Content

This letter is a complaint about epistolary silence addressed to Simplicius, who is exhorted to answer Sidonius and to convince his offspring to bridge the rift with the author.

The addressee Simplicius: an identification problem

A pivotal role in defining the structure of the first part of Book 5 is played by the relationship between the author and Apollinaris, Thaumastus and Simplicius, three relatives to whom a group of letters is devoted (Epp. 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.7), and whose kinship with Sidonius needs discussion. The only certain information which can be gathered from these texts, and is unanimously accepted, is that Apollinaris and Thaumastus are brothers. By the majority of scholars they have been considered to be Sidonius’ uncles; however, Stevens, and more recently Mathisen, demonstrated that the evidence in the letters leads rather to the inference that they were Sidonius’ cousins.

In the entries dedicated to this addressee in prosopographical tools, Simplicius is said to be a brother to Apollinaris and Thaumastus, and thus also an uncle or cousin of Sidonius. There is no element, however, which would allow one to state with any degree of certainty that Simplicius is these men's brother, and the following discussion is aimed at proving that this kinship is not demonstrable in light of the passages usually mentioned as evidence.

The letters addressed to Simplicius by Sidonius are the following:

• Ep. 3.11 letter of congratulations on the marriage of his daughter;

• Ep. 4.7 witty and playful commendation letter for its messenger, mocked by Sidonius for his rusticitas, which, through contrast, brightens Simplicius’ urbanitas;

• Ep. 5.4 complaint about his and his sons’ epistolary silence;

• Ep. 4.4 jointly with Apollinaris, a commendation letter for the bearer;

• Ep. 4.12 jointly with Apollinaris, a request to resend a letter which had been lost in transit.

It should be noted that in both Epp. 4.4 and 4.12, Simplicius’ name precedes that of Apollinaris in the heading and that this choice could be ascribable to an age difference between the two. Note that also in Ep. 7.4.4, addressed to bishop Fonteius, Simplicius is mentioned before Apollinaris,6 when the two are described as uerissimi domini of Sidonius’ soul.7 Simplicius, therefore, would have been either older than Apollinaris or more venerable in some way, hence deserving first mention.