454 Lizzi Testa
Indeed this accusation had been motivated by the envy and resentment har-
boured by his clerics:
Nothing, in fact, should be recklessly presumed about anyone who holds
such a sacred office, in which, if we believe in his religious intention,
even by remaining silent he would be exonerated of the crimes. Indeed,
toward people with such dignity, even manifest sins are barely credible:
anything, then, that is said in envy cannot be considered true.9Since monarchic times, the crime of proditio patriae meant treachery with
the enemy and was perpetrated through a wide range of offences: sedition,
rebellion, defection, or other serious military crimes such as desertion or
cowardice.10 In Late Antiquity the meaning did not change, but the crime
acquired new significance in the period of the establishment of the Roman-
barbarian kingdoms.11 Given the chronology of the letter (Mommsen places it
between 507 and 511, approximately during the years of Cassiodorus’ quaestor-
ship) and the area of northern Italy mentioned (Aosta), the story of the falsely
accused bishop sheds light on similar events involving other bishops in neigh-
bouring regions during that turbulent age. In the years preceding the outbreak
of military operations, two prominent individuals had been suspected of con-
spiring with the Franks and exiled by the Visigothic king Alaric II: Volusianus
of Tours (in 495/96) and his successor Verus (in 506).12 At the end of 504
Caesarius, bishop of Visigothic Arles (503–42), whose jurisdiction extended
over an area mostly occupied by the Burgundians, was denounced by the
notary of his chancellery, Licinianus, for plotting to hand over the city and its
territory to the Burgundians.13 The sudden dramatic arrival of the Franks and
Burgundians in the southern Gallic territories of Alaric II (defeated and killed
at Vouillé, near Poitiers in the late summer of 507) created a situation that was
possibly even more difficult for Nicene communities on both sides of the Alps.
During the siege of Arles, Caesarius was again accused, this time by an angry
9 Cass., Va r. 1.9, ed. Fridh, p. 19, lines 11–15: “[.. .] Nihil enim in tale honore temeraria cogita-
tione praesumendum est, ubi, si proposito creditur, etiam tacitus ab excessibus excusatur.
Manifesta proinde crimina in talibus vix capiunt fidem: quicquid autem ex invidia dicitur,
veritas non putatur.”
10 Fuhrmann, “proditio”, coll. 1221–30; Santalucia, Diritto e processo penale, pp. 20 and 156.
11 Lear 1965, infra.
12 Gregory of Tours, Libri decem historiarum 10.31, 7–8, ed. Oldoni, p. 598.
13 Vita S. Caesarii 1.21–22, ed. Bona, pp. 87–9.