I have just finished reading Victoria Leonard’s article Galla Placidia as ‘Human Gold’: Consent and Autonomy in the Sack of Rome, CE 410. It is, overall, an outstanding article and a significant contribution to scholarship on Galla Placidia, posing a series of questions that, I think, all future writing on Galla Placidia should consider and engage with. There are, though, some assertions that do not match my own experience of engaging with the primary sources on Placidia’s extraordinary life.

Leonard proposes a critical analysis of the ways in which Olympiodorus and Orosius narrate the Galla Placidia’s capture by the Goths in 410 and her subsequent marriage to the Goth king, Athaulf. She rightly exposes these authors’ ideological biases and warns scholars to avoid uncritical acceptance of their points of view. In the course of her analysis, however, Leonard states that

Placidia is represented by ancient authors as voiceless and entirely passive. Her behavior is wholly determined by others.¹

In my experience, though, Olympiodorus frequently portrays Placidia engaging in vigorous speech in defense of her own autonomy and self-interest. In Orosius she is not quite as loud, but she is nevertheless shown engaging in conversation with Athaulf, arguing with him about the political organization of the Goth kingdom. Indeed, the Galla Placidia that has emerged from my personal reading of the primary sources is a woman who struggles against the constraints imposed on her, constantly seeking autonomy within those constraints, and emphatically advocating for herself, her family, and her point of view.

By way of sharing a bit of my experience with these sources, I would like to make a list of some of the times in which ancient authors portray Galla Placidia speaking, refusing to have her future determined by others without at least putting up a fight.

The Magician Libanius

A very loud expression will on Placidia’s part is found in fragment 36 of Olympiodorus, regarding a magician who came to Ravenna, probably in 421:

He tells a marvellous story about a certain Libanius, an Asian by race, who came to Ravenna during the reign of Honorius and Constantius. According to the historian, he was a consummate magician, able to achieve results even against barbarians without resort to weapons, and this he promised to do. He was given permission to make the attempt, but when his promise and his high repute came to the ears of the Empress Placidia, the magician was put to death. For Placidia threatened Constantius that she would break up their marriage if Libanius, a wizard and an unbeliever, remained amongst the living.²

At this point in her life, Galla Placidia was married to the Western emperor Constantius III, a marriage that, as we will see in the next quote, took place against her will. Although she had been forced into the marriage, in this fragment she is seen asserting the power to dissolve it if she wished.

According to Sivan, Placidia would have been able to invoke a law that Honorius and Constantius had passed in March of 421, granting a woman the right to divorce if her husband has committed serious crimes.³ The practice of magic would have qualified as a serious crime, and allowed Placidia to retain her dowry after divorce, and to remarry after five years had passed. In the end, she did not divorce Constantius, and he died just a few months later, but she did show a clear awareness of her rights under the law and the circumstances under which she could end the marriage of her own free will.

The word used by Olympiodorus, or at least by Photius in his summary of Olympiodorus, is quite unambiguous:

 ἠπείλει γαρ ... ἡ Πλακιδία Κωνσταντίῳ χωρισμὸν τοῦ γάμου

The verb, ἀπειλέω (3rd person singular imperfect active indicative, ἠπείλει), is the same as Homer used when Agamemnon threatened to take Briseis from Achilles. The Liddell-Scott-James lexicon provides the following translations: threaten, speak a threatening speech, threaten with, forbid with threats.⁴ The verb clearly connotes forceful advocacy for one’s own wishes.

Valentinian’s Title

Constantius and Placidia had a son, Valentinian, on 2 July 419. Since Honorius was childless, Valentinian was the obvious choice to inherit the Western empire should Honorius die, which he would within two years. To make this clear, Placidia wanted Honorius to grant the child the title nobilissimus puer, “most noble child”, which would officially mark Valentinian as a member of the imperial family.⁵

Later a child was born to them, whom they named Honoria, and then a boy, whom they named Valentinian. While Honorius was still alive he [Valentinian] became nobilissimus at Placidia’s insistence, and after his death and the overthrow of the usurper John he was proclaimed Emperor of Rome.⁶

Here we see Placidia advocating for her son to be given a title that would mark him as heir to the imperial throne. Honorius did not grant the title of his own will, nor immediately upon the child’s birth; the grant of the title required insistent pressure on Placidia’s part.

The word found in the fragment, βιασαμένης, implies forceful constraint, overpowering, or pressing hard. Olympiodorus is portraying Placidia as an active shaper of her family’s future, taking matters into her own hands and refusing to let others control her destiny.

This was not purely an act in favor of her son alone, for Placidia knew that the status of an emperor’s mother was very high. In contrast, if her son were not recognized as the imperial heir, he would become a pretender and potential usurper, which would expose both Valentinian and Placidia to extreme danger. Official recognition was essential both to their survival and to enjoying a future of imperial power and wealth.

The Unwanted Marriage

On 1 January 417, Placidia was married, against her will, to Constantius. Up to that point, Constantius had been Honorius' chief general. However, the general had imperial amibitions. He knew that marrying Placidia was a way into the imperial family and a step towards fulfilling his ambition of power. Honorius, for reasons not clearly stated in our available sources, saw fit to agree to this and used his power as both emperor and senior male of the family to compel the marriage.

When Honorius was celebrating his eleventh consulship and Constantius his second, they solemnised Placidia’s marriage. Her frequent rejections of Constantius had made him angry at her attendants. Finally, the Emperor Honorius, her brother, on the day on which he entered his consulship, took her by the hand and, despite her protests, gave her over to Constantius, and the marriage was solemnised in the most dazzling fashion.⁷

Here we see Placidia struggling unsuccessfully against the constraints placed upon her by the patriarchal nature of Roman law, by her brother’s imperial power, and by the implacable forces of imperial politics.

Although the words used in the translation — “frequent rejections”, “protests” — give a certain impression of loudness, the original Greek does not necessarily imply speech. It does, however, imply that Galla Placidia was unambiguously communicating her opinion.

ἐφ᾽ ᾦ πολλὰ μὲν αὐτὴ ἀνανεύουσα Κωνστάντιον παρεσκεύασε κατὰ τῶν αὐτῆς ὀργίζεσθαι ιεραπόντον. τέλοσ ἐν τῇ τῆς ὑπατείας ἡμέρᾳ ἀπὸ χειρὸς ταύτην ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ὁνώριος ἄκουσαν λαβὼν ἐγχειρίζει παραδιδοὺς Κωονσταντίῳ […]⁸

The verb ἀνανεύω means in the first place “to throw the head back in token of denial, make signs of refusal”, and secondarily to “deny, refuse.”⁹ The image given here is of Galla Placidia raising her chin and turning away from Constantius as he attempts to approach her following her return to Ravenna from captivity among the Goths. The term ἄκουσαν is in this case understood as the singular feminine accusative of the adjective ἀέκων, meaning “involuntary, constrained” and “unwilling.”¹⁰ Thus, ἄκουσαν λαβὼν may be translated “grabbing her against her will.”

The passage undoubtedly shows powerful men forcing Galla Placidia into an unwanted marriage, using both physical and legal force. However, it does not show a passive Placidia. And, while the Greek terms used do not necessarily imply audible speech, they do show that Placidia communicated her desires in the matter with sufficient clarity, and in a sufficiently public manner, that they made their way into Olympiodorus’ history. Olympiodorus portrays Placidia as resistant, wilfull, and by no means passively compliant.

Conversations with Athaulf

In the same paragraph in which she states that “Placidia is represented by ancient authors as voiceless”, she quotes Orosius as stating that Placidia’s “persuasion and advice” swayed Athaulf to desist from his plans to destroy the Roman Empire.¹¹ This appears to me to be a logical contradiction. If she is portrayed as persuading Athaulf and offering advice, she is by definition not voiceless.

To better understand this passage in Orosius, some context will be useful. Alaric the Goth took Galla Placidia hostage during the siege of Rome, very likely in late 409 or early 410, when Alaric indirectly controlled the city through the usurper emperor Priscus Attalus. Alaric’s Goths sacked Rome in August 410, then marched south with the intent of reaching Sicily and, eventually Africa. They took Galla Placidia with them as a hostage.

Thwarted by a storm that destroyed his ships, Alaric turned back north but died in late 410. He was succeeded by his brother-in-law Athaulf, who continued to lead the Goths northward. They moved slowly through Italy, spending the entire year 411 and part of 412 heading north, then west, until they finally entered Gaul in 412.

In Gaul, Athaulf first allied himself with a usurper, Jovinus, then turned on Jovinus and sought an alliance with Honorius and Constantius. In autumn of 413, they reached the city of Narbo, where, in association with elements of the Gallo-Roman aristocracy, Athaulf set up a usurping imperial regime, with Priscus Attalus as emperor and himself as lead general. It was there that Athaulf married Galla Placidia in January of 414.

The context is important in order to understand that Galla Placidia spent at least three years as a prisoner in the Gothic wagon train, traveling through almost the entirety of Italy before heading down the Rhone valley and the Mediterranean coast to Narbo.

During this time, there is independent evidence that Athaulf was gathering information from his prominent Roman prisoners.

At Mundiacum in Second Germany Jovinus was proclaimed Emperor … Attalus advised Ataulf to join Jovinus, which he did together with his army.¹²

From this fragment of Olympiodorus, we may deduce that Athaulf was in the habit of consulting with his hostages during the long march through Italy. Attalus would have been a treasure trove of information regarding the functioning of the Roman imperial state, so it is only logical that Athaulf would take advantage to learn what he could about the enemy he was engaged with and plan his strategies accordingly. Galla Placidia would have been another obvious target for gathering information, since she knew Honorius personally and was likely to have insights into his way of thinking that few others could match.

It is in this context that we should interpret Orosius’ statement that Athaulf allowed himself to be guided by Galla Placidia’s advice.

Having discovered from long experience that the Goths, because of their unbridled barbarism, were utterly incapable of obeying laws, and yet believing that the state ought not to be deprived of laws without which a state is not a state, he chose to seek for himself at least the glory of restoring and increasing the renown of the Roman name by the power of the Goths, wishing to be looked upon by posterity as the restorer of the Roman Empire, since he could not be its transformer. On this account he strove to refrain from war and to promote peace. He was helped especially by his wife, Placidia, who was a woman of the keenest intelligence and of exceptional piety; by her persuasion and advice he was guided in all measures leading to good government.¹³

The Latin text here reads “Placidiae uxoris suae … ad omnia bonarum ordinationum opera persuasu et consilio temperatus.”¹⁴ Orosius also states that he obtained this information on Athaulf’s relationship with Galla Placidia from someone who knew Athaulf at Narbo and reported Athaulf’s own words.

Leonard argues convincingly that the narrative as presented by Orosius is intended to present Galla Placidia’s capture and marriage as “an essential part of the divine plan for the Gothic harmonisation with Rome, the empire chosen to endure until the end according to Orosius’ eschatological vision of the past, present, and future.”¹⁵ Be this as it may, the evidence of this passage, in combination with the independent testimony of Olympiodorus to the effect that Athaulf obtained information from his Roman hostages, suggests that conversations between Athaulf and Galla Placidia regarding the political organization of the Roman Empire very likely did take place. And from the other fragments of Olympiodorus, we learn that Galla Placidia was known for forcefully arguing her positions.

We must of course accept Leonard’s general argument that Galla Placidia found herself here a prisoner of war, captive much against her will, and forced to collaborate with her captor, Athaulf. But we have also seen that, in other circumstances, Galla Placidia was known to exercise resistance, to use arguments and her knowledge of the law in efforts to widen her room for maneuver, to actively struggle against the limitations imposed upon her by a patriarchal system, and to be vocal in defense of her beliefs and self-interest. Far from showing her as voiceless, passive, and “wholly determined by others”, this passage of Orosius shows her actively seeking to influence the situation, within the constraints imposed by captivity and armed force.

Requesting Honoria

I will now veer away from Olympiodorus and Orosius to a mention of Placidia in an Eastern source, Priscus of Panium. In this passage, Galla Placidia is older and long widowed. Her son, Valentinian, is emperor. For years, Placidia has enjoyed as much freedom and autonomy as she has ever had in her life. Her daughter Honoria, though, is at the center of a storm, and Placidia intervenes in her favor.

According to our available sources, Honoria had an affair with her property manager, Eugenius. When this was discovered, Eugenius was executed and Honoria was betrothed to an aristocrat named Herculanus. Upset, Honoria wrote letters to Attila the Hun asking him for support. The Eastern emperor, Galla Placidia’s nephew Theodosius, discovered this and notified Valentinian. The messenger Honoria had sent to Attila was executed, and while Valentinian pondered his sister’s fate, Placidia asked her son to grant her custody over the wayward daughter.

He gave his sister Honoria as a gift to her mother after the latter had made many requests for her.¹⁶

Ὁνωρίαν δὲ τὴν ἀδελφὴν Βαλεντινιανὸς τῇ μητρὶ δῶρον ἔδωκε πολλὰ αἰτησαμένῃ αὐτήν.¹⁷

The verb used here is the common verb αἰτέω. In the active voice, it means ask, beg, demand. In the middle voice, as is the case here, it means to ask for one’s own use, to claim, to beg for one.¹⁸ The precise circumstances under which Galla Placidia asked for custody of her daughter are not clear, but there is a good likelihood that the request was made in person, with the modifier πολλὰ indicating that Placidia had to make the request repeatedly and insistently.

Oost declares that “apparently Valentinian determined this time to execute his sister for high treason.” ¹⁹ In fact, there is no evidence of this, aside from a lacuna in the manuscript of John of Antioch that Mariev translates as “on this occasion Honoria escaped …”, and which Mariev, following Bury, fills in as “punishment.”²⁰ Certainly some sort of consequence was forthcoming, most likely perpetual ascetic confinement in distant exile. Being placed in her mother’s custody would have been much preferable to whatever Valentinian had in mind.

In this passage, once again, Galla Placidia is portrayed speaking her mind, advocating for her children, and insistently resisting the raw exercise of violent male power. On this occasion, she was successful in restraining her son’s power and protecting her daughter. By then, she had accumulated considerable moral authority through by establishing relations of mutual support with powerful churchmen, including bishop Peter of Ravenna and pope Leo. She had built and repaired churches and secured a lasting reputation for engaging in earnest prayer. In addition to her highly successful public relations strategy, she was the mother of the reigning emperor, a position of high status. She was able to parlay this status and moral authority into influence at court, at least in the domain of family relations.

Summoning Boniface

An entry in the chronicle of Hydatius for the year 432 shows Galla Placidia engaged in the struggle for power over the Western Empire, exercising power directly, and competing for power with ambitious generals as allies and rivals. The verb Hydatius uses is (pun intended) highly evocative.

Boniface, recalled by Placidia from Africa to Italy as a rival to Aëtius, returned to the palace.²¹

Bonifacius in emulationem Aetii de Africa per Placidiam euocatus in Italiam ad palatio redit.²²

There is no question here, of course, of actual verbal calling, as Boniface was in Africa while Placidia was in Ravenna. But it is notable that the verb Hydatius chooses, evocare, has strong connotations of vocal sound. It is built on the verb vocare, to call, summon, invoke, appeal to, which itself shares ancestry with the noun vox, voice, sound, tone, utterance, cry, call, itself ancestral to such modern words as Spanish and Portuguese voz, Italian and Romanian voce, and French voix.²³

The context for this entry is Placidia’s struggle to stay in power despite the ambitious generals seeking to dominate the West. After the death of Constantius, the evidence suggests that Galla Placidia attempted to become the power behind the throne in Ravenna, but was outmaneuvered by other palace factions, and as a result had to leave Italy for Constantinople.²⁴ While she was there, Honorius died, and a certain John was proclaimed Western emperor. Placidia’s nephew, the Eastern emperor Theodosius, did not accept this, and sent an army west to install Placidia’s son Valentinian, the nobilissimus puer, as Western emperor. Since Valentinian was some three years old at the time, Theodosius gave Placidia the regency:²⁵

[Theodosius] had a cousin then very young named Valentinian; the son of his aunt Placidia, daughter of Theodosius the Great … This cousin he created Caesar, and sent into the Western parts, committing the administration of affairs to his mother Placidia.²⁶

After the defeat and execution of the usurper John in the summer of 425, control of the Western armies was divided among three military commanders. Aetius controlled Gaul and Spain, Boniface controlled Africa, and Felix controlled Italy (and probably Illyricum). Aetius and Felix were not content to support Placidia, and each in their own way sought to assume control of the Western Empire. Convinced that Felix was planning to move against him, Aetius had Felix assassinated in 430.²⁷

With Felix out of the way, Aetius instantly became the most powerful man in the Western Empire, and was accordingly named consul for 432. Clearly, though, Galla Placidia sensed that Aetius’ seizure of power in the West was not favorable for her or for the future of her son, Valentinian, whose power as emperor once he grew up would necessarily be overshadowed should Aetius remain in power. It is in this context that she called Boniface to Italy to counterbalance Aetius.

Though on this occasion Placidia did not, of course, directly speak to Boniface, yet she must have sent him a messenger to convey her will, and Boniface heeded her call, coming to Italy to fight a civil war with Aetius that led eventually to his death. Prosper is not the only chronicler to refer to Placidia’s summons, as the Gallic Chronicler or 452 did so as well:

After Aetius had presented his consular games, he made way for Boniface (who had been called out of Africa by the queen), and retreated to fortifications.²⁸

Consulatu Aetius edito Bonifatium, qui ab regina accitus ex Africa fuerat, declinans ad munitiora concedit.²⁹

The verb chosen by the Gallic Chronicler of 452 is accio, to call, summon, send for, invite.³⁰ This verb is derived from the verb cieo (ad-cieo), which as well as signifying “to call” and “to summon” can also mean “to cause to go, move, stir, drive”, “to put in motion”, “to excite, stimulate, rouse, enliven, produce, cause.”³¹

We could not be further from the “voiceless and entirely passive” Placidia whose “behavior is entirely determined by others” that Leonard perceives in the late antique sources. What I read in these sources is a woman who summons a general from another continent, actively participates in the competition for power in the Western Empire, sets events in motion through the force of her words and her will, and is perceived as such by contemporary chroniclers and historians.

Conclusions

This is not an exhaustive analysis of the primary sources, only a selection of some of the more salient examples of Galla Placidia’s voice and agency to be found in ancient authors. A fuller study could consider her extant letters, as well as inscriptions attributed to her. There are descriptions of Galla Placidia engaged in prayer, for example at Rome when pople Leo asked the imperial family for support during the Eutychian crisis, or on the Adriatic sea when confronted with a dangerous storm. There is the incident during the siege of Rome when Placidia was said to have joined with the senate in accusing Serena of collaborating with Alaric, as described by Zosimus. One could examine her portrayal in Procopius and in the Life of Germanus of Auxerre. But a complete analysis of Galla Placidia’s voice and agency is not my intent here.

What I wanted to do is offer an alternative viewpoint concerning the ways in which Olympiodorus and Orosius in particular, and ancient authors more generally, portrayed Galla Placidia. I wanted to share my own subjective perception of Galla Placidia, based on my personal interaction with the primary sources. I hope my perception of Placidia as a woman who constantly struggled for autonomy in a world controlled by powerful men, but without ever fully overcoming the limitations of the time, has emerged from my commentary on a few key quotes.

---

Notes

1. V. Leonard, ‘Galla Placidia as “Human Gold”: Consent and Autonomy in the Sack of Rome, CE 410, Gender and History 31 (2019), pp. 334-352, here p. 337.
2. Olympiodorus, frag. 36, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus (II), tr. R. C. Blockley (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1983), pp. 200–1.
3. H. Sivan, Galla Placidia: The Last Roman Empress (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 85. This law, along with its precedents and subsequent modifications, is translated and discussed in J. Evans Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce, and Widowhood (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 202-209.
4. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%29pei%2Flei&la=greek#lexicon
5. S. Irvin Oost, Galla Placidia Augusta: A Biographical Essay (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 162-3.
6. Olympiodorus, frag. 33, pp. 196-7.
7. Olympiodorus, frag. 33, pp. 196-7.
8. Olympiodorus, frag. 33, p. 196.
9. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%E1%BC%80%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%8D%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B1&la=greek#lexicon.
10. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%E1%BC%84%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BD&la=greek#lexicon.
11. Leonard, p. 337.
12. Olympiodorus, frag. 18, pp. 182-3.
13. Orosius, 7.43, Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, tr. R. J. Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 362. Online at https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book7, consulted 30 December 2022.
14. Orosius 7.43, tr. C. Torres Rodriguez (Santiago de Compostela: Fundación “Pedro Barrie de la Maza Conde de Fenosa”, 1985), p. 718.
15. Leonard, p. 337.
16. Priscus, frag. 17, Blockley pp. 300-3, cf. John of Antioch, frag. 224 Mariev (frag. 201 Müller), Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta Quae Supersunt Omnia, tr. S. Mariev (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), p. 405.
17. Priscus, frag. 17, Blockley p. 302, cf. John of Antioch, frag. 224 Mariev (frag. 201 Müller), p. 404.
18. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ai%29thsame%2Fnh&la=greek#lexicon.
19. Oost, p. 284.
20. John of Antioch, frag. 224 Mariev (frag. 201 Müller), p. 405, n. 1.
21. Hydatius 89 [99] s.a. 432, The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana: Two Contemporary Accounts of the Final Years of the Roman Empire, tr. R. W. Burgess (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), p. 93.
22. Hydatius 89 [99] s.a. 432, p. 90-2.
23. C. D. Buck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). Definitions of vox: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=vox&la=la#lexicon. Definitions of vocare: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=vocare&la=la#lexicon. See also evoco: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=evoco&la=la&can=evoco0&prior=of#lexicon.
24. Oost 1968, pp. 169-176, though he attributes less strategic ambition to Placidia than I do.
25. Galla Placidia’s regency is discussed at length by Oost (1968:184-248), though some authors consider that she had little real power and focus strictly on the actions of men such as the leading generals of the time, Felix, Boniface, and Aetius. For example, Hugh Elton (The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) limits himself to saying that “Galla Placidia is often said to have been influential in his [Valentinian’s] government, though Felix, holding the same combination of offices as Stilicho and Constantius, i.e. patricius and magister militum, was initially the most important figure” (p. 186). From my perspective, though it is clear that her power was severely circumscribed by the ambitions of these generals, it is equally clear that at all times she did exercise power in the West, though a full discussion of the evidence must await another day. The entry in Hydatius currently under discussion here is but one of many pieces of evidence for this.
26. Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 7.24, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. II. Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), tr. A. C. Zenos, p. 166.
27. Oost 1968, p. 229.
28. Chron. Gall. 452, 109 s.a. 432, The Fifth Century Chroniclers: Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gallic Chronicler of 452 (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1990), tr. S. Muhlberger, p. 172.
29. Chron. Gall. 452, 109 s.a. 432, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Chronica Minora II, (Berlin: Weidmann, 1894), ed. T. Mommsen, p. 658.
30. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=accitus&la=la#lexicon.
31. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=cieo&la=la#lexicon.