No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
WHO WAS SIDONIUS’ CORRESPONDENT SIMPLICIUS? AN IDENTIFICATION PROBLEM IN THE LETTERS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 March 2023
Abstract
This article presents, as a case study, the various inconsistencies which occur in the prosopographical entries concerning Simplicius, one of Sidonius’ most frequent addressees. Through the exegesis of passages of letters addressed to him (Epist. 3.11, 4.4, 4.7, 4.12, 5.4) and of passages believed to concern him (Carm. 24.89; Epist. 2.9 and 5.7), it argues for a revision of the common identification of Simplicius as brother of Apollinaris and Thaumastus, and for a re-evaluation of the sources which supposedly lead to this conclusion. Some cautionary remarks on the unchecked use of prosopography as a tool are followed by a hypothesis concerning the identity of this addressee of Sidonius.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Footnotes
My warm thanks to Gavin Kelly and Stefania Santelia for numerous improvements and learned comments, and also to Silvia Condorelli and Joop van Waarden who offered feedback on previous versions of this paper. I will not go through my arguments here, but on the choice to drop the cognomen Apollinaris, because Sidonius did not go by this name in his time, see G. Marolla, ‘The names of Sidonius’ addressees and the manuscript tradition of the Letters', Mnemosyne (forthcoming).
References
1 Mathisen, R.W., ‘Sidonius’ people’, in Kelly, G. and van Waarden, J.A. (edd.), The Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris (Edinburgh, 2020), 29–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 31–2.
2 Probably arising from Loyen's edition, on which more below. See e.g. the following recognition in prosopographical tools; on Apollinaris: Stroheker, K.F., Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien (Tübingen, 1948), 145Google Scholar; PLRE 2.113–14; PCBE 4.161–3; F.‐M. Kaufmann, Studien zu Sidonius Apollinaris (Frankfurt, 1995), 278. On Simplicius: Stroheker (this note), 219; PLRE 2.1015; PCBE 4.1818; Kaufmann (this note), 348. On Thaumastus: Stroheker (this note), 223; PLRE 2.1062; PCBE 4.1867; Kaufmann (this note), 351. See also Mascoli, P., Gli Apollinari. Per una storia di una famiglia tardoantica (Bari, 2010), 47–8Google Scholar.
3 Mathisen (n. 1), 58–9 and his new prosopographical entries 80–1 (Apollinaris); 122 (Simplicius); 123 (Thaumastus). See also Amherdt, D., Sidoine Apollinaire: Le quatrième livre de la correspondance: Introduction et commentaire (Bern, 2001), 69Google Scholar.
4 PLRE 2.1317.
5 This family-tree combines the arguments in Mathisen (n. 1), 57 (on the name of Sidonius’ father) and 59–60 (on Sidonius’ sisters). In Mathisen's prosopography (n. 1), 134 and 145, the father is still mentioned as Anonymus 8 (Alcimus?) and the sisters as Anonymae 1.
6 Being the sons of Sidonius’ paternal aunt and of Thaumastus 1, according to Mathisen (n. 1), 59.
7 Eulalia's kinship will be further discussed in the following sections. According to Mathisen (n. 1), 59, she was the daughter of an anonymous uncle or the daughter of the elder Thaumastus 1 and sister of Thaumastus 2, Simplicius and Apollinaris. For this reason I signalled both in the family-tree, although in Mathisen (n. 1), 92 only the latter kinship is mentioned.
8 Mathisen (n. 1), 59. It is also useful to point out that, in the new prosopographical entry on Thaumastus, his anonymous spouse (recently deceased at the time Epist. 5.6 was written) is wrongly identified as his mother rather than as his wife: see Mathisen (n. 1), 128 s.v. ‘Anonyma 7’.
9 See Waarden, J.A. van, ‘Sidonius’ biography in photo negative’, in Kelly, G. and van Waarden, J.A. (edd.), The Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris (Edinburgh, 2020), 13–28Google Scholar, at 19.
10 Mortality after the age of sixty was as high as infant mortality: Saller, R.P., ‘Men's age at marriage and its consequences in the Roman family’, CPh 82 (1987), 21–34Google ScholarPubMed, at 30 n. 25, 31 n. 27; Scheidel, W., ‘Demography’, in Scheidel, W., Morris, I., Saller, R.P. (edd.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge, 2007), 38–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 38–41.
11 Waarden, J.A. van, ‘“Il tempo invecchia in fretta”: la biografia di Sidonio Apollinare nella sua corrispondenza’, InvLuc 40 (2018), 187–98Google Scholar, at 194.
12 For instance in Carm. 41, 45–6 (Epist. 9.16) nam senectutis propiore meta | quicquid extremis sociamur annis, ‘as the cusp of old age draws nearer, the closer I get to my last years’.
13 Epist. 3.11.1.
14 G. Marolla, Sidonius: Letters Book 5, Part 1. Text, Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh, 2023), 97–110. Arvandus was twice praefectus praetorio Galliarum from 464 to 468; on his trial and the political consequences that might have befallen Sidonius, see J. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome (Oxford, 1994), 159–66; van Waarden (n. 9), 22.
15 The noun, which appears to be a Plinian coinage, is later attested exclusively in Sid. Epist. 1.5.1 and in this letter. If in Pliny sinisteritas means ‘lack of manners’ (Ep. 6.17.3, 9.5.2), in Sid. Epist. 1.5.1 and 3.11.1 it could be translated as ‘misfortune’. For the occurrence of sinisteritas in Sidonius, see F. Giannotti, Sperare Meliora: Il terzo libro delle Epistulae di Sidonio Apollinare (Pisa, 2016), 208.
16 Similar expressions (negative adverb + is + es, followed by ut or the relative pronoun) are exclusively attested in Cicero: e.g. Cat. 1.22 neque enim is es, Catilina, ut …; Fam. 5.12.6 neque enim tu is es qui quid sis nescias; Top. 72 neque enim tu is es quem nihil nisi ius ciuile delectet.
17 Epist. 3.11.1 cuncti nostrates idemque summates uiri optimarum te … consono praeconio prosequuntur.
18 Epist. 5.4.1.
19 Epist. 5.4.1 quod non recepi scripta qui miseram, imputo amicitiae, sed deputo plus pudori. Loyen conjectures the word non before imputo; however, leaving the transmitted reading is a sensible choice, since not answering is a fault in friendship. On this passage, see A. Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire: Correspondance, Livres 1–5 (Paris, 1970), 179 and Marolla (n. 14), 135.
20 Thus Kaufmann (n. 2), 348, who believes that the order of the names is proof that Simplicius is Apollinaris’ older brother and that Simplicius is younger than Thaumastus, although the second point seems unsupported by evidence.
21 On this letter, see J.A. van Waarden, Writing to Survive: A Commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris, Letters Book 7. Volume 1: The Episcopal Letters 1–11 (Leuven, 2010), 237–8.
22 For this expression and for its presumably Greek origin, see P. Brugisser, ‘L'appellation δεσπότης μου τῆς ψυχῆς dans la lettre P. Strasb. III 286’, MH 46 (1989), 231–6, at 234–6; A. Pellizzari, Commento storico al libro III dell'Epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco (Pisa and Rome, 1998), 237.
23 469 is not a specific terminus post quem, as is pointed out by van Waarden (n. 21), 217, but it is an unproblematic date.
24 Epist. 7.4.4 illud quoque mihi inter maxima granditer cordi est, quod apostolatus uestri patrocinium copiosum uerissimis dominis animae meae, Simplicio et Apollinari, intermina intercessione conferre uos comperi. Moreover, note the following mention of the whereabouts of the addressee Fonteius, istic, id est in Vasionensi oppido. See Harries (n. 14), 33; van Waarden (n. 21), 240–1 in particular for the convincing possibility that the last sentence of the passage is a gloss. See also Mathisen (n. 1), 81, 122. For caritas as ‘devotion to relatives and close friends’ in Sidonius, see S. Fascione, Gli ‘altri’ al potere. Romani e barbari nella Gallia di Sidonio Apollinare (Bari, 2019), 105–11.
25 A. Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire: Correspondance, Livres 6–9 (Paris, 1970), 214 n. 4.
26 Harries (n. 14), 213. See also van Waarden (n. 21), 215–17, who suggests that, should Loyen be right in connecting Epist. 7.4 to the incident at the Burgundian court, the letter might be dated between the autumn/winter of 474 and the beginning of 475.
27 See notes 2 and 3 above.
28 W.H. Semple, Quaestiones exegeticae Sidonianae. Being New Interpretations of Difficult Passages in the Works of Apollinaris Sidonius (Cambridge, 1930), 29–33.
29 C.E. Stevens, Sidonius Apollinaris and his Age (Oxford, 1933), 140, 151. Furthermore, Simplicius is mentioned as a non-identifiable relative, and Simplicius and Apollinaris are generally said to be Sidonius’ kinsmen in W.B. Anderson, Sidonius Letters Books 3–9 (Cambridge, MA and London, 1965), 78, 179. Stevens (this note) and Anderson (this note) are mentioned by Loyen (n. 19), 223 n. 32, who is followed by Giannotti (n. 15), 205.
30 PLRE 2.1015 s.v. ‘Simplicius 8’; PCBE 4.1818–19 s.v. ‘Simplicius 8’.
31 E.g. Mathisen (n. 1), 58, 122.
32 In Epist. 2.9.1 the distance between the two estates is said to be too tiring for a man on foot but manageable on horseback.
33 Also in Kaufmann (n. 2), 348.
34 Epist. 2.9.5 scaeuus cauendusque tractator.
35 PLRE 2.1015 s.v. ‘Simplicius 8’; also Kaufmann (n. 2), 348.
36 Carm. 24.84–9 exin tende gradum Tribusque Villis | Thaumastum expete, quemlibet duorum: | quorum iunior est mihi sodalis | et collega simul graduque frater; | quod si fors senior tibi inuenitur, | hunc pronus prope patruum saluta. W.B. Anderson, Sidonius: Poems and Letters Books 1–2 (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1936), 325 believes that the name Thaumastus entails a wordplay and translates the passage as follows: ‘Thence wend your way at the Three Manors and visit Thaumastus—either of the two Wonders: the younger is my bosom-friend and also my colleague and in standing my brother; but if you chance to find the elder, bow low and salute him as almost my uncle.’ For a linguistic commentary, see S. Santelia, Sidonio Apollinare: Carme 24. Propempticon ad libellum (Bari, 2002), 118–19. Mathisen (n. 1), 58 follows Anderson (this note).
37 Loyen, A., Sidoine Apollinaire et l'esprit précieux en Gaule aux derniers jours de l'Empire (Paris, 1943), 74–5Google Scholar as in PLRE 2.1062 s.v. ‘Thaumastus 1’; PCBE 4.1867 s.v. ‘Thaumastus 1’.
38 Loyen (n. 37), 75 n. 108: ‘Il est curieux qu'Anderson encore se trompe sur les deux Thaumastus. Thaumastus senior est le patruus de Sidoine (c. 24, 89), sensiblement plus âgé que lui (Ep. V, 6); il appartient à la même génération que Tonantius Ferreolus (Ep. I, 7, 4). Thaumastus iunior est le camarade de Sidoine et son cousin germain (c. 24, 85–6): frater est synonyme de frater patruelis.’
39 Mathisen (n. 1), 58–9.
40 Giannotti, F., ‘Nota sul Propempticon ad libellum di Sidonio Apollinare (carm. 24, 84–89)’, BStudLat 51 (2021), 169–77Google Scholar, at 175–6.
41 See PCBE 4.1818–19 s.v. ‘Simplicius 8’ and PCBE 4.161 s.v. ‘Apollinaris 3’.
42 Mathisen (n. 1), 58 n. 197.
43 Loyen (n. 19), 236 n. 22.
44 Also in PCBE 4.163 s.v. ‘Apollinaris 3’; PCBE 4.1867 s.v. ‘Thaumastus 1’.
45 E.g. in Epist. 4.18.2, 5.17.6, 6.2.2, 7.17.4.
46 In his ‘Notes complémentaires’ to Book 5, Loyen (n. 19), 234 n. 5 writes: ‘fratrum communium désignant Apollinaris et Simplicius’.
47 Loyen (n. 37), 74 and 185 s.v. ‘Simplicius’.
48 PLRE 2.1015 s.v. ‘Simplicius 8’.
49 And he does so quite resolutely, one may add, since Epist. 5.21 ends with a sort of fulmen in clausula, a not uncommon literary device in closing remarks of Sidonian letters: patrimonia tenete, date carmina.
50 López, M.C. Fernández, ‘Sidonio Apolinar, humanista de la antigüedad tardía: su correspondencia’, Antigüedad y Cristianismo 11 (1994), 11–291Google Scholar, at 64 n. 26. Giannotti (n. 15), 206 summarized the status quaestionis of the debated identification of this addressee.
51 PLRE 2.1015 s.v. ‘Simplicius 9’.
52 Van Waarden (n. 21), 392–3; Giannotti (n. 15), 206 is of the same opinion.
53 As for the Simplicius who happens to be briefly mentioned in Epist. 7.6.9, and about whom there is no information available, van Waarden reaches the same prudent conclusion.
54 See Pellizzari (n. 22), 188; Cameron, Alan, ‘Were pagans afraid to speak their minds in a Christian world? The correspondence of Symmachus’, in Salzman, M.R., Sághy, M. and Testa, R. Lizzi (edd.), Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, and Coexistence in the Fourth Century (Cambridge, 2015), 64–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 77–8. For the topos of epistolary silence in Pliny the Younger, see Gibson, R. and Morello, R., Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger: An Introduction (Cambridge and New York, 2012), 145Google Scholar.
55 The presence of Epist. 5.5, concerning a different theme and addressee, might testify that some time had passed. It also constitutes a fitting interlude, which helps in the shifting of tone going from complaints on epistolary silence to letters in which peace is restored in the family. See Marolla (n. 14), 170–1.
56 The elder Thaumastus and the younger Thaumastus in Carm. 24 being Thaumastus and his younger brother Apollinaris; however, an Apollinaris is already mentioned in Vorocingus (Carm. 24.53), and is called with a show of affection ‘our Apollinaris’.
57 PLRE 2.418 s.v. ‘Eulalia’: ‘her father was possibly Simplicius, who had an (unnamed) daughter of whose marriage Sidonius approved; Sid. Ap. Ep. 3.11.1–2’; see also PLRE 2.910 s.v. ‘Probus 4’; PLRE 2.1317 stemma 14; Kaufmann (n. 2), 348; Giannotti (n. 15), 206; Santelia (n. 36), 122–4.
58 This is proof—according to Mathisen (n. 1), 59—that the use of frater in relation to Apollinaris should be considered as an abbreviated form for frater patruelis.
59 There is no way of knowing whether either or both Simplicius and Thaumastus 1 could be brothers to Sidonius’ father or brothers-in-law, being married to his sisters. For Mathisen's theory that Thaumastus 1 is, in fact, married to Sidonius’ paternal aunt and that, for this reason, he is said to be ‘almost a patruus’ in Carm. 24.89, cf. n. 6 above.
60 Who was Probus’ brother, hence Eulalia's brother-in-law.
61 Sidonius writes to Magnus Felix in Epist. 4.10.1 erumpo in salutationem licet seram, domine meus, annis ipse iam multis insalutatus. Similar complaints to Magnus Felix for being ignored are also in Epist. 3.4.2 and 3.7.1. See Marolla (n. 14), 97–102.
62 Sidonius tells Magnus Felix that he has been punished for obscure offences in Epist. 3.4.2 licet apertis ipsi poenis propter criminum occulta plectamur, while he has been acting piously. Cf. Epist. 5.3.4 (fit a nostra parte quod pium est); moreover, he is the one offended in Epist. 5.4.2 (contractae apud nos offensae amaritudinem).
63 Epist. 3.11.1.