In his panegyric of Avitus, his father-in-law, the poet Sidonius gives a vivid and often detailed picture of the career of the future emperor from his boyhood until he gained the supreme power in the West in the year 455, which he owed to his ability and accomplishments in warfare, diplomacy and administration. He also enjoyed strong support from both Goths and Gauls, and his repeated success in managing the volatility and the aspirations of the Goths is a major theme. This short note seeks to contribute to the understanding of his emergence as Augustus by proposing a new interpretation of a pivotal passage (lines 519–24), quoted below. The context can be briefly given. Sidonius has painted a graphic picture of the reaction among the Goths to the news of the Vandal capture of Rome in the year 455 (lines 441–57). In the ensuing assembly of Gothic elders Avitus (who happens to be with them at Toulouse at this moment)Footnote ¹ gives a speech that vigorously praises peace (lines 458–86), and this is favourably received. There follows a speech from the Gothic king, Theoderic II, in which he puts his own strong case for an agreement between Goths and Gauls, and seeks to persuade Avitus to fill the vacuum in Rome and Italy caused by the recent death of the emperor Petronius Maximus and take the name of Augustus (lines 489–518).

In the text of Anderson,Footnote ² the passage to be discussed reads as follows:

Anderson translates: ‘But thou, Avitus, didst depart in sadness, knowing it could not be hidden from the Gauls that the Goths could be at their service if thou wert emperor. Yea, when it was revealed to the anxious citizens that thou wert carrying back with thee a treaty, they eagerly rushed to meet thee, and without thy knowing it they spread a tribunal for thee beforehand … ’. The passage as given in the manuscript is translated thus by Loyen: ‘Tu t’éloignes, Avitus, l'air préoccupé, car [tu connaissais le sentiment des Gaulois]: tu savais qu'ils ne pouvaient ignorer l'importance des services que les Goths pourraient rendre, si tu étais empereur. Et de fait, tes concitoyens anxieux ne furent pas plus tôt informés de la signature du traité, qu'ils accourent … ’.Footnote ³ The manuscript reading gives what must be an internal accusative, qualifying the verb seruirent; this may be translated as ‘in what respect’ or ‘to what extent’ (they might serve).Footnote ⁴ The suitability of such a translation to the context must be discussed, as must the meaning of seruire, together with the new interpretation of the passage offered in this paper.

My contention is that the significance of this passage has been missed, because all translators, both before and after Mohr,Footnote ⁵ have, like Anderson, construed the word Getae as nominative plural, rather than dative singular.Footnote ⁶ There are similar uses of the collective singular, so common in Roman historical discourse, especially in military situations, in lines 350 and 393 of this poem. In both of these places a substantial part, or the whole body, of the Goths is meant, and there is no possible doubt about the grammar: in the first case we have an ablative singular, part of an ablative absolute construction, and in the second case a dative singular, qualified by feroci. In accordance with this proposal, I modify Anderson's translation of the sentence (removing the archaisms and adding some quotation marks to assist explanation) to read: ‘You, Avitus, departed in sadness, knowing it could not be hidden from the Gauls that they could be “at the service of” the Goth if you were emperor.’

But the word seruire has a wide range of meanings, ranging from the bland ‘be of service to’, through ‘be politically subject to’, to ‘be in thrall to’. It is important to note that in Sidonius’ panegyrics the verb has the meaning at least of ‘be subordinate to’. In the first of these passages, which are all in the panegyric of Majorian, the Latin is mea Gallia rerum | ignoratur adhuc dominis ignaraque seruit (5.357-8) (‘my Gaul has been disregarded until now by the masters of the world, and has, unnoticed, served them’). Anderson translated the last two words ‘languished in slavery unheeded’, and the rhetoric (note especially dominis) certainly demands a sense close to that of ‘slavery’. In 5.482-3 ne metuat prope parua putat, nisi seruiat illi | quod timuit regnante alio (‘[Rome] thinks it is a small thing to be free of fear, unless she receives the service of a people that she feared when another reigned’), the context is forced military service by barbarians (called here by the formidable though vague name of ‘Scyths’); the point of the poet's words is that this emperor outdoes all previous emperors by pressing into service tribes who were once enemies feared by Rome. In 5.504-5 [sc. mens] quae territa seruit | exemplo, gaudet pretio (‘those who out of terror contributed to the exemplary punishment [of rebelles, the insubordinate], rejoice in their reward’), the context is one of terrified obedience (under pain of death).Footnote ⁷ In view of this, and with the new construe of Getae as indirect object of seruire, the picture is drastically changed: the Gauls would realize that they could be in some way subordinate or even subservient to the Goth, and it was this that saddened Avitus.

This new interpretation removes the serious difficulty of the traditional one: it is hard to see why the prospect of the Goths being in some way potentially subordinate to them, or (just) ‘at their service’, should be unwelcome (then or at some time in the future) to the Gauls, and why Avitus should be sad that this outcome was already or would become known to them. Sidonius might not have foreseen that any ambiguity would arise in the minds of readers aware of the situation. As he pondered the Goths’ pressing invitation to him to become Augustus, surely Avitus’ worry was that the Gauls would be well aware (although as yet they did not know in any detail about his dealings with the Goths or the treaty that he is said to be bringing in line 522) of the consequences for their own position if he became emperor with the strong support of the Goths. This is a genuine concern, for although Avitus is portrayed as in many ways sympathetic to the Goths, and as having close relations with them—hence their continuing confidence in him as diplomat and negotiator, according to Sidonius—the panegyrist is also careful to show that Avitus’ loyalty to the Gauls came first. When, for example, Theoderic, the future king, made friendly advances to the young Avitus, who had come to his court to see a Roman hostage, his loyalty to Rome is firmly and pithily expressed in the words sed spernis amicum | plus quam Romanum gerere (lines 224–5).Footnote ⁸ It makes no sense to think that as he left the Gothic court in 455 Avitus would be sad at the thought that the Gauls might in the future learn, or be already aware, that they would be in a superior position, with the Goths in some sense serving them or subject to them. Certainly Sidonius would never have allowed himself to imply this as he delivered the panegyric before the Senate in Rome, or even (in the unlikely event that the text that we have is a version written later) as he wrote subsequently.

We must now address the suitability of the manuscripts’ reading quid. This version, read with Getae as subject of the verb, would indicate that Avitus was sad to think that the Gauls would surely learn, or were already aware, how the Goths could (or ‘might’) serve. (Whether such service would be to the Gauls or to the state is not clear, and may not matter in this discussion.) But the issue is surely not a matter of detail, as quid as ‘how’ or ‘to what extent’ would imply, as if the terms of some negotiated division of tasks was the point. The same observation applies to any understanding of quid as equivalent to quantum, as the words ‘l'importance’ in Loyen's translation seem to imply.Footnote ⁹ There is an example in OLD from Velleius (2.124.1) quid tunc homines timuerint, quae senatus trepidatio …, but there the need to interpret quid as quantum is much more obvious, for the verb is timuerint, and the point is repeated. The potential problem for Avitus and the Gauls was not how much the Goths might serve; this could not be the most important issue. With the stronger sense of seruire discussed above (but, as shown above in n. 6, ignored by the translators) the detail of how or how much the Goths might be subservient is irrelevant, or at most a minor question. The new interpretation of the words seruire Getae, which, as argued, gives Avitus’ sadness far more point, is also liable to the objection that the detail of the service or subservience implied by quid, in either of the above senses, is a relatively minor point. What would worry the Gauls is surely the fact that they could serve, or be subordinate to, the Goth, and that requires quod. The very thought might horrify them.

In terms of grammatical usage, there is no problem with Mohr's emendation quod. Although the use of this construction, rather than the accusative and infinitive construction, is rare in the poems of Sidonius (as in many late antique poets),Footnote ¹⁰ the single example of it elsewhere in his verse, at Carm. 15.51-4 asserit … Pythagoras solidum princeps quod musica … | temperet, is instructive. Here it is surely employed for greater clarity, as well as for its perceived greater metrical suitability, before the poet switches to accusative and infinitive constructions for his exposition of the rest of Pythagoras’ teaching (lines 54–66). In our passage, too, the quod construction is much clearer than a second use of accusative and infinitive, so close to the words non posse latere, would be; and its use avoids an ungainly sentence, with two identical constructions and even repetition of posse.

Finally, a note on namque, which introduces a sentence that reveals a very favourable situation for Avitus: they welcome him back, with a treaty which they assume to be one that guarantees peace,Footnote ¹¹ and set up a tribunal of their own accord. The word namque does not explain why Avitus had been sad, but must here have an adversative function, as nam and enim often do in writers of Late Antiquity.Footnote ¹² In Sidonius there is an instance of this in line 516 above, where there is a contrast between the persuasion of King Theoderic and the possible compulsion by Gallia; the same function is apparent probably also in Carm. 13.35, where there is a contrast between the prospect of future panegyrics of Majorian by Sidonius and the humble activities forced on the beleaguered poet in the present.Footnote ¹³ Avitus’ dilemma, and the cause of his sadness, has disappeared. His worst fears were not realized, far from it; he had not been aware, it seems, of the Gauls’ confidence in him, and was not to know that they had been preparing their own ‘cleverly laid scheme’,Footnote ¹⁴ thereby in a sense trumping or at least furthering the Gothic king's insistence that Avitus allow himself to be declared emperor. The citizens involved, soon augmented by ample groups of nobilitas (lines 524–5), are from the whole of Gaul—in Sidonius’ words, the area bounded by the Cottian Alps, the Tyrrhenian sea, the Rhine and the Pyrenees; this is a meeting of the Council of the Gauls, set up in 418. The apparently unsuspecting Avitus had misread the position of the Gauls, but the detail of his serious but transient sadness serves to add to the picture of a sensitive and tactful diplomat.

A speech by an unnamed noble (lines 530–71)—the question of his identity does not concern us hereFootnote ¹⁵ —is greeted with applause that fills the hall at UgernumFootnote ¹⁶ where they have met, and all are persuaded that Avitus must be emperor. This decision is legitimated two days later by another acclamation by the soldiers and the presentation to Avitus of a military torc and unspecified insignia regni. The poet notes here that even now Avitus is maestus, but for a different reason. This is not quite the conventional reluctance of secular and sacred appointees,Footnote ¹⁷ but perhaps rather a glumness or apprehensiveness, which Sidonius explains by saying (in line 580) that Avitus had hitherto taken on only the cares of a princeps, and not (he implies) the joys of one. Perhaps, the poet adds in a typical simile, Hercules looked like that when he accepted the burden of Atlas (lines 581–4). This may, indeed, be a feature of the real Avitus, noted by his son-in-law. Be that as it may, the Fates then weave a felix tempus (‘happy time’) for his reign, and their looms produce a Golden Age for the consulship which has just begun.Footnote ¹⁸