522 Cohen
sentiment.100 An example of this phenomenon can be detected in Gelasius’
letter condemning the ancient festival of the Lupercalia and its senatorial sup-
porters, especially a certain Andromachus.101 Neil Mclynn has argued that the
celebration of the Lupercalia at the end of the 5th century was not indica-
tive of a revival of classical pagan traditions. Rather it represents a species of
euergetism—an opportunity for rich aristocrats such as Andromachus and the
other members of Rome’s civil administration to show off to the populace and
to relive the storied past of the city. The connection between the Lupercalia
and euergetism is also suggested in Ennodius’ panegyric to Theoderic, which
refers to the festival in the context of the king’s efforts to renovate and restore
Rome.102 Although our references to the Lupercalia do not seem to represent
a kind of pagan—Christian syncretism, it is nonetheless interesting that this
festival, even if devoid of its original religious significance, was still celebrated
by Rome’s Christians (with the support of the city’s elite).103
Another example of so-called ‘popular religion’ that can be detected in our
sources is magic. Although subject to the denunciations of Roman law and
episcopal authority, magic, sorcery, and divination may well have remained an
important part of religious life for many late antique men and women, allow-
ing them the possibility of directly manipulating the supernatural world, be
it for love, health, revenge, and enumerable other fears and desires.104 Even
churchmen seemed to be involved if we believe a reference in a surviving letter
of Gelasius to a deacon teaching magical practices (ars magicae).105 Caesarius
of Arles’ sermons also attack the superstitions of the peasants, although the
100 Even practices such as animal sacrifice can be found in 5th-century Italy, see Trout,
Christianizing the Nolan Countryside.
101 Gelasius, Adversus Andromachum, ed. Thiel tract. 6, pp. 598–607. The attribution to
Gelasius has been challenged, but not convincingly. On its authorship see McLynn,
“Crying Wolf ”, p. 162, n. 9. Andromachus = PLRE, vol. 2, Andromachus 2.
102 Ennodius, Pan. 56, ed. Rohr, p. 236.
103 See the introduction in Lettre contre les Lupercales et dix-huit messes du sacramentaire
léonien, ed. G. Pomarès, Sources chrétiennes Paris 1959, vol. 65; Holleman, Pope Gelasius
I and the Lupercalia; Ullmann, Gelasius, pp. 252–54. However McLynn’s analysis is by far
the best and the earlier works should be read with caution. See especially “Crying Wolf ”,
pp. 165–6 (contra Holleman), and the conclusions at pp. 172–5.
104 Frankfurter, “Beyond Magic”; Dickie, Magic and Magicians, pp. 273–321. On the denuncia-
tion of magical practices see Flint, “Demonization of Magic”; Harl, “La dénonciation des
festivités profanes”.
105 Gelasius, frag. 16, ed. Thiel, p. 492.