Burial with a Partner in Late Antique and Early Medieval Gaul: From Urban Legend to Epigraphic Realities
L’inhumation avec un partenaire dans la Gaule de l’Antiquité tardive et du début du Moyen Âge : de la légende urbaine aux réalités épigraphiques
p. 125-132
Résumés
When certain loving wives died – at least according to a late antique urban legend—their corpses would eventually be momentarily resurrected to welcome their widowers to their shared grave. Such stories played with the concept of tomb, tumulus, as thalamus, marriage-bed. These marriages were originally consummated ones, but were eventually recast in temporibus Christianis as ones that had not been. Both spouses remained virgins. The stories also smiled knowingly at what happened in the marriage-chamber, both love and, eventually, continence. “Our secret” could involve either. Ne le dis à personne! Starting from work on the literary sources (for which see Shanzer 2019 and 2020), I extend my research to look more generally at both virginal and continent marriage and at problems of attestation and epigraphic documentation. The secrecy of the intimate sexual sphere naturally frustrates intrusive scholarly eyes. Several important inscriptions have been adduced as evidence for virginal marriage, but the arguments weaken under scrutiny and new evidence (virginius turns out to refer to someone who married as a virgin, not to someone in a virginal marriage; illibatus remains ambiguous: “untouched” vs. “impeccable”). The article then revisits and explores relevant evidence from Gaul: the cases of Singenia and Ampelius, Dynamius and Eucheria, the anonymi of Gregory of Tours’ Confessors 77, and Fortunatus, Radegund, and Agnes. Virginal marriage seems to remain a hagiographical construct rather than a claim attested in texts that are historically anchored and autobiographically focalized. Marital continence is another matter and can to some extent be captured. A certain urbanitas surrounding these themes persisted into the Merovingian period.
Après leur mort, les corps de certaines épouses aimantes – du moins selon une légende répandue pendant l’Antiquité tardive – pouvaient être temporairement ressuscités pour accueillir leurs défunts maris dans la tombe commune. De telles histoires jouent avec le concept de tombe, tumulus, en tant que thalamus, lit matrimonial. Ces mariages étaient en leur origine antique des mariages consommés, mais furent finalement transformés in temporibus christianis en des mariages chastes. Les deux conjoints étaient restés vierges. Ces histoires faisaient aussi un clin d’œil entendu à ce qui se passait dans la chambre conjugale, tant l’amour qu’ensuite, la continence. “Notre secret” pouvait impliquer l’un comme l’autre. Ne le dis à personne ! À partir de travaux portant sur les sources littéraires (pour lesquels on verra Shanzer 2019 et 2020), j’élargis ma recherche pour examiner de manière plus générale le mariage virginal et le mariage continent, et aborder les problèmes de documentation épigraphique. Le secret de la sphère sexuelle intime frustre naturellement les regards intrusifs des érudits. Plusieurs inscriptions importantes ont été présentées comme preuves du mariage virginal, mais les arguments ne tiennent pas à l’examen et sont infirmés par de nouvelles informations. Virginius s’avère faire référence à quelqu’un qui s’est marié en tant que vierge, et non à un partenaire dans un mariage virginal ; illibatus reste ambigu : est-ce “non touché” ou “impeccable” ? L’article revisite et analyse ensuite les données pertinentes fournies par la Gaule : les cas de Singenia et Ampelius, Dynamius et Eucheria, les anonymi de Grégoire de Tours (De laude confessorum 77), et Fortunatus, Radegonde et Agnès. Le mariage virginal semble rester une construction hagiographique plutôt qu’une actualité attestée dans des textes qui sont historiquement ancrés et autobiographiquement focalisés. La continence conjugale est une autre affaire, et peut, dans une certaine mesure, être appréhendée. Une certaine urbanitas autour de ces thèmes persista jusqu´à l’époque mérovingienne.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : double sépulture, mariage virginal, mariage continent, inscriptions, Grégoire de Tours, Gaule du haut Moyen Âge
Keywords : double burial, virginal marriage, continent marriage, inscriptions, Gregory of Tours, early medieval Gaul
Texte intégral
Introduction
1This paper1 is a pendant to two previous publications of mine both of which discuss the evolution of a medieval urban legend, the tale of a double burial of man and wife where one spouse’s corpse came temporarily to life to welcome its partner. Sometimes the wife makes a slightly risqué joke about their marital love or (later) marital continence. The core texts involved are the early 4th C. Anonymous De laudibus domini and four miracle pericopes from Gregory of Tours (Shanzer 2020). The story involves great themes like Love, Death, and Resurrection (Shanzer 2019). But at its center lies the reception of Christian marriages that were allegedly quite intentionally never consummated2. I spell this detail out because there is considerable terminological confusion, and marriages where the partners eventually gave up sexual relations are often merged with those that were never consummated3. This was all part and parcel of the virtue-inflation and apologetics of hagiography. I will use the term “virginal marriage” for the strong option and “marital continence” for the eventually sexless marriage 4. In the course of this research I became interested in the realia and reception of burial à deux and by the question of whether people actually commemorated either virginal marriage or marital continence in their epitaphs. In Rufinus’ translation of the Lausiac History, Amun of Nitria and his bride kept their virginities secret: silentio tegitur incorruptionis thesaurus5. And such seems often to have been the case (see Jülicher 1904 and Elliott 1993), but never more deliberately and coquettishly so than in Gregory of Tours. I was also curious about whether any Roman urbanitas about love in and after death survived the onset of the Middle Ages.
1. Texts, Corpses, and Sarcophagi: The Miracle in the Carmen de laudibus domini and Gregory of Tours
2The intriguing shortish (148 vv.) hexameter poem called the Carmen de laudibus domini begins with a miracle story about two burials. A loving Christian husband and wife from Gaul each hoped to predecease the other, but the wife died first (De laudibus 10-14). The bereft widower caused a large tomb to be excavated to accommodate both his wife and eventually himself, for in life they had slept in one bed. And when he died, his wife’s corpse, though bound tight in grave bandages, was caught stretching out her left hand to him with a gesture of living love6.
3The Carmen is Constantinian in date, and its action is set in the territory of the Aedui, where “the sluggish procession of the Saône glides by its banks and barely unfolds its lazy course.” Pliny believed the preference for the left (hand/direction) to be native to the Galliae (Opelt 1978). So local color. But three important inherited literary features passed previous scholars by. First, the story imitates an obscure passage in Tertullian’s De Anima 51.6-8, where a recently dead married woman moved her arms miraculously to pray along with the priest on her bier at her own funeral (Shanzer 2019: 722-723). And second, the rock-tomb and mummy-like grave bandages are anachronistic for Late Antique Gaul. They point to an imitation of Lazarus’ tomb and Lazarus’ resurrection in John’s Gospel and his miraculous locomotion (Shanzer 2020: 295-297). Third, there is no reason to suppose that the Carmen’s marriage was anything other than a normally consummated one. The poem gleefully sports the affective diminutive lectulus (Carmen 17) and the telling word deprensa (Carmen 30), “caught in the act” of the corpse’s come-hither gesture to her partner. This couple’s tomb was a love-bed in which the dead woman was caught “at” it – flagrante delicto.
4This touching story proved contagious and spread like an urban legend (Shanzer 2019: 726-735). There are no fewer than four versions of it in 6th C. Gaul in the works of Gregory of Tours7. Confessors 74 involves Rheticius of Autun who became a bishop after being widowed but had promised his dying wife that they who had shared one bed in loving chastity would rest in one grave. They couldn’t move his bier when they tried to bury him separately. Fortunately, someone remembered the promise, and the dead man came back to life to commend himself to his wife. The sarcophagus shook, and his virgin wife’s bones were heaped up together in one place to make room for him8. A second version in Confessors 41 tells of a layman, Hilarius of Dijon, in an enormous Parian marble sarcophagus. He died first, but embraced his wife when a year later she joined him in the tomb.
5The final two versions are both racier and wittier. One is in Gregory of Tours’ Histories 1.47. This is a lay-couple, “the lovers of Clermont,” where the girl convinces her bride-groom on their wedding night to have a sexless marriage. They shook hands on it and thereafter slept together constantly in one bed. She died first, and, when he buried her, he said: “I give thanks, Jesus Christ, that I am returning to you the treasure that you commended to me just as stainless as when I received it.” She came to life and smiled (subridens) and said, “Why are you mentioning what no one asked you about9 ?” Here there are two sarcophaguses, side-by-side, that move back together when displaced. The second version is in Confessors 31, where the lay-pair later became a priest and a nun. Here again at the woman’s funeral the man gave thanks that he had given his wife back to God unpolluted by sexual pleasure. She awoke smiling to say, “Hush, Hush, man of God, there is no need for you to confess our secret, when no one is asking you10 !” Furtive chastity is the secret in these stories, not, as customarily, furtive love !
6The tale thus moved with the times. By the time of Gregory of Tours various Christian opinion-makers must have begun to “push” and preach mariage blanc or Josephsehe, which is the central point of three of Gregory’s stories. Confessors 74 described a virginal marriage (spiritalis dilectionis conhibentia). So did Histories 1.47 and Confessors 31. But Confessors 41’s marriage involved children and was thus a normal faithful one. I would guess that in these pericopes we catch glimpses of Gregory’s preaching (Shanzer 2003: 47-48), and that he re-tailored his material for different audiences: for the married with children, for ordinary lay-people, for lay-people who adopted the religious life, and even for a situation where a widower became bishop. Though this is far from the loving sexual intimacy of the Etruscan couples from the Ponte Rotto Necropolis in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Shanzer 2019: 712), it is nonetheless on the same continuum. The question of love after death was still being asked wittily in Constantinian Gaul. And in Merovingian times it appears in inverted form: “It’s our secret, darling ! Don’t tell them we didn’t do it !”
2. Sarcophagi and Inscriptions
7The temporary resurrection of the first deceased of a pair to welcome his/her partner is a sentimental miracle. But what about the realia of the Carmen’s story: burial in one grave or even sarcophagus (which is well attested in Antiquity), also the planning for joint burial by the initial survivor ? Bisomes are rare in the Merovingian period11, but Gregory describes both (re-used ?)12 sarcophaguses large enough for two (See GC 41, 74, and DLH 4.12) and couples buried in individual sarcophagi side-by-side (DLH 1.47 and GC 31), and in Confessors 41 he emphasizes that the sarcophagus was still to be seen in Dijon.
8These realia immediately lead one to think beyond the usual literary sources and now-lost tombs to surviving inscriptions, which famously exploit the pun tumulus and thalamus13. And all of Gregory’s burials would have included inscriptions on the sarcophagi or tombs. What of documentary evidence for ‘mariage blanc’ as opposed to the literary evidence, where “anything goes ?” This was hard to find. I made a sondage in Fortunatus’ poetry (on whom more anon). Then came famous works of reference: Leclercq’s DACL (Leclercq 1932: 1963-1964), Pelka’s Altchristliche Ehedenkmäler, Le Blant’s Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures au viiie siècle, and, eventually, the more modern and wonderful (if sadly incomplete) Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures à la Renaissance carolingienne (Gauthier 1975 ; Prévot and Pietri 1997 ; Descombes 1985), Starting from the secrecy of the sex that didn’t happen in Gregory’s hagiographic mirabilia I asked whether, or how often, an intentionally sexless (continent) marriage outed itself in a funerary inscription. Where could one or did one write about such things ?
9It made sense to start with Leclercq’s three main exhibits: from Rome, Salona, and Aouste-sur-Sye (Drôme), now in the Musée Calvet in Avignon (Gascou and Guyon 2005: 211). He concentrated on two lexemes: inlibata/inlibate and virginius. Subsequent research has added the terms virginia and convirginius to the list. A Latin inscription on a sarcophagus from the Basilica at Salona, dated securely to 378 CE14, was edited thus in Salona IV (Marin, Gauthier and Prévot 2010: 407):
Fl(avius) Terentius Fl(aviae) Ta<l>asiae ob meritis et fide<l>itat<e>m/totiusque sanctitatem arcam posui coniugi/carissimae et sibi quam a parentibus ipsius suscepi/annos XVIII q<u>aeque inlibatae mecum vixit annos XXXII/tradita sepulturae die Nonarum Septembres d(ominis) n(ostris)/Valente VI et Va<l> entiniano iterum Aug(ustis) cons(ulibus)/si quis vero sup<e>r duo cor<p>ora nos<t>ra aliut/corpus voluerit ordinare dabit fisci viribus/argenti pondo quindecim.
10If inlibatae (for inlibate) means “impeccably,” then there is nothing noteworthy here. But one could read q<u>i aeque and sees illibatae as an aural Perseverationsfehler from aeque – and hence to be corrected to/read as aeque illibata. “as untouched as previously (sc. when with her parents)15.” In that case the stone could indeed commemorate a virginal marriage.
11ICLV 1727 commemorates a woman que vixit inlibata cum birginio suo annis V16. Leclercq took the two terms (inlibata and virginius) to refer to an unconsummated marriage (Leclercq 1932: 1963). Inlibata is not unambiguous, and virginius and its cousin convirginius have been hotly debated. Scholars have assigned virginia meanings such as “chaste in marriage” (Spon) (Pelka 1901: 16), while virginius was supposedly used of a man who couldn’t consummate his marriage (!) (Guasco) (Pelka 1901: 16) ; the majority (and correct) view, that both words referred to spouses who had married as virgins was first proposed by Reinesius in the 17th C (Pelka 1901: 16-17). Others thought virginia meant univira. The problem can now be resolved. CIL 3.13529 from Wels in Noricum commemorates Ursa who died in childbed at 3817. Her husband describes himself and his wife as convirginios18, which must here mean “pair who were married as virgins,” not “virginal spouses,” or “continent spouses.”19 The Clauss-Slaby epigraphic database shows that married men were regularly addressed as virginii by their wives even in cases when the marriage produced offspring20. But perhaps the word inlibata carries the weight, and the marriage was indeed an eventually continent one ? The few other epigraphic examples of inlibata do not help resolve the question21.
12Leclercq’s third witness is a famous epitaph preserved in the Musée Calvet in Avignon (Leclercq 1932: 1963-1964 ; Leclercq 1913: 1165-1167 ; Anon. 1899: 228). It was discussed and edited by Le Blant (Le Blant 1856b: 30-31 ; Leclercq 1913: 1165-1167), my initial point of departure, but has now been re-edited with a full and thoughtful commentary by Gascou and Guyon22. Both Le Blant and Leclercq (Leclercq 1913: 1165-1167) saw here a marriage that became continent. The couple were, it seemed, married for about 60 years, and when she left him behind (linquens) she maintained (perduraret) her castitatas perpetua for more than 20 years23. Neither Le Blant nor Leclercq nor Gascou and Guyon expressed any surprise about this remarkable chronology24. Was a Syngenia: 14 (perhaps) + 60 years married + more than 20 years as a widow, hence in her mid-90’s likely25 ? Was it an epitaphic virtue to tough it out without sex after the age of 74 ? The stone is in Clauss-Slaby26, and, indeed – all the previous editors had misread XX as LX or, worse, as LXX27 ! Furthermore -inuos, not -inus is the correct reading in line 628. Here is a working edition of this text, including some of my own editorial choices.
In Chr(ist)i nomene in huc loc[o requiescunt]/ | 1 |
in pace fedelis famul[i( ?) dei Ampeliu]/ | |
s et Singenia qui vixer[unt in coniu]/ | |
gali adfectu et carita[te mutua( ?)]/ | |
annis circiter XX aut a[mplius cont]29/ | 5 |
inuos in pace dominica f[idi perman]/ | |
serunt quorum vita talis f[uit ut seq]30/. | |
quens coniux maritum XX a[nnos]31/ | |
excedens in castitate perpet[ua]/ | |
perduraret/ | 10 |
obiet venerabilis memoriae Ampe[lius]/ | |
sub die XVI K(a)l(endas) Decembris Fisto et [Fl(avio ?)]/ | |
Marciano con(ssulibus)/ | |
transiet bone recordationis Si]ngenia]/ | |
sub die III K(a)l(endas) Ianuarias p(ost) c(onsulatum) Viato[ris]/ | |
in Chr(ist)i nominee |
In the name of Christ in this place rest in peace the faithful servants of God Ampelius and Singenia who lived in conjugal affection and love for about 20 years or more continuously. They stayed faithful in the peace of the Lord, and their life was such that the wife, following her husband, lasted in perpetual chastity for more than 20 years32. Ampelius of venerable memory died on the 16th day before the Kalends of December, when Festus and Marcianus were consuls (472 CE). Singenia of blessed memory passed over on the 3rd day before the Kalends of January in the year after Viator’s consulship (496). In the name of Christ.
13Although the chronology has been cleared up, there still remain difficulties in lines 7-10. They center on the participle to be restored in line 7. All previous editors chose linquens, which would have Syngenia leaving her spouse for a continent life33. The only other viable restoration would be sequens, which suggests a different scenario, one that I would prefer. This is, after all, an inscription set up by a third party after the second partner in a very long marriage has died (Elliott 1993: 62). Given that they were buried and commemorated together, isn’t it more likely that the virtuous wife followed her husband into ascetic continence than that she left or abandoned him ? I find the latter reading odd in such a context. Does one joyfully commemorate abandonment on joint tombstones ? Hardly.
14Attested here is thus an approximately 20-year-long marriage, during which at some point (when is unclear) the husband Ampelius opted for a continent lifestyle, quite possibly as an ascetic. Syngenia followed him in this decision and maintained it after she was widowed in 472 for more than 20 years (24 to be precise) till she died in 496. This is marital continence, but not virginal marriage, for perpetua is not the same as aeterna.
15A miracle of married love may morph into a miracle of virginal marriage or of married continence in heavily literary texts, but it proves hard to pin down virginal marriage or married continence in inscriptions. Fortunatus, App. 9b, written in the voices of Radegund and Agnes, is however a rare document that makes a clear allusion to a marriage that turned continent34. A troublesome text of 586 CE35, formerly
16ICG 597 and, more recently, NR 298 (Le Blant 1892: 332), and also CIL 12.1045, presents itself as the priest Valens’ now fragmentary epitaph for his wife Ca(e)saria, who after the death of a child dedicated herself, along with her husband, entirely to Christ (Le Blant 1856b: 417-21. His second thoughts are in Le Blant 1892: 332-38).
3. Epitaphic Poetry and Hagiography
17I will end with three telling items from the 6th C. The epitaph of Dynamius 3, patrician and rector of Provence (†595) (Pietri and Heijmans 2013a: 600-603), and his wife Eucheria (†ca. 605) (Pietri and Heijmans 2013a: 652), written by his homonymous grandson (Pietri and Heijmans 2013a: 604) adorned a now unidentifiable church of Hippolytus. This must have been a double burial, planned in advance, and commemorated after the death of the wife Eucheria.
Dynamius and Eucheria’s Epitaph36 | |
Coniugii dulcis hoc est commune sepulchrum, | |
Quod nec post fatum liquit amicus amor. | |
Quos pietate pares etiam post funera iunctos | |
Vnus et affectus et locus unus habet. | |
DINAMIVS hic nam, pariter EVCHERIA coniunx | 5 |
Martyris Hippolyti limina sancta tenent. | |
Stemmate sublimes quamquam, sed moribus ortum | |
Vicerunt probi nobilitate sua. | |
Hos pietas, hos prisca fides, hos gloria perpes, | |
Pacifer hos sensus fecit ubique bonos. | 10 |
Hos iunxit sic castus amor, ut mente sub una | |
Alter in alterius corde maneret homo. | |
Lustra decem felix tulerat post terga37 maritus, | |
Cum dedit hanc sedem morte suprema dies. | |
Cuius iam geminis privata lumine lustris. | 15 |
Vixisti, coniunx, vita abeunte minus. | |
Non lugete pios placide post facta38 parentes,39 | |
Vita brevis quorum praemia longa dedit. | |
Patricium te culmen40 habet, tu rector in orbe es, | |
Sit tibi perpetuo tempore laeta dies. | 20 |
DINAMIVS parva lacrimans haec carmina fudi, | |
Nomen avi referens, patre iubente, nepos. |
This is the shared grave of a loving marriage that loving affection didn’t abandon after death. One feeling and one place holds these two, equal in kindness and joined even after their deaths. For Dynamius and likewise Eucheria his wife keep to the sacred threshold of the martyr Hippolytus. Although their family tree was lofty, upstanding in character they outdid their origin in their intrinsic nobility. Their piety, their old-fashioned trustworthiness, their eternal reputation, and their peaceable nature made them appreciated as good everywhere. Their chaste love joined them in such a fashion that unanimous in their thinking, each one dwelled in the other’s heart. The husband had seen ten lustra behind him, when his final day allotted him this resting-place in death. You, O wife, lived less than two lustra deprived of his light, when your life departed. Do not †calmly† mourn your worthy †parents† after death41, whose short life gave them long-lasting rewards. The lofty patriciate holds you, you are the rector in the universe, and may there be a joyful day for you forever. I Dynamius, weeping, have poured out these few verses, a grandson bearing the name of my grandfather, at the order of my father.
18The poem must date to shortly before 605, given that Dynamius 3 vanished in 595, and that Eucheria survived him by less than 10 years. We see here the Roman themes of the loving marriage and the shared grave. Even though the noble Eucheria is very probably the poetess of AL 1.390 who playfully deployed every adynaton in her literary quiver to say “In your dreams !” to a (presumably imagined) rustic suitor, the eroticism is toned down to amicitia and affectus. And dead center in the poem their amor is characterized as castus. By the beginning of the 7 th C. real people weren’t any longer commemorated with literary erotica. But this is not to say that people didn’t talk…
19Two earlier texts by known authors describe historical personages and attest discussion of such private matters. Has anyone pointed out how extraordinary Confessors 77 is ?
Sed quoniam superiore capitulo exposuimus, qualiter castitas diligentes Deum ornaverit, venit in memoriam, quae Felicem Namneticum referentem, dum de his confabularemur, audivi.
Aiebat enim, fuisse antestitem in civitate sua cum coniuge ; sed cum ad honorem sacerdotii accessisset, lectulum iuxta ordinem institutionis catholicae sequestravit. Quod mulier valde molestum tulit. Cumque diebus singulis cum eo ageret, ut in uno stratu quiescerent, nec adquiesceret pontifex rem tam inprobam, quam canonum decreta non admittebant, quadam die accensa furore, ait intra se : “Non puto esse absque aliqua conscientia viri mei, quod ab amplexu eius taliter sum repulsa ; sed ibo et videbo, ne forte alia mulier cum eo decumbat, pro cuius me amore dispiciat”. Et statim adfuit in cubiculum episcopi, invenitque eum post meridiem dormientem. Accedensque ante lectulum eius, vidit agnum inmensae claritatis super pectus eius quiescentem. Tunc timore perterrita, velociter se a lectulo sancti removit nec adiecit ultra quaerere, quid vir Deo plenus ageret in occultis ; sed cognovit manifestissime, illud cum servis Dei impleri, quod ipse Dominus suis fidelibus est pollicere dignatus, dicens : Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi.
Because in the previous chapter I set out how chastity adorns those who love God, I am reminded of what I heard from Felix of Nantes while we were chatting about such matters. For he said that there had been a prominent cleric42 in his city with a wife, but when he became a bishop, he kept his bed separate according to the regulation of the Catholic Church. The woman took this very badly. And when she kept campaigning every day for them to sleep in one bed, and when the bishop would not agree to such wicked behavior, which the decrees in the canons did not permit, one day, enraged, she said to herself, “I cannot believe that it is without some complicity on my husband’s side that I have been driven thus from his embrace. I will go and see, lest perhaps some other woman is sleeping with him, for whose love he has rejected me.” And immediately she went to the bishop’s bedroom and found him having a siesta. As she approached his bed, she beheld a brilliantly shining lamb sleeping on his breast. Quite overcome by fear, she swiftly removed herself nor did she go on asking what the man, inspired by God, was doing in secret but recognized clearly that what the Lord himself had deigned to promise his faithful was being fulfilled in the servants of God, when he said, “Lo, I am with you at all times until the end of the temporal world.” (trans. DRS)
20Gregory, Bishop of Tours, and his enemy Felix of Nantes43 were chatting about that fine thing chastity, when Felix let slip a tale about a predecessor’s44 episcopal bedroom in Nantes. An episcopa hadn’t taken kindly to marital continence and jealously ambushed her husband during a siesta – only to behold a mystic lamb sleeping on his bosom (For trouble with episcopae in Gregory of Tours, see Shanzer 2002: 401-402). One wonders whether that all-too-human Anonyma finally achieved her desires after death.
21And finally, Fortunatus. While hoping for rich findings from careful study of his epitaphs, I was disappointed. But I did catch him expressing some interesting ambitions with regard to his two monastic patronesses. His perhaps mutilated and not just unfinished, Appendix 13 must be addressed to Radegund and Agnes, who are paralleled to the saintly Caesaria (I) and Casaria (II) (†After 524 and † before 562/3).
Sic vos Caesarii monitis honor ornet in orbe | |
Atque ambas caro cum patre Christus amet ; | |
sic hic Caesaria et praecelsa Casaria surgat, | |
ut per vos priscus hic reparetur honor ; | |
gratia sic talis niteat, qua crescat in aevo | 5 |
per vos Pictavis Arelatense decus ; | |
sic pie caelesti mereamur vivere regi | |
et mea vobiscum membra sepulchra tegant ; | |
si quod in offenso retinetur pectore murmur, | |
in vice45 laxatum sit veniale precor. | 10 |
Pacem Christus amans, mira dulcedine plenus, | |
pectora vestra sacer se mediante liget. | |
Obtineat pariter veneranda Casaria mecum, | |
quae simul amplexu vos cupit esse pio. |
22The poem is almost certainly defective at the beginning and raises multiple historical problems46. But for current purposes suffice it to note Fortunatus’ piously colored intention to live in a monastic threesome (vos morphs into mereamur), and for his bones to lie with those of his two beloved ladies. I read Vv. 9 and 10 differently from Roberts who inserted “your” before “heart” (Roberts 2017: 797 ; Reydellet 2004: 151). One could see here hints of talk about their relationship: “If any talk (sc. complaint or gossip) persists in [anyone’s] offended heart, I pray that what is pardonable may in turn be let go.” Fortunatus was himself a priest, and kind of Hauskleriker, a tame man hanging around his noble patronesses, before eventually becoming bishop of Poitiers. As a poet he was a perhaps over-sophisticated Italian presence in Merovingian Gaul (Shanzer 2015: 672). And there was talk about his relationship with Agnes47. The conjugal wish to lie in one grave has been necessarily adjusted. Note the absence of the usual unus … unus trope with which we know he was familiar48. But that desire is unambiguously expressed (et mea vobiscum membra sepulchra tenent) with a context of gossip around it and with the word amplexus (pio, of course) in the very last and, I find, difficult line. We have mostly looked at permutations of conjugal relations ending up in one grave, but here in Late Antiquity’s last hurrah we approach a monastic spiritual threesome !
Bibliographie
Achelis 1902. Achelis H. - Virgines subintroductae : ein Beitrag zum VII. Kapitel des I. Korintherbriefs, Leipzig, J.C.Hinrichs.
Alwis 2011. Alwis A.P. - Celibate Marriages in Late Antique and Byzantine Hagiography: The Lives of Saints Julian and Basilissa, Andronikos and Athanasia, and Galaktion and Episteme, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Anon. 1899. Anon. - Catalogue des Inscriptions antiques du Musée Calvet d’Avignon, Mémoires de l’Académie de Vaucluse, 18 : 79-344.
Blomgren 1973. Blomgren S. - Fortunatus cum elogiis collatus, Eranos, 71, 1-2 : 95-111.
Brusin 1993. Brusin J.B. - Inscriptiones Aquileiae. Pars tertia, Udine.
CIL 1902. CIL 3, suppl. 1, N° 9507. URL : http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/item/buchseite/886943 (accessed).
De Gaiffier 1947. De Gaiffier B. - Intactam sponsam relinquens : À propos de la Vie de S. Alexis, Analecta Bollandiana, 65 : 157-195.
De Labriolle 1921. De Labriolle P. - Le “mariage spirituel” dans l’Antiquité chrétienne, Revue Historique, 137, 2 : 204-225.
Descombes 1985. Descombes F. - Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures à la Renaissance carolingienne. Viennoise du Nord, Paris, CNRS, Paris.
Diehl 1925. Diehl E. - Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, 3 vol., vol. 1, Berlin, Weidmann.
Elliott 1993. Elliot D. - Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
Gascou and Guyon 2005. Gascou J., and Guyon J. - La collection d’inscriptions gallo-grecques et latines du musée Calvet, Edited by Odile Cavalier, 2 vol., vol. 1, Paris, De Boccard.
Gauthier 1975. Gauthier N. - Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule, antérieures à la Renaissance carolingienne : Première Belgique, Paris, CNRS, Paris.
Harl and Harl. Harl F. and O. Harl. - 24470 Sarkophag der Flavia Talasia, in http://lupa.at/24470 (accessed).
Jülicher 1904. Jülicher A. - Die geistlichen Ehen in der alten Kirche, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, 7 (1904) : 373-386.
Le Blant 1856a. Le Blant E. - Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule I, Paris.
Le Blant 1856b. Le Blant E. (dir.). - Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures au viiie siècle, tome II, 2 vol., vol. 2, L’Imprimerie Impériale, Paris.
Le Blant 1892. Le Blant E.F. - Nouveau recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures au viiie siècle, Imprimerie nationale, Paris.
Leclercq 1913. Leclercq H. - “Chasteté”, in : Dictionnaire de l’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, edited by F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq, 1145-1174, Letouzey et Ané, Paris.
Leclercq 1932. Leclercq H. - “Mariage”, in : Dictionnaire de l’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, edited by F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq, 1843-1982, Letouzey et Ané, Paris.
Marin, Gauthier and Prévot 2010. Marin E., Gauthier N. and Prévot N. - Salona IV. Inscriptions de Salone chrétienne ive-viie siècles, Collection de l’École française de Rome, Rome/Split, École française de Rome/Musée archéologique de Split.
Opelt 1978. Opelt I. - Das Carmen de laudibus Domini als Zeugnis des Christentums bei den Galliern, Romanobarbarica : Contributi allo studio dei rapporti culturali tra mondo latino e mondo barbarico, 3 : 159-166.
Pais 1884. Pais H. - Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum : Supplementa Italica. Fasciculus 1. Additamenta ad Vol. V. Galliae Cisalpinae, Romae, Salviucci.
Pelka 1901. Pelka O. - Altchristliche Ehedenkmäler, Zur Kunstgeschichte des Auslands, Strassburg, Heitz.
Pietri and Heijmans 2013a. Pietri L. and Heijmans M. - Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 4- La Gaule chrétienne (314-614) : volume 1 A-H, Paris.
Pietri and Heijmans 2013b. Pietri L. and Heijmans M. - Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire 4- La Gaule chrétienne (314-614). volume 2 I-Z et fragments, Paris.
Prévot and Pietri 1997. Prévot F. and Pietri L. - Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule, antérieures à la Renaissance carolingienne : Aquitaine première, CNRS, Paris.
Reydellet 2004. Reydellet M. - Venance Fortunat, Poèmes, Tome III : Livres IX - XI. appendice - In laudem sanctae Mariae, vol. 3, Collection des universités de France, Série latine, Les belles lettres, Paris.
Roberts 2017. Roberts M. - Poems. Venantius Fortunatus, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA/London.
Roberts 2009. Roberts M. - The Humblest Sparrow: the Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Salin 1952. Salin E. - La civilisation mérovingienne d’après les sépultures. Deuxième Partie. Les sépultures, 4 vol., vol. 2, A. et J. Picard, Paris.
Shanzer 2002. Shanzer D. - History, Romance, Love, and Sex in Gregory of Tours’ Decem Libri Historiarum, in : The World of Gregory of Tours, edited by Kathleen Mitchell and I. N. Wood, 395-418, Brill, Leiden, Boston, & Köln.
Shanzer 2003. Shanzer D. - So many Saints – so Little Time… the Libri Miraculorum of Gregory of Tours, Journal of Medieval Latin, 13 : 19-60.
Shanzer 2015. Shanzer D. - Capturing Merovingian Courts: a Literary Perspective, Le Corti nel’Alto Medioevo : Spoleto, 24-29 aprile 2014, 667-669, Spoleto.
Shanzer 2019. Shanzer D. - Resurrections before the Resurrection in the Imaginaire of Late Antiquity, The Biblical Annals, 9, 4 : 711-738.
Shanzer 2020. Shanzer D. - Grave Matters: Love, Death, Resurrection, and Reception in the De laudibus Domini, in : Poetry, Bible and Theology from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages, edited by M. Cutino, 289-306, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Van Dam 1988. Van Dam R. - Gregory of Tours: Glory of the Confessors, Translated Texts for Historians, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool.
Notes de bas de page
1I take this opportunity to thank the kind friends and colleagues who helped this piece take shape: Sylvain Janniard kindly included me in the December 2018 meeting of ATEG VI at Tours and Bruno Dumézil refereed this paper; Roger Tomlin always helps with inscriptions; Patrick Périn and Bailey Young gave me pointers about burial; and Christian Landes generously sent me a scan when urgently needed. Philippe Buc helped with the abstract.
2For an exaggerated and wishful picture of the alleged early Christian practice, see Achelis 1902 ; for some expansions and correction to problems like confusion between virgines subintroductae and “geistige Ehe” and an argument for seeing ascetic practice, see Jülicher 1904. Achelis was refuted in a classic (and witty) article by Pierre de Labriolle (De Labriolle 1921) who detailed strong resistance from mainstream ecclesiastics. Alwis 2011 handles three Byzantine lives. The best study of the motif in hagiography remains (still) Baudouin de Gaiffier (De Gaiffier 1947).
3Alwis 2011: 10, notes “chaste marriage,” “celibate marriage,” “continent marriage,” and “spiritual marriage.” Elliott 1993, uses “spiritual marriage.”
4E.g. In a hagiographical context, see the travails of Eupraxia senior whose husband suggested continence after she had borne one child. For the VEupraxiae 2.266a, see http://gateway.proquest.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:acta-us&rft_dat=xri:acta:ft:all:Z400057665>. For something similar in an entirely historical context, see the autobiographical statement in Avitus of Vienne, De consolatoria castitatis laude 19-23: Edidit ut quartam genetrix Audentia prolem/ teque dedit generi partu fecunda supremo,/ confestim parcam promittit ducere vitam/ ac deinceps paribus castum servare cubile/ constituit votis carorum cura parentum.
5Rufinus, Historia Monachorum 30.1.3. See Cassian, Collationes 14.7 for an anecdote about a monk in a secret and virginal marriage who had passed his wife off as his sister for twelve years: Ille reuerentia tam sollicitae inquisitionis adstrictus uxorem se parentum ui imperioque conpulsum, cum profiteri monachum uellet, ante duodecim annos accepisse confessus est, quam nemine etiam nunc conscio sororis loco a se uirginem custodiri. Abbot John did not recommend such behavior to just anyone.
6For this as an authentically Gallic superstition, see Opelt 1978: Alius saliva post aurem digito relata sollicitudinem animi propitiat. pollices, cum faveamus, premere etiam proverbio iubemur. In adorando dextram ad osculum referimus totumque corpus circumagimus, quod in laevum fecisse Galliae religiosius credunt. fulgetras popsymis adorare consensus gentium est.
7Scholars including even De Gaiffier 1947, and Elliott 1993, failed to catch all four versions.
8Ossa conglobata is very similar to De ave Phoenice 116 ff.: Ante tamen proprio quidquid de corpore restat/Ossaque uel cineres exuuiasque suas/Unguine balsameo myrraque et ture soluto /Condit et in formam conglobat ore pio.
9DHL 1.47: Nam cum, impleto certamine, puella migraret ad Christum peracto vir funeris officio cum puellam in sepulchro poneret, ait: ’Gratias tibi ago, domine Iesu Christe, aeternae domine deus noster, quia hunc thesaurum, sicut a te commendatum accepi, ita inmaculatum pietati tuae restituo’. Ad haec illa subridens: ’Quid’, inquid, ’loqueris quod non interrogaris ?’
10GC 31: Cumque eam sepulchro reconderet, arcanum, quod inter eos convenerat, elevatis manibus ad caelum, pandit, dicens: “Gratias tibi, rerum omnium artifex, ago, quod, sicut mihi eam conmendare dignatus es, ita tibi reddidi ab omni voluptatis contagione inpollutam.” “Sile, Sile, vir dei, quia non necesse est fatearis nostrum, nemine interrogante, secretum.”
11Salin 1952 : 105-106. The image on p. 105 shows a divided bisomus.
12This is how I read the emphasis on Parian marble in GC 34, 41, 90, 100, and DLH 4.12.
13Ancient epitaphs exploited a word-play on tumulus and thalamus, for which see CIL 2.3001: servandus nunc est/pro thalamo tumulus ; AE 1960.97: hoc sita/nunc tumulo ra/pta viri thalamo ; CIL 6.25427: quos iungit tumulus iunxerat ut thalamus ; CLE 670, 1399, 1432, ICUR 7.18944 and CLE 1355.
14See Diehl 1925: 155-56, No. 821 ; CIL 3, Suppl. 1, No. 9507. For an image of the actual object, see Harl and Harl. For a more detailed discussion see Shanzer 2020: 303-04.
15Qui for quae is a VL development that will eventually be generalized in French.
16Diehl 1925 : 336, No. 1727 from a sarcophagus found in the catacombs of Calixtus.
18TLL 4.879.31-33 compares Pais 1884: 43, No. 344: sunbirgino, an inscription for the grave of Exsuperantia (25 years old) who lived 3 years and nine months with her sunbirgino. There is an image in Brusin: 1067, no. 3038.
19So likewise Blaise s.v. virginius.
20http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epibeleg.php?s_sprache=de I note 152 hits for virginio.
21In the (very corrupt) CIL 10.5409: et inlibata erga me/superfuit (which the CIL and Roger Tomlin think must stand for semper fuit), the word seems unlikely to have sexual connotations, since the issue is curial duties. TLL 7.1.369.27-28 says “uncorrupted.” I would prefer “unshaken” or “constant.” In AE 1982, No. 705, p. 183, since the honorand is a young mother, exempli inli/batae casti(ta)tis must mean “example of irreproachable chastity.”
22Gascou and Guyon 2005: 211-19. I am extremely grateful to Christian Landes of the Centre des Monuments Nationaux of France for sending me scans of the entry.
23Le Blant 1856A: 30-32, saw here a continent marriage and he may well be right, but it might also possible to argue that Syngenia was a widow who did not remarry. Le Blant needs to press castitate perpetua.
24Elliott 1993: 61-62 discussed the inscription (with various inaccuracies) and concluded (surprisingly) that “the wife was responsible for the inscription.” She notes that its content “has . . . raised scholarly eyebrows.”
25Gascou and Guyon 2005: 215, acknowledge that she would be “une centenaire.”
26In the Clauss-Slaby online database : http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_ergebnis.php.
27The latter in Anon. 1899 : 228. Gascou and Guyon 2005: 211 and 15 read and defend lx, but I see no reason not to read the sign as a clumsy XX.
28Already correctly transcribed in Anon. 1899: 228.
29Amplius is my conjectural restoration.
30This is the second longest line and has 26 characters with space for one or two. All editors had restored linquens, but I had conjectured sequens (the only other viable option). Gascou and Guyon 2005: 216 now cite an unpublished note of Marrou’s, who also wanted sequens, but interpreted it as “Si l’on remarque que Singenia a survécu d’un peu plus de vingt ans à son mari, il est facile de supposer qu ’elle a, pendant tout ce temps, refusé le remariage pour s’attacher (sequens) au seul souvenir de son mari.”
31This is the longest line and has 26 characters with space for one or two more, if the hedera below marks the width of the stone.
32Excedens is rare in inscriptions. With vita, it can mean “departing from” ; Gascou and Guyon 2005: 217, tend in the direction of “quitter,” which is not far, they say, from “faire retraite.” But this absolute usage is awkward and leaves nothing to govern annos. I take excedens to mean “surpassing” and annos as its object.
33Anon. 1899: 228 took that reading but translated it as “ayant perdu son mari.” That is impossible, for it is the dead who leave or depart in funerary inscriptions.
349b is my way of referring to the second half of App. 9, for which see Reydellet 2004: 150.
35See Pietri and Heijmans 2013a: 429 ; Pietri and Heijmans 2013b: 1902. The second part of the inscription was found in 1868 and is preserved. The opening is known only through a transcription by Polycarpe de la Rivière, who was suspected of forging it, and a transcription of Jacques Boyer, who may have worked from de la Rivière. See Le Blant 1892: 334-335. Leclercq 1913: 1173-1174 tells how Albanès, Le Blant, and he himself all thought the lines authentic. But he continues by saying that they have now, as far as he is concerned, been definitively proven to be de la Rivière’s forgery. He says that de la Rivière erased when he wanted to (“a raturé a plaisir”), and that his 7th verse was allowed to stand only after it had been erased 3 times. More recently Blomgren 1973: 108-111, saw the opening verses as authentic, even if not by Fortunatus. I myself cannot imagine why anyone would forge such an inscription.
36The edition is by Peiper in MGH AA 6.1, p. 194. I have inserted footnotes marking what I see as problems.
37A Sidonian expression. See Ep. 4.13, p. 65.5 est ipse loco sitorum facile primus quique post tergum cum iam duodecim lustra transmittat, cotidie tamen habitu cultuque conspicuo non iuvenescit solum sed quodammodo repuerascit.
38Reading fata with Duchesne.
39Placide should modify parentes, but that is semantically impossible. An obvious solution would be to replace parentes with a participle with a meaning like quiescentes, “sleeping” or “resting,” but trisyllabic. It’s hard to find a solution. Manentes is a somewhat feeble suggestion.
40Patriciatus culmen occurs multiple times in Cassiodorus.
41Reading fata with Duchesne.
42The usage is odd, for antistes in Gregory as well as in other authors normally means “bishop.”
43See DLH 5.5 for Gregory venting. For Felix, see Pietri and Heijmans 2013a : 752-757. At 757 they see this story stemming from a time of reconciliation.
44This is how it is read by Van Dam 1988 : 81, and by Pietri and Heijmans 2013a : 757. I have wondered whether this couldn’t be disguised autobiography of Felix. Paul after all “knew a man in Christ.”
45In vice is rare to start with. Fortunatus uses it to mean “in place of” (3X : LLTA).
46These must needs be discussed in detail elsewhere.
47The most important poem in this context is Carm. 11.6 which mentions whispers and states that his love involves no crimen corporis. For other hints of impropriety in Fortunatus’ relations with Agnes, see Roberts 2009 : 300.
48Carm. 4.18.21 : iunxit in orbe duos unus amore torus.
Auteur
Université de Vienne, Autriche

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Les modes de construction privée de l’Antiquité tardive en région Centre-Val de Loire
Actes de la table-ronde d’Orléans, 20 octobre 2017
Laurent Fournier (dir.)
2022
L’Antiquité tardive dans le centre et le centre-ouest de la Gaule (IIIe-VIIe siècles)
Tours 6-8 décembre 2018
Marie-Pierre Chambon, Sylvie Crogiez-Pétrequin, Alain Ferdière et al. (dir.)
2022
Rencontre autour des typo-chronologies des tombes à inhumation
Actes de la 11e Rencontre du Gaaf du 3 au 5 juin 2019 à Tours
Philippe Blanchard, Jean-Philippe Chimier, Matthieu Gaultier et al. (dir.)
2022
Le prieuré Saint-Cosme près de Tours (La Riche, Indre-et-Loire)
Histoire et archéologie d’un monastère satellite de Saint-Martin de Tours
Bruno Dufaÿ
2022
L’eau dans les villes d’Europe au Moyen Âge (IVe-XVe siècle) : un vecteur de transformation de l’espace urbain
Actes du colloque, université de Tours, 21-23 octobre 2021
Élisabeth Lorans, Thomas Pouyet et Gaël Simon (dir.)
2023