holy man Aemilian had a vision of the destruction of Cantabria and decided to convene a senate^[27]. There, he narrated the events, and the vita’s author says that they listened to him with respect. As well, it tells how a character called Abundantius, mocked the saint for his old age. It seems that the rest of those assembled there concurred with such behaviour in the following passage which narrates the destruction of Cantabria, especially in terms of its political independence (574), at the hands of the Visigothic king Leovigild, who appears as an executor of God’s will and as punishment for the insolence of the Cantabrian leaders against the saint^[28].

We must consider that the senatum Cantabriae would be a meeting of the principal landowners of the territory^[29], that is, the patres of the most powerful families, some of whom may have already been Christianized (since they received and listened to the holy man), but others, like Abundantius, exemplify rejection and intransigence towards the warnings of Saint Aemilian, leading to a situation of maximum conflict, even resulting in the loss of life and probably the possessions of the ruling families. It should be noted that all of them were put to the sword because of their past crimes^[30]. A choice presented itself on this occasion: the ruling families had to either follow the saint’s advice or ignore it. We could understand this passage as the dilemma faced by the main ruling families. I suggest that we can see in this passage an ideological presentation of what would happen to leaders or rulers who reject the counsel of the saints and therefore of the Church^[31].

Another case of non-acceptance, or at least, disapproval of religious desires within a family, can be found in a passage from Valerius of Bierzo. Here, a young man named John, whose parents were looking for a wife for him^[32], decided to flee from the family home and went to meet the monk Valerius^[33], becoming his assistant. However, and here is where the text allows for more interpretation, later on, some thieves attacked and brutally wounded him. As a result, John decided to return home^[34]. I wonder if these thieves were sent by his parents to make him return home. It would not be unreasonable for parents to force their children to come back home, although it should be mentioned that this was only a temporary measure, as this young man, once recovered, returned in the company of the monk Valerius^[35]. This rupture with the family is the first step that must be taken towards the pursuit of religious asceticism^[36], a rupture that could sometimes be accepted by the family or, as can be inferred in this case, a sudden and painful one. Certainly, it is difficult to know the true conflict situations that occurred during the process of Christianization because almost all of the written sources were produced by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which aimed to show the triumph of the faith. As we can see in these cases, the vitae show both the punishment of leaders who did not follow the saint’s advice and the ultimate victory of the religious vocation, despite the many obstacles that may arise from the family sphere.

Integration

Contrary to the mistrust mentioned in the second part, the third part of this work focuses on integration. Expressions of gratitude towards the divine can be found in material form in Basque territory, mainly through the construction of churches. A recent example of this can be seen in the church of Alegría-Dulantzi, discovered just a decade ago^[37]. This church is associated with a necropolis, and notably, there are tombs in a prominent location that undoubtedly belong to high-ranking family leaders. It is worth noting that while in other Western European regions like France, the study and research of these tombs near sacred sites have a long historiographical tradition^[38], such research in the Iberian Peninsula has been limited due to the scarcity and fragmented nature of findings. However, archaeology now allows us to learn about a family or group of families that would have controlled the surrounding territory and used this prominence to build a Christian temple, a church^[39].

Despite the lack of anthropological studies to determine whether there were blood relations among those buried there (potentially indicating kinship ties), it is clear that these individuals were prominent figures because their tombs were respected (with the passage of decades, new burial places did not disturb the ancient ones). Furthermore, a proper necropolis with dozens of graves surrounding the church was not established; instead, it appears to be located a few hundred meters away, as is the case with the Pelayo necropolis (700 meters north of the church), creating two separate burial spaces. Remarkably, in addition to this site, the « foundational » tomb, located near the altar and having three stone slabs as a cover (in contrast to the wooden coffins of other burial places), contains the remains of an allochthonous woman, which means foreigner, according to isotopic analyses^[40]. This discovery adds even more intrigue to the foundation of this church.

Apart from this privileged burial space, there are 30 more inside the church and around the baptistery^[41]. If we look for parallels in the Frankish world, Le Jan argues that these family necropolises would contain the remains only of landowners and their wives, meaning an average of two or three individuals per generation^[42]. Considering this data, from the 8^th century onwards, the church ceased to be considered a central place in the territory, as burial places started being locating outside the temple and were not organized around it. More than 100 new graves indicate that the church was no longer the focal point it had been in the previous phase^[43]. Consequently, the founding family of the church had also been forgotten, and this sacred place was no longer a centre of memory^[44]. The question still remains of how these two sites, the church and the San Pelayo necropolis, interacted within the same territory: were they part of the same community or two distinct communities? We learn towards the idea that they were spaces within the same hierarchical community, composed of aristocratic family groups associated with the construction and maintenance of the Church of San Martín of Dulantzi^[45].

Continuing with this approach of society towards the sacred, in the works of Valerius of Bierzo, we can observe the worship and devotion of a nuclear family, consisting of a husband, wife, and children, which can be illustrated by the story of the matron Theodora. She sent her son to be educated by Valerius, who agreed in exchange for her making him a cloak^[46]. Once the son was educated, the lady did not fulfil her promise, and over time, she fell ill. One night, she had a revelation instructing her to go to the Church of San Felix (built on the site of a pagan temple) for her recovery, accompanied by her husband, sons, and daughters^[47]. On their way to the church, she was seriously gored by a bull from a herd, grazing nearby. However, at that moment, an angel descended from the church and told her that if she kept her promise, she would be immediately cured^[48]. The lady promised to make the cloak and miraculously recovered. The next morning, she called her daughters and maids and began weaving the cloak. Once it was made, she sent it to Saint Valerius^[49]. Linking this example with the aforementioned material record, we can see how the aristocratic families (the noble foundress of Alegría-Dulantzi and the matron Theodora) made these churches a focal point of their extension of power over the territory^[50], whether by constructing them or processing to them, undoubtedly cultic places tied to the family in some way.

Not only can we learn about the integration of families from the upper echelons of society but also from peasant families. There are examples of popular devotion that would have influenced at least part of the peasant society. One example of devotion to a saint, but also of parents’ devotion to their daughters, appears again in a passage from the Vita Sancti Aemiliani. It recounts a post-mortem miracle, occurred after Aemilian had passed away and had been buried in an oratory. At that time, a four-year-old girl fell seriously ill and was close to death. Her parents, « moved by piety », took her to the saint’s tomb. Unfortunately, before arriving, she died on the way. Nevertheless, « since they did not lack faith », they continued to the oratory and placed her near the altar, then left. A few hours later, « overcome with grief », they decided to return and found their daughter alive and playing with the altar cloths^[51]. Thus, we observe how these churches were established as centres of devotion in rural areas, attracting noble and non-noble families, becoming the backbone of the space, in this case controlling the sacred and devotion in these rural societies. All the events analysed here take place in a rural area where Christianism is strongly rooted in landscapes with saints, churches, and oratories.

A way to organise

Last but not least, in this section, I intend to demonstrate how the Christianization of northern societies did not occur solely in a theoretical, philosophical, or cultural manner but also had a real impact on the way families organized themselves, at times generating conflicts and internal dissent. In the northwestern region of the Iberian Peninsula, we find the phenomenon of pseudo-monasteries and family monasteries.

The Regula Communis or « Rule of the Abbots » (compiled in the second half of the 7^th century) was intended to serve as a « federal statute » for a group of monasteries in the northwestern Iberian Peninsula that had been independent of the ecclesiastical hierarchy before, mainly from the abbey-bishopric of Dume^[52].

The first rule in Regula Communis states that there are monasteries founded by husbands « with their wives, children, servants, and neighbours », who are « hypocrites and heretics » rather than true monks^[53]. To understand this phenomenon better, we must delve into the reality of a village community or a group of neighbouring families who shared the same territory and decided to unite as an association by declaring themselves a monastic foundation. They are also known as « neighbourhood » monasteries^[54] because there was a transfer of individual properties and obligations to communal ones, thus freeing themselves from responsibility for their properties. These were spontaneous phenomena independent of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Regula Communis even indicates that they were only seeking to « achieve profits greater than those of secular life with their wives and adult children »^[55]. The Rule goes on to state that these actions were not motivated by faith and devotion but by arrogance and greed because once these communities were formed and the properties of different families were handed to the common pool, certain individuals attempted to leave the congregation, taking with them their own and others’ properties, basically seeking illicit enrichment : « And they seize from each other, not just straightforwardly, but with insults, the goods they had previously pooled »^[56]. All of this led to quarrels and disputes that seemed more like disputes within a village community than monastic conflicts^[57] over communal and private property.

This association of several families to form a monastery was motivated, among other factors, by an interest in controlling the cycle of family inheritance^[58]. By the 7^th century, the Church and member of nobility had consolidated their power as major landowners, and they aimed at increasing their holdings at the expense of family-owned peasant farms^[59]. To avoid falling into dependency, these families sought self-organization, even if it were through an ecclesiastical way, to continue organizing and managing their estates, now on a communal basis. The ecclesiastical hierarchy, by recognizing these family and neighbour monasteries in the Regula Communis, was not seeking their disappearance but rather their control, subject to the obedience of the bishop and adherence to a monastic rule^[60].

Despite these «false monasteries», there were indeed real family monasteries in northern Hispania. The Regula Communis, in section VI, addresses the arrival of entire families to a monastery for conversion to the faith. It mentions that « when someone arrives with their wife or young children », they should not worry about them « or about food and clothing », as these will be provided by the congregation^[61]. Similarly, it outlines how young children should be cared for to initiate them into the faith and how monks and nuns should not share the same spaces. However, certain allowances were made for the very young, allowing them to see their father and mother:

« The tender little ones, who still amuse themselves with toys, are to be permitted, by a pious concession, to visit their father or mother whenever they wish, so that the parents will not be led into the vice of grumbling because of them, for there is often much grumbling in the monastery because of these little ones. »^[62]

This separation of the nuclear family did not occur immediately; instead, parents were responsible for teaching the rule of the cenobitic community to their children until they voluntarily chose to enter it: « But they are to be cared for by both parents until they have learned something of the rule, and they should be instructed in it, so that both boys and girls are drawn to the monastery where they will live »^[63]. Here, we observe how monasteries provided families, especially those of lower social rank, with another means to continue their existence, even if it meant severing their emotional bonds after some time. This is referred to as « family profession » or taking of vows^[64]. These would indeed be « family » monasteries because throughout the Rule, spaces are differentiated exclusively for men, women, children, and even the elderly^[65].

However, before concluding this discussion, we should note that in this same Regula Communis, there are lists of relatives to whom property could not be bequeathed when the devotee professed in the monastery: « nor to the father, nor to the mother, nor to the brother, nor to the relative, nor to the blood relative, nor to the adopted son, nor to the wife, nor to the children ».^[66] We observe how, in this case, the boundaries of the nuclear family were expanded, and new terms referring to broader kinship relationships appear. However, given the nature of this rule, we might consider that instead of a kinship based on blood ties, this refers to a situation of solidarity, fostered by the neighbours (some of whom might be relatives) of those professing in the coenobium. In a situation of marginalization, as is suggested in the coenobitic formations in this part of Gallaecia^[67], endogamy would be one of the defining factors of these small communities. Therefore, the writers of the Rule employed these terms to refer to a broad kinship relationship, driven by those interested in claiming property rights rather than an extended family. This endogamy is another example of how these peasant communities (now monastic) were separated from the ecclesiastical elites, as the latter advocated for marriage only up to the seventh degree of Roman reckoning^[68].

Conclusions and new perspectives

In conclusion, I have analysed how the arrival and establishment of Christianity and the ecclesiastical hierarchies in the northern Iberian territory presented a wide range of diverse scenarios. Families in the region adopted various mechanisms stemmed from this Christianization to maintain their pre-eminence, which was achieved through the construction of churches. In addition, these families organized themselves as « monastic communities » to continue controlling their assets. In other cases, acceptance and devotion to Christianity appeared without a doubt, and the protagonists, all nuclear families or married couples, professed their faith and appeared in a scenario of saints, churches, and oratories. The different strategies of the families analysed here suggest that Christianisation was not a process of shock and that, therefore, the « problems of Christianisation » presented in this document are « problems constructed by the sources », mostly ecclesiastical and urban. We would not be, therefore, in a pagan culture, but in what I would consider an orthodox Christianity but with heterogeneous activities. The large majority of ecclesiastical authors came from the urban environment with a higher education and they would refer to different practices produced in the rural environment as deviations or survivals of paganism, when it would be precisely this (pragmatic) Christianism close to the peasants that would allow Christianism to advance in the fields.

The family, understood as husband-wife-children unity, emerges as the primary nucleus of social organization throughout the presentation. Conflicts and agreements revolve around it, as we have already analysed. Families seem to secretly manage the criticized monastic organizations mentioned in the Regula Communis, which demonstrates the power—at the local level—and the ability of these social cells to control their own assets.

We have observed that in a society in crisis, understood as a society that is trying to change its cultural patterns from the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the one that large landowners are seeking to incorporate into their networks of dependency, northern Iberian families seek to resist, at least under the umbrella of a monastic rule. This family and neighbourhood organization could be the origin of the so-called pactum, which could be an agreement between the new professed members of the monastery and the monastery itself represented by the abbot. This pactum would mark the new high-medieval monastic foundations in northern Iberia, and some authors^[69] actually trace its origins to these Late Antique centuries when families had to reach agreements to self-organize as monasteries. Therefore, studies on the origin and significance of this pactum and the monastic foundations of northwestern Iberia should continue to open up ways of research to delve deeper into intra-family conflicts and enhance our understanding of the new Christian rural world. All that has been presented here does not suggest a true societal crisis but the transformation of the preceding Roman world into a new society. This new society is not understood as a medieval one but rather as a differentiated society in which families seek to rebuild and reconfigure their control over the territory through mechanisms linked to Christianization, giving rise to unique and innovative forms of social organization.

---

Bibliography

Sources

Dig. = Digesta seu pandectae Iustiniani Augusti, sc. ius iurisconsultorum ex eorum scriptis iussu Iustiniani collectum, mutatum, in novum ordinem redactum, ab Iustiniano confirmatum; ed. Theodor Mommsen et Paul Krueger, Berlin, Weidmannos, 1872.

Mart. Dum., De correctione rusticorum = Martin episcopus Dumiense, De correctione rusticorum, ed. Mario Naldini, Contro le superstizioni. Catechesi al popolo, Florence, Nardini Editore, 1991.

Reg. Comm. = Regula Communis, ed. Julio Campos Ruis et Ismael Roca Melia, Santos Padres Españoles II. San Leandro, San Isidoro, San Fructuoso. Reglas monásticas de la España visigoda. Los tres libros de las «Sentencias», Madrid, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1971, p. 172-215.

Val. Berg., RS. = Valerius Bergidensis, Replicatio sermonum a prima conuersione, ed. José Carlos Martín Iglesias, Valère du Bierzo. Écrits autobiographiques et visions de l’au-delà, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2021, p. 76-132.

VSE = Braulio episcopus Caesaragustanus, Vita sancti Emiliani, ed. Luis Vázquez de Parga, Vita S. Emiliani, Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas – Instituto Jerónimo Zurita, 1943.

Studies

Bishko Charles Julian, « Hispanic monastic pactualism: the controversy continues», Classical folia, volume 27, 1973, p. 173-186.

Castellanos Santiago

• « Aproximación a la historia política del Alto Valle del Ebro durante los siglos V-VI d.C.», Brocar, nº18, 1994, p. 119-138.
• Poder social, aristocracias y hombre santo en la Hispania visigoda: la Vita Aemiliani de Braulio de Zaragoza, Logroño, Universidad de La Rioja, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1998.

Chuvin Pierre, Chronique des derniers païens. La disparition du paganisme dans l’Empire romain, du règne de Constantin à celui de Justinien, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres/Fayard, 2009 [1990].

Costa Badia Xavier, « Los monasterios nacidos a través de pactos en los condados catalanes del siglo IX. Reflexiones en torno a la pervivencia de un modelo fundacional visigodo en tiempos de la reforma carolingia », Hortus Artium Medievalium, volume  23, nº1, 2017, p. 328-335.

Díaz Martínez Pablo de la Cruz

• « El monacato y la cristianización del NO. Hispano. Un proceso de aculturación », Antigüedad y Cristianismo, nº7, 1990, p. 531–539.
• « El legado del pasado: Reglas y monasterios visigodos y carolingios », Monjes y monasterios hispanos en la Alta Edad Media, Aguilar de Campoo, 2006, p. 9-36.
• El reino suevo (411-585), Madrid, Akal, 2011.
• « Regula Communis : Monastic Space and Social Context », Western Monasticism Ante Litteram: The Spaces of Monastic Observance in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout, Brepols, 2011, p. 117–136.
• « Non dicimus monasteria sed animarum perditionem et ecclesia subuersionem. El monasterio como espacio de heterodoxia y alternativa social en la Hispania tardoantigua », Studi e Materiali Di Storia Delle Religioni, volume 81, nº1, 2019, p. 125–135.

Díaz Martínez Pablo de la Cruz et Torres Prieto Juana María, « Pervivencias paganas en el cristianismo hispano (siglos IV-VI) », El Cristianismo : aspectos históricos de su origen y difusión en Hispania. Actas Del Symposium de Vitoria-Gasteiz (25 a 27 de Noviembre de 1996), Vitoria, Universidad del País Vasco, 2001, p. 235–261.

Filotas Bernadette, Pagan Survivals, Superstitions and Popular Cultures, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005.

Fray Sébastien, « L’exploitation de sources hagiographiques en histoire sociale du haut Moyen Âge», Cahiers d’histoire, nº34, 2016, p. 65-88.

Gaiffier Baudouin de, « Hagiographie et Historiographie », Settimane di Studio della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo XVII, Spoleto, Centro italiano di studi sull´alto Medioevo, 1970, volume I, p. 139-166.

García-Gallo Alfonso, « El carácter germánico de la épica y del Derecho en la Edad Media española », Anuario de Historia Del Derecho Español, 1955, p. 583–680.

García de Valdeavellano Luis, La comunidad patrimonial de la familia en el Derecho español medieval, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, 1956.

Guichard Pierre, « L’Europe Barbare », Histoire de la famille, Paris, Armand Collin, 1986, volume I, p. 277–333.

Henriet Patrick (coord.) et alii., Valère du Bierzo. Écrits autobiographiques et visions de l’au-delà, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2021.

Hillgarth Jocelyn Nigel, « Popular Religion in Visigothic Spain », Visigothic Spain. New Approaches, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980, p. 3-60.

Hinojosa Eduardo, « El elemento germánico en el Derecho español », III Congrès International des sciences historiques, Berlin, 1908.

Jiménez Sánchez Juan Antonio, « La legislación civil y eclesiástica concerniente a las supersticiones y a las pervivencias idolátricas en la Hispania de los siglos VI-VII », Hispania Sacra, volume 57, nº115, 2005, p. 47–78.

King Paul David, Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Le Jan Régine, Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc (VII^e-X^e Siècle). Essai d’anthropologie sociale, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 1995.

Lett Didier, Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval V^e-XV^e Siècle, Paris, Hachette, 2000.

Lomas Salmonte Francisco Javier, « Vigencias de un modelo historiográfico. De las sociedades gentilicias en el norte peninsular a las primeras formaciones feudales », Romanización y Reconquista en la Península Ibérica: Nuevas Perspectivas, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, 1998, p. 103–116.

Lotter Friedrich, « Methodisches zur Gewinnung historischer Erkenntnisse aus hagiographischen Quellen », Historische Zeitschrif, nº229, 1979, p. 298-356.

Loza Uriarte Miguel et Niso Lorenzo Javier

• « Resultados preliminares de la intervención arqueológica de San Martín de Dulantzi (Alegría-Dulantzi, Álava) », Vasconia en la Alta Edad Media 450-1000. Poderes y comunidades rurales en el norte peninsular, Zarautz, Universidad del País Vasco, 2011, p. 235–246.
• « La basílica tardoantigua de San Martín de Dulantzi (Alegría-Dulantzi, Álava) », Pyrenae, volume 47, nº2, 2016, p. 95–129.

Mckenna Stephen, Paganism and pagan survivals in Spain up to the fall of the Visigothic Kingdom, Washington D.C., Catholic University of America, 1938.

Mertens Jozef Remi, Tombes mérovingiennes et églises chrétiennes : Arlon, Grobbendonk, Landen, Waha, Bruxelles, Archaeologia Belgica, 1976.

Mínguez Fernández José María, « Sociedad eslcavista y sociedad gentilicia en la formación del feudalismo asturleonés », Romanización y Reconquista en la Península Ibérica: Nuevas Perspectivas, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, 1998, p. 283–302.

Montanos Ferrin Emma, La familia en la Alta Edad Media española, Pamplona, Universidad de Navarra, 1980.

Ortega Luis Angel et alii, « Strontium Isotopes of Human Remains from the San Martín de Dulantzi Graveyard (Alegría-Dulantzi, Álava) and Population Mobility in the Early Middle Ages », Quaternary International, nº30, 2013, p. 1–10.

Pérez de Urbel Justo, « Carácter y supervivencia del pacto de San Fructuoso», Bracara Augusta, nº22, 1968, p. 226-242.

Quirós Castillo Juan Antonio, Loza Uriarte Miguel et Niso Lorenzo Javier, « Identidades y ajuares en las necrópolis altomedievales. Estudios isotópicos del cementerio de San Martín de Dulantzi, Álava (Siglos VI-X) », Archivo Español de Arqueología, nº86, 2013, p. 215–232.

Roberti Melchiorre, « Patria Potestas e Paterna Pietas: contributo allo studio dell’influenza del cristianesimo sul diritto romano », Studi in memoria di Aldo Albertoni, volume I, Padua, CEDAM, 1935, p. 257–270.

Rousselle Aline, « Gestes et signes de la famille dans l’Empire Romain », Histoire de la Famille, Paris, Armand Colin, 1986, p. 231–273.

Serrano Madroñal Raúl, La conflictividad social en la Tardoantigüedad: un análisis sociológico y lexicológico. Estudio sobre los principales conflictos del Occidente Tardorromano : bagaudas, circunceliones y priscilianistas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2017.

Theis Laurent, « Saints sans famille? Quelques remarques sur la famille dans le monde franc à travers les sources hagiographiques », Revue Historique, volume 255, nº517, 1976, p. 3–20.

Turner Peter, Truthfulness, Realism, Historicity. A Study in Late Antique Spiritual Literature, London, Routledge, 2016.

Vial Dumas Manuel José

• « Familia, muerte y matrimonio. De la familia extensa de la Roma arcaica a la familia nuclear de la Antigüedad Tardía », Revista Chilena de Historia del Derecho, nº22, 2010, 287–317.
• « La revolución de la herencia en la Antigüedad Tardía », Ius Fugit: Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios Histórico-Jurídicos, nº17, 2011, 313–331.
• « Notas sobre el matrimonio en el Oriente y Occidente cristiano durante la Antigüedad Tardía y el Alto Medioevo », Ius Fugit: Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios Histórico-Jurídicos, nº18, 2015, p. 141–165.

Villa del Castillo Alejandro, Utrero Agudo María Ángeles, Sastre de Diego Isaac, Caballero Zoreda Luis, « Las iglesias tardoantiguas y altomedievales del centro peninsular. Nuevos hallazgos y viejas cuestiones para una reflexión metodológica », Iglesias tardoantiguas en el centro peninsular (siglos V-VIII), Madrid, La Ergástula, 2022, p. 13-72.

Wood Ian, « How Popular was Early Medieval Devotion? », Essays in Medieval Studies, nº14, 1997.

---

^[1] A rigorous analysis in Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, El reino suevo (411-585), Madrid, Akal, 2011. See also Raúl Serrano Madroñal, La conflictividad social en la Tardoantigüedad: un análisis sociológico y lexicológico. Estudio sobre los principales conflictos del Occidente Tardorromano : bagaudas, circunceliones y priscilianistas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2017.

^[2] Pierre Guichard, « L’Europe Barbare », Histoire de la Famille, volume I, Paris, Armand Collin, 1986, p. 277–333; Aline Rousselle, « Gestes et signes de la famille dans l’Empire Romain », Histoire de la Famille, volume I, Paris, Armand Collin, 1986, p. 231–273; Laurent Theis, « Saints sans famille ? Quelques remarques sur la famille dans le monde franc à travers les sources hagiographiques », Revue Historique, volume 255, nº517, 1976, p. 3–20. At the end of the 20^th century, the indispensable Régine Le Jan, Famille et Pouvoir dans le monde franc (VII^e-X^e siècle). Essai d’anthropologie sociale, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 1995.

^[3] Emma Montanos Ferrin, La Familia en la Alta Edad Media española, Pamplona, Universidad de Navarra, 1980.

^[4] Pierre Guichard, « L’Europe Barbare », p. 320.

^[5] Eduardo Hinojosa, «El elemento germánico en el Derecho español», III Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Berlin, 1908; Luis García de Valdeavellano, La comunidad patrimonial de la familia en el Derecho español medieval, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, 1956, p. 24.

^[6] Alfonso García-Gallo, « El carácter germánico de la épica y del derecho en la Edad Media española », Anuario de Historia Del Derecho Español, nº25, 1955, p. 583–680; Paul David King, Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972, p. 222–223.

^[7] In considering the use of saints’ lives to construct a social-historical discourse, we draw on previous studies that justify the use of this type of source: Baudouin de Gaiffier, « Hagiographie et Historiographie », Settimane di Studio della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo XVII, Spoleto, Centro italiano di studi sull´alto Medioevo, volume I, 1970, p. 139-166; Friedrich Lotter, « Methodisches zur Gewinnung historischer Erkenntnisse aus hagiographischen Quellen», Historische Zeitschrif, nº229, 1979, p. 298-356; Peter Turner, Truthfulness, Realism, Historicity. A Study in Late Antique Spiritual Literature, London, Routledge, 2016, p. 25-74; Sébastien Fray,« L’exploitation de sources hagiographiques en histoire sociale du haut Moyen Âge », Cahiers d’histoire, nº34, 2016, p. 65-88. All authors agree that it is important to bear in mind that these narratives should be interpreted with caution, as they reflect more the author’s social point of view than an objective and accurate representation of everyday historical reality.

^[8] A complete analysis in Santiago Castellanos, Poder social, aristocracias y hombre santo en la Hispania visigoda: la Vita Aemiliani de Braulio de Zaragoza, Logroño, Universidad de La Rioja, 1998.

^[9] The most recent and exhaustive study in Patrick Henriet (coord.) et alii., Valère du Bierzo. Écrits autobiographiques et visions de l’au-delà, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2021.

^[10] Alejandro Villa del Castillo, María Ángeles Utrero Agudo, Isaac Sastre de Diego, Luis Caballero Zoreda, «Las iglesias tardoantiguas y altomedievales del centro peninsular. Nuevos hallazgos y viejas cuestiones para una reflexión metodológica», Iglesias tardoantiguas en el centro peninsular (siglos V-VIII), Madrid, La Ergástula, 2022, p. 13-72.

^[11] «Nuptiae sunt coniunctio maris et feminae, et consortium omnis vitae, divini et humani iuris communicatio» (Dig. 23,2,1).

^[12] Paul David King, Law and Society, p. 223.

^[13] Manuel José Vial Dumas, « Familia, muerte y matrimonio. De la familia extensa de la Roma arcaica a la familia nuclear de a Antigüedad Tardía », Revista Chilena de Historia Del Derecho, nº22, 2010, p. 287–317.

^[14] Melchiorre Roberti, « Patria Potestas e Paterna Pietas: contributo allo studio dell’influenza del cristianesimo sul diritto romano », Studi in Memoria Di Aldo Albertoni, volume I, Padua, CEDAM, 1935, p. 257–270.

^[15] Didier Lett, Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval V-XV^e Siècle, Paris, Hachette, 2000.

^[16] Francisco Javier Lomas Salmonte, «Vigencias de un modelo historiográfico. De las sociedades gentilicias en el norte peninsular a las primeras formaciones feudales», Romanización y Reconquista en la Península Ibérica: Nuevas Perspectivas, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, 1998, p. 115–116; José María Mínguez Fernández, «Sociedad esclavista y sociedad gentilicia en la formación del feudalismo asturleonés», Romanización y Reconquista en la Península Ibérica: Nuevas Perspectivas, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, 1998, p. 300.

^[17] Pierre Guichard, « L’Europe Barbare », p. 280.

^[18] Manuel José Vial Dumas, « La revolución de la herencia en la Antigüedad Tardía », Ius Fugit: Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios Histórico-Jurídicos, nº17, 2011, p. 313–331.

^[19] Val. Berg., RS., 15.

^[20] Laurent Theis, « Saints sans famille ? », p. 15–16.

^[21] Manuel José Vial Dumas, « Notas sobre el matrimonio en el Oriente y Occidente cristiano durante la Antigüedad Tardía y el Alto Medioevo », Ius Fugit: Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios Histórico-Jurídicos, nº18, 2015, p. 141–165.

^[22]   Thus, for example, classical studies which defend the survival of paganism until the 8^th century, such as Stephen Mckenna, Paganism and pagan survivals in Spain up to the fall of the Visigothic Kingdom, Washington D.C., Catholic University of America, 1938; Jocelyn Nigel Hillgarth, «Popular Religion in Visigothic Spain», Visigothic Spain. New Approaches, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980, p. 3-60. Recently Bernadette Filotas, Pagan Survivals, Superstitions and Popular Cultures in Early Medieval Pastoral Literature, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005, p. 1-64, because she only follows the pastoral literature: her sources were exclusively ecclesiastical. In contrast, and for a prompt eradication of paganism, Pierre Chuvin, where paganism would have been assimilated to peasantry: « Des noms survivent, mais la tradition est définitivement rompue. » (Pierre Chuvin, Chronique des derniers païens. La disparition du paganisme dans l’Empire romain, du règne de Constantin à celui de Justinien, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres/Fayard, 2009 [1990], p. 132-133).

^[23] In the peninsular historiography: Juan Antonio Jiménez Sánchez, « La legislación civil y eclesiástica concerniente a las supersticiones y a las pervivencias idolátricas en la Hispania de los Siglos VI-VII », Hispania Sacra, volume 57, nº115, 2005, p. 47–78.

^[24] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « El monacato y la cristianización del NO. Hispano. Un proceso de aculturación », Antigüedad y Cristianismo, volume 7, 1990, p. 531–539; Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, Juana María Torres Prieto, « Pervivencias paganas en el cristianismo hispano (siglos IV-VI) », El Cristianismo : aspectos históricos de su origen y difusión en Hispania. Actas Del Symposium de Vitoria-Gasteiz (25 a 27 de Noviembre de 1996), Vitoria, Universidad del País Vasco, 2001, p. 235–261.

^[25] We should not talk about a difference between « popular religion » and « elite religion » because elite and peasants, generally in rural areas, share the same beliefs, see Ian Wood, « How Popular was Early Medieval Devotion? », Essays in Medieval Studies, nº14, 1997; so we argue that a potential difference would be between the high clergy of urban sees and the rest.

^[26] Such as naming Minerva while weaving or observing Venus’ day in marriages: « Mulieres in tela sua Minervam nominare et Veneris diem in nuptias observare. » (Mart. Dum., De correctione rusticorum, 16.3.)

^[27] At that time, it is difficult to determine the exact territory to which the term « Cantabria » refers, although it seems to be associated mainly with the area of the upper Ebro. To explore this subject in greater detail, I recommend consulting Santiago Castellanos, « Aproximación a la historia política del Alto Valle del Ebro durante los siglos V-VI d.C.», Brocar, nº18, 1994, p. 119-138.

^[28] « At ille denuntiat ei rem per semetipsum experiri, quod post probauit euentus nam gladio uindice Leuuegildi est interemtus. Caeteros quoque quum non resipiscerent ab iniquis operibus, ira pendente diuinitus pari modo periurio doloque adgrediens, sanguine est ipsorum crassatus. » (VSE, 33).

^[29] Santiago Castellanos, Poder social, aristocracias y hombre santo, p. 42–45.

^[30] « scelera eorum, caedes, furta, incesta, violentias, caeteraque uitia. » (VSE, 33).

^[31] We must not forget that the author of this vita is Braulius of Zaragoza, one of the most influential bishops of the time, as is shown by his correspondence with other peninsular bishops such as Fructuosus of Braga, Isidore of Seville or Eugene II of Toledo; with Pope Honorius I; and with the Visigothic kings Chindaswinth and Recceswinth. Braulius thus became one of the champions of the official discourse of the Church.

^[32] « Quum illi a parentibus suis peteretur sponsa. » (Val. Berg., RS, 7.1).

^[33] « cum festinatione pervenit. » (Ibidem, 7.2).

^[34] « latrones seuissimos per quorum impiissima uastatione nos efficeret utraque parte diusos. Ille autem crudeliter cesus et pessime deuilitatus, ad pristinum readtractus est locum. » (Ibidem,7.3).

^[35] Ibidem, 7.4-7-5.

^[36] Laurent Theis, « Saints sans famille? », p. 6.

^[37] Miguel Loza Uriarte, Javier Niso Lorenzo, « Resultados preliminares de la intervención arqueológica de San Martín de Dulantzi (Alegría-Dulantzi, Álava) », Vasconia en la Alta Edad Media 450-1000. Poderes y comunidades rurales en el norte peninsular, Zarautz, Universidad del País Vasco, 2011, p. 235–246.

^[38] Jozef Remi Mertens, Tombes mérovingiennes et églises chrétiennes : Arlon, Grobbendonk, Landen, Waha, Bruxelles, Archaeologia Belgica, 1976.

^[39] Miguel Loza Uriarte, Javier Niso Lorenzo, « La basílica tardoantigua de San Martín de Dulantzi (Alegría-Dulantzi, Álava) », Pyrenae, volume 47, nº2, 2016, p. 95–129.

^[40] Luis Angel Ortega et alii, « Strontium Isotopes of Human Remains from the San Martín de Dulantzi Graveyard (Alegría-Dulantzi, Álava) and Population Mobility in the Early Middle Ages », Quaternary International, nº30, 2013, p. 1–10.

^[41] Miguel Loza Uriarte, Javier Niso Lorenzo, « La basílica tardoantigua de San Martín de Dulantzi », p. 107.

^[42] Régine Le Jan, Famille et Pouvoir, p. 48.

^[43] Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo, Miguel Loza Uriarte, Javier Niso Lorenzo, « Identidades y ajuares en las necrópolis altomedievales. Estudios isotópicos del cementerio de San Martín de Dulantzi, Álava (siglos VI-X)», Archivo Español de Arqueología, nº86, 2013, p. 224.

^[44] Manuel José Vial Dumas, « La revolución de la herencia », p. 322.

^[45] Miguel Loza Uriarte, Javier Niso Lorenzo, « La basílica tardoantigua de San Martín de Dulantzi », p. 107.

^[46] Val. Berg., RS., 3.1.

^[47] Ibidem, 3.2.

^[48] Ibidem, 3.3-3.5.

^[49] Ibidem, 3.7.

^[50] It is worth noting that Alegría-Dulantzi’s temple is a rural church but located on a communication route such as an ancient Roman road, indicating the interest of its builders in controlling a space.

^[51] « repperiunt uiuam quam reliquerant mortuam, et non solum uiuentem sed et ad altaris tunicam ludentem. » (VSE, 38).

^[52] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « Regula Communis : Monastic Space and Social Context », Western Monasticism Ante Litteram: The Spaces of Monastic Observance in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout, Brepols, 2011, p. 118.

^[53] Reg. Comm., I.

^[54] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « Regula Communis: Monastic Space », p. 119–120.

^[55] Reg. Comm., I.

^[56] Id.

^[57] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « Non dicimus monasteria sed animarum perditionem et ecclesia subuersionem. El monasterio como espacio de heterodoxia y alternativa social en la Hispania tardoantigua », Studi e Materiali Di Storia Delle Religioni, volume 81, nº1, 2019, p. 130–132.

^[58] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, «Regula Communis: Monastic Space», p. 129–130.

^[59] Ibidem, p. 128.

^[60] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « Non dicimus monasteria », p. 130.

^[61] Reg. Comm., VI.

^[62] Id.

^[63] Id.

^[64] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « El Monacato y la Cristianización », p. 535.

^[65] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « Regula Communis: Monastic Space », p. 123.

^[66] « non dedit patri, non matri, non fratri, non propinquo, non consanguineo, non filio adoptiuo, non uxori, non liberis » (Reg. Comm., IV).

^[67] Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez, « Regula Communis: Monastic Space », p. 125.

^[68] Didier Lett, Famille et parenté, p. 95.

^[69] See particularly Justo Pérez de Urbel, « Carácter y supervivencia del pacto de San Fructuoso », Bracara Augusta, nº22, 1968, p. 226-242; Charles Julian Bishko, « Hispanic monastic pactualism: the controversy continues », Classical folia, volume  27, 1973, p. 173-186. A state of the art on this issue at Pablo de la Cruz Díaz Martínez « El legado del pasado: Reglas y monasterios visigodos y carolingios », Monjes y monasterios hispanos en la Alta Edad Media, Aguilar de Campoo, 2006, p. 9-36. More recently and in favour of an extension of pactism even to the northeastern Iberian Peninsula: Xavier Costa Badia, « Los monasterios nacidos a través de pactos en los condados catalanes del siglo IX. Reflexiones en torno a la pervivencia de un modelo fundacional visigodo en tiempos de la reforma carolingia », Hortus Artium Medievalium, volume 23, nº1, 2017, p. 328-335.

Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International

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 5^th 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”.

nicolo.anegg@sns.it

---

Gelasius’ letters and the Ostrogothic administration

Unlike other 5^th 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 5^th to early 6^th 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 12^th century, though it is possible that the first compilation may date back to the mid-11^th 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.

 

Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International

Adrien Bresson

 

---

Abstract : Claudian, as the official poet of the Western Roman Empire between 395 and 404, witnessed the many conflicts of the end of the 4^th century and the beginning of the 5^th between the Roman Empire and Alaric’s Goths, as well as between the two parts of the Empire. In 395, as the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western one were drifting apart, so were Arcadius and Honorius, who were respectively emperors in the East and in the West, and their relationship appears to have been conflictual, according to what Claudian hints at in his poems. This article therefore aims at examining such tensions, but also at studying them in the light of a potential political and social crisis within the Roman empire, through the prism of broken fraternity as a metaphor for a much deeper crisis.

Key Words : Claudian, Honorius, brotherhood, conflict, crisis.

---

Adrien Bresson (17/10/1996 – adrien.bresson@ac-lyon.fr) is professeur agrégé and teaches Classics at the Universities of Lyon and Saint-Étienne, France. He is currently working on his upcoming PhD, Scribere De Me, Writing About Oneself in the 4^th century AD in the poetry of Claudian and Ausonius, with the HiSoMA laboratory. He has published a number of articles in scientific reviews such as Adrien Bresson « Le je dans les livres I et II des Confessions d’Augustin : de la modernité autobiographique à l’effacement du moi », Vita Latina, n° 202, 2022, p. 23-39 ; Adrien Bresson, « Claudian’s Gigantomachia : Coping with Reality and Dealing with Loss », Vox patrum, vol. 82, juin 2022, https://doi.org/10.31743/vp.12908 ; Adrien Bresson, « Les bornes du comique dans quelques épigrammes sexuelles d’Ausone et de Claudien », Methodos, n° 23, 2023, https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/10216 ; Adrien Bresson et Blandine Demotz, « Destinataires ou figurantes : la place des femmes dans quelques lettres et poèmes adressés de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance chez Ausone, Claudien et Thomas Cromwell », in Genre et sources. Lecture, relecture, mélecture depuis l’Antiquité, Adrien Bresson, Alice Baudequin, Jonathan Raffin eds., Neuville-sur-Saone, Chemin de Tr@verses, p. 43-71. For further information see https://adrienbresson.com/

---

Introduction

At the end of the fourth century, and more specifically when emperor Theodosius died in 395, the Roman Empire was divided into two parts: one of these parts became the Eastern Roman Empire and was ruled by Arcadius, and the other became the Western Roman Empire and was governed by Honorius, after the empire had remained united under the rule of Theodosius for a few years^[1]. Before such a turn of events, however, and even before Theodosius’ death, the fourth century was characterised by the existence of pockets of influence, under the authority of various rulers who, more often than not, governed in concordance and divided the different areas between themselves in order to have a tighter grasp on the territory they were ruling^[2]. This system is referred to as the tetrarchy until the end of Licinius’ reign in 324. During the tetrarchy, the power was divided between four individuals – or between two individuals between 286 and 293 when the Empire briefly experimented with dyarchy. These two systems, however, remained under imperial authority^[3]. It is also important to mention that after 330, the imperial administration was shared by two capitals, whereas the Roman territory was divided in four praetorian prefectures, pointing at a certain tendency for division within the Roman territory, at least on the geographical level, perhaps mimicking a larger political movement.

Claudian’s poems evidence the fact that, at the end of the fourth century, there were two concomitant dynamics: on the one hand, the partition of the Empire triggered a territorial crisis between the East and the West^[4], which could be the result of a second dynamics, that of the hypothesis of a familial crisis between Theodosius’ sons, Honorius and Arcadius. While Claudian prospered as the official poet of the Empire, several political difficulties arose, and among them the invasion of Rome by the Goths, led by Alaric, between 398 and 404, which was an indirect consequence of the weakening of a divided Empire. The secession of Africa, governed by Gildo, was, however, a direct consequence of the partition, since the governor had decided to take advantage of the political context in order to switch areas of influence and be under Eastern influence rather than under Western influence.

One of the aims of this study is to observe the different facets of such a political and military crisis in Claudian’s poems, while he briefly acted as official poet for Theodosius, only for a few weeks, and then for a longer period of time for Honorius, between 395 and 404^[5]. It seems difficult to imagine a de facto partition at the death of Theodosius without a preexisting feud between the two brothers: this feud therefore could have been the reason why the partition of the Empire happened – under the influence of the sovereign’s respective ministers –, after Theodosius decided to award each of his sons a territorial influence. If one is to trust Claudian’s version of Theodosius, this system of spheres of influence was not supposed to impact the unity of the Empire; it did, however, effectively endanger the ancient romanitas^[6]. The main aim of this study is therefore to investigate, through Claudian’s poems, whether the familial and the territorial crises were concomitant, if they were linked and if the poet was aware of such a link, and, in that case, how he reacted to it. In order to answer these questions, I shall first observe the recurring theme of the family being torn apart in Claudian’s poems – which mainly consists in celebrations of consulships and important battles, along with a few epigrams and mythological poems –, before reading the family crisis as a symbol of the territorial crisis. It will then be necessary to question Claudian’s praising of Roman unity and its effects.

The recurring theme of a torn family

Mythological poems and images

Family, in Antiquity, was particularly important^[7], so much so that it remained foundational all through Late Antiquity^[8], and different authors, such as Ausonius with his Parentalia^[9], for instance, celebrated family and the links uniting its members in their works. The celebration of family and of the union between its members is to be understood through the lens of the Roman pietas, which was a concept designating the respect due to an ancestor or to a family member^[10]. This concept also lays the foundations for a close link to be established between family and the state of a society, since the pietas can also be read as a form of respect due to an institution, a city or a society^[11]. Claudian’s poems are not exempt from examples of pietas: it appears in his short poems, for which the poet chose different figurative themes. These thematic choices often bear witness to the symbolic value of the objects of the poems.

The seventeenth poem of the Carmina minora, for instance, celebrates two pious brothers and their statues. These statues are said to have been sculpted in order to glorify a feat, which Claudian starts by recounting, before describing the statues. The feat appears to have taken place during the eruption of Mount Etna, and in this peculiar context, the poet depicts the two brothers as very pious when it comes to their ancestors, as can be seen in lines 5 to 7 :

Conplexi manibus fultos ceruice parentes

            attollunt uultus adcelerantque gradus.

Grandaeui gemina sublimes prole feruntur […]^[12].

Embracing their parents, who were clinging to their necks, they are keeping their heads up and hurrying their pace. Both children are holding the old persons high.

In this excerpt, both brothers are depicted as united saviours, which transforms them into an artistic object worthy of Claudian’s poems, and which also explains why, in a sort of mise en abyme, the poet describes a sculptor busy setting their action in stone, in lines 25-26 of the same poem :

Et noua germanis paribus discrimina praebens

            diuisit uultus cum pietate faber^[13].

With new distinctions for these similar brothers, the artist piously represented their faces.

The fact that Claudian should dwell on this specific episode questions the poet’s motives in his depiction of it. It is as if the brothers were behaving so differently from reality that they deserved to be immortalised twice, first by a sculptor, and then by Claudian. This insistence on the action of representing them draws attention to the exemplarity of their action and of their dedication to their family. This deeply contrasts with other familial relationships like those belonging to mythology depicted in Claudian’s poems, and specifically in his Gigantomachia, which is the fifty-third poem of his Carmina minora. In this poem, Claudian, while drawing upon a common mythological theme, relates the myth of the war between the Giants and the Gods, both being children of the Earth. Even though there are all brothers, they are plagued by infighting and are at war for the right to rule the world. The introduction of the poem, between lines 1 to 5 and 12 to 13, reminds the reader of the familial relationship supposed to unite the protagonists of the poem :

Terra parens quondam caelestibus inuida regnis

Titanumque simul crebros miserata dolores

omnia monstrifero conplebat Tartara fetu,

inuisum genitura nefas ; Phlegramque retexit

tanta prole tumens et in aethera protulit hostes. […]

                                             Tum feruida natos

[…] hortatur genetrix ad proelia […]^[14].

One day, Mother Earth, who was jealous of the celestial reign and also taking pity on the repeated pains of the Titans, filled the whole Tartarus with a monstrous litter in order to create a heinous crime; she opened Phlegra, proud of her descent, and launched it in an assault into the ether. […] Then, the ardent mother exhorted her sons to the battle […].

In this excerpt, the vocabulary of family and filiation (parens, prole, natos, genetrix) only characterises the relationship between the Earth and the Giants, even though the Gods are also supposed to be part of that same family. However, the familial conflict that occurred seems to have troubled their relationship, which is why the fraternity between Gods and Giants appears to be so torn apart that it is not even worth mentioning. Wars and dissensions nevertheless still remain, and these aspects also appear in Claudian’s historical poems when families are featured.

Historical poems

The mention of Honorius and Arcadius in Claudian’s works can sometimes be a way to remind the reader of the difficult relationship between the two brothers^[15]. In that regard, any reader could have expected Claudian’s works to feature the reasons behind the family feud, but the fact that the poet should choose not to mention them actually draws attention to their breaking away without pointing fingers, which is a more implicit way of describing the current situation. In the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius, celebrated in 396, for instance, lines 151 to 153 depict a dying Theodosius who, in a prosopopoeia, delivers a speech addressed to Stilicho and, in doing so, mentions – according to Stilicho himself – what he wanted the Empire to become after his death :

Ergo age, me quoniam caelestis regia poscit,

tu curis succede meis, tu pignora solus

nostra foue : geminos dextra tu protege fratres^[16].

But then, since I am awaited by the celestial palace, it is your turn to bear my worries, you alone take care of my children, and with your arm, defend both brothers.

This panegyric was written and delivered in 396. Claudian depicts the two parts of the Empire as drifting apart, while they both should have been placed under Stilicho’s domination, which illustrates that at the time of Honorius’ third consulship, Claudian seemed to have already been aware of the failed union between Honorius and Arcadius. This awareness echoes an episode that the poet recounts and presents as true to the facts: according to Claudian, Theodosius had arranged for Stilicho to oversee Arcadius and Honorius’ control over their respective territories^[17]. This episode however seems to be entirely fictitious as no other source corroborates it. In the aforementioned excerpt from the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius, Theodosius confirms that the Empire should have remained united, and in doing so, he underlines what should have been, which is all the more striking since it is mentioned at the precise moment when Honorius should be celebrated, putting forth the family feud. The fact that Claudian should insist on tu in lines 151 and 152, which singularises Stilicho as the saviour of a unity that could have been possible before the partition, as well as on the number two (geminos) – underlining the fact that the brothers are two beings and not one solid unit – creates a discrepancy between what is and what should have been that draws attention to a lack of fraternity between Honorius and Arcadius without naming it precisely. Claudian, however, is to this day the only literary source to present Theodosius entrusting Stilicho to oversee the whole Empire. This is perhaps because Stilicho’s domination could have been contested at the time, leading Claudian to recount this scene as a way to legitimise Stilicho’s as well as to praise the union of the Empire as a whole in depicting a scene very likely to have been fictitious. Such a portrayal also reminds of Micipsa entrusting his adoptive son Jugurtha with his two children, Adherbal and Hiempsal^[18], an episode featured in the Historia Augusta^[19]. This story can be linked with the fictional dimension of Claudian’s recounting since it could have been a source of inspiration for the poet. Fiction emphasizes the discrepancy between what could have been – the union – and what actually is – the partition, even though the excerpt does not explicitly mention the latter.

This situation, however, is not only referred to implicitly: on the contrary, it is sometimes pinpointed with some degree of precision, like by Theodosius, because the former emperor appears in Claudian’s poems as an instance powerful enough to discuss the troubled relationship between the two emperors and brothers. In lines 236 and 237 of the War against Gildo, for example, Theodosius describes the state of the relationship between his sons through a prosopopoeia :

Hoc erat ? In fratres medio discordia Mauro

nascitur et mundus germanaque dissidet aula^[20] ?

Was that it ? Because of a Moor, between two brothers, discord arises and the world is divided between two twin courts ?

Theodosius’ evocation of the context his sons are in is both clear and direct: as a father, he reports the situation his children are in, which is made all the more obvious with the fact that in line 236, discordia is framed by medio and Mauro, as if the discord were rather the consequence of Gildo’s actions than the cause of the empire’s geopolitical problems. This certainly evidences the symbolic value behind the distance that has grown between Honorius and Arcadius, since in ancient times, a united family was usually a symbol of unity in the city or in a vaster territory^[21].

The familial crisis symbolising a territorial crisis

The separation into different territories: the example of Africa

The secession of Gildo in 397 seems to have paved the way for a new African centrality^[22]. Before the secession and even before the partition, in 395, Gildo had overseen the province of Africa on behalf of the Western Roman Empire, before deciding to secede from this part of the Empire and to ally with the Eastern Roman Empire. Stilicho then led a punitive war against Gildo and won it quite easily. In the excerpt previously mentioned, the separation of Africa is identified by Theodosius as a cause for the family feud, since it certainly appeared necessary to justify the fact that the relationship between Honorius and Arcadius was deteriorating with no hope of being restored. This deterioration is regularly mentioned in Claudian’s works, and the fact that the poet should state that the relationship between the two brothers is over also seems to be a way to acknowledge that the two parts of the Empire have cut off ties for good and can no longer be considered as a sole entity. Family dissensions thus appear to bear a symbolic value regarding the dynamic of territories and their separation, and not the opposite, contrary to what Claudian’s Theodosius was suggesting. It is interesting, however, to remark that in the beginning of the War against Gildo, Claudian starts by explaining the resolution of the conflict, in lines 4-5 :

Iunximus Europen Libyae. Concordia fratrum

plena redit^[23].

We united Europe and Libya. The concord between the brothers is once again absolute.

The fact that the resolution of the conflict should be announced in the first lines of the poem points to the difficulty of acknowledging the dissension, whether it be familial or territorial. Announcing its resolution should therefore make it easier to be accepted. Furthermore, fratrum could either designate the territories of Europe and Libye or Honorius and Arcadius, which illustrates a symbolical superposition of the territorial and the familial crises. The simple assertion concordia fratrum plena redit, with the present redit, makes it look like the concord between the two brothers needed to be reasserted because it did not appear particularly obvious to the contemporaries, hence the need to put it to the fore.

As to the link between the familial and the territorial crises, it is clear that the familial dissension between Honorius and Arcadius tainted the relationship between Rome and Africa^[24] – since Arcadius’ Empire was partly responsible for Africa’s secession –, and this consequentially appears through the use of references to family in the speech delivered by a personified version of Africa in the War against Gildo, in l. 153 :

Gildoni fecunda fui^[25].

I was fertile for Gildo.

This passage underlines a form of unity between Gildo and Africa, but the fact that the sentence should be so short and using such a peremptory tone, associated with the use of the perfect tense (fui), materialises the end of the relationship. It thus seems that the family feud, characterised in Claudian’s poems by the image of a torn family, symbolises the end of an era for the Roman Empire, and in this situation, the secession of Africa is not Rome’s only concern.

The partition of the Empire as the end of Romanitas ?

Since the death of the emperor Theodosius in 395 AD, the Roman Empire had been split in two parts: the Western part had been given to Honorius, and the Eastern part to Arcadius^[26]. One of the many issues with Honorius as a ruler was that he was very young when he accessed the throne, and as such, he was incapable of ruling the Empire by himself^[27]. To resolve this issue, Stilicho, his general in chief, became regent. Meanwhile, the two parts of the Empire were drifting apart, hence the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire tacitly supported Africa’s secession, because two sons from the same father ruling two lands that used to be part of one Empire should, according to the historical heritage of the tetrarchy and of the diarchy of the third and fourth centuries^[28], support each other and not fight one another. However, since the familial crisis also entailed a territorial crisis that appeared to be a mutation of the former, pockets of discord materialised between both Empires. The acme of such disagreements certainly happened when one of the rulers was not acknowledged as such by his counterparts, which occurred quite regularly^[29]. For that same reason, Stilicho, who was general in chief and regent of the West, was considered as hostis publicus by the East until 400. In the same way, as part of his office of official poet, Claudian wrote several uituperationes against Rufinus and Eutropius, who were both consuls of the East, the former having been appointed in 396, and the latter in 399. Claudian’s poems decried them as being unfit for the job. Eutropius, for example, was a eunuch, and for Claudian, it seems to have been an unbearable offense that such an individual should rule a part of what once was the Roman Empire. The fact that Eutropius should de facto govern the Eastern Roman Empire – on behalf of Arcadius – thus appears to be indicative of what could happen, should the global political context progress further towards the end of romanitas, which designates the political and cultural practices according to which the Romans defined themselves^[30]. Being ruled by a eunuch was not one of them, which explains the poet’s indignation in the first part of In Eutropium, in lines 7 and 8 :

Et geminos soles mirari desinat orbis !

Omnia cesserunt eunucho consule monstra^[31].

And may the world not marvel about twin suns ! All of these miracles are defeated by a eunuch acting as consul.

The mention of geminos soles could remind of Honorius and Arcadius, without naming them explicitly, even though this hypothesis is debatable since the miracles appear rather ominous. Even if these soles are said to be geminos, they appear to be juxtaposed rather than united, perhaps accurately depicting the relationship between Honorius and Arcadius : were they united, they would not have been mentioned in all their duality. These geminos soles can thus act as a symbol of the ongoing familial feud leading to the eunucho consule, which symbolises a violation of romanitas, in connection with the territorial crisis due to the familial crisis. It appears plausible that, in the various passages dealing with romanitas, Claudian, who is known as the Roma aeterna poet ^[32], did not fully believe in the end of Rome, all the more so since the theme of Roma aeterna persisted after Claudian’s death, as one can observe in Rutilius Namatianus’ poetry for example^[33]. Claudian’s development may thus mostly be understood as a warning against the risks of an ending romanitas.

Some of the images featured in the official poems seem to symbolically confirm this perspective. In the War against the Goths, for instance, which deals with Stilicho’s victory in 403 against the Barbaric invasion^[34], Claudian describes in lines 249-257 the monstra announcing the said invasion. Among these omens, there seems to be a reference to the familial and political crises between the two parts of the Roman Empire :

Sed grauius mentes caesorum ostenta luporum

horrificant. Duo quippe lupi sub principis ora,

dum campis exercet equos, uiolenter adorti

agmen et excepti telis inmane relatu

prodigium miramque notam duxere futuri.

Nam simul humano geminas de corpore palmas

utraque perfossis emisit belua costis :

illo laeua tremens, hoc dextera uentre latebat,

intentis ambae digitis et sanguine uiuo^[35].

But it is the incredible event of the slain wolves which terrifies the spirit the most. Indeed, two wolves, just before the prince’s eyes, as he was training his horses in the plains, quickly assault his troop and they suffer our arrows: it is an incredible and monstrous event to tell, they gave a staggering omen for our future. Two hands from a human body burst out of the flanks of the two beasts: a left hand was jolting out of a stomach, and another was hiding the right hand, both stretching a finger covered in blood.

The fact that two wolves should have been killed, giving birth to the gruesome vision of two hands in agony, needing to be rescued, shows that the familial crisis – made quite obvious by the use of the image of two lacerated hands –, is also to be linked with Claudian warning against the end of romanitas, put forth by the motif of the death of the wolves, which used to be one of Rome’s symbols^[36], even if Claudian often advocated for union in his poems.

Praising unity and its effects

Praising the unity of the family

Many of Claudian’s poems – like the one mentioned above – feature excerpts in which there is a strong insistence on the motif of unity, and especially on familial unity. However, even if the familial dissension between the two emperor brothers had been common knowledge, Claudian, as the official poet, could not have made the crisis too obvious, and thus could not have expressed it too openly^[37]. It is also essential to remember that the dissension between the two brothers is not an isolated event, and is rather deeply rooted in the divide between the brothers’ respective ministers. In that regard, it is not surprising that Claudian, as the official poet of the Occidental part, should be praising Stilicho while blaming various Oriental consuls, as Rufin or Eutropius^[38]. Even if the tensions occurring between the Oriental and the Occidental parts could have resulted mainly from interactions between the ministers – since Arcadius and Honorius were still very young at that time – the fiction of harmony between the brothers was difficult to maintain, as global dissensions caused them to drift apart. The poet therefore had to resort to other means, as can be seen in lines 7 to 9 of the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius – written in honour of Honorius’ consulship in 396. In this extract, Claudian celebrates Honorius and Arcadius :

Tuque o qui patrium curis aequalibus orbem

Eoo cum fratre regis, procede secundis

Alitibus Phoebique nouos ordire meatus […]^[39].

You, who govern, along with your brother in Orient and as caringly as him, the world of your father, proceed under happy auspices, and open Phebus’ new ring […].

This excerpt entirely revolves around the familial motif. The fact that the two brothers are not very close is not concealed by the poet, as he even specifies with Eoo fratre that the spheres of influence were equally divided, depending on the area of the world. This specification results in an implicit mention of the partition, even if the excerpt mainly relies on the notion of unity, as can be seen with the complements cum fratre or curis aequalibus, or even with the mention of patrium. All these aspects participate in the creation of a specific familial context under the authority of Theodosius, who is mentioned as a father and acting like one. One of the focal points of the excerpt is thus that the union should be at the same time praised and reasserted, as if the division between the brothers and the partition of the Empire were negated.

As we have seen previously, one of the literary means used by Claudian is to represent Theodosius speaking in direct speech when expressing his desire for unity between the two parts of the Empire, which entails an acknowledgement of the fact that they were not as united anymore, but Claudian also praises unity through the use of images and comparisons, as in the Panegyric on the Fourth Consulship of Honorius, between lines 203 and 209 :

Laetior augurio genitor natisque superbus

iam paribus duplici fultus consorte redibat

splendebatque pio complexus pignora curru.

Haud aliter summo gemini cum patre Lacones,

Progenies Ledaea, sedent : in utroque relucet

frater, utroque soror ; similis chlamys effluit auro ;

stellati pariter crines^[40].

Satisfied with this omen and proud of his sons, who were now equals, the father was heading back, leaning on his two companions; he was beaming on his sacred chariot and embracing his two children. This is how the Laconian twins, Leda’s progeny, reign with the supreme father; the father shines on both of them, on the brother as well as on the sister; their identical chlamys are dripping with gold, and their hair is also adorned.

Here, Theodosius and his two sons are compared by the poet to Jupiter and his children, Castor and Pollux, in a metaphorical evocation. This can be read as an invitation for both children to behave according to the divine model. The accumulation of divine characteristics (pio curru, similis chlamys auro, stellati partier crines) can be understood as a means to flatter the brothers in order to exhort them to unite, which is why it appears interesting to observe the effect of this exhortation on the crisis, especially at a territorial level.

Praising the unity of a dual Empire ?

Insisting on the unity of the imperial family is not as controversial as one may imagine, because even if such a focus puts forth the break between the two brothers, many of the people to whom the poem was going to be read were unaware of the family crisis that was under way^[41]. In fact, only the elite closest to power would have known about the feud and the widening gap between the two brothers^[42], which was most probably caused by the differences between their respective ministers. Insisting on this aspect could thus be understood as a means of deceiving the audience, even though the territorial crisis would quickly make the familial dissension obvious. When it comes to the territorial situation, it is difficult to imagine what the poet’s contemporaries knew of the separation between the Western and the Eastern parts of the Roman Empire^[43], or the secession of Africa, but the fact that Claudian should insist on unity by praising it points to the fact that the two parts of the Empire are not actually united. In that regard, insisting on unity can be an implicit way of revealing disunity. The preface of the Panegyric on the Consulship of Manlius Theodorus, which was delivered in 399, features an interesting example of this situation in lines 11 to 16 :

Iuppiter, ut perhibent, spatium cum discere uellet

         naturae, regni nescius ipse sui,

armigeros utrinque duos aequalibus alis

misit ab Eois Occiduisque plagis.

Parnasus geminos fertur iunxisse uolatus ;

         contulit alternas Pythius axis aues^[44].

Jupiter who, according to the story, was ignorant of his own realm and wanted to know how far nature stretched out, sent on both sides two squire eagles equal in flight, one from Orient, the other from Occident. Their two flights met, apparently, on Parnassus; the sky of the Pythian god united both birds.

The union of the eagles is to be understood as a metaphor of the potential crisis under way between the two parts of the Empire, should they remain united despite the break between their two territories. This theme is heavily insisted on throughout this extract through the recurrence of images of equality and the occurrences aequalibus, utrinque, geminos or iunxisse, together with the binarity of the world’s regions that are mirroring each other (Eois Occiduisque). This description thus appears to be a way for the poet to praise the union of the Empire without being too pressing about it, in order not to diminish the actual state of the union, which would have amounted to a criticism of the state of the Western Roman Empire during Claudian’s time.

Conclusion

At the end of this study, the territorial dissension appears to be inextricably linked to the family feud between Honorius and Arcadius, since Claudian’s works feature a literary version of Theodosius who, in several prosopopoeias – that is to say literary fictions –, asks for unity between the brothers, and does not seem to understand why they do not get along. According to the imperial father, since his sons were brothers, they should support each other. Theodosius’ wishes were not met, however, if one is to believe the recurrent images of a torn family that appear in Claudian’s poems. Such images, especially when they relate to Honorius and Arcadius, are often associated with territorial dissension – mainly because of the role played by the ministers belonging to each part of the Empire –, which seems to suggest that both events were concomitant and of particular importance for the poet. It could thus be interesting, in contrast with this study, to confront such a perspective with the long history of fraternal differences in ancient literature. Indeed, discord between two brothers is a recurring theme which is part of a tradition built on the opposition between Eteocles and Polynices, Romulus and Remus, Nero and Britannicus or Caracalla and Geta^[45]. In that regard, confronting Claudian’s writing of the dissension between Honorius and Arcadius at a literary level to other works may reveal how inserted the poet is in tradition, as well as his own additions to the theme.

---

Bibliography

Sources

Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 1ère partie. Tome II, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2002.

Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2ème partie. Tome II, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2002.

Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles   Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2017.

Claudien, Petit poèmes. Tome IV, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection  des Universités de France », 2018.

R.P.H. Green, The Works of Ausonius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991.

Salluste, Jugurtha, 10, Alfred Ernout ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 1941.

Studies

J.N. Adamans, « ‘Romanitas’ and the Latin Language », The Classical Quarterly, vol. 53, 2003, p. 184-205.

Christophe Badel, « Honneur et vengeance familiale dans la Rome républicaine », in Honneur et dignité dans le monde antique, Christophe Badel et Henri Fernoux eds., Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2023, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pur.193510.

Stéphane Benoist, Rome. Des origines au VI^e siècle de notre ère, Paris, Presses Universitaires de  France, 2016.

François Bougard, « Entre Latins et Grecs : émulation et rivalité autour de l’Empire, VII^e-X^e siècle », Rives méditerranéennes, n° 58, 2019, p. 65-77.

Nicolas Boulic, « Les conflits familiaux dans les romans antiques : la médiation du théâtre », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 2, 2010, p. 88-111.

Adrien Bresson, « 395-402 : tournant de siècle et changement de régime à Rome », Volumen, n° 25-26, 2022, p. 11-27.

Claude Briand-Ponsart, Christophe Hugoniot, L’Afrique romaine. De l’Atlantique à la Tripolitaine – 146 av. J.-C. – 533 ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2005.

Alan Cameron, « Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho », Classical Philology, vol. 73, 1969, p. 247-280.

G. Camps, « Adherbal », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 2, 1985, p. 125-126.

Jacqueline Champeaux, « Pietas : piété personnelle et piété collective à Rome », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 3, 1989, p. 263-279.

Jean-Louis Charlet, « Claudien, chantre païen de Roma aeterna », Koinonia, n° 37, p. 255-269.

André Chastagnol, « Le poète et l’Histoire Auguste », Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte,  n° 19, 1970, p. 444-463.

Jean-Claude Cheynet, Histoire de Byzance, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Que sais-je ? », 2023.

Blandine Colot, Pietas dans la transformation religieuse du IV^e siècle. L’apport de Lactance, le « Cicéron chrétien », Thèse soutenue à l’université de Lille en 1997.

Clare Coombe, Claudian the Poet, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Pierre Cosme, L’armée romaine. VIII^e s. av. J.-C.-V^e s. ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2012.

Aurélie Damet, Famille et société dans le monde grec et en Italie. V^e s. av. J.-C.-IIe s. av. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2019.

Julien Dubouloz, « Famille (Antiquité romaine) », in Dictionnaire du fouet et de la fessée. Corriger et punir, Isabelle Poutrin ed., Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Hors    collection », 2022, p. 307-310.

Bruno Dumézil, Servir l’Etat barbare dans la Gaule franque, Paris, Tallandier, « Hors collection », 2013.

Florence Garambois-Vasquez, Les invectives de Claudien. Une poétique de la violence, Bruxelles, Latomus, 2007.

Carlos G. Garcia Mac Gaw, Le problème du baptême dans le schisme donatiste, Pessac, Ausonius Éditions, 2008, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.3812

Evelyn Granjon, « Étéocle et Polynice, frères ennemis », Imaginaire & Inconscient, n° 18, 2006, p. 21-28.

John F Haldon, « Quelques conclusions pour l’empire d’Orient », Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne, n° 5, 1993, p. 465-466.

Gilbert Hanard, « Aux origines de la famille romaine. Critiques de la méthode de P. Bonfante », Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques, vol. 5, 1980, p. 63-115.

Michel Humm, Religions et pouvoir dans le monde romain 218 av. J.-C.-250 ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Horizon », 2021.

Hervé Inglebert, Histoire de la civilisation romaine, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Nouvelle Clio », 2005, p. 451-482.

Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti, L’individu dans la famille à Rome au IV^e siècle d’après l’œuvre d’Ambroise de Milan, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2015.

Henri-Irénée Marrou, « La fin du monde antique vue par les contemporains », Christiana tempora. Mélanges d’histoire, d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et de patristique, n° 35, 1978, p. 79-85.

Sonia Martinelli-Soncarrieu, Pietas : recherches sur l’exercice et l’expression de la piété à Rome et dans l’Occident romain sous les Julio-Claudiens et les Flaviens, Thèse soutenue à Paris 4 en 1996.

Delphine Meunier, Claudien. Une poétique de l’épopée, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2019.

Georges Minois, Histoire du Moyen Âge, Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses Historiques », 2016.

Yves Modéran, « Gildon, les Maures et l’Afrique », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, t. 101, 1989, p. 821-872.

Yves Modéran, « Gildon », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 20, 1998, p. 3134-3136.

Douglas O’Roark, « Parenthood in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of Chrysostom », Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, n° 40, 1999, p. 53-81.

François Paschoud, Romae Aeterna. Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l’Occident latin à l’époque des grandes invasions, Neuchâtel, Institut suisse de Rome, 1967, p. 13-46.

Gilbert-Charles Picard, « La louve romaine, du mythe au symbole », Revue archéologique, n° 2, 1987, p. 251-263.

Bernard Rémy, Dioclétien. L’Empire restauré, Paris, Armand Colin, « Nouvelles biographies  historiques », 2016.

Philippe Richardot, La fin de l’armée romaine (284-476), Paris, Éditions Economica, 1998.

Jérôme Sella, « Rupture dynastique et mémoire des empereurs romains (68-69 apr. J.-C.) », Revue historique, n° 673, 2015, p. 3-44.

Alfonso Traina, « Pietas », Encilopedia Virgiliana, IV, Rome, 1988, p. 99-101.

Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », in La fin des Empires, Patrice Gueniffey and Thierry Lentz ed., Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses  Historiques », 2016, p. 45-67.

Catherine Ware, Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Vincent Zarini, « Histoire, panégyrique et poésie : trois éloges de Rome l’éternelle autour de l’an 400 (Ammien Marcellin, Claudien, Rutilius Namatianus », Ktèma : civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de la Rome antiques, n° 24, p. 167-179.

---

^[1] On the general context of the partition of the Roman Empire since Theodosius’ death in 395, see Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », in La fin des Empires, Patrice Gueniffey and Thierry Lentz ed., Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses Historiques », 2016, p. 45-67.

^[2] On the division of influence in the Roman Empire before its partition in order to have greater influence over territories, see Stéphane Benoist, Rome. Des origines au VI^e siècle de notre ère, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2016, p. 215-232.

^[3] On the shift from tetrarchy to dyarchy and the government of the Roman empire in the 4^th century, see Bernard Rémy, Dioclétien. L’Empire restauré, Paris, Armand Colin, « Nouvelles biographies historiques », 2016, p. 38-56.

^[4] For a synthetic approach of the crisis between the East and the West at the time of Theodosius’ death and in the following years, see Adrien Bresson, « 395-402 : tournant de siècle et changement de régime à Rome », Volumen, n° 25-26, 2022, p. 11-27.

^[5] For a biographical presentation of Claudian, and on his role as official poet and panegyrist of Theodosius and Honorius, see Delphine Meunier, Claudien. Une poétique de l’épopée, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2019, p.15-32 ; see also Clare Coombe, Claudian the Poet, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, p. 3-14 ; see as well Catherine Ware, Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 2-18 ; finally, see Florence Garambois-Vasquez, Les invectives de Claudien. Une poétique de la violence, Bruxelles, Latomus, 2007, p. 5-24.

^[6] On the implications of the ancient romanitas and for a precise definition, see Hervé Inglebert, Histoire de la civilisation romaine, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Nouvelle Clio », 2005, p. 451-482.

^[7] About the importance of family in Roman antiquity, see Julien Dubouloz, « Famille (Antiquité romaine) », in Dictionnaire du fouet et de la fessée. Corriger et punir, Isabelle Poutrin ed., Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Hors collection », 2022, p. 307-310. See also Gilbert Hanard, « Aux origines de la famille romaine. Critiques de la méthode de P. Bonfante », Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques, vol. 5, 1980, p. 63-115.

^[8] About the importance of family in Late Antiquity, see the studies about the work of two authors, John Chrysostom (Douglas O’Roark, “Parenthood in Late Antiquity : The Evidence of Chrysostom”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, n° 40, 1999, p. 53-81) and Ambrosius (Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti, L’individu dans la famille à Rome au IV^e siècle d’après l’oeuvre d’Ambroise de Milan, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2015, p. 18-37).

^[9] R.P.H. Green, The Works of Ausonius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991, p. 25-40.

^[10] The pietas, in its personal dimension, is mainly considered as the respect shown by an individual towards his ancestors. See Sonia Martinelli-Soncarrieu, Pietas : recherches sur l’exercice et l’expression de la piété à Rome et dans l’Occident romain sous les Julio-Claudiens et les Flaviens, Thèse soutenue à Paris 4 en 1996. See also Alfonso Traina, « Pietas », Encilopedia Virgiliana, IV, Rome, 1988, p. 99-101. See as well Jacqueline Champeaux, « Pietas : piété personnelle et piété collective à Rome », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 3, 1989, p. 263-279. See also Michel Humm, Religions et pouvoir dans le monde romain 218 av. J.-C.-250 ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Horizon », 2021, p. 2-19. The concept of pietas is central to the religious transformation of the 4^th century, considering family was an important part of the Christian faith. See Blandine Colot, Pietas dans la transformation religieuse du IV^e siècle. L’apport de Lactance, le « Cicéron chrétien », Thèse soutenue à l’université de Lille en 1997.

^[11] From its familial implications, the concept of pietas also broadens to encapsulate society as a whole as a means to show respect to ancestors, who established the city as well as the institutions. On this aspect, see the previous references.

^[12] Claudien, Petit poèmes. Tome IV, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2018, p. 12. All the translations in this article are my own.

^[13] Ibid., p. 13.

^[14] Ibid., p. 75-76.

^[15] In the Panegyrics on the Fourth Consulship of Honorius, for instance, in lines 203-211, the comparison between, on the one hand, Honorius and Arcadius and, on the other hand, Castor and Pollux illustrates the importance of these characters as well as their union in brotherhood. See Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2^ème partie. Tome II, p. 19.

^[16] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 1^ère partie. Tome II, Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2002, p. 44.

^[17] About the effective partition of the Roman Empire and its perception, see Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », p. 45-67.

^[18] On this historical epsiode, see G. Camps, « Adherbal », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 2, 1985, p. 125-126.

^[19] This episode was recounted by Salluste, Jugurtha, 10, Alfred Ernout ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 1941. This episode is also explicitly referred to in Histoire Auguste, « Septime Sévère », 21.

^[20] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2^ème partie. Tome II, p. 137.

^[21] On family as a symbol of unity in ancient territories, see Aurélie Damet, Famille et société dans le monde grec et en Italie. V^e s. av. J.-C.-II^e s. av. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2019, p. 31-38.

^[22] About Africa as led by Gildo, its secession and Stilicho’s action on Rome’s behalf, see Alan Cameron, « Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho », Classical Philology, vol. 73, 1969, p. 247-280. See also Yves Modéran, « Gildon, les Maures et l’Afrique », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, t. 101, 1989, p. 821-872.

^[23] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2^ème partie. Tome II, p. 122.

^[24] On the specific relationship between Rome and Africa, see two works our study is based on: Claude Briand-Ponsart, Christophe Hugoniot, L’Afrique romaine. De l’Atlantique à la Tripolitaine – 146 av. J.-C. – 533 ap. J.-C, Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2005, p. 284-347 ; Yves Modéran, « Gildon », Encyclopédie berbère, n° 20, 1998, p. 3134-3136.

^[25] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2^ème partie. Tome II, p. 132.

^[26] On this particular aspect, for more historical context, see Jean-Louis Voisin, « 2. La longue agonie de l’Empire romain d’Occident », p. 45-67.

^[27] About the political situation under Arcadius and, more specifically, under Honorius, see Carlos G. Garcia Mac Gaw, Le problème du baptême dans le schisme donatiste, Pessac, Ausonius Éditions, 2008, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.3812.

^[28] On this aspect see Stéphane Benoist, Rome. Des origines au VI^e siècle de notre ère, p. 215-232. See also Bernard Rémy, Dioclétien. L’Empire restauré, p. 198-217.

^[29] About the disagreements between East and West as detailed above, see John F. Haldon, « Quelques conclusions pour l’empire d’Orient », Mémoires de l’Association française d’archéologie mérovingienne, n° 5, 1993, p. 465-466. See also François Bougard, « Entre Latins et Grecs : émulation et rivalité autour de l’Empire, VII^e-X^e siècle », Rives méditerranéennes, n° 58, 2019, p. 65-77.

^[30] About the concept of romanitas and about the definition we are giving, see J. N. Adamans, « “Romanitas” and the Latin Language », The Classical Quarterly, vol. 53, 2003, p. 184-205.

^[31] Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), Jean-Louis Charlet ed., Paris, Les Belles Lettres, « Collection des Universités de France », 2017, p. 34.

^[32] About Claudian as the poet of Roma aeterna, see Jean-Louis Charlet, « Claudien, chantre païen de Roma aeterna », Koinonia, n° 37, p. 255-269. See also Vincent Zarini, « Histoire, panégyrique et poésie : trois éloges de Rome l’éternelle autour de l’an 400 (Ammien Marcellin, Claudien, Rutilius Namatianus », Ktèma : civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de la Rome antiques, n° 24, p. 167-179.

^[33] About the ongoing thematic of Roma aeterna – which perdures during the fourth and the fifth century – at the time of barbaric invasions, see François Paschoud, Romae Aeterna. Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l’Occident latin à l’époque des grandes invasions, Neuchâtel, Institut suisse de Rome, 1967, p. 13-46.

^[34] On this invasion and on Stilicho’s victory on behalf of Honorius in 403, see Pierre Cosme, L’armée romaine. VIII^e s. av. J.-C.-V^e s. ap. J.-C., Paris, Armand Colin, « Collection U », 2012, p. 243-266. See also Philippe Richardot, La fin de l’armée romaine (284-476), Paris, Éditions Economica, 1998.

^[35] Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), p. 203-204.

^[36] On the wolf as a symbol of the Roman Empire throughout the centuries, see Gilbert-Charles Picard, « La louve romaine, du mythe au symbole », Revue archéologique, n° 2, 1987, p. 251-263. This symbol can be linked with that of the twelve vultures seen by Romulus and symbolising Rome’s lifespan. Claudian may have been writing in the wake of this original warning of the end of romanitas when he depicted the prodigy of the hands coming out of the wolves.

^[37] According to Carlos G. Garcia Mac Gaw (Le problème du baptême dans le schisme donatiste, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.3812) the feud between Honorius and Arcadius may not have been completely ignored by their contemporaries. However, the role of an official poet probably was not to dwell too much on this aspect (see André Chastagnol, « Le poète et l’Histoire Auguste », Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, n° 19, 1970, p. 444-463), even if not mentioning it may have seemed to be biased. The poet thus appears to be sitting on the fence, between describing what happens and not insisting too much on the negative aspects.

^[38] About Claudian’s invectives towards the Oriental consuls in order to praise Stilicho, in a mirroring effect, see Florence Garambois-Vasquez, Les invectives de Claudien. Une poétique de la violence, p. 244-248.

^[39] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 1^ère partie. Tome II, p. 34.

^[40] Claudien, Œuvres. Poèmes politiques (395-398). 2^ème partie. Tome II, p. 19.

^[41] On this aspect and the familiarisation of the population of the Empire with the gap between Honorius and Arcadius, see Georges Minois, Histoire du Moyen Âge, Paris, Perrin, « Synthèses Historiques », 2016, p. 23-45. See also Jean-Claude Cheynet, Histoire de Byzance, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, « Que sais-je ? », 2023, p. 5-27.

^[42] According to Bruno Dumézil (Servir l’État barbare dans la Gaule franque, Paris, Tallandier, « Hors collection », 2013, p. 23-78) there lies in the relationship of the Roman elite and its participation to the life of the Empire a certain knowledge of the contemporaneous situation. It is thus likely that the elite would have been aware of the division between Honorius and Arcadius, and between their respective ministers, since many signs were very telling: the secession of Africa, the fact that Stilicho should have been considered as hostis publicus in Orient, …

^[43] On the difficulty of assessing exactly what the contemporaries knew or not, since we are lacking sources which could infirm or confirm our suppositions, see Henri-Irénée Marrou’s reflections on the end of the Roman world and the perception of its contemporaries: Henri-Irénée Marrou, “La fin du monde antique vue par les contemporains”, Christiana tempora. Mélanges d’histoire, d’archéologie, d’épigraphie et de patristique, n° 35, 1978, p. 79-85.

^[44] Claudien, Œuvres. Tome III. Poèmes politiques (399-404), p. 9.

^[45] On the dissension between Eteocles and Polynices, see Evelyn Granjon, « Étéocle et Polynice, frères ennemis », Imaginaire & Inconscient, n° 18, 2006, p. 21-28. On fraternal conflicts in ancient literature, see Nicolas Boulic, « Les conflits familiaux dans les romans antiques : la médiation du théâtre », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, n° 2, 2010, p. 88-111. On dissension as a traditional relationship between brothers during the Roman Republic and at the time of the Roman Empire, see Christophe Badel, Honneur et dignité dans le monde antique, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2023, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pur.193510 ; see also Jérôme Sella, « Rupture dynastique et mémoire des empereurs romains (68-69 apr. J.-C.) », Revue historique, n° 673, 2015, p. 3-44.

 

Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International

Florence Bret

 

---

Résumé : Les scènes de conflit entre le héros et ses parents sont fréquentes dans les Vies de saint latines écrites entre le IV^e et le VI^e siècle. Elles jouent un rôle de transition entre le récit de l’enfance sainte et celui de la vie consacrée du protagoniste, marquant ainsi son entrée dans l’âge adulte et son rejet des projets mondains envisagés pour lui par ses parents. Plus topique qu’historique, ce motif narratif sert surtout à représenter l’opposition entre deux systèmes de valeurs : celui de la société traditionnelle romaine, puis chrétienne, et celui, plus radical, du mouvement monastique que les Vies présentent comme le moyen le plus sûr d’accéder à la sainteté.

Mots-clés : Hagiographie, conflit, monachisme, mariage, Antiquité tardive.

---

Florence Bret (11/10/1993) est actuellement Attachée Temporaire d’Enseignement et de Recherche à l’Université d’Angers. Elle a soutenu en 2023 une thèse intitulée :  « Écrire une Vie de saint entre le IV^e et le VI^e siècle. Étude de la formation d’un genre littéraire dans l’Antiquité tardive latine », préparée à l’Université Lyon 3 sous la direction de Bruno Bureau. Elle est également l’auteur, avec Marie-Céline Isaïa, du volume 610 de la collection « Sources Chrétiennes » Vie de sainte Geneviève.

Florence Bret, CIRPaLL, Université d’Angers // HiSoMA, Université Lyon 3

---

Introduction

Dans la mesure où les saints doivent pratiquer l’imitatio Christi^[1], c’est-à-dire non seulement suivre les préceptes des Écritures, mais également reproduire par leurs actes ceux de Jésus, le conflit familial ne semble pas avoir sa place dans le genre littéraire de la Vie de saint. En effet, si le Nouveau Testament incite tout disciple du Christ à rompre avec sa famille humaine (Mt 19, 29^[2]), la Bible prône plutôt l’obéissance des enfants à leurs parents, que ce soit dans le quatrième commandement (Ex 20, 12 ; Dt 5, 16) : « Honore ton père et ta mère » ou à travers le modèle fourni par le Christ lui-même dans l’Évangile de Luc (Lc 2, 51) : « Et il était soumis [à ses parents] ». C’est d’ailleurs ce dernier verset que cite la Vie de Fulgence de Ruspe, au milieu du VI^e siècle, pour décrire l’attitude du jeune saint vis-à-vis de sa mère après le décès de son père :

Il se soumettait tant aux volontés de sa mère que, en cela aussi, il se montrait imitateur du Christ dont les saints Évangiles rendent ce témoignage : Et il leur était soumis, c’est-à-dire, il était soumis à ses parents.^[3]

Ce comportement correspond à la fonction du topos^[4] de l’enfance dans l’éloge et la biographie de l’époque classique^[5] : le jeune protagoniste doit faire preuve, dès cette étape de son existence, des vertus qu’il possédera durant sa vie adulte^[6]. Les saints, dès lors, sont sages et pieux avant l’heure, de véritables pueri senes^[7], qui font montre en particulier de la qualité la plus notable des saints plus âgés : la constance de caractère^[8]. Le topos biographique, repris et christianisé par les Vies de l’Antiquité tardive, devient ainsi un topos hagiographique, celui de l’infantia sacra^[9]. Cette perfection et cette obéissance du saint à son père et à sa mère préparent le lecteur à percevoir la valeur symbolique du conflit familial, pourtant moralement critiquable, qui se produit parfois juste après, au moment où, entrant dans l’âge adulte, le saint est amené à s’opposer aux projets d’avenir parentaux pour choisir la vie consacrée.

Cette dispute entre parents et enfant n’est pas une composante essentielle des Vies latines de la fin de l’Antiquité et du tout début du Haut Moyen-Âge. En effet, elle peut être absente soit parce que les Vies s’ouvrent sur l’âge adulte du saint^[10], soit parce que l’hagiographe évite la question^[11], soit parce que les parents approuvent le choix de vie de leur enfant, voire organisent son entrée dans le clergé ou au monastère^[12]. Néanmoins, le thème est présent dans 11 Vies^[13] écrites entre le IV^e et le VI^e siècle.

La présence assez récurrente, donc, de ces scènes de conflit générationnel nous amène donc à nous interroger sur les raisons de leur présence dans des textes qui ont l’ambition de proposer des modèles de vie parfaite. Il s’agira donc de se demander quels sont les enjeux de ces oppositions et quelles sont les valeurs incarnées par les deux partis, afin de déterminer dans quelle mesure il est possible de proposer une lecture symbolique de ces passages. Pour cela, nous aborderons deux situations qui correspondent à la progression historique et idéologique du christianisme dans l’Occident latin : tout d’abord, le conflit entre un saint converti et ses parents païens, puis celui qui oppose un saint qui a choisi la radicalité de la vie monastique, hors du monde, à ses parents chrétiens mais insérés dans la société.

Le saint et ses parents non chrétiens

Cette situation est la première à apparaître dans notre corpus puisque, historiquement, elle correspond à des saints qui ont vécu avant que le processus de christianisation de l’ouest méditerranéen ne soit achevé^[14]. Le conflit naît de la volonté de conversion de l’enfant de parents non chrétiens, conversion qui s’accompagne toujours du choix du monachisme.

Le motif accompagne la naissance du genre littéraire de la Vie de saint en monde latin puisqu’il apparaît dès la Vie de Martin de Sulpice Sévère, à la toute fin du IV^e siècle, première vie écrite dans l’ouest de l’empire romain^[15]. Le jeune saint, déplore son hagiographe, est en effet né de parents païens :

Martin, donc, était originaire de la ville de Sabaria, en Pannonie, mais il fut élevé à Pavie en Italie, par ses parents qui n’étaient pas de petites gens, selon l’ordre de ce monde, mais qui étaient païens. Son père fut d’abord soldat avant de devenir tribun militaire. Lui-même, après avoir suivi la carrière des armes dans ses jeunes années, servit dans la cavalerie de la garde sous l’empereur Constance, puis sous le César Julien. Ce n’était cependant pas de son plein gré, parce que, presque dès ses premières années, l’enfance sainte de ce noble garçon aspirait plutôt au service de Dieu. En effet, alors qu’il avait dix ans, à l’insu de ses parents, il se réfugia dans une église et demanda à devenir catéchumène. Bientôt, fait extraordinaire, il se convertit entièrement à l’œuvre de Dieu et, alors qu’il avait douze ans, il désira le désert et il aurait satisfait ces vœux si la faiblesse de son jeune âge n’avait constitué un obstacle. Son âme était pourtant sans cesse tournée vers les ermitages et les églises, il songeait, à cet âge encore enfantin, à ce qu’il accomplit religieusement par la suite^[16].

L’hagiographe ouvre son texte en exposant les désirs divers des membres de la famille : alors que les parents sont bien insérés dans la société romaine, le jeune Martin s’intéresse dans le même temps au christianisme et à la vie monastique. Cette attirance est toutefois décrite non de manière réaliste mais pas le biais d’une stylisation hagiographique : il est historiquement peu probable que Martin, élevé en Italie, ait entendu parler des tout premiers moines du désert égyptien et, plus encore, les âges choisis par Sulpice Sévère sont symboliques^[17]. L’âge de douze ans, en particulier, correspond à l’âge auquel le Christ reste seul au temple de Jérusalem (Lc 2, 41-51), sans ses parents précisément.

Le conflit intervient immédiatement après, quand Martin est enrôlé dans l’armée sur les traces de son père :

Mais, comme les princes avaient édicté que les fils des vétérans devaient être enrôlés dans l’armée, son père, qui était hostile à son heureuse conduite, le livra : à quinze ans, il fut arrêté, enchaîné, lié par les serments militaires^[18].

La scène est fortement dramatisée par Sulpice Sévère. De fait, cet événement normal de la vie militaire romaine puisqu’il est habituel que les fils de vétérans soient intégrés à l’armée est transformé par l’hagiographe en acte de bourreau, ainsi qu’en témoigne le vocabulaire choisi : prodente patre, captus, catenatus, inplicatus. L’attitude violente du père de Martin fait de la scène une petite Passion non sanglante qui hisse d’ores et déjà le saint au rang des martyrs, la première d’une longue liste qui vise à faire du moine l’égal de ceux qui sont morts pour leur foi, donc un nouveau modèle de sainteté^[19].

Paulin de Périgueux, quand il réécrit la Vie de Martin en vers quelques décennies plus tard, accentue encore plus la cruauté du père pour son fils et l’opposition des deux hommes :

Comme Martin entreprenait cette lourde tâche [aller au désert], à l’âge d’à peine deux fois six ans, la gloire sublime d’une si grande action lui fut interdite, mais son mérite fut récompensé par Dieu qui approuva son projet. L’empereur ordonne, en préparant une levée de soldats pour la guerre, que soient équipée toute la descendance de la race des vétérans. Que ne ferait pas le dépit ? Le père livre son fils et lui impose les armes. Hélas ! L’amour paternel oublie un si grand danger ! Plus encore, si ton cœur de pierre s’ouvre à quelque sentiment, ajoute à tes titres : en effet, ta louange sera plus grande si tu te laisses vaincre^[20].

La dramatisation encore plus forte fait uniquement de Martin la victime des agissements de son père, hostile à sa conversion, et confirme ce que l’hagiographe a annoncé quelques vers plus tôt quand il a présenté les parents du saint : […] tam clarus, qui patre Christo // spreuit sacrilegos bene degener in patre ritus^[21].

L’apparent paradoxe de l’expression bene degener montre que c’est parce que le saint s’écarte de la lignée paternelle qu’il peut accomplir sa vocation et, donc, que le conflit avec son père est nécessaire. Plus loin dans le texte, d’ailleurs, Paulin précisera que Martin, revenu visiter ses parents, parviendra à convertir sa mère et non son père^[22], définitivement remplacé dans la narration par Hilaire de Poitiers, protecteur et mentor du saint. Le père de Martin représente ainsi la vie dans le monde, dont le héros doit se détacher pour vivre en chrétien.

Ce déchirement entre la vie dans le monde et un autre mode de vie, la vie consacrée, est plus explicite dans le conflit qui oppose Honorat d’Arles à son propre père dans la Vita Honorati, écrite en 430, par son successeur et parent Hilaire d’Arles et prononcée, tout d’abord, comme une laudatio funebris à l’occasion du premier anniversaire de la mort du saint.

La dispute entre le père et le fils est annoncée dès le début de la Vie quand l’hagiographe revient sur les règles de composition d’un éloge. Il note que tout bon discours de ce type doit commencer par les origines du personnage central et se refuse à célébrer l’ascendance de son héros, glorieuse d’un point de vue terrestre^[23]. Ainsi, bien qu’il use de la prétérition pour nous laisser entendre à quel point la lignée d’Honorat est noble, il ne nomme jamais son père, ni sa mère, et ne dit pas quelles fonctions ils occupent dans la société mondaine.

Cela conduit Hilaire à décaler le récit de la naissance d’Honorat de sa naissance humaine à son baptême, présenté comme sa vraie naissance :

Mais mon discours se hâte plutôt vers ces points : avec quelle foi, pendant ses années de jeunesse, il désira personnellement le baptême ; grâce à quelle maturité de jugement, alors qu’il était en bonne santé, il craignit la mort ; comment il constata qu’avant le baptême il resterait privé de la vie ; avec quelle soif il désira voir sa vie renouvelée par la source de vie^[24].

Toutefois, au lieu de passer directement au récit des débuts ascétiques du saint qui voyage vers l’Orient avec son frère Venance avant de fonder le monastère de Lérins, Hilaire choisit de s’attarder assez longuement sur la tristesse des siens et sur les tentatives du père d’Honorat pour le retenir dans le monde.

Après une question qui suscite la curiosité de son auditeur (« Il est instruit [dans la foi] sans l’incitation des siens ; avec le secours de Dieu, il reste fidèle à son baptême, sans la vigilance de personne ; plus encore, dans l’éclat tout frais et encore intact de la fontaine baptismale, sans que personne l’y pousse, il se convertit. ‘Sans que personne l’y pousse’, ai-je dit, et que faire des obstacles de sa patrie, de l’opposition de son père, de ses proches qui le retenaient ?^[25] »), Hilaire embraie sur un portrait de l’incompréhension de sa famille. Au sein de ce tableau, c’est surtout le père d’Honorat qui n’accepte pas le choix de son fils :

C’est ainsi que, par ces pratiques et d’autres de même nature, sa foi robuste de catéchumène se rua vers le baptême. À partir de là, son père, homme prévoyant et alarmé par les soupçons de sa tendresse terrestre, cherchait à l’entraîner grâce à des divertissements variés, à l’appâter par les passions de la jeunesse, à l’attirer dans les filets des diverses jouissances du monde et à se faire lui-même jeune comme pour devenir le compagnon de son fils adolescent, il voulait occuper son temps par des chasses et une foule de jeux et il s’armait de la douceur de ce siècle pour subjuguer sa jeunesse. Ce n’était pas sans raison que ce père du siècle craignait que ne lui soit arraché par le Christ celui que, parmi tous les autres jeunes gens très doués, il chérissait comme unique au monde^[26].

L’attitude du père semble motivée par l’amour parental, mais cette affection est immédiatement classée comme « terrestre », ce qui prépare une gradation avec un autre amour, celui de Dieu. Le père mène un combat perdu d’avance, en faveur des conventions sociales. Son comportement, compréhensible d’un point de vue pragmatique – il est effrayé par l’ascétisme extrême que se met à pratiquer son fils –, est peint de sorte à paraître paradoxal vis-à-vis de la morale romaine traditionnelle : au lieu d’inciter son enfant à l’étude et de le détourner des excès, il l’y pousse, pour tenter de le faire se conformer au cliché littéraire du jeune homme de la bonne société. En procédant ainsi, le père se trouve lui-même ridiculisé par l’hagiographe qui, en précisant qu’il va jusqu’à se comporter comme un adolescent alors qu’il est d’âge mûr, le fait ressembler aux barbons de la comédie latine ou de la satire qui tombent amoureux d’une jeune fille et se mettent à agir comme leurs fils^[27].

Le processus est sans succès ici, puisqu’Honorat se fait tout de même baptiser et commence à pratiquer l’ascèse à tel point que, comme Martin, il se détache totalement de sa lignée familiale :

Il se montra soudain tout entier si différent de lui-même que celui qui l’avait engendré se lamentait comme un père qui aurait perdu son fils. Et en vérité, il était mort pleinement à lui-même selon le corps mais sa vie était celle de l’esprit^[28].

Hilaire joue ainsi sur le sens du baptême : renaissant à la vie de Dieu, Honorat est mort au monde et mort à son père. La scène s’achève par le remplacement total de la figure paternelle :

Cette attitude suscita une totale opposition de ses parents. Alors pour la première et seule fois, il fut rebelle à son père quand il affirma être fils de Dieu Père, ayant ordonné dès lors, comme Salomon l’énonça, ses affections en Dieu^[29].

Il y a donc un déplacement de l’identité du père du père biologique à Dieu Père, ce qui permet de résoudre l’apparent paradoxe entre l’obéissance qu’un chrétien doit à ses parents et l’attitude d’Honorat. Son Père étant Dieu, il obéit à son Père.

En s’opposant à son père humain, Honorat s’oppose symboliquement au monde et choisit la patrie à laquelle il appartient vraiment, celle du ciel, où Dieu est père, et au sein de laquelle il peut vivre en avance tant qu’il est sur la terre grâce à l’ascèse monastique.

Le saint moine et ses parents du monde

Le motif du conflit familial continue d’être présent dans le genre de la Vita au VI^e siècle, mais il subit un décalage majeur. De fait, l’opposition entre le saint et ses parents qui était jusqu’alors double – entre paganisme et christianisme, entre vie monastique et vie dans le monde – se resserre sur ce dernier point, les parents du saint étant désormais toujours chrétiens eux-mêmes. Cela correspond à l’évolution de la société latine non seulement convertie au christianisme, mais aussi suffisamment christianisée pour avoir vu se développer une forme de pratique religieuse que les hagiographes qualifient de mondaine et à laquelle la radicalité du mouvement monastique s’oppose. Il ne s’agit donc plus de représenter, par le conflit familial, une opposition entre l’ancien monde païen, incarné par les parents, et un nouveau monde chrétien, celui du saint, mais de se dresser contre un christianisme trop inséré dans la société, qui s’éloignerait de ses valeurs originelles auxquelles la vie monastique permet de revenir.

Cette opposition entre parents et enfant qui cristallise l’opposition entre monde et monastère se voit particulièrement bien dans la Vie de Fulgence de Ruspe, écrite peu après mort du saint par un de ses proches, au milieu du VI^e siècle.

Contrairement à Martin ou Honorat, Fulgence est plus avancé dans sa vie d’adulte quand il entre en conflit avec sa mère. Le saint, en effet, est percepteur d’impôt et a la charge des biens familiaux depuis le décès de son père, responsabilité qu’il répugne de laisser à son jeune frère qu’il juge irresponsable. Fulgence est donc parfaitement inséré dans la société au moment de sa conversion au monachisme qu’il accomplit pour cette raison tout d’abord en cachette, dans le secret de sa maison, avant d’estimer que son exemple serait plus profitable s’il allait vivre dans un monastère. C’est alors que sa mère découvre son choix de vie :

Elle se trouble, s’effraie et, se laissant entraîner par un amour excessif du fils qui l’a quittée, comme si Fulgence était déjà mort – bien que ce soit une belle mort pour qui meurt ainsi –, elle fait monter jusqu’au ciel des plaintes interminables et, comme les mères ont l’habitude de faire aux funérailles de leurs fils, elle ne sait pas mettre un terme à ses larmes^[30].

Le récit est particulièrement pathétique. La conclusion, donnée dès le début car le départ de Fulgence est définitif, rend d’autant plus touchante la réaction de sa mère qui, alors même qu’elle est une pieuse chrétienne, considère, comme le père d’Honorat avant elle, que son fils est mort pour elle, ce qui symboliquement montre qu’il est mort à la vie du monde.

Après une réponse négative de l’évêque dirigeant le monastère qui lui interdit de voir son fils, la mère continue de l’appeler à grands cris touchants en clamant son nom. Mais Fulgence réagit ainsi, ce qui prouve qu’il a vraiment changé d’état de vie :

Une mère si sainte, qu’il avait toujours aimée, dont il avait accepté les ordres avec le plus grand respect, ses oreilles l’entendaient pleurer, mais, élevant son cœur vers le ciel, Fulgence l’entendait et il ne l’entendait pas : il estimait indigne de se laisser toucher par ses prières, une sainte cruauté triomphait de sa piété filiale habituelle. Dans cette circonstance, il montrait à beaucoup, d’une manière très fidèle, quelle serait un jour sa patience, et, comme enivré par la grâce de l’Esprit Saint, il ignorait d’une certaine manière qu’elle était sa mère^[31].

Ce passage fait directement écho à la citation de l’Évangile de Luc (Lc 2, 51) qui décrivait l’attitude de Fulgence dans son enfance en soulignant son obéissance christique à ses parents. À partir du moment de la conversion s’opère une rupture avec la filiation humaine qui passe par l’oubli de ce lien, ce qui constitue une allusion évangélique à Mt 10, 37 (« Tout homme qui préfère à moi son père ou sa mère n’est pas digne de moi »). Le choix des mots de l’hagiographe, avec l’apparent oxymore religiosa crudelitate et la comparaison avec un buveur d’alcool (similis ebrio), marque la violence de la conversion et la radicalité de la vie monastique, cependant valorisées dans le texte.

Mais, si la question n’est pas évoquée dans la Vie de Fulgence, c’est essentiellement autour de la question du mariage que s’articulent les conflits familiaux dans les Vies de saint latines du VI^e siècle. Cet enjeu cristallise plus que tout les différences entre les parents et les enfants car il touche le nœud du problème, la volonté (et le besoin) qu’ont les parents que leur enfant assure une continuité sociale, celle de leur famille, en ayant lui-même, par la suite, ses propres enfants et ainsi de suite. La question est d’autant plus épineuse et cause de conflits que les saints sont, parfois, des fils aînés, prédisposés à suivre les traces de leur père, ou plus encore, des fils uniques, seul espoir de leurs parents pour avoir des petits-enfants.

Bien qu’elle soit motivée par des raisons spirituelles, cette opposition entre parent et enfant sur la question du mariage rappelle aussi le roman grec où le mariage organisé par les parents, avec quelqu’un d’autre que la personne que le héros ou l’héroïne aime, constitue l’élément déclencheur des péripéties du récit^[32].

Ce motif du conflit familial autour de la question du mariage est particulièrement développé dans la Vie des Pères de Grégoire de Tours qui en présente des variantes dans cinq des vingt petites Vies qui constituent son œuvre et propose un panorama des cas de figure possible, qui est presque un mode d’emploi pour qui voudrait éviter le mariage.

La première situation se trouve dans la Vie de Lupicin et Romain du Jura :

Lupicin, donc, depuis sa petite enfance, cherchait Dieu de tout son cœur ; il apprit les lettres et, comme il était parvenu à l’âge légal, il fut, sous la contrainte de son père, bien qu’en son âme il n’y consentit point, enchaîné dans les liens du mariage. Romain, cependant, plus jeune encore et lui-même désireux faire tendre son âme vers l’œuvre de Dieu, refusa le mariage^[33].

Le fils aîné, Lupicin, subit donc un mariage forcé imposé par ses parents, mariage auquel son jeune frère échappe probablement car il n’est pas l’héritier. Il faut alors la mort des parents pour libérer totalement la fratrie de la contrainte matrimoniale et leur permettre d’entrer dans la vie monastique, sans que le devenir de la femme de Lupicin soit mentionné.

Le conflit est, en effet, la marque d’un récit plus topique qu’historique. La narration de Grégoire ne correspond pas du tout à l’autre Vie de Romain et Lupicin rédigée au VI^e siècle, la Vie des Pères du Jura. Dans cette autre Vie, Romain est l’aîné et, célibataire encore, il choisit de partir vivre en ascète dans les forêts du Jura à l’âge de 35 ans. Sa mère ne meurt pas, puisqu’elle s’installe dans un monastère de femmes non loin de l’établissement que son fils fondera. Chez Grégoire, la mort des parents apparaît comme le signe que l’influence du monde est terminée et semble briser le mariage en libérant les frères. Il s’agit, parmi les cinq cas présentés dans la Vie des Pères, de la situation la moins imitable par le lecteur.

Le deuxième cas de figure se trouve dans la Vie de Gall. Fils aîné d’un homme de la haute société, alors que son père envisage déjà pour lui des fiançailles, Gall s’enfuit du domicile familial et gagne un monastère :

Comme son père voulait rechercher pour lui la fille de quelque sénateur, lui, accompagné d’un seul petit esclave, gagna le monastère de Crononense, situé à six milles de la ville de Clermont, et supplia humblement l’abbé de daigner tondre ses cheveux. Mais ce dernier, constatant la sagesse et la distinction du garçon, lui demande son nom, l’interroge sur sa famille et sa patrie. Celui-ci déclare qu’il s’appelle Gall, citoyen arverne, fils du sénateur Georges. Quand il apprit qu’il était issu d’une si haute lignée, l’abbé dit : « Ton intention est bonne, mon fils, mais il faut d’abord qu’elle soit portée à la connaissance de ton père ; et, si celui-ci le veut bien, je ferai ce que tu demandes ». Alors, l’abbé envoie des messagers demander au père ce qu’il ordonnait de faire au sujet de son enfant. Celui-ci, attristé sur le moment, répondit : « Il était mon aîné et c’est pourquoi je voulais qu’il se marie ; mais si le Seigneur daigne le prendre à son service, que sa volonté soit faite plutôt que la nôtre. » Et il ajouta : « Tout ce que l’enfant vous a demandé sous l’inspiration de Dieu, accomplissez-le »^[34].

Gall échappe au mariage grâce à l’autorité que représente son abbé pour son père. Grégoire joue ici sur le sens étymologique du mot abba qui signifie « père » et se trouve ainsi en position de décider par-dessus le père pour qui il est aussi un père. Le père humain, de ce fait, cède rapidement, probablement car il a un deuxième fils pour prolonger sa lignée (qui se trouve être le propre père de Grégoire).

La troisième situation, dans la Vie de Patrocle, est plus compliquée au niveau social. En effet, le saint est l’unique enfant de sa mère veuve qui joue sur ses sentiments, cherche à le persuader avec des mots affectueux et en insistant sur le pathétique de sa situation : « Voici, mon très doux enfant, que ton père est mort et que moi je suis privée de toute consolation. Je vais te chercher une belle jeune fille de condition libre pour qu’en t’unissant à elle, tu offres une consolation à ta mère veuve.^[35] » À cela, il répond en exposant son choix strictement, rompant catégoriquement avec le siècle et sa famille : « Je refuse de m’unir à une épouse de ce monde, mais j’accomplirai, avec la volonté du Seigneur, ce que mon âme a décidé.^[36] » Son départ dans le clergé, immédiatement après, marque le caractère définitif du choix de la vie consacré, qui implique de se séparer des sentiments familiaux.

Quelques chapitres plus loin, Libert se trouve plus engagé sur la voie du mariage. Il est fiancé à la jeune fille choisie par ses parents et lui a donné, sur leurs conseils, les gages d’union traditionnels à son époque : des arrhes (arram), un anneau (anulo), un baiser (osculum) et un soulier (calciamentum) Sa situation est beaucoup plus compliquée que celle des deux saints précédents et la menace sur sa possibilité de vivre une vie de moine beaucoup plus dramatisée par Grégoire. Il est littéralement contraint par ses parents (cogentibus […] parentibus), et cette exigence particulière apparaît totalement injustifiée puisque Grégoire souligne que ces gens ont un autre fils (licet haberet alium filium). L’hagiographe met, dans la bouche du père de Libert, un argument tiré des épitres pauliniennes (Ep 6, 1 ; Col 3, 20) : « Les enfants doivent obéir à leurs parents, c’est là ce qu’attestent les divines Écritures^[37] », ce qui justifie encore plus l’obéissance forcée du saint. La condensation du récit, qui met côte à côte les fiançailles forcées et la mort des parents (« Il célèbre la fête des fiançailles. Puis son père et sa mère, s’endormant du sommeil de la mort, quittèrent ce monde^[38] »), dresse presque ce dernier événement comme une punition pour leur comportement. Dans tous les cas, cela rend sa liberté à Libert, qui est, de plus, « accidentellement » (ou par action de la Providence ?) rejeté par son frère et qui peut ainsi devenir moine.

Grégoire s’intéresse à un dernier cas de rejet du mariage, dans la Vie de Venance. La situation est cependant légèrement différente puisque les noces prévues ne sont pas qu’une simple décision parentale. Venance est sincèrement attaché à la jeune fille : « Il se montra enclin à aimer la jeune fille^[39] ». L’hagiographe prend cependant le temps de préciser que cela est lié à son extrême jeunesse^[40]. Les fiançailles ont lieu selon les règles, avec des échanges de présents très similaires à la Vie de Libert, ce qui atteste d’une tradition locale^[41] : le don d’une chaussure^[42]. Le tournant de la Vita vient juste après. Se rendant à Tours, Venance découvre le modèle martinien et change totalement d’avis. Voici les mots que Grégoire lui met dans la bouche :

Quand j’y réfléchis, il vaut mieux servir le Christ, sans souillure, que d’être, au travers d’une union matrimoniale, gagné par la contamination du monde. Je vais abandonner ma fiancée du territoire de Bourges et m’attacher par la foi à l’Église catholique, afin que ce que je crois dans mon cœur, je mérite aussi de l’effectuer par mon œuvre^[43].

Cette tirade définit clairement la vision du mariage à en retirer pour les lecteurs. Il s’agit d’un élément « du monde », pas foncièrement mauvais en soi, mais hiérarchiquement inférieur à la vie consacrée pour qui veut suivre le Christ.

Grégoire, par cette variatio autour d’un même motif, semble chercher à envisager toutes les possibilités qui peuvent se présenter dans la société de son temps, prenant en compte les différentes situations familiales possibles (présence ou non d’un autre héritier, père vivant ou non) et les différents degrés d’engagement déjà effectués vis-à-vis de la fiancée. Dans l’optique de la dimension exemplaire de la Vie, il est possible de considérer que l’hagiographe fournit un argumentaire, à coloration juridique, pour qui voudrait se faire l’émule des saints dans le choix du célibat et, dans ce processus, entrer en conflit avec ses parents.

La question du mariage recoupe donc nettement celle de la vie consacrée, mais elle pose nettement le problème de la succession familiale, point central d’un conflit qui se termine toujours par la victoire du saint, quitte à ce qu’un décès providentiel soit nécessaire.

Conclusion :

Le conflit familial entre le saint et ses parents est un motif narratif fréquent des Vies de saint des IV^e, V^e et VI^e siècles qui, quand il est présent, s’intercale entre le récit de l’enfance sainte et celui de sa vie consacrée. Du fait de son éloignement temporel par rapport au moment de la rédaction et de sa place identique d’un texte à l’autre, il n’a aucune réelle valeur historique, mais il possède une dimension symbolique forte. En effet, il sert à signifier une rupture entre les valeurs incarnées par les parents et celles que représentent le saint, c’est-à-dire tout d’abord entre l’ancien monde païen et le nouveau monde chrétien, puis entre un christianisme intégré à la société, où l’on se marie notamment, et une pratique radicale de la religion telle que le propose le mouvement monastique. Rejetant ses parents, c’est le monde que le saint rejette et le monde auquel il meurt pour vivre une autre vie, la vie consacrée. Les scènes de conflit familial sont donc cruciales pour promouvoir la vie religieuse. Présentant des situations auxquelles les lecteurs peuvent se trouver confrontés, elles les encouragent à faire le même choix radical et à imiter le modèle de sainteté proposé par le saint.

---

Bibliographie :

Éditions des textes anciens :

Cyprien, Firmin, Vivence, Messien et Etienne, S. Caesarii episcopi Arelatensis Opera omnia II, éd. par G. Morin, Maredsous, 1942, p. 291-345.

Étienne, Vita S. Amatoris episcopi Autissiodorensis, éd. par G. Henskens, AASS, Mai. I, Anvers, 1680, p. 52-60.

Grégoire de Tours, La Vie des Pères, éd. par L. Pietri, « Les classiques de l’Histoire au Moyen Âge » 55, Paris, 2016.

Hilaire d’Arles, La Vie d’Hilaire d’Arles, éd. par S. Cavallin, Paris, Les éditions du Cerf, 1995.

Paulin de Périgueux, Vie de saint Martin. Prologue. Livres I-III, éd. par S. Labarre, Paris, Les éditions du Cerf, « Sources chrétiennes 581 », 2016.

Sulpice Sévère, Vie de saint Martin, éd. par J. Fontaine, Paris, Les éditions du Cerf, « Sources chrétiennes 133 », 2004.

Venance Fortunat, Œuvres de Venance Fortunat, 4 : Vie de saint Martin, éd. par S. Quesnel, Paris, 1996.

Vie de sainte Geneviève, éd. par F. Bret et M.-C. Isaïa, Paris, Les éditions du Cerf, « Sources chrétiennes 610 », 2020.

Vitae Abbatum Acaunensium, éd. par B. Krusch, MGH, SRM VII, p. 329-336.

Vita sancti Eptadii, éd. par B. Krusch, MGH, SRM III, Hannover, 1886, p. 186-194.

 Vita S. Fulgentii episcopi, éd. par A. Isola, CCSL 91F, Turnhout, 2016.

Études modernes :

István P. Bejczy, « The sacra infantia in Medieval Hagiography », Studies in Church History, 31, 1994, p. 143-151.

Florence Bret, Écrire une Vie de saint entre le IV^e et le VI^e siècle. Étude de la formation d’un genre littéraire dans l’Antiquité tardive latine, sous la direction de Bruno Bureau, Université Lyon 3, 2023, p. 361-372 (thèse de doctorat non publiée).

Teresa C. Carp, « « Puer senex » in Roman and Medieval Thought », Latomus, 39, 3, 1980, p. 736-739.

Florence Dupont, Le théâtre romain, Paris, Armand Colin, 2017.

Jacques Fontaine, « Vérité et fiction dans la chronologie de la Vita Martini », Saint Martin et son temps : mémorial du XVIe centenaire des débuts du monachisme en Gaule, 361-1961, Rome, Herder, 1961, p. 189-236.

Françoise Létoublon, Les lieux communs du roman: stéréotypes grecs d’aventure et d’amour, Leiden, Brill, 1993.

Elizabeth de Loos-Dietz, « Le monosandalos dans l’Antiquité », Babesch: Bulletin Antieke Beschaving = Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology, 69, 1994, p. 175-197.

Pierre Maraval, Le christianisme de Constantin à la conquête arabe, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2015.

Laurent Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-latin, I, Paris, Institut des Études Augustiniennes, 1993, P. 163-165.

Laurent Pernot, « Lieu et lieu commun dans la rhétorique antique », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, 3, 1986, p. 253-284.

Isabelle Réal, Vies de saints, vie de famille: représentation et système de la parenté dans le royaume mérovingien (481-751) d’après les sources hagiographiques, Turnhout, Brepols, 2001.

Koen de Temmerman (dir.), The Oxford Handbook of ancient Biography, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020.

Marc van uytfanghe, « L’origine et les ingrédients du discours hagiographique », Sacris Erudiri, 50, 2011, p. 35-70.

---

^[1] Marc van uytfanghe, « L’origine et les ingrédients du discours hagiographique », Sacris Erudiri, 50, 2011, p. 40-41.

^[2] Mt 19, 29 : Et celui qui aura quitté, à cause de mon nom, des maisons, des frères, des sœurs, un père, une mère, des enfants, ou une terre, recevra le centuple, et il aura en héritage la vie éternelle.

^[3] Vie de Fulgence de Ruspe, 5 : […] ita se maternis subdens imperiis, ut ibi quoque Christi existeret imitator, de quo sacra euangelia contestantur: et erat subditus illis, id est, parentibus. (Les traductions sont toutes personnelles ; les éditions citées des textes anciens sont exposées dans la bibliographie de cet article).

^[4] Nous nous appuyons sur la définition de topos rhétorique de l’éloge et de la biographie telle que la formule entre autres Laurent Pernot (Laurent Pernot, « Lieu et lieu commun dans la rhétorique antique », Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, 3, 1986, p. 253-284).

^[5] Nous désignons par ces termes tous les textes panégyriques et biographiques écrits dans le monde méditerranéen avant l’Antiquité tardive. Pour une définition étendue et un panorama de la biographie classique, voir Koen de Temmerman (dir.), The Oxford Handbook of ancient Biography, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020.

^[6] Laurent Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-latin, I, Paris, Institut des Études Augustiniennes, 1993, P. 163-165.

^[7] Le thème classique du puer senex (ou de la puella senex), commun pour décrire les héros épiques et moraux, est repris par le genre de la Vita chrétienne. Cf. Teresa C. Carp, « « Puer senex » in Roman and Medieval Thought », Latomus, 39, 3, 1980, p. 736-739.

^[8] Jacques Fontaine dresse un panorama de la constance des saints dans Jacques Fontaine, Vie de saint Martin III, Paris, Les éditions du Cerf, « Sources Chrétiennes 135 », 1969, p. 1107-1111.

^[9] István P. Bejczy, « The sacra infantia in Medieval Hagiography », Studies in Church History, 31, 1994, p. 143-151.

^[10] Par exemple, la Vie d’Aignan d’Orléans (milieu du VI^e siècle) [BHL 473] commence lorsque le saint est déjà évêque.

^[11] Par exemple, nous ne savons rien de la réaction des parents de Romain et Lupicin dans la première Vie des Pères du Jura (vers 520) [BHL 7309]. L’hagiographe mentionne seulement que l’aîné, Romain, issu d’une bonne famille, quitte les siens pour devenir le premier moine de la région à l’âge de 35 ans.

^[12] Le père d’Oyend, le troisième héros de la Vie des Pères du Jura, approuve la vocation de son fils et le conduit lui-même au monastère alors qu’il est encore enfant (Vie des Pères du Jura, 125) Pour une étude plus détaillée de l’entrée au monastère à l’échelle du corpus, voir Florence Bret, Écrire une Vie de saint entre le IV^e et le VI^e siècle. Étude de la formation d’un genre littéraire dans l’Antiquité tardive latine, sous la direction de Bruno Bureau, Université Lyon 3, 2023, p. 361-372 (thèse de doctorat pas encore publiée).

^[13] Sulpice Sévère, Vita Martini Turonensis (BHL 5610); Hilaire d’Arles, Sermo de uita S. Honorati Arelatensis episcopi (BHL 3975) ; Paulin de Périgueux, De uita S. Martini l. vi (BHL 5617) ; Vitae Abbatum Acaunensium (BHL 142. 6944) [Vie d’Achivus] ; Vita S. Genouefae (BHL 3335) ; Cyprien, Firmin, Vivence, Messien et Etienne, Vita S. Caesarii episcopi Arelatensis (BHL 1508-1509) ; Vita S. Fulgentii  (BHL 3208) ; Venance Fortunat, Vita S. Martini (BHL 5624) ; Grégoire de Tours, Liber uitae patrum ; Étienne, Vita S. Amatoris episcopi Autissiodorensis (BHL 356) ; Vita Eptadii (BHL 2576). Si l’on compte séparément les différentes Vies de la Vie des Pères de Grégoire de Tours, le nombre monte à 15 Vies.

^[14] Bien que Théodose fasse du christianisme la religion de l’Empire à la fin du IV^e siècle, le phénomène de conversion n’est pas immédiat dans l’ensemble de la population. Cf. Pierre Maraval, Le christianisme de Constantin à la conquête arabe, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2015, p. 109.

^[15] Les premières Vies latines (Vies de Paul, Malchus et Hilarion) sont écrites par Jérôme dans le dernier tiers du IV^e siècle.

^[16] Sulpice Sévère, Vie de Martin, 2 : Igitur Martinus Sabaria Pannoniarum oppido oriundus fuit, sed intra Italiam Ticini altus est, parentibus secundum saeculi dignitatem non infimis, gentilibus tamen. Pater eius miles primum, post tribunus militum fuit. Ipse, armatam militiam in adulescentia secutus, inter scholares alas sub rege Constantio, deinde sub Iuliano Caesare militauit ; non tamen sponte, quia a primis fere annis diuinam potius seruitutem sacra inlustris pueri spirauit infantia. Nam cum esset annorum decem, inuitis parentibus ad ecclesiam confugit seque catechumenum fieri postulauit. Mox mirum in modum totus in Dei opere conuersus, cum esset annorum duodecim, eremum concupiuit, fecissetque uotis satis, si aetatis infirmitas non fuisset impedimento. Animus tamen, aut circa monasteria aut circa ecclesiam semper intentus, meditabatur adhuc in aetate puerili quod postea deuotus inpleuit.

^[17] Jacques Fontaine, « Vérité et fiction dans la chronologie de la Vita Martini », Saint Martin et son temps : mémorial du XVI^e centenaire des débuts du monachisme en Gaule, 361-1961, Rome, Herder, 1961, p. 189-236 ; Jacques Fontaine, Vie de saint Martin II, Paris, Les éditions du Cerf, « Sources Chrétiennes 134 », 1968, p. 444-460.

^[18] Sulpice Sévère, Vie de Martin, 2 : Sed cum edictum esset a regibus ut ueteranorum filii ad militiam scriberentur, prodente patre qui felicibus eius actibus inuidebat, cum esset annorum quindecim, captus et catenatus sacramentis militaribus inplicatus est […].

^[19] Cette contrainte permet aussi à Sulpice Sévère de justifier la jeunesse militaire de son héros face aux critiques que d’autres auteurs (notamment Jérôme dans sa lettre 60) formulent vis-à-vis de ceux qui poursuivent leur carrière dans l’armée après leur conversion.

^[20] Paulin de Périgueux, Vie de Martin, I, 24-32 : Haec uix bis senis cum moliretur in annis,

praeclusa est tanti sublimis gloria facti,       

sed meritum munerante Deo qui uelle probauit.           

Praecipit Augustus dilectu ad bella parando

accingi cunctam ueterano e germine prolem.  

Quid non liuor agat ? Prodit pater armaque nato        

ingerit. Heu tanti pietas oblita pericli !        

Quin potius, si quem recipit mens saxea sensum,

cresce tuis titulis : mage laus est nam tua uinci.

^[21] Ibid. 14-15 : « […] ce saint si illustre qui, prenant le Christ pour père, a noblement dégénéré et rejeté les rites sacrilèges de son père. »

^[22] Ibid. 228-237. Martin fait naître sa mère à la vie chrétienne en la baptisant, elle devient ainsi « la mère et l’enfant » (et mater et infans) de son fils, ce qui renverse le schéma familial.

^[23] Hilaire d’Arles, Vie d’Honorat, 4.

^[24] Ibid. 5 : Ad illud potius meus sermo festinat, qua fide baptismum in adolescentiae annis proprio concupierit arbitratu, quam maturo consilio sanus mortem expauerit, qualiter ante baptismum uita cariturum se esse perspexerit, qua siti uitam suam desiderauerit uitali fonte renouari […].

^[25] Ibid. 5 : Eruditur sine aliqua suorum instantia, seruat iuuante Deo baptismum praeter ullam hominum sollicitudinem et, quod his maius est, recenti adhuc et illibato nitore fontis sine admonitore conuertitur. Sine admonitore, dixi, et ubi illud est quod patria obstabat, quod obluctabatur pater, quod propinquitas tota renitebatur ?

^[26] Ibid. 6 : His itaque et talibus exercitiis ad baptismum se cathecumini fides robusta proripuit. Hinc iam prouidus pater et terrenae pietatis suspicione sollicitus, uariis eum oblectationibus prouocare, studiis iuuentutis illicere, diuersis mundi uoluptatibus irretire et quasi in collegium cum filio adolescente iuuenescere, uenatibus ludorumque uarietatibus occupari, et tota ad subiugandam illam aetatem saeculi huius dulcedine armari. Nec immerito eum saecularis pater sibi a Christo praeripi timebat, quem inter reliquos ornatissimos iuuenes uelut unicum complectebatur.

^[27] Florence Dupont, Le théâtre romain, Paris, Armand Colin, 2017, p. 138.

^[28] Hilaire d’Arles, Vie d’Honorat, 8 : Ita repente totus ex alio alius ostenditur, ut non aliter genitor ipsius quam orbatus filio pater lamentaretur. Et uere plena mortificatio corporis, sed uita illic spiritus erat.

^[29] Ibid. 8 : Tota hinc parentum persecutio suscitatur. Tunc solum et primum patri contumax fuit, cum Dei patris filius esse contendit, ordinata iam tunc in Deo, sicut Salomon praecepit, caritate.

^[30] Vie de Fulgence de Ruspe, 11 : Turbatur, expauescit et amoris nimii desiderio concitante, quasi iam Fulgentius moreretur, quamuis bene moreretur qui sic moriebatur, caelum nimiis lamentationibus pulsat et sicut solent matres in funeribus filiorum, modum nescit habere lacrimarum.

^[31] Ibid. 12 : […] sanctissimam genitricem quam semper amauerat, cui maxima deuotione seruierat, audiret auribus suis flere. Sursum tamen corde positus, audiebat et non audiebat; nec illius preces aduertere dignum putabat, quia pietatem solitam religiosa crudelitate uincebat. Ibi iam futurae patientiae multis exemplum fidelissimum praebebat et, similis ebrio per spiritalem gratiam factus, utrum mater esset quodammodo ignorabat.

^[32] Françoise Létoublon, Les lieux communs du roman: stéréotypes grecs d’aventure et d’amour, Leiden, Brill, 1993.

^[33] Grégoire de Tours, Vie des Pères, I, 1 : Igitur Lupicinus ab exordio aetatis suae Deum toto requirens corde, litteris institutus, cum ad legitimam transisset aetatem, genitore cogente, cum animi non praeberet consensum, sponsali uinculo nectitur. Romanus uero adhuc adolescentior, et ipse ad Dei opus animum extendere cupiens, nuptias refutauit.

^[34] Ibid. VI, 1 : Cumque ei pater cuiusdam senatoris filiam quaerere uelit, ille, adsumpto secum uno puerulo, monasterium Crononensim expetiit, sexto situm ab Aruerna urbe miliario, suppliciter abbatem exorans, ut ei comam capitis tondere dignaretur. At ille uidens prudentiam atque elegantiam pueri, nomen inquaerit, interrogat genus et patriam. Ille uero Gallum se vocitare pronuntiat, ciuem Aruernum, Georgi filium senatoris. Quem abba ut cognouit de prima progenie esse progenitum, ait: « Bene desideras, fili, sed primum oportet haec in patris tui deferri notitiam; et si hoc ille uoluerit, faciam quae deposcis ». Denique abba pro hac causa nuntios mittit ad patrem, interrogantes, quid de puero obseruari iuberet. At ille parumper contristatus, ait: « Primogenitus », inquid, « erat mihi, et ideo eum uolui coniugio copulari; sed si eum Dominus ad suum dignatur adscire seruitium, illius magis quam nostra uoluntas fiat ». Et adiecit: « Quicquid uobis infans, Deo inspirante, suggesserit, adimplete ».

^[35] Ibid. IX, 1 : Ecce genitor tuus, o dulcissime nate, obit; ego uero absque solatio degeo. Requiram puellam pulchram ingenuamque, cui copulates solatium paebeas maternae uiduitati.

^[36] Ibid. XI, 1: Non coniungor mundanae coniugi, sed quae concepit animus cum Domini uoluntate perficiam.

^[37] Ibid. XX, 1 : Oboedire filiis uoci parentum, Scripturae testantur diuinae.

^[38] Ibid. XX, 1: Caelebrat sponsaliae diem festum. Interea genitor, genetrix mortis somno sopiti migrauerunt a saeculo.

^[39] Ibid. XVI, 1 : amori se puellari praestaret affabilem.

^[40] Ibid. XVI, 1 : dum esset iuuenili aetate florens (alors qu’il était dans la fleur de la jeunesse) et ut aetati huic conuenit (comme cela est normal à cet âge).

^[41] Le fait de retirer une chaussure peut être lié à des rites de passage à la puberté dans tout le bassin méditerranéen (Elizabeth de Loos-Dietz, « Le monosandalos dans l’Antiquité », Babesch: Bulletin Antieke Beschaving = Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology, 69, 1994, p. 175-197), mais le rite du don des chaussures semble spécifiquement gaulois (Isabelle Réal, Vies de saints, vie de famille: représentation et système de la parenté dans le royaume mérovingien (481-751) d’après les sources hagiographiques, Turnhout, Brepols, 2001, p. 174-175).

^[42] Grégoire de Tours, Vie des Pères, XVI, 1 : etiam calciamenta deferret (il lui avait même offert les souliers).

^[43] Ibid. XVI, 1 : Vt conitio, melius est seruire inpollutum Christo, quam per copulam nuptialem contagio inuolui mundano. Relinquam sponsam teriturii Biturigi et adnectar catholicae per fidem eclesiae, ut quae credo corde etiam opere merear effectui condonare.

Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International