A Companion To Ostrogothic Italy

A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy
Brills Companions
to European History
VOLUME 9
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bceh
A Companion to
Ostrogothic Italy
Edited by
Jonathan J. Arnold
M. Shane Bjornlie
Kristina Sessa
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover illustration: Mosaic from the nave of Sant Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, depicting the harbor and
urban landscape of Classe, the port city of Ravenna. Photo courtesy of Mark Johnson.
The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016008190
Want or need Open Access? Brill Open offers you the choice to make your research freely accessible online
in exchange for a publication charge. Review your various options on brill.com/brill-open.
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: Brill. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 2212-7410
isbn 978-9004-31376-7 (hardback)
isbn 978-9004-31593-8 (e-book)
Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.
Contents
Forewordvii
List of Figuresviii
List of Contributorsix
1 Introduction1
Jonathan J. Arnold, M. Shane Bjornlie, and Kristina Sessa
part 1
The State
2 The Ostrogothic Kingdom: Ideologies and Transitions17
Gerda Heydemann
3 Governmental Administration47
M. Shane Bjornlie
4 Ostrogothic Provinces: Administration and Ideology73
Jonathan J. Arnold
5 Ostrogothic Cities98
Federico Marazzi
6 The Senate at Rome in Ostrogothic Italy121
Christine Radtki
7 The Law147
Sean Lafferty
8 The Ostrogothic Military173
Guy Halsall
part 2
Culture and Society
9 Goths and Gothic Identity in the Ostrogothic Kingdom203
Brian Swain
vi
contents
10
Urban Life and Culture234

Deborah M. Deliyannis
11
Landowning and Labour in the Rural Economy263

Cam Grey
12
The Heroine and the Historian: Procopius of Caesarea on the

Troubled Reign of Queen Amalasuentha296
Kate Cooper
13
Intellectual Culture and Literary Practices316

Natalia Lozovsky
14
Art and Architecture350

Mark J. Johnson
15
Barbarizing the Bel Paese: Environmental History in Ostrogothic

Italy390
Paolo Squatriti
part 3
Religion
16
The Roman Church and its Bishops425

Kristina Sessa
17
Bishops, Ecclesiastical Institutions, and the Ostrogothic Regime451

Rita Lizzi Testa
18
Mapping the Church and Asceticism in Ostrogothic Italy480

Rita Lizzi Testa
19
Religious Diversity503
Samuel Cohen
Glossary of Select Sources533
Index542
Foreword
The genesis and completion of this volume is indebted to the avid interest of
a great many people who realized that a comprehensive and systematic treatment of Ostrogothic Italy was lacking in English scholarship. For all the diligent and careful attention given to the Ostrogoths in recent decades, and in as
much as so many debates about the end of the western Roman Empire and the
emergence of early medieval Europe are contingent upon an understanding
of the Ostrogothic kingdom, it is something of a surprise that scholarship has
not produced a more recent comprehensive collection of essays representing
the many perspectives and approaches present in the field of Ostrogothic studies. The opportunity to seriously discuss this lacuna with interested colleagues
arose on the occasion of the 47th meeting of the International Congress on
Medieval Studies at the University of Western Michigan (Kalamazoo), where
Deborah Deliyannis organized three panels dedicated to Ostrogothic Italy. For
her good instincts and her role in facilitating that meeting, we owe Deborah a
cheerful debt of gratitude. We would also like to thank the series editors at Brill
with whom it has been a constant pleasure to work. Julian Deahl initially shepherded this volume through its various growing pains until his retirement from
Brill in 2015. We would like to thank Julian for answering the endless queries
from the volumes editors with both good humour and good advice. Similarly,
we very much want to thank Kate Hammond and Marcella Mulder for seeing the project through to production and publication after Julians retirement.
Their task was equally weighty. Finally, this volume would not have been possible but for the many fine scholars who contributed their patience, dedication,
and expertise in the form of the chapters contained within it. Although the
volume editors are deeply gratified by the quality of the published book, we are
more appreciative of the friendships that have grown out of this collaboration.
Ennodius, Boethius, and Cassiodorus would have envied such an opportunity.
Jon Arnold, M. Shane Bjornlie, and Tina Sessa
December 2015
List of Figures
1.1
Map of Europe and the Mediterranean, ca. 5002
1.2
Map of Ostrogothic provinces, ca. 5254
1.3
Map of 6th-century Rome11
1.4
Map of 6th-century Ravenna12
8.1
Map of supposed Ostrogothic burial sites in Italy and Dalmatia190
12.1
Genealogical chart of the Ostrogothic Amal family298
14.1 Jewellery from a female burial at Domagnano in San Marino, ca. late
5th or early 6th century351
14.2 Marble female portrait, possibly the eastern Empress Ariadne or
Amalasuentha354
14.3 Ivory portraits of Athalaric and Amalasuentha, upper leafs of the
Diptych of Orestes (consul 530)355
14.4 Senigallia Medallion, portrait of Theoderic356
14.5
Bronze nummus of Theodahad, ca. 534356
14.6 Map of eastern half of Ravenna, early 6th century360
14.7
Marble column capital with monogram of Theoderic361
14.8 Santo Spirito, basilica and baptistery, Ravenna362
14.9 Plan of Santo Spirito, Ravenna363
14.10 Mosaic, baptistery of Santo Spirito, Ravenna364
14.11 Plan of Theoderics palace, Ravenna366
14.12 Mosaic fragment, possible paving from Theoderics palace,
Ravenna369
14.13 SantApollinare Nuovo, basilica interior, Ravenna371
14.14 Mosaic of the Palatium and the city scape of Ravenna, basilica
interior, SantApollinare Nuovo, Ravenna374
14.15 Fragmentary mosaic, possibly of Theoderic, basilica interior,
SantApollinare Nuovo, Ravenna377
14.16 Mausoleum of Theoderic, exterior, Ravenna379
14.17 Plan of the Mausoleum of Theoderic, Ravenna380
14.18 Mausoleum of Theoderic, reconstruction of De Angelis dOssat381
14.19 Apse mosaic, church of SS Cosmas and Damian, Rome385
List of Contributors
Jonathan J. Arnold
is Associate Professor of History and Director of Classics at the University of
Tulsa, Oklahoma. His research focuses on the late antique and early medieval
West, particularly the disintegration of the western Roman Empire and questions of identity at this time. He is currently translating works from Ennodius
of Pavia for the series Translated Texts for Historians, in addition to publishing
Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration (Cambridge 2014).
M. Shane Bjornlie
is Associate Professor of Roman and Late Antique History at Claremont
McKenna College in Los Angeles. His research focuses on intersections of
rhetorical representation and historical reality from the 4th through the
7th century. He has published Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna
and Constantinople: A Study of Cassiodorus and the Variae, 527554 (Cambridge
2013) and he is currently working on a study of the memory of Roman Empire
in the early Middle Ages.
Samuel Cohen
is an Assistant Professor of History at Sonoma State University, California. His
interests focus on late and post-Roman Italy, with particular attention to social
and religious deviance and its reconciliation. His current research considers
the problem of Ostrogothic Arianism, the language of heresy, and the development of the institutional authority of the early medieval bishops of Rome.
Kate Cooper
is Professor of Ancient History at the University of Manchester. She writes and
teaches about the world of the Mediterranean in the Roman period, with a
special interest in daily life and the family, religion and gender, social identity,
and the fall of the Roman Empire. Her previous publications include The Fall
of the Roman Household (Cambridge 2007) and Band of Angels: The Forgotten
World of Early Christian Women (Atlantic Press 2013).
is Associate Professor of History at Indiana University, Bloomington. She has
published an edition and translation of Agnellus of Ravennas Liber pontificalis
ecclesiae Ravennatis, and also authored Ravenna in Late Antiquity (Cambridge
2010).
list of contributors
Cam Grey
is Associate Professor in the Department of Classical Studies at the University
of Pennsylvania. He specializes in the social history of rural communities in
Late Antiquity. Recently, he has focused upon the intersection of social history,
environmental science, and disaster studies in approaching the transformations that this world experienced. He is the author of Constructing Communities
in the Late Roman Countryside (Cambridge 2011).
Guy Halsall
is Professor of History at York University. He has published on subjects including gender and age, death and burial, ethnicity, and warfare and violence in
the early Middle Ages. His current research focuses on western Europe in the
period around AD 600 and on the application of contemporary philosophy to
history. Past publications include Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West,
376568 (Cambridge 2007) and Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark
Ages (Oxford 2013).
Gerda Heydemann
is a researcher at the Institute for Medieval Research of the Austrian Academy
of Sciences in Vienna. Her dissertation (University of Vienna 2013) examines
Cassiodorus commentary on the Psalms in relation to 6th-century political
and theological debates. She is the co-editor (with Walter Pohl) of Strategies
of Identification: Religion and Ethnicity in Early Medieval Europe (Turnhout
2013) and Post-Roman Transitions: Christian and Barbarian Identities in the
Early Medieval West (Turnhout 2013). She currently holds a fellowship at the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation at the Freie Universitt Berlin, where
she works on the impact of biblical exegesis on the development of Carolingian
legal culture.
Mark J. Johnson
is Professor of Art History at Brigham Young University. He specializes in the
history of architecture and monumental decoration of Late Antiquity and his
recent publications include The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity
(Cambridge 2009) and The Byzantine Churches of Sardinia (Wiesbaden 2013).
Sean Lafferty
is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
His research includes law, social, and religious history in Late Antiquity and
the early Middle Ages. His previous publications include Law and Society in the
Age of Theoderic the Great: A Study of the Edictum Theoderici (Cambridge 2013).
List Of Contributors
xi
Natalia Lozovsky
is a Research Associate at the Office for the History of Science and Technology
at the University of California at Berkeley. Her publications include The Earth
is Our Book: Geographical Knowledge in the Latin West, 4001000 (Ann Arbor
2000) and over fifteen articles and book chapters.
Federico Marazzi
is Professor of Archaeology and History at Universit degli Studi Suor Orsola
Benincasa in Naples. His research interests have included the church of Rome,
the excavations of San Vincenzo al Volturno, and monastic settlements in
southern Italy. His publications include The Ostrogoths from the Migration
Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, co-edited with Samuel
Barnish (Boydell 2007) and Le citt dei monaci: Storia degli spazi che avvicinano
a Dio (Jaca 2015).
Christine Radtki
is an historian and researcher at the Eberhard Karls Universitt Tbingen and
the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Her previous research has
focused on the imperial representation of Ostrogothic rulers (Ein Herrscher und
seine Schreibendie Variae Cassiodors im Rahmen der Herrschaftsdarstellung
Theoderichs des Groen, PhD diss.), while her current project aims to develop
an historical and philological commentary for the chronicle of John Malalas.
Kristina Sessa
is Associate Professor of History at The Ohio State University. Her research
focuses on the history of late antique religions and society, with particular emphasis on the intersection between classical Roman culture and early
Christianity in the late Roman West. Her current project examines the effects
of war and crisis on the formation of ecclesiastical institutions and ideals in
the West. Her publications include The Formation of Papal Authority in Late
Antique Italy: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere (Cambridge 2012).
Paolo Squatriti
is Associate Professor of History and Italian at the University of Michigan. His
current research attempts to understand the transition from a Roman hegemony to early medieval Europe using a rural perspective that reconstructs
the role of landscapes in sustaining communities. His previous publications
include Landscape and Change in Early Medieval Italy: Chestnuts, Economy, and
Culture (Cambridge 2013) and The Floods of 589 and Climate Change at the
Beginning of the Middle Ages: An Italian Microhistory, Speculum 85 (2010).
xii
list of contributors
Brian Swain
is an Assistant Professor of History at Kennesaw State University. He studies
the barbarians and late Roman historiography, and is the author of Jordanes
and Virgil: A Case Study of Intertextuality in the Getica, Classical Quarterly
61.1 (2010). He is currently writing a monograph entitled Empire of Hope and
Tragedy: Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History.
Rita Lizzi Testa
is Professor of Roman History at the Universit di Perugia. Her research includes
the conversion and Christianization of the Roman Empire, the function of
political rhetoric in late antique literature, and the transformation of political
institutions from Constantine to Theodosius I. Her many publications include
Le Trasformazioni delle lites in et tardoantica (LErma di Bretschneider 2006).
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Jonathan J. Arnold, M. Shane Bjornlie, and Kristina Sessa
The transformation of the ancient world has long been associated with the
geopolitical fragmentation of the late Roman Empire and the rise of barbarian
kingdoms in the West. Among the most successful was the Ostrogothic kingdom, a regime that lasted for more than sixty years and encompassed at its
height the whole of the Italian peninsula, the island of Sicily as well as sections
of southern Gaul, Hispania, and the Balkans (see Figure 1.1). By all accounts,
Ostrogothic Italy was a multi-cultural state comprised of Romans and barbarians, Latin, Greek, and Gothic speakers, Nicene Catholics and Arians, pagans
and Jews. The Ostrogoths ruled Italy during a period marked by economic
contraction, demographic decline, urban violence, and war. Yet they also
oversaw considerable social and religious stability as well as some remarkable achievements, especially in the areas of literary and intellectual culture
and church building. While the rise and fall of Ostrogothic Italy has long been
recognized as a significant chapter in late antique and early medieval history,
recent research has dramatically revised and reshaped our understanding of
this polity and period. Thanks to archaeological discoveries and new methodological approaches to the sources, we now have more nuanced and complex
understandings of Ostrogothic ethnicity and identity, social and political relations among Romans and non-Romans, administrative structures and military
cultures, ecclesiastical figures and modes of religious authority, material landscapes, economic trajectories, and the environment.
Ostrogothic Italy has long played a central role in the framing of Late
Antiquity as a historical epoch. Was it a period marked by continuity or discontinuity? Was it a time of transformation or an era of crisis and catastrophe?1
For some scholars, the Ostrogothic regime functions as a peaceful interlude or
buffer between the breakdown of imperial military and administrative authority in the West during the 5th century and the permanent fragmentation of
Italy into Byzantine and Lombard polities in the late 6th century, when many
1 For a general discussion of the continuist and catastrophist narratives of Late Antiquity:
Ward-Perkins, Continuists, Catastrophists and Marcone, A Long Late Antiquity?
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 6|doi .63/9789004315938_002
Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa
Figure 1.1 Map of Europe and the Mediterranean, ca. 500

Map by Ian Mladjov
Roman structures and ideas endured.2 Alternatively, other scholars underline

the essential barbarism of Ostrogothic Italy as a warlord society lying beneath
a thin veneer of classical Roman civilization, and as a state whose emergence
marks the beginning of the early Middle Ages.3 Both the continuist and the
catastrophist schools have their shortcomings. For one, they inevitably cast
the Ostrogothic period as either a long Indian summer of classical civilization
or an abrupt rupture that heralded the Dark Ages. Moreover, neither approach
fully acknowledges the important structural changes to society that Ostrogothic
Italy inherited from the 4th and 5th centuries. Consequently, these studies
sometimes obscure the ways in which various continuities and discontinuities
may have been normative well before the arrival of the Ostrogoths in 489.
One reason for such polarized treatments of the same period is the abundance of rich contemporary evidence, which in some cases supports both
2 See e.g. Moorhead, Theoderic and ODonnell, Ruin of the Roman Empire.
3 Gibbon, Decline and Fall is perhaps the most infamous example of this perspective, but
see more recently Heather, Empires and Barbarians; Kaylors introduction to Companion to
Boethius; and Ward-Perkins, Fall of Rome.
Introduction
sides of the debate. By all accounts, the history of the Ostrogothic regime is
messy with contradictions; but it is also central to a better understanding of
Late Antiquitys longue dure. Indeed the disparate manners in which later
sources of the early Middle Ages filtered Ostrogothic Italy speak to many of
the same issues of interpretation. For example, Gregory of Tours, an inhabitant of Frankish Gaul born during the early years of the Gothic War (ca. 538/9),
preferred to see the period in terms of the political ascendancy of barbarism
and heretical (Arian) Christian belief. Conversely, in the 8th and early 9th centuries, the Frankish king and emperor Charlemagne cultivated the memory
of Ostrogothic Italy as a means of appropriating the imperial past. For interlocutors with Ostrogothic history then and now, understanding 5th- and 6thcentury Italy requires grappling with a chimaera of various personalities. This
volume seeks to make accessible the range of these historical interpretations,
both modern and pre-modern, to non-specialists and to offer specialists new
topics as well as new analyses of traditional questions. As readers will see, consensus and consistency are not features of either the late ancient evidentiary
or the modern scholarly record.

A Long and Wide Ostrogothic Italy
Many of the chapters in this volume approach the Ostrogothic era expansively
in both time and space. Rather than focus solely on Theoderics reign in Italy
(489/93526), they examine a longer period, beginning with Odovacer, the
first non-Roman ruler of Italy, who deposed the last Roman emperor of the
West in 476, and ending with the official conclusion of the Gothic War in 554,
when Justinian issued the Pragmatic Sanction. In truth both of these chronological parameters invite criticism. Arguably, Julius Nepos was the last western emperor and his death in 480 marks the true end of the western Roman
Empire as a political entity. Likewise, even after the Pragmatic Sanction, hostilities continued between Gothic and eastern Roman forces in regions north
of the Po for several more years, with substantial Ostrogothic resistance to the
eastern Roman presence in Italy not ending until the capture of Verona in 562.
But they nevertheless provide generally acceptable termini, which expand the
inquiry beyond the regnal dates of the Amal dynasty. Geographically, the chapters examine not only the Italian regions of the Ostrogothic kingdom (i.e. the
peninsula and Sicily) but also the southern Gallic, eastern Spanish, and Illyrian
provinces (see Figure 1.2). Theoderic fought and negotiated to control these
extra-Italian regions, making their inclusion in this volume not simply relevant
but required.
Figure 1.2 Map of Ostrogothic provinces, ca. 525

Map by Ian Mladjov
A broad approach is especially warranted given recent scholarly emphasis on

the deep foundations of barbarian regimes within the late Roman Empire.4
Moreover, although not every chapter in this volume takes a continuist position on classical antiquitys durability in the later 5th and 6th centuries, they
collectively endeavour to move away from the binaries of rise and fall that
often accompany rigid chronological and geographical parameters and unnuanced histories of the period. This is not to suggest that previous scholarship
has not contributed significantly to our understanding of the Ostrogoths,
or that they are all oriented around the binary of rise and fall. On the contrary, the work represented in the present volume rests on numerous key
contributions from a wide range of international scholars. For instance, the
specialist essays in several collected volumes, such as Teoderico il Grande e i
Goti dItalia (1993), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente (1995), and The
4 See especially Goffart, Barbarians and Romans; id., Barbarian Tides; Whittaker, Frontiers of
the Roman Empire; Barnwell, Emperor, Prefects and Kings; Mathisen/Shanzer (eds.), Romans,
Barbarians; and Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire.
Introduction
Ostrogoths: From the Migration Period to the Sixth Century (2007), offer important insights into specific debates and topics, including the economy and
settlement archaeology of Ostrogothic Italy. Moreover, there are a number of
excellent monographs on the period, which provide what our volume does
not: the complete social, religious, and political narrative. Broad studies of
Ostrogothic political and military history include H. Wolfram, History of the
Goths (1979), T. Burns, History of the Ostrogoths (1984), P. Heather, The Goths
(1996), and most recently G. Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West
(2007). Additionally, readers may turn to more focused studies on these topics,
such as J. Moorhead, Theoderic in Italy (1992). Important work has also been
done on the periods Christian ecclesiastical and cultural developments, from
the relevant chapters in J. Richards, Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle
Ages (1979) to T. Sardella, Societ, chiesa, e stata nellet di Teodorico (1996), and
J.J. ODonnell, Cassiodorus (1979), which also offers extensive treatment of the
periods intellectual history. P. Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy
(1997) is a sophisticated treatment of Ostrogothic social history, which further
engages with the thorny issues of ethnicity and identity. And finally, for a narrative of the Gothic War (53554), one may still fruitfully consult volume 4 of
T. Hodgkins Italy and Her Invaders (188099) and the more abridged account
in J. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (1923).
In contrast to these foundational specialist studies and comprehensive narrative histories, the present volume offers a broader range of topics than previous collected editions. It also extends consideration of these topics beyond
many of the previously mentioned specialized studies. The following contributions present entirely new approaches to Ostrogothic history (e.g. Squatritis
chapter on Ostrogothic environmental developments and Cohens chapter on
religious diversity), dedicated analyses of underexplored topics (e.g. Arnolds
chapter on Ostrogothic provinces), and revisionist responses to traditional
questions, many of which continue to vex historians (e.g. Bjornlies and Sessas
respective discussions of the civil administration and Roman church). Most
significantly, many call for a shift in approach to the period of ca. 476554,
from one oriented around a narrative of rise and fall to one that views the
Ostrogothic kingdom not as a discreet and well-defined historical period but as
a continuation and/or consequence of the policies, developments, and crises
of the late Roman Empire.
Readers, however, will not find complete consensus among the authors
on certain key matters of interpretation, particularly on the question of the
Ostrogothic kingdoms historical connections with earlier practices and institutions. Given the discordant nature of Ostrogothic studies in general, such
heuristic divergence is not only unavoidable but also more accurately reflects
the current state of the field. Additionally, the volume presents a variety of
approaches to the handbook format. Whereas many of the authors offer
nuanced syntheses of the most recent scholarship on a particular topic (e.g.
Heydemann, Arnold, Marazzi, Halsall, and Sessa), a few use the platform to
advance original readings of the evidence (e.g. Bjornlie, Squatriti, Cooper, and
Lizzi Testa). Because of this variation, the volume speaks to an exceptionally
wide range of readers, both specialists in the field and students new to the
Ostrogothic era.
The chapters in this volume describe and evaluate many fundamental
developments in virtually every area of life in the Ostrogothic kingdom. To
help orient readers unfamiliar with the period, this brief introductory section
outlines major developments in the realms of politics and the army, ethnicity
and social relations, the environment, cities, the economy, religion, and culture. It also alerts readers to the relevant chapters in the volume to which they
may turn for further reading.

Politics and the Army
Odovacers deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 marked the temporary

end of direct Roman imperial rule in Italy and the beginning of a seventyfive-year experiment in non-Roman (or perhaps quasi-Roman) regional government. During this period, a series of barbarian leaders, many of whom
hailed from a single dynasty (the Amals), oversaw the armies and administration of Italy, and at times even undertook imperial projects of their own
(e.g. Theoderics successful expansion into regions of Gaul and Western
Illyricuma topic explored by Arnold in this volume). As studies have shown,
Odovacer (who was a barbarian, but not a Goth) and the Ostrogothic kings did
not simply replace Roman soldiers and administrators with ethnically distinct
barbarians, nor did they demolish all of the many still-functioning Roman
institutions and structures that had been used to govern Italy for centuries. On
the contrary, they improvised on changes already taking place. For example,
a division between the army and civil militia had its origins in the Diocletianic
reforms of the late 3rd century and had become increasingly significant in
Italy during the 5th century, when direct control of the Italian military became
a crucial component of regional political power. Theoderic, like earlier generalissimos (e.g. Aetius or Ricimer), independently controlled his army, comprised mainly of non-Roman troops personally loyal to him, and delegated
Introduction
significant non-military administrative posts to local Roman elites. As recent

work has shown, this trend in the administrative and military history of Italy
may be traced to policies of emperors from the dynasties of Valentinian I and
Theodosius I, and hence pre-dates the Ostrogothic regime by over a century.5
Of course a neat distinction between Gothic soldiers and Roman civil
administrators in Italy belies a more complicated reality. Key administrative
posts awarded by the Ostrogothic court often involved both military and civil
authority, while many Romans found opportunities in the Ostrogothic military. For instance, after the first victory of the Gothic king Totila against the
Byzantine army in 541, he seems to have focused on the recruitment of slaves
and peasants, many of whom were likely ethnically Roman.6 Consequently,
while a theoretical division of Goths and Romans into military and civil posts
existed in Late Antiquity, it fails to describe the more fluid situation on the
ground. Readers interested in further examining the complex relationship
between Roman and Ostrogothic military and political cultures can turn to
the contributions of Radtki on the Senate, Halsall on the army, Bjornlie on
civil administration, and Heydemann on political ideology, as well as Laffertys
related chapter on law and legal practice.

Ethnicity and Social Relations
Just as it is problematic to oversimplify the ethnic compositions of the

Ostrogothic army and administration, so it is troubling to maintain easy distinctions between Goth and Roman as ethnic and social categories. As is well
known, the army that Theoderic led into Italy in 489 was not an ethnically
pure corps of Ostrogoths, but a hodgepodge mix of barbarian soldiers, most
of whom had been fighting on behalf of the empire for some time. It is possible to imagine Theoderic and his Ostrogoths as a natural extension of the
kind of class described by Alexander Demandt, as a highly fluid social stratum
in which military membership mattered more than ethnicity.7 Moreover, the
very concept of ethnogenesis (the idea that ethnicity is never an essential or
static category of identity, but a fluid and constructed set of characteristics
that are acquired by a people through both passive and active developments)
calls attention to the relative nature of barbarian identity. What it meant to
5 McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule.
6 Moorhead, Totila and Noy, Social Relations.
7 Demandt, Osmosis.
self-identify as Goth and/or Roman probably shifted from generation to

generation, region to region, and perhaps even from individual to individual.
As the contributions of Swain and Halsall show in this volume, ethnicity in
Ostrogothic Italy was an extraordinarily complex matter that continues to provoke heated debate among modern scholars.
Social relations, too, were in flux during this period, and again, we must look
to the 4th and 5th centuries for insight into patterns that were arguably intensified under the Ostrogoths. The expansion of the imperial administration and
the addition of a second Senate in Constantinople under Constantine massively expanded the numbers of salaried official posts and hence the number
of wealthy men who qualified for aristocratic status. Changes in how senatorial status was achieved soon followed under Valentinian I, which directly
rewarded men who had served in the government with higher senatorial honors and which subsequently demoted birth or marriage as the primary means
of acquiring elite status. Barbarians, we know, were among the beneficiaries of
these changes to the Roman system of social ranking and honour acquisition.
Landowning, always the chief medium of wealth in the ancient world, also continued to structure Ostrogothic society, as Greys discussion of property ownership and peasant labour in this volume shows. However, the influx of men with
money from lucrative civil careers or from highly remunerable positions in the
army allowed for a new generation of landowners to emerge in Italy, whose
elite status was no longer tied to a purely Roman aristocratic lineage. Again,
some of these new landed elites were barbarians. One well-known example
is Flavius Valila, vir illustris and magister utriusque militae, who founded and
endowed a private church on his extensive properties outside of Rome.8
This is not to say that traditional Roman senatorial aristocratsthe Anicii,
the Decii, and so ondisappeared during the Ostrogothic period. On the contrary, many found advantageous positions in the Ostrogothic regime based in
Ravenna.9 Moreover, the Roman Senate continued to function as a powerful
local governing centre, as Radtkis chapter demonstrates. However, these families now had to compete with a range of new elites, including the wives, sisters,
and daughters of barbarian leaders. Coopers contribution argues that some
royal barbarian women, such as Theoderics daughter Amalasuentha, exercised agency in political affairs through marriage alliances and their influence
as regents for young barbarian kings. As she notes, however, female regency
8 For Flavius Valila see Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (cited as PLRE
hereafter) 2, p. 1147 and Pietri/Pietri (eds.), Prosopographie chrtienne du Bas-Empire (cited as
PCBE hereafter) 2.2, pp. 22478.
9 See also Barnish, Transformation and Survival.
Introduction
and the diplomatic significance of marriage alliances were hardly Ostrogothic

inventions; rather, they were central features of several 4th- and 5th-century
imperial courts.10

Demography, the Environment, and the Economy
The barbarian kings and queens of Italy rose to power in an age marked by
demographic decline and the narrowing of economic horizons, especially with
respect to interregional trade. The remarkable downward trajectory of the city
of Romes population, from ca. 500,000 in 400 to less than 50,000 after the
Gothic War (53554) is perhaps an extreme example. As Squatriti argues here,
in what is the first study of Ostrogothic environmental history, a population
like classical Romes was ecologically unsustainable without dramatic forms
of state intervention, which it received through the first half of the 5th century,
when African grain and oil poured into the city without difficulty. However,
its loss of people is part of a less dramatic demographic decline that occurred
throughout the peninsula (and beyond), in both urban and (somewhat less
clearly) rural locations.11 These population changes were well underway by the
late 5th century, when Theoderic entered Rome, and continued apace into the
7th century long after the Ostrogoths had ceased to rule Italy. Studies have also
shown that the climates of Europe and the Mediterranean became colder and
wetter during the 5th and 6th centuries, though responses to and outcomes of
these environmental changes varied enormously from region to region within
the Ostrogothic kingdom. Nevertheless, a colder, wetter, and less populated
Italy was also one whose material needs were shifting. The Ostrogothic period
witnessed the gradual abandonment and/or repurposing of Italys once extensive and, in some cases, luxurious villas (with notable exceptions such as San
Giovanni in Ruoti) as well as shifts toward more extensive forms of agriculture, woodland crops (e.g. chestnuts), and animal husbandry. And as ceramic
evidence shows, while a few coastal Italian cities such as Rome, Ravenna, and
Naples still received oil, wine, and other products from North Africa and the
eastern Mediterranean, inland areas were slowly cut off from such commodities and became increasingly reliant on local production centres. Whether
people were actually healthier living a more narrowly circumscribed material
11 African food imports dwindled substantially after 439 by which time the Vandals controlled Carthage and the North African fleet and deliveries of the annona became increasingly irregular and dependent upon troubled diplomacy between Italy and Africa.
10
life is an important question explored by Squatriti in this volume. These overall

patterns of change in the countryside are linked causally to the demography
and, ultimately, to the conditions and culture of urban settings. In their respective contributions Deliyannis and Marazzi discuss Italian urban history during
the 5th and 6th centuries, paying close attention to the Ostrogothic regimes
contributions to, and rhetorical use of, cities physical condition, past traditions, and beauty.

Religious and Cultural Trends
As in many other post-Roman barbarian kingdoms (e.g. the Vandal and the
Visigothic), the Amal dynasty and presumably most Ostrogoths were Arian
Christians. On a certain level, therefore, Theoderics formation of a government in Italy represents the creation of an Arian state, though precisely what
this meant and how it impacted religious relations remains difficult to know.
Generally speaking, our sources give little notice to theological, and presumably liturgical, differences (though evidence on Arian rites is utterly lacking
for Italy) that supposedly divided Arian from Nicene Christians in Ostrogothic
Italy, and even the most devoted Nicene sources remained silent on Theoderics
heretical spiritual status, at least until the end of his reign when criticisms of
this nature first appear. In fact, as Lizzi Testa shows in Chapter 16, Theoderic
deliberately privileged Nicene churches in Italy and southern Gaul as a means
both to garner political support and to access their extensive patronage networks. The relative tranquility of both rhetoric and practice (as Cohen notes
in his chapter on religious diversity in Ostrogothic Italy, we have no evidence
for anti-Nicene actions taken by the state, nor for Nicene Christian persecutions of Arians) has given rise to a scholarly model of the Ostrogothic regime
as a polity that embraced religious tolerance, wherein Nicene and Arian
Christians, along with Jews and others, were permitted to worship in peaceful
independence. To what extent this paradigm accurately describes the historical situation is a question addressed by both Cohen and Sessa in their chapters. Finally, the Ostrogothic period also witnessed the emergence of the first
monastic rules in Italy (e.g. the Regula Magistri and the Regula S. Benedicti)
as well as certain ecclesiastical institutions and practices, such as the regulation of private villa or estate churches and the shaping of diocesan and metropolitan boundaries, issues explored by Sessa and Lizzi Testa (in Chapter 17),
respectively.
Introduction
11
Finally, the ages artistic and intellectual achievements have always been
central to the study of the Ostrogoths, in large part because of the prominence
of Cassiodorus and Boethiusthe two giants of Ostrogothic intellectual and
literary historyin western medieval thought. Lozovskys chapter offers a
synopsis of their work as well as the contributions of other intellectual figures,
such as Ennodius of Pavia, while Heydemanns chapter on Ostrogothic ideology and the state surveys important developments in political thought by figures like Cassiodorus. In terms of the visual culture of the Ostrogothic regime,
the ruins of Theoderics palace and mausoleum in Ravenna, and the numerous
churches there and in Rome built and/or renovated during the Ostrogothic
period have long fascinated scholars interested in questions about the continuity of classical artistic forms and techniques, and the emergence of a barbarian aesthetic, the existence of which most scholars (including those in this
volume) tend to question (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4). The chapters by Johnson
and Deliyannis offer foundational syntheses of the periods major works of art
and architecture along with insights into their relationship to the Ostrogothics
regime role as a purveyor of Roman culture.
Figure 1.3 Map of 6th-century Rome

Map by Ian Mladjov
12
Figure 1.4 Map of 6th-century Ravenna

Map by Ian Mladjov
Bibliography

Secondary Literature
Amory, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489554 (Cambridge Studies in
Medieval Life and Thought), Cambridge 1997.
Barnish, S., Transformation and Survival in the Western Senatorial Aristocracy,
Papers of the British School at Rome 56 (1988), 12055.
Barnish, S./Marazzi, F. (eds.), The Ostrogoths: From the Migration Period to the Sixth
Century, An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge, MA 2007.
Barnwell, P.S., Emperor, Prefects and Kings: The Roman West, 395565, Chapel Hill, NC
1993.
Burns, T., A History of the Ostrogoths, Bloomington, IN 1984.
Bury, J., History of the Late Roman Empire, 2 vols., New York 1958.
Carile, A. (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna 1995.
Demandt, A., The Osmosis of Late Roman and Germanic Aristocracies, in E. Chrysos/
A. Schwarcz (eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Vienna 1989, pp. 7588.
Gibbon, E., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J.B. Bury, 3 vols., New York
1946; first published as The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
6 vols., London 177688.
Introduction
13
Goffart, W., Barbarians and Romans: Techniques of Accommodation, Princeton 1980.

, Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Middle Ages, Philadelphia
2009.
Halsall, P., Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376568, Cambridge 2007.
Heather, P., The Goths, London 1998.
, Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, Oxford 2012.
Hodgkin, T., Italy and Her Invaders, vol. 4: The Imperial Restoration, 2nd ed., Oxford
1896.
Kaylor, N./Phillips, P. (eds.), A Companion to Boethius in the Middle Ages, Leiden 2012.
McEvoy, M., Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367455, Oxford 2013.
Marcone, A., A Long Late Antiquity? Considerations on a Controversial Periodization,
Journal of Late Antiquity 1.1 (1998), 419.
Martindale, J.R., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2: AD 395527,
Cambridge 1980.
Mathisen, R./Shanzer, D. (eds.), Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the
Roman World, Surrey 2011.
Moorhead, J., Theoderic in Italy, Oxford 1992.
, Totila the Revolutionary, Historia 49 (2000), 3826.
Noy, G., Social Relations in Southern Italy, in S. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The
Ostrogoths: From the Migration Period to the Sixth Century, An Ethnographic
Perspective, Woodbridge, MA 2007, pp. 18691.
ODonnell, J.J., Cassiodorus, Berkeley 1979.
, The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History, New York 2009.
Pietri, C./Pietri, L. (eds.), Prosopographie chrtienne du Bas-Empire, 2 vols.:
Prosopographie de lItalie chrtienne (313604), Rome 19992000.
Pohl, W. (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire: The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity
(Transformations of the Roman World 1), Leiden 1997.
Richards, J., Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, London 1979.
Sardella, T., Societ, chiesa, e stata nellet di Teodorico, Messina 1996.
Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia (Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi
sullAlto. Medioevo), 2 vols., Spoleto 1993.
Ward-Perkins, W., Continuists, Catastrophists and the Towns of Post-Roman Northern
Italy, Papers of the British School at Rome 65 (1997), 15776.
Ward-Perkins, W., The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford 2005.
Whittaker, C.R., Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study, Baltimore
1994.
Wolfram, H., History of the Goths, trans. T. Dunlap, Berkeley 1988.
Part 1
The State
CHAPTER 2
The Ostrogothic Kingdom: Ideologies

and Transitions
Gerda Heydemann
Introduction
The history of Ostrogothic Italy has complicated beginnings, reaching back
well before the year 493, when Theoderic the Great established himself as a
ruler over the peninsula. In 476, the general Odovacer overthrew Orestes as the
leader of the army in Italy and deposed the emperor Romulus Augustulus, the
latters son, an event which serves as one of the conventional dates for the end
of Antiquity and the transition to the Middle Ages. There was nothing new in
the seizure of power by a barbarian military commander, which had occurred
many times before during the 5th century. In contrast to his predecessors,
however, Odovacer did not attempt to install an emperor of his own choice,
but instead sent the imperial insignia to the emperor Zeno in Constantinople,
henceforth ruling over Italy as a rex.1
Roman authors of a later generation retrospectively interpreted these
events as the end of the empire in the West and cast Odovacer as a barbarian usurperyet the empire persisted as a framework for Italian politics well
after 476.2 The last western emperor to be recognized as such by his eastern colleague Zeno, Julius Nepos, died only in 481 in exile in Dalmatia, and
Odovacer acknowledged both Nepos nominal authority and the suzerainty of
the emperor in Constantinople. Theoderic in turn seized power over Italy by
mandate of the eastern emperor, and it seems that for him and many of his
subjects Ostrogothic rule over Italy was perceived as perfectly compatible with
the imperial order.
By 488, tensions between Zeno and Odovacer had mounted to such an
extent that the emperor decided to send Theoderic and his army to Italy to
1 For the events Stein, Bas-Empire, vol. 2, pp. 3958; Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 23847;
Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 611; Henning, Periclitans, pp. 5770 (with bibliography).
2 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle, a. 476, ed. Croke; Jordanes, Romana 344, ed. Mommsen. See
Croke, AD 476, with the comments in Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 2812. Fanning,
Odovacer, stresses Odovacers Roman and imperial profile.
18
Heydemann
remove Odovacer from power. Theoderic, who had emerged successfully from
a power struggle between various competing groups of Goths and their leaders in the Balkans in the course of the 470s and 480s, had recently plundered
Thrace and was at the time threatening Constantinople. For Zeno, dispatching
Theoderic to fight Odovacer in Italy provided a way to deal with two problems
at once.3 Theoderic entered Italy in 489 and prevailed over Odovacer after a
period of intense warfare. In 493, following a protracted siege of the capital
Ravenna whence Odovacer had retreated, the two generals agreed to share
rule over Italy. Theoderic, however, murdered Odovacer shortly after entering
the city (allegedly with his own hands) and had many of his followers killed.
Thereafter, Theoderics army, the exercitus Gothorum, proclaimed him king.4
Theoderic had been king of the Goths already since 474, and the renewed proclamation in 493 was probably meant to underline his claim to power over Italy
and all of its inhabitants.
Theoderic ruled until his death in 526, but the Italian realm outlasted
him by only two decades, being decisively destroyed in 552 by the emperor
Justinians army. Although it existed for little more than half a century in
total, it has profoundly influenced our understanding of the transition from
the Roman Empire to a post-imperial world in western Europe. By the end
of the 5th century, barbarian kings had come to rule Roman provinces all over
the West, in North Africa, Spain, and Gaul. Ostrogothic Italy, the former heartland of the empire, is usually seen as the most Roman (and most imperial)
of these western successor states. At the same time it has been a paradigmatic
case in the study of barbarian ethnicity, settlement, and political integration.
This has resulted in quite diverse, and only partially overlapping, narratives
for framing Ostrogothic history, which continue to elicit lively debates among
historians. Did the emergence of Ostrogothic rule mark the end of the Roman
Empire in the West, and its replacement by a barbarian kingdom the transition
to a different early medieval world? Or was it rather the short-lived renaissance
of the western empire? How was the position of the Ostrogothic state defined
in relation to the empire in the East? Should we stress the continuity with the
political and cultural traditions of the Roman Empire or the barbarian alterity
of this polity, its Romanness or its Gothicness? The main aim of this chapter
3 For the agreement between Zeno and Theoderic see Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 1719; Haarer,
Anastasius, pp. 769; Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 6371.
4 Anonymus Valesianus 12 (57), ed. Rolfe.
The Ostrogothic Kingdom
19
is to present a brief outline of the political history of the Ostrogothic kingdom

between 493 and 554, but also to address some of these issues.5
One important problem should be addressed from the outset: very often,
the questions posed by modern historians (and the answers they provide) are
informed by a set of underlying dichotomies, which also characterize broader
debates on the period: continuity vs. change, decline vs. transformation, peaceful integration vs. violent conquest, Romans vs. barbarians. As many of the traditional views associated with the fall of Rome and the barbarian migrations
(Vlkerwanderung) have effectively been criticized in recent decades, it has
become clear that we need to move beyond such dichotomies and analyse the
Roman continuities of the barbarian kingdoms, and the processes of social,
political, and economic change in a world for which the Roman Empire continued to function as a point of reference.6 This is especially important regarding
the most pervasive of these dichotomies: that between Romans and barbarians, which continues to shape the selection and interpretation of the late
antique evidence in often problematic ways.7 Recent work has demonstrated
that the barbarian peoples who established power in the Roman West were not
the stable and coherent entities imagined by previous generations of nationalist historians, and has emphasized the Roman (and Christian) foundations of
the emerging barbarian polities.8 On the other hand, the multiple levels and
changing conceptions of Roman identity have come into sharper view. There
were eastern and western, military and civil, central and regional interpretations of Romanness and political legitimacy, only some of which overlapped.9
Instead of finding a verdict on the Roman or barbarian nature of Ostrogothic
society and its rulers, it is more interesting to look at 6th-century conceptions
of empire and Roman and Gothic identity, and to study the ways in which
5 Fundamental works include: Wolfram, Goths, pp. 247362; Heather, Goths, pp. 21676; Amory,
People; Barnish/Marazzi (eds.), Ostrogoths. Important aspects regarding the practice of government and administration in the Ostrogothic regnum are discussed in later chapters in this
volume: see Bjornlie, Lafferty, Halsall.
6 Pohl, Vlkerwanderung; Halsall, Barbarian Migrations; Brown, Rise; see the series The
Transformation of the Roman World (19972004), published by Brill. The paradigm of decline
and fall has been forcefully revived by Ward-Perkins, Fall of Rome; Heather, Fall. For comment
see Pohl, Rome.
7 Pohl, Rome, p. 99; for the archaeological evidence, von Rummel, Fading Power.
8 Pohl, Strategies of Identification; Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 3545; and the sometimes polemical contributions in Gillett (ed.), On Barbarian Identity. For a critique of nationalist paradigms, Geary, Myth of Nations, pp. 1540; Wood, Modern Origins.
9 Brown, Through the Eye, pp. 3924; Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 47082; Heather, Fall,
pp. 43243; Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 746 for Ostrogothic Italy.
20
Heydemann
contemporary actors interpreted, negotiated, and legitimized the political and

ideological shifts and transitions. Indeed many of the issues at stake in modern
debates were already discussed in similar terms by the authors of our sources.
Another closely related problem concerns certain narratives that have
become almost canonical in modern accounts of Ostrogothic history. For
example, the history of the Ostrogothic kingdom is usually told in two parts:
first a period of consolidation and prosperity under a strong and emperor-like
Theoderic, and second, from the 520s onwards, a time of mounting tensions
and crises in the latter part of his reign, eventually leading into further decline
and the outbreak of war under his successors. This of course reflects the nature
of the available (written) sources, the specific perspectives of their authors,
and the interpretations which they seek to promote. These were texts written to explain, legitimize, or criticize, but also influence, the social and political developments of their time. It is therefore important to bear in mind the
extent to which our understanding of the Ostrogothic state is conditioned by
narratives and ideologies of transition created in the 6th century.

Theoderics Imperial Kingdom
For Theoderic, as for Odovacer before him, recognition by the emperor in the
East was crucial. Embassies seeking confirmation of his position had been
sent to Constantinople even before Theoderic had achieved undisputed control over Italy. However, Zeno died in 491 and his successor Anastasius was
reluctant to acknowledge Theoderics rule. The elevation as king over Italy
therefore happened without imperial consent, and it was only in 498, after protracted negotiations, that Anastasius finally recognized Theoderics rule.10 The
Anonymus Valesianus reports that Theoderic made peace with the emperor
Anastasius with regard to the presumption of the rule (presumptio regni) and
Anastasius sent back to him all the ornaments of the palace, which Odovacer
had transferred to Constantinople [in 476].11 This symbolic act of returning
the ornamenta palatii in 498 signalled the acceptance of Theoderics independent rule in the Italian provinces.12
10 See Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 359; Haarer, Anastasius, pp. 802.

11 Anonymus Valesianus (12) 64, ed. Rolfe.
12 Anonymus Valesianus (12) 64, ed. Rolfe; see Kohlhas-Mller, Rechtsstellung, pp. 1436.
Brm, Kaisertum, p. 54 interprets this as an invitation to Theoderic to nominate a new
western emperor.
21
If the conditions for this agreement were laid down in a formal treaty, no
written record has survived. This has caused vigorous debate among scholars
about Theoderics constitutional position and the precise definition of the
Ostrogothic kingdom as a political entity in relation to the empire.13 What kind
of legitimate authority could Theoderic and his successors claim for their exercise of power over Goths and Romans in Italy? Was his role that of a barbarian
king similar to other rulers in the West, or did he fulfil a properly imperial
function on a par with his senior colleague in the East?
Theoderic, who was a Roman citizen and had received the consulate and
the title of patrician, came to Italy as a representative of the emperor and as
a royal leader of his Gothic army. He would go on to exercise his rule over all
the inhabitants of Italy as a king, based on the election by the exercitus and,
eventually, the recognition by the emperor. While in older research Theoderics
kingship was seen as part of a supposedly Germanic tradition of kingship,
this view has meanwhile justly been discarded.14 More recent approaches
instead emphasize the Roman traditions underlying political rule not only
in Ostrogothic Italy, but in all the kingdoms established in the former provinces, for which the models were imperial rather than non-Roman.15 Many
elements associated with barbarian kingship which scholars used to interpret
as Germanic traditions are now seen as being derived from imperial precedents. It is therefore more appropriate to speak of post-imperial kingship.16
Moreover, as Walter Pohl has observed, kingdom and people (regnum and gens)
were two distinct social spaces in the post-Roman kingdoms.17 In Ostrogothic
Italy the gens was roughly equivalent to the Gothic army, or more specifically
to those members of the Gothic military elite who elected the king and gave
their consent to military expeditions. It deserves emphasis that this was by
no means a homogeneous group in terms of ethnic identification.18 The regnum, by contrast, comprised the inhabitants of all of Italy and its provinces,
including the Roman population. Accordingly, Theoderic used as an official
title simply rex (without any ethnic or territorial specification), complemented
13 Jones, Constitutional Position; Wolfram, Gotische Studien, pp. 13944, 15970; ProstkoProsknski, Utraeque res publicae; Arnold, Theoderic, especially pp. 7291.
14 Notably (but not exclusively) in the works of German-speaking scholars such as Ensslin,
Theoderich; Dahn, Die Knige der Germanen. For a critique see Dick, Der Mythos.
15 Pohl, Regnum; Wolfram, Gotische Studien, pp. 13973; Esders, Rmische Rechtstradition;
Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 48894.
16 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 48890.
17 Pohl, Regnum, p. 443.
18 See Swain and Halsall in this volume.
22
Heydemann
by the gentilicium Flavius, which conveyed a distinctly Roman (and perhaps

imperial) flavour.19 To assume kingship would have provided a way to exert
independent rule over a Roman region without openly challenging the position of the emperor or continuity with the empire and its institutions.20
Imperial legitimation and kingship were thus closely intertwined aspects of
Theoderics authority. Our various sources are mostly of a later date and transmit selective and sometimes conflicting accounts, thus giving rise to vigorous
debates among modern historians; we should therefore perhaps resist the urge
to harmonize them.21 Theoderics strategies of representation suggest that he
was deliberately exploiting the ambiguity of his position as king.22 While he
abstained from using the imperial title (imperator or Augustus), official documents such as those contained in the Variae, often describe Theoderic as a
princeps with the full range of imperial attributes.23 Theoderic also seems to
have respected certain ceremonial prerogatives, such as the right to issue coins
with the rulers portrait. The fact that he legislated by means of edicts (edicta)
rather than through laws (leges) is usually interpreted in this sense as well, but
his legislative activity clearly followed imperial models.24 The anniversary of
his reign in 500 was celebrated in Rome in truly imperial fashion, including
games, a speech in front of the Senate, and a visit to St Peters.25 Theoderic
also stepped into the role of a Christian emperor, quite irrespective of his
non-Nicene (homoean) creed.26 He sponsored the building of churches and
acted as a mediator in doctrinal debates and conflicts of succession within the
19 Wolfram, Goths, pp. 2868; idem, Intitulatio, pp. 612, 6770; Prostko-Prosknski, Utraeque
res publicae, pp. 6374. The use of an ethnic title (such as rex Gothorum) by barbarian
kings was the exception rather than the rule in the 5th and 6th centuries: Gillett, Was
Ethnicity; Pohl, Regnum, pp. 4401.
20 Pohl, Vlkerwanderung, p. 136; Barnish, Cuncta Italiae Membra, p. 319.
21 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 3951 provides a helpful discussion of the different viewpoints
in the sources.
22 Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2728 and pp. 8891 who emphasizes the overlap between royal
and imperial language and titles; Fanning, Odovacer, pp. 4751. For a general overview:
McCormick, Eternal Victory, pp. 26784.
23 Reydellet, La royaut, pp. 21422; Giardina, Cassiodoro, pp. 1468; Kohlhas-Mller,
Rechtsstellung, pp. 8899, 10737.
24 Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 289 and passim; Kohlhas-Mller, Rechtsstellung, pp. 23545.
25 Anonymus Valesianus 657 (12), ed. Rolfe; Vitiello, Teoderico; McCormick, Eternal
Victory, p. 273.
26 Heather, Goths, pp. 2235. See also Lizzi Testa in this volume.
23
Catholic Church. The acts of a Roman synod held in 499 show the assembled
Catholic bishops extending acclamations to Theoderic as if to an emperor.27
A famous inscription set up by a distinguished Roman senator celebrated
Theoderic as illustrious king and perpetual Augustus, showing that even if
he did not openly style himself an emperor, his subjects certainly could imagine him in this role.28 Theoderic and his courtiers in Ravenna used both the
language of kingship and the language of empire to articulate the legitimacy
of the Ostrogothic government. In Cassiodorus Variae the terms regnum and
imperium are used interchangeably for both the Italian realm and the eastern Empire, sometimes differentiating our realm from the eastern realm,
but never with an ethnic qualification such as kingdom of the Ostrogoths.
Continuity with the Roman Empire is also conveyed by the frequent use of
res publica, a term which could express both claims to distinctiveness vis--vis
other barbarian kingdoms and claims to shared traditions and equality vis--vis
the eastern Empire.29 The works of Ennodius likewise display a sense of imperial self-assurance on the part of the senatorial and clerical elite.30
Eastern emperors clearly acknowledged Theoderic as a ruler with legitimate authority over the Italian realm. In his correspondence with the Senate
in Rome Anastasius referred to Theoderic as the exalted king (excelsus rex),
who is entrusted with the power and solicitude of governing you.31 Similarly,
Justin I referred to him as preeminent king.32 Eastern observers were also well
aware of the ambivalence of Theoderics status. The Latin historian Jordanes,
who composed a Gothic History and a brief Roman History in Constantinople
in the early 550s, carefully weighed the language of barbarian kingship against
that of the Roman imperial tradition when he characterized the beginning of
Theoderics rule in Italy.33 His writings also alert to the contrast between the
imperial legitimation of Theoderics takeover and the idea, which he borrowed
from the chronicler Marcellinus Comes, that the western empire had ended
27 Acta synhodorum, Synod of 499, ed. Mommsen, p. 405; Moorhead, Theoderic, p. 54. See
Sessa in this volume.
28 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (hereafter CIL) X, 685052; Moorhead, Theoderic,
pp. 4748; Giardina, Cassiodoro, pp. 7399, who suggests a connection with Cassiodorus
and the court.
29 Suerbaum, Staatsbegriff, pp. 24767; Giardina, Cassiodoro, pp. 12431; Prostko-Postkynski,
Utraeque res publicae, pp. 75101.
30 Ennodius, Theoderich-Panegyricus, ed. Rohr; Nf, Zeitbewusstsein; Amory, People,
pp. 11220.
31 Collectio Avellana 113, ed. Gnther, p. 507.
32 Collectio Avellana 199, ed. Gnther, p. 658; Wolfram, Intitulatio, pp. 54 n. 103.
33 Jordanes, Romana 34849; Jordanes, Getica 28995, ed. Mommsen.
24
Heydemann
in 476.34 Procopius, writing in Greek, carefully exploited the tensions between

king and emperor, tyranny and imperial authority, when he noted in his Wars
that Theoderic, like a barbarian ruler, used the title (rex/rhix), but that
he showed himself to be a true emperor over Goths and Romans through his
deedseven if he had been a tyrant in name.35 Both Jordanes and Procopius
of course wrote with hindsight: their accounts of the beginning of Theoderics
reign and his rule were shaped by the climate of the 550s, when the legitimacy
of Ostrogothic rule over Italy had become an explosive issue against the background of Justinians attempt to restore direct imperial control over the West.
Procopius account of war-time negotiations between Gothic ambassadors
and the eastern general Belisarius demonstrates that the question to which
extent Theoderics assumption of power had been authorized by the emperor
(and could therefore be seen as conforming to imperial traditions and prerogatives) was a crucial argument for delegitimizing the Gothic war.36
Already in the 6th century, there were thus diverse vocabularies of power
available to characterize the rule of Theoderic and his successors. The balance
between kingship and empire, between military leadership and Roman civil
power, was constantly renegotiated by different political players throughout
Theoderics reign and that of his successors. So was the shifting status of the
Ostrogothic state between barbarian kingdom and empire restored, and the
definition of its relationship with the eastern Empire.

Organization of Power and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy
The Gothic envoys who made the case for the legitimacy of Ostrogothic rule
of Italy in Procopius account made their point by underlining continuity with
imperial traditions of government, most of all with regard to the careful preservation of Roman law and of the institutions of the civil administration, which
continued to be in the hands of Roman officials.37 Modern historians tend to
concur. The Ostrogothic kingdom is often singled out among the barbarian
successor states of the 6th century for its remarkably Roman profile. The policies and ideologies promoted by Theoderic point to his strong commitment to
34 Jordanes, Romana 345; Getica, 243, ed. Mommsen.
35 Procopius, Wars 5.1.2630, ed. Dewing; Wolfram, Intitulatio, pp. 401, suggested a transliteration of either a Gothic or a Latin term, but see now idem, Gotische Studien, p. 140;
Reydellet, La royaut, pp. 2025.
36 Procopius, Wars 6.6, ed. Dewing.
37 Procopius, Wars 6.6.1720, ed. Dewing.
25
the idea of the integration of the Goths into the existing political framework
and of consensual rule over Goths and Romans along the lines of Roman imperial traditions.
As a ruler of Italy, Theoderic inherited two centres of government: Ravenna,
where the imperial administration was located, and Rome, the seat of the
Senate.38 The balance of power and influence between these centres required
careful attention from the king, as had been the case for his predecessors.39
Given the enormous influence of the senatorial elite in terms of wealth and
patronage, Theoderic needed to carefully ensure their support by showing
respect for their privileges and for the political traditions connected with the
care of the res publica. They continued to enjoy nominations to the consulate
and the associated social prestige, and the Senate was left with its traditional
political prerogatives.40 Appointment to offices within the palatine bureaucracy was generally bestowed upon members of the Roman aristocracy, which
meant that traditional structures of patronage and career options remained
largely intact. Although some Roman aristocrats seem to have kept a certain
distance from the Ostrogothic court, many others, such as Liberius or Boethius,
were involved in government through the assumption of high offices as praetorian prefect or magister officiorum. The distinctiveness of the political traditions of the senatorial elite in Rome and that of the court-centred aristocracy
in Ravenna thus persisted.41 The great families seem to have been particularly
important during the early phase of Theoderics reign, but he also promoted
persons of less exalted origins, many of them from northern Italy, a policy that
seems to have caused tensions among the senatorial elite.42
The civil administration continued to function largely along late imperial models, although there were also significant modifications in response
to the changed economic and military situation in Italy.43 This was essential, since taxes needed to be collected and public order upheld. Cassiodorus
Variae provide exceptionally rich information about the administration under
Ostrogothic rule. The picture they present is one of continuitythe Ostrogothic
38 In addition, other Italian cities functioned as royal residences, most notably Pavia and
Verona, see Bjornlie in this volume.
39 Bjornlie, Politics, 12734; Wickham, Italy, pp. 1519.
40 Barnish, Senatorial aristocracy; Schfer, Senat; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 14072; Radtki
in this volume.
41 Schfer, Senat, pp. 14969; Matthews, Boethius, pp. 2631.
42 Schfer, Senat, pp. 170211; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 14758.
43 For details, see Bjornlie in this volume. Barnwell, Emperor, pp. 14069 puts greater emphasis on change underlying a faade of continuity.
26
Heydemann
state emerges as essentially Roman. While it is clear that Cassiodorus shaped

his collection to deliberately convey such a message, it is also fairly certain
that there was actual continuity to a remarkable degree.44 The changes that
Theoderic introduced are probably less un-Roman than they have been often
made out to be. Rather, they point towards the creation of a reduced governmental apparatus, which became more tightly centred on the royal court, and
to the blurring of boundaries between military and civil functions.45
An essential aspect of securing the consensus of both the senatorial and
the Gothic elite was the provision and accommodation of the Gothic army.46
There has been fierce debate among historians about whether the barbarian
armies who established their rule in the Roman territories received land for
settlement or rather a share of the tax revenues. Recent work tends to emphasize that tax shares and landed property were not mutually exclusive models.47
For Ostrogothic Italy, the limited evidence that we have indeed suggests a combination of tax-based salaries and the redistribution of land, both of which
would have resulted in a process of administrative decentralization. This matter is of obvious importance for how we imagine the distribution of power and
wealth between the Roman landowners and the Gothic military elite. The task
had to be handled in such a way as to avoid alienating the former, while giving the latter access to land and more or less direct control over its resources,
which probably intensified the integration of the Gothic elite into the social
fabric of Italy.
Whatever our judgement about continuity and change in Italy after 476/493,
it is clear that careful argument was needed to persuade the wider public of
the new governments political authority and legitimacy. The texts produced
at the court to this end, notably the works of Ennodius and Cassiodorus,
show that intense rhetorical efforts were made to explain the functioning of
the Ostrogothic polity to the different political actors involved, and to convince them that this was a polity which deserved their support and loyalty.
The rhetoric of civilitas was employed profusely to suggest the Romanness of
the Ostrogothic state, in which political culture and civil society functioned
44 For the political message of the Variae see Giardina, Cassiodoro; Kakridi, Cassiodors
Variae; and most recently, Bjornlie, Politics.
45 Bjornlie, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes, p. 15860 and in this volume.
46 Halsall in this volume. See also Innes, Land; Bjornlie, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes, and
Porena (ed.), Expropriations.
47 See also Halsall in this volume.
27
according to Roman patterns.48 The rule of (written) law was the main ingredient of an ideology of government focused on civilitas, that is, the preservation
of just and lawful government and jurisdiction.49 Apart from lawful government, civilitas was demonstrated by the ruler himself through dispensing
justice, taking care of the poor, and investing in public infrastructure and the
urban fabric. It also included the display of a measured approach in religious
matters, including the protection of the rights of religious minorities such as
the Jews and respect for the privileges of the Nicene church.50
A closely entangled problem was how to conceptualize the social and political role of the new Gothic ruling elite and its relationship to the rest of Italian
society. The basic answer provided by the court in Ravenna was the idea of a
functional division, where the Goths represented the military elite responsible for the defence and security of Italy, while the Romans were entrusted
with the maintenance of civil government and culture. Goths and Romans
thus played complementary social roles.51 There has been much debate about
the implications of this notion for our understanding of Gothic identity and
of the distinctiveness of the Gothic gens.52 What is important here is that
while Gothic identity indeed seems to have been mainly functional in that it
referred to membership of a military elite, the distinction between Goths and
Romans clearly represented an oversimplification of a much more diverse
(and dynamic) social and political reality.53 Moreover, it is crucial to recognize
that the image projected by the government of the respective roles of Goths
and Romans was not only an argument about distinction but also about the
reciprocity of the different groups within Italian society. It is true that some
Goths needed to be reminded to live up to the norms of civilitas (or to be persuaded of its benefits), but so did some Romans. While the praetorian prefect
Liberius received high praise from Cassiodorus for his achievement regarding
the accommodation of the army, Cassiodorus letter also suggests that the possessores needed to be reminded of the benefits of this arrangement.54
48 Giardina, Cassidoro, pp. 3943; Kakridi, Variae, pp. 32773; Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 21653
and 30628.
49 Reydellet, Thoderic et la civilitas; Saitta, La Civilita; Kakridi, Variae, pp. 339446.
50 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 2.27 and 10.26, ed. Mommsen; see Sessa and Cohen in this volume.
51 Amory, People, pp. 4385 is misleading in his conflation of what he calls the ethnographic
rhetoric of functional division with civilitas, and in his suggestion that civilitas rhetoric
was replaced by a stress on Gothicness since the 520s. For critique, see Kakridi, Variae,
pp. 293325, 33947; Arnold, Theoderic, p. 172.
52 See Swain in this volume.
53 Rightly emphasized by Amory, People, passim. See Pohl, Vlkerwanderung, pp. 1404.
54 Cassiodorus, Variae 2.16.5, ed. Mommsen.
28
Heydemann
However, the main message of the documents collected in the Variae (or the
writings of Ennodius) was to emphasize the compatibility between Gothic rule
and Roman traditions.55 According to this vision, the Goths differed from other
peoples (gentes) in that they were not barbarian, but were capable of combining military strength with Roman law and culture.56 A similar argument underlies the efforts to demonstrate the prominent role of the Goths within Roman
history, as evidenced by Cassiodorus historiographical projects.57 The warlike
features and military power of the Goths, on the other hand, were not necessarily in contrast to their Romanness, but rather complemented it. After all,
martial valour had been at the origin of the Roman Empire itself, and arms and
laws formed a central motif in Justinianic conceptions of imperial success.58
Another key element of Ostrogothic ideology was the promotion of the
pre-eminence of their ruling dynasty, the Amals. From what we can tell about
the contents of Cassiodorus lost Gothic History, the construction of a genealogy of the Amal kings which extended seventeen generations back in time,
was an essential part of his effort to turn Gothic origins into Roman history.59
Cassiodorus himself viewed this project as a piece of cultural brokerage,
designed to bring about consensus by stressing the compatibility between
Gothic and Roman traditions.60 The heroic past of the Amals, to be sure, was
largely fabricated, but it served to underline the ancient prestige of both the
Gothic people and their rulers.61 This could have helped to render Amal rule
more acceptable to self-conscious Romans,62 but also to mobilize the loyalty
and cohesiveness among the Goths themselves by underlining the singular claim of the Amal family to rule over them. As Peter Heather has rightly
emphasized, the Goths were not a homogeneous group whose loyalty towards
55 Giardina, Cassiodoro, pp. 2546; Kakridi, Variae, pp. 16091, 31826. Barnish, Roman
Responses and Bjornlie, Politics, suggest an eastern audience for this message.
56 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 3.23.3, 7.25.1, ed. Mommsen; Kakridi, Variae, pp. 293347; Teillet,
Des Goths, pp. 281303; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 6689.
57 See Reimitz, The Historian, pp. 435; Heather, Historical Culture, pp. 34252.
58 Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 12141; Maskarinec, Clinging to Empire.
59 This seems fairly certain even if it is difficult to extrapolate from Jordanes Getica. See
Heather, Cassiodorus; Barnish, Genesis; cf. Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1; for summaries of
the debate about the relationship between Cassiodorus and Jordanes, see Croke, Latin
Historiography, pp. 3617.
60 Cassiodorus, Variae 9.25.46, ed. Mommsen; Reimitz, The Historian, p. 43.
61 Heather, Cassiodorus. But see now Martin/Gruskov, Dexippus.
62 Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 16074; Wolfram, Gotische Studien, p. 154. In general, see Halsall,
Barbarian Migrations, p. 489.
29
Theoderic could be taken for granted.63 As a strategy of legitimation, the rhetoric of Amal legitimacy was situational and tuned to the aims and audiences
of the respective textsmuch as the stress on civilitas, the functional division
of Goths and Romans, the martial valour of the Gothic gens, or the imperial
quality of the Ostrogothic state. In a complex political environment in which
the Amal rulers had to negotiate the loyalties and interests of diverse groups,
there was need for both strategies of integration and strategies of distinction.

Kingdom and Empire
The Ostrogothic kingdom formed part of a complex political landscape, and

its position (and that of its rulers) needs to be considered in relation not only
to the eastern emperor, but also to the competing powers in the West. Frankish
Gaul and Vandal North Africa shared many features with Ostrogothic Italy:
they followed Roman models of government and representation, and strove
for recognition and legitimation by the eastern emperor. Theoderics claims to
imperial status were reinforced in the years around 500 through the recovery
of lost territory of the former Italian prefecture. His claims to hegemony over
the western powers were strengthened through a series of dynastic marriages,
which created a network of alliances with the ruling families of Franks, Vandals,
Burgundians, and others.64 These aspirations were effectively checked by the
rising power of the Franks under Clovis, and the interventions of the court in
Constantinople. In 507, the Franks defeated the Visigoths in the famous battle
of Vouill and killed King Alaric II, Theoderics son-in-law. Shortly after this
victory, the Emperor Anastasius rewarded Clovis with an honorary consulate
and patriciate, and it may not be a coincidence that an eastern fleet ravaged
the Italian coast precisely in 507/8.65
However, in the aftermath of Vouill, the Ostrogoths succeeded in expanding their territory, establishing control over the area south of the Durance
(Provence), as well as over the remainder of the Visigothic kingdom on the
Iberian peninsula. There, Theoderic, acting on behalf of his grandson Amalaric,
removed Gesalicthe son of Alaric II by another motherfrom power.
Gesalic received support from the Vandal and Frankish kings, but was defeated
in 511 and again in 513. As a result, Spain was ruled as part of the Ostrogothic
63 Heather, Goths, pp. 23648, Wiemer, Goten, pp. 60615.
64 See Arnold in this volume.
65 Mathisen, Clovis; Heather, Goths, p. 232; Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle, s.a. 508, ed.
Croke.
30
Heydemann
kingdom until Theoderics death, allowing access to Visigothic treasure, taxes,

and military resources.66
The major theme in relations between Italy and the East, apart from
Constantinoples role as a power broker in the West, was ecclesiastical politics. During the later part of Anastasius reign, a series of attempts were made
to solve the Acacian schism and settle the disagreement between the eastern churches and Rome over the acceptance of the decrees of the Council
of Chalcedon (451).67 The reunion of the churches was finally effected after
the Chalcedonian Justin succeeded the anti-Chalcedonian Anastasius in 518.
While it has been suggested that this made it easier for the bishop of Rome and
the senatorial aristocrats to turn to Constantinople as a political alternative,
it is doubtful whether the newly established concord would have weakened
Theoderics position in Italy.68 Indeed, in 519, Justin demonstrated his approval
of Theoderics chosen successor Eutharic by accepting him as a partner in the
consulate and adopting him as a son-at-arms.69

Succession and Narratives of Failed Consensus
To secure the succession within the Ostrogothic kingdom was one of

Theoderics major problems during the latter part of his reign. After it had
become apparent that there would be no male heir, Theoderic found a suitable
candidate in Spain in the person of Eutharic, who was called to Ravenna and
married Theoderics daughter Amalasuentha in 515.70 Strong efforts were made
to present Eutharic as the most legitimate and desirable heir to the Ostrogothic
throne. According to Cassiodorus and Jordanes, Eutharic was of Amal descent,
which modern historians tend to disbelieve and rather interpret as a genealogical fabrication.71 Apart from the genealogical links it allowed to construe,
Eutharics Spanish origin could have eased his accession over a united kingdom
66 Collins, Visigothic Spain, pp. 405; Diaz/Valverde, Goths, pp. 3604.

67 Haarer, Anastasius, pp. 11583; Meier, Anastasios, pp. 250319; Moorhead, Theoderic,
pp. 194200.
68 Amory, People, pp. 20619; Noble, Papacy, p. 417. See also Sessa in this volume.
69 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 199200. See Cassiodorus, Variae 8.13, ed. Mommsen; contrast
idem, Chronicle s.a. 519, ed. Mommsen.
70 On Eutharic, see Wolfram, Goths, pp. 3289; Heather, Theoderic, pp. 1678.
71 Jordanes, Getica 251 and 2979; Heather, Cassiodorus, pp. 106, 115; idem, Theoderic,
pp. 1678; Diaz/Valverde, Goths, pp. 3657.
31
of Italy and Spain.72 Approval by the eastern emperor was equally important,
which was signalled through the joint consulship and Eutharics adoption as a
son-at-arms by Justin, as mentioned above. Cassiodorus rose to the occasion to
write a brief world chronicle culminating in this event, stressing that the magnificence of the consular games held by Eutharic in Rome was apt to impress
even the emperors envoy.73
Eutharic died prematurely in 522/3, leaving behind a son by his wife
Amalasuentha, the eight-year-old Athalaric. Establishing Athalarics claim to
the throne turned out to be a difficult task. Indeed the most infamous event
of Theoderics reign, the trial and execution of the philosopher Boethius in
523, followed by that of his father-in-law Symmachus, was probably connected
to conflict over succession.74 The charges brought forward against Boethius
(and the senator Albinus, whom he had risen to defend) were of high treason and secret negotiations with Constantinople. It has been assumed that
Boethius was part of a group harbouring plans to formally restore the empire,
and James ODonnell has suggested that Boethius himself was striving for the
imperial title.75 A more likely explanation is that Boethius was part of a senatorial faction who wanted to see Theoderics nephew Theodahad on the throne,
and sought support for that position in the East; moreover, tensions between
Boethius and members of the courtly elite in Ravenna undoubtedly played
a role.76 A long-standing dissatisfaction of Boethius, or indeed of a group of
Roman traditionalists, with Amal rule seems an unfounded assumption.
These events cast a long shadow over Theoderics reputation. The narrative
of the last years of his life is almost inevitably told in the form of a grim epilogue to an otherwise prosperous reign. This is due to the fact that there are
very few sources covering this period, and those which have been preserved
were written from an extremely hostile perspective. Their version of events was
sometimes highly selective and stylized, responding to political circumstances
and concerns of their own.77 Boethius, in his Consolation of Philosophy, written
during imprisonment, denounces the injustice and lawlessness of the court in
Ravenna and laments the loss of Roman political freedom (libertas Romana)
72 Heather, Theoderic, p. 168 and Arnold in this volume. Contrast Barnish, Cuncta Italiae
Membra, p. 331 with n. 59.
73 Cassiodorus, Chronicle s.a. 519, ed. Mommsen.
74 Matthews, Boethius; Robinson, Dead Boethius, summarizes 6th-century accounts.
75 ODonnell, Ruin, pp. 1667.
76
Barnish, Maximian, pp. 2931; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 2325; Bjornlie, Politics,
pp. 13841.
77 On the literary image of Theoderic, see Goltz, Barbar-Knig-Tyrann.
32
Heydemann
under tyrannical rulers.78 The Anonymus Valesianus inserts the Boethius affair
into the broader context of a narrative about the ultimate failure of Theoderics
imperial experiment in Italy. He styled the crisis of the 520s in terms of religious antagonism between Catholic Romans and a heretical king.79
Religious differences were also a touchstone in deteriorating relations
with the eastern empire. Shortly after the trial, Theoderic sent an embassy
led by the bishop of Rome, John, and a number of high-ranking senators to
Constantinople in order to dissuade the emperor from pursuing measures
against the Arian (non-Nicene) churches in the East. The exact nature of such
measures remains unknown, just as the precise outcome of the embassy.80 The
Liber Pontificalis describes the bishops visit to Constantinople in triumphant
terms, contrasting the honours he received from the emperor with the cold
welcome the envoys received on their return to Italy. John died shortly after his
return, and the Liber Pontificalis turns his death (much as that of Boethius and
Symmachus) into the death of a martyr for the Catholic cause in the hands of
a heretical king (rex hereticus).81
Given the biases of our sources, we should be very cautious in drawing conclusions about a long-standing antagonism between Arians and Catholics, or
between pro-imperial traditionalists and pro-Gothic loyalists for that matter.
But we also need to take note of the fact that such antagonistic language was
available, and that orthodoxy and heterodoxy, Roman libertas and barbarian
oppression, could become buzzwords in describing the diverging views of different interest groups in the kingdom. Indeed the trial of Boethius and related
events of the mid 520s, and the fault lines which emerged in this context,
became the touchstones in the discussions about Theoderics legacy and the
legitimacy of Amal rule during the Gothic Wars and beyond.82
These events, moreover, occurred in a period of external tensions. In
Burgundy King Sigismund murdered Sigeric, his son by Theoderics daughter Ostrogotho in 522; shortly thereafter, the Merovingian king, Chlodomer,
attacked Burgundy. Sigismund lost his life, and an Ostrogothic army under
Tuluin managed to expand the area under Ostrogothic control in southern
78 Moorhead, Boethius, pp. 1920; idem, Libertas.

79 Anonymus Valesianus, 1416 (8194), ed. Rolfe; Barnish, Anonymus Valesianus.
80 Greatrex, Justin i, pp. 7881.
81 Liber Pontificalis 55.56, ed. Duchesne, with Noble, Papacy, pp. 41823; Goltz, BarbarKnig-Tyrann, pp. 40025; Amory, People, p. 220; Sessa discusses the event in more detail
in this volume.
82 Robinson, Dead Boethius; Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 14784; Vitiello, Cassiodoro anti-Boethius?.
33
Gaul.83 At the same time relations with the Vandal kingdom became strained
after King Hilderic succeeded to the throne in 523; he pursued a policy of reconciliation towards the Nicene church in an effort to develop an alliance with
the emperor. At some point before 526 his predecessors widow Amalafrida,
Theoderics sister, was murdered. In response to the threat posed by this shift
in diplomatic allegiances, Theoderic developed the plan to construct a fleet,
which remained unfinished at his death in 526.84

Theoderics Successors
Much as for Theoderics last years, the kind of story we can tell for the reign of
his successors as kings of Italy is largely determined by the limited range of documentary and narrative sources that have survived. When Athalaric succeeded
his grandfather in 526, he was still a young boy and his mother Amalasuentha
acted as regent on his behalf.85 Her position depended on her control of the
prince and on the careful management of loyalties.86 Documents from the
beginning of the reign preserved in the Variae show the efforts to consolidate
support for Athalarics rule by a strong emphasis on (dynastic) legitimacy and
consensual rule, suggesting that there had been difficulties in asserting his
claims. On his accession, Athalaric sent letters to the Senate and the people
of Rome, Italy, Dalmatia, and Gaul.87 In these letters the king demanded an
oath of fidelity from all his subjects, including the Senate, pledging in return to
uphold the rule of law and the rights granted by Theoderic, and to continue his
grandfathers policies and equitable government.88 Athalaric (or his advisors)
also used this occasion to make an argument about his legitimacy as heir to the
throne. The letters stress that he had been designated as such by Theoderic,
and they deliberately evoke the consent of the magnates at court. In the letters
to the Senate and the Gothi, his descent from the Amal family, this most glorious royal line, was emphasized.89
83 Wolfram, Goths, p. 312; Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 513.
84 Procopius, Wars 4.9.34; Cassiodorus, Variae 9.1 and 5.17 (on the fleet), ed. Mommsen;
Merrills/Miles, The Vandals, pp. 1324.
85 Wolfram, Goths, pp. 32237; Heather, Goths, pp. 2603.
86 For further consideration of Amalasuenthas precarious position and manoeuvring, see
Cooper in this volume.
87 Cassiodorus, Variae, 8.28, ed. Mommsen.
88 Esders, Rechtliche Grundlagen.
89 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.2.3 and 8.5.2, ed. Mommsen.
34
Heydemann
Other letters show the need to conciliate and contain potential rivals to the
throne, not least Theoderics nephew Theodahad.90 A letter in which he was
granted a gift of land by the new king included a warning to comport himself
well.91 Likewise, when the general Tuluin was appointed as commander-inchief of the army (patricius praesentalis), he was reminded in no uncertain
terms to act strictly in the interests of the young king and not to seek power for
himself.92 A gesture of reconciliation was also extended towards the families of
Boethius and Symmachus, whose properties were restored by Amalasuentha,
but at the same time, the architects of their downfall figure in positions of honour in the Variae in letters dated to shortly after the beginning of her reign.93
Despite these efforts at re-establishing consensus, the stability of the new
regime remained precarious. Amalasuentha faced considerable opposition
at court. At stake was control over the young king and his policies, possibly
paired with concerns about his viability as a military leader at such a young
age. Following Procopius account in the Wars, this has often been interpreted as a conflict between Amalasuenthas Roman advisors and Romanized
Goths on the one hand and a vigorously pro-Gothic party on the other who
resisted the Romanization of the Gothic elite. Procopius framed this conflict
in anecdotal form as a struggle about the princes educationRoman letters or Gothic military skills.94 His use of oppositional rhetoric (Roman vs.
barbarian values) should, however, not be taken literally. Together with his
praise of Amalasuentha, it is best placed in the context of his overall strategy
to legitimize Emperor Justinians war in Italy.95 Procopius rhetorical strategies
apart, Amalasuentha was put under considerable pressure by her opponents.
The queens strategy was to seek a deal with Justinian to secure her personal
safety.96 Eventually, she managed to survive the crisis, by removing her major
opponents (among them likely Tuluin) from Ravenna, sending them on military campaign to be subsequently killed.97 In 533, she installed Liberius as a
new patricius praesentalis, while Cassiodorus became praetorian prefect of
Italy.98 The letter in which Cassiodorus signalled his accession to the Senate is
90 Heather, Theoderic, p. 169.
91 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.23, ed. Mommsen.
93 Procopius, Wars 5.2.5, ed. Dewing; Cassiodorus, Variae, 8.1617, 8.2122, ed. Mommsen.
95 Joye/Knaepen, Limage, pp. 23044.
97 Procopius, Wars 5.2.2122, ed. Dewing; Wolfram, Goths, p. 336; Heather, Goths, pp. 2601.
35
actually a panegyric of Amalasuentha, in which he highlighted the legitimacy

of her rule on behalf of Athalaric as well as her excellent qualities as a skilled
and educated ruler.99
Cassiodorus did his best to emphasize the achievements of the Gothic army
under her regency, but the overall situation must have seemed less secure. In
530, the dux Witigis had to fight back Gepid and Herul armies who had invaded
Pannonia Sirmiensis. The counter-attack led into eastern territory, probably
not to the satisfaction of the emperor, who may have instigated the conflict.100
In Spain the political union was dissolved upon Athalarics succession and
kingship passed on to Theoderics grandson Amalaric, which meant the loss of
Visigothic revenue and manpower. Amalaric was killed in 531 after a disastrous
defeat at the hands of the Franks and was succeeded by Theudis.101 The Franks
also took control over the Thuringian and Burgundian kingdoms in 531 and
53234, respectively. Henceforth, they were a direct (and increasingly powerful) neighbour of the Ostrogothic kingdom.102 When Justinian invaded the
Vandal kingdom in 535, Amalasuentha allowed his fleet to use Sicily as a basis,
probably in return for his support of her regency. Tensions persisted, however,
as the Ostrogoths took advantage of the situation to reclaim the Sicilian city of
Lilybaeum.103
In 534 Athalaric died, leaving his mother in a precarious position. She decided
to elevate her cousin Theodahad, who had previously been outflanked in the
competition for the throne, as her co-ruler. In their official announcements
both of them emphasized their will to concord and respect for each other, but
Procopius reports that Amalasuentha required a secret oath from Theodahad,
according to which effective power would remain with her.104 Theodahad had
built up a considerable power base of his own in Tuscany, in part by relentlessly alienating property.105 The studied concord between the two rulers did
not last very long, for Theodahad soon had Amalasuentha imprisoned, and by
early 535 she was dead.
99 Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1, with Fauvinet-Ranson, Portrait; Vitiello, Nourished.
100 Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1.10 and Procopius, Wars 5.3.1630, with Arnold in this volume.
101 Heather, Goths, pp. 2768; Diaz/Valverde, Goths, pp. 36870.
102 Wood, Merovingian Kingdoms, pp. 514.
103 Procopius, Wars 5.3.1029, ed. Dewing, who also claims that Amalasuentha harboured
secret plans to surrender Italy to Justinian.
104 Cassiodorus, Variae 10.34, ed. Mommsen; Procopius, Wars 5.4.8, ed. Dewing; La Rocca,
Consors. See now the study by Vitiello, Theodahad.
105 Cassiodorus, Variae 4.39, 5.12, 10.5, ed. Mommsen; Procopius, Wars 5.4.111, ed. Dewing.
On Cassiodorus portrayal of Theodahad, see Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 31120; Krautschick,
Cassiodor, pp. 12730; Vitiello, Il principe, pp. 11462.
36
Heydemann
To Justinian, this represented a pretext for intervening in Italy, for he had

given his consent to the arrangement and claimed that Amalasuentha was
under his protection.106 A senatorial embassy sent by Theodahad to conciliate the emperor fell apart, with the patrician Liberius (by now an old man)
defecting to the imperial side.107 While it is unlikely that Justinian had a longstanding plan to reconquer the western Empire as an earlier generation of
scholars believed, a discourse which delegitimized barbarian rule in the western Mediterranean had slowly built up in the East from the 520s onwards,
employing tropes about barbarous tyranny, heterodoxy, and the end of the
western empire in 476.108 Against the backdrop of a swift success of the imperial army in North Africa, where the Vandals had been removed from power
by 534, Justinian mounted pressure against Theodahads increasingly fragile
regime. In June 535, Belisarius landed with a fleet in Sicily, while the Gepid
general Mundo led an offensive in Dalmatia.

The Gothic War
Negotiations between Constantinople and Ravenna continued as Justinian

dispatched armies to Dalmatia and Sicily. Belisarius quick success in Sicily
prompted Theodahad to seek an agreement with Justinian. The details of the
proposed agreement as reported by Procopius reveal some of the points of
contention between the Amal king (and probably his predecessors) and the
emperor. These included full jurisdiction over senators and the right to bestow
the highest senatorial offices as well as certain ceremonial prerogatives.109
From Procopius narrative, Theodahad emerges as a fickle leader who was
subsequently intimidated into secretly offering all of Italy in return for his
personal safety and property, whereas he then decided to forfeit all agreements and fight after Ostrogothic armies had scored a victory over Mundo
106 Procopius, Wars 5.4.2231, ed. Dewing; cf. ibidem, 5.5.810 and Procopius, Secret History
16, ed. and trans. Dewing, where he claims that the murder was instigated by the empress
Theodora; Jordanes, Getica 307.
108 Croke, AD 476; Amory, People, pp. 13547; Miranu, Imperial Policy. Barnish, Cuncta
Italiae membra, p. 332 notes that already during the early 530s, Justinian occasionally
legislated with Gothic Italy in mind.
109 Procopius, Wars 5.6.15, ed. Dewing; Chrysos, Amalerherrschaft and Prostko-Prosknski,
Utraeque res publicae, pp. 171211, who may be overestimating the extent to which it is possible to extrapolate from this the terms of previous agreements, cf. Heather, Goths, p. 220.
37
in Dalmatia.110 Soon afterwards, Belisarius took Naples and Theodahad was

deposed and subsequently killed. He was replaced by Witigis, a man of military
pedigree but not of Amal descent.111 The few official documents preserved in
his name use a rhetoric of military prowess (alongside divine providence) to
rally support.112 Although Witigis claimed that proximity to Theoderic through
deeds was more important than kinship, he nevertheless married an Amal
princess, Athalarics sister Matasuentha.113 Witigis restructured the Gothic
forces and was able to besiege Rome in 537, but he was forced to lift the siege
after imperial forces had attacked Picenum (an area of strong Gothic settlement) and then advanced as far as Rimini. Witigis had to retreat to Ravenna,
where he was besieged by Belisarius. An offer regarding the division of Italy
(this time along the line of the river Po) reached Ravenna from Constantinople,
but whereas Witigis and the Gothic exercitus consented, Belisarius refused to
accept the terms.114 Negotiations continued, resulting in Witigis surrender to
Belisarius, who marched into Ravenna in May 540. The Gothic king and his
entourage were captured and brought to Constantinople, while Belisarius was
recalled. According to Procopius, Belisarius had tricked the Goths into opening the gates by creating the expectation that he was prepared to become king
(or emperor) in Italy himself. Whatever Belisarius real intentions, the opportunity of preserving political independence from Constantinople may indeed
have been attractive to members of the Italian elite.115 Jordanes, by contrast,
described these events as a straightforward capitulation, which to him marked
the end of the famous regnum and the most courageous gens of the Goths.116
What seemed like a swift victory for Justinian, similar to the conquest of
North Africa, turned into a protracted and dreadful war, which was to last
another fifteen years. There is no need to recapitulate in detail the course of
the war, for which Procopius Wars provide the main narrative.117 From this
narrative, indecisiveness and rivalry among the military leadership paired with
a lack of adequate reinforcements and resources to provide for the payment of
111 On Witigis: Wolfram, Goths, pp. 3429.
112 Cassiodorus, Variae 10.31, ed. Mommsen; Cassiodorus, Reliquae orationum, ed. Traube,
pp. 4736. See also Procopius, Wars 5.11, ed. Dewing; Jordanes, Getica 30910, ed.
Mommsen.
113 Cassiodorus, Variae 10.31.5 and 10.32.3, ed. Mommsen; Heather, Goths, pp. 2634.
115 Procopius, Wars 6.2930, ed. Dewing; Wolfram, Goths, p. 349.
116 Jordanes, Getica 313, ed. Mommsen.
117 Detailed summaries: Wolfram, Goths, pp. 34962; Heather, Goths, pp. 26371; Wiemer,
Goten, pp. 61626.
38
Heydemann
the Italian army, itself exacerbated by the fact that the Persian war reopened
in 540, emerge as the main causes for the imperial forces failure to consolidate
control over Italy. Moreover, the repressive policy of the eastern administration in Italy, including rigorous tax demands, alienated the support of the landowning elite.118
This allowed the Gothic forces to regroup. After the brief and unsuccessful
reigns of Hildebald and the Herul king Eraric, Totila was elevated as a king
by the army in 541.119 Totila was a very efficient military leader who achieved
a series of victories, thus realigning the support of the Gothic military elite.
Within a short time, Totila regained control over much of Italy, taking Rome
twice in 546 and 550; Ravenna remained in imperial hands throughout the war.
Choosing loyalties was probably much less clear-cut than any straightforward division between Romans and Goths would suggest.120 Some members
of the political elite transferred their allegiance to the emperor early on (for
example, Liberius), while others continued to support the Ostrogothic government. Cassiodorus, who probably stayed with Witigis until the capitulation of
540, is a well-known example.121 The senators were among the crucial players, and therefore most vulnerable to threats and suspicions of disloyalty. Both
Witigis and Totila committed brutal massacres against members of the Senate,
and many fled to Constantinople.122 The bishop of Rome Vigilius clearly supported the imperial cause, although by the late 540s he would come into
sharp conflict with Justinian over the Three Chapters controversy.123 Vigilius
predecessor Silverius had been deposed by Belisarius following accusations
of pro-Gothic treason during the siege of Rome in 537.124 Procopius Wars
also reveal that the civilian population suffered brutally at the hands of both
sides. Support for the imperial armies seems to have been strong in southern
Italy during the early phase of war (although there were notable exceptions,
for example in Naples), but eroded due to the relentless policies of the governmental officials and the brutality of the imperial army. It is also questionable whether the imperial army would have seemed any more Roman to the
118 See Wolfram, Goths, p. 352; Heather, Goths, pp. 2678.
119 On Totila, see Wolfram, Goths, pp. 35361; Moorhead, Totila; Carnevale, Totila.
120 Moorhead, Loyalties; Amory, People, pp. 16594.
121 Cassiodorus trajectory between 537 and 550 is difficult to reconstruct: see ODonnell,
Cassiodorus, pp. 1057, and the suggestions in Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 1319.
122 Procopius, Wars 5.26.1; 7.21.1217; 7.34.18, ed. Dewing. Schfer, Senat, pp. 26375.
123 Sotinel, Autorit pontificale; Sessa in this volume.
124 Liber Pontificalis 60.78; Procopius, Wars 5.25.14. For the Catholic clergy, see Amory,
People, pp. 2257.
39
i nhabitants of Italy than the Gothic forces, given that it contained large contingents of barbarian soldiers.125
In 550, with the Persian war drawing to a close, Justinian was finally able
to intensify the western campaign. He appointed a new commander-in-chief
for Italy, namely his cousin Germanus. It has been suggested that the latters
marriage to Theoderics granddaughter Matasuentha signalled the will to find
a compromise between imperial and Gothic traditions regarding the reorganization of the western realm.126 In any case, Germanus died on the way to Italy
in 550. He was replaced by Narses, who quickly regained lost ground for the
imperial side. King Totila lost his life at the battle of Busta Gallorum (Taginae)
in 552, and his successor Teia was killed only a few months later in the last decisive battle of the war on Mons Lactarius, whereafter his forces submitted to the
emperors authority.127 There was continued resistance on a smaller scale from
Gothic units mainly in northern Italy, some of which held out as late as 561.128
The official end of the war was marked by the promulgation of the Pragmatic
Sanction in 554, by which the emperor Justinian restored direct imperial control over Italy.129 This is an interesting document for what it tells us about the
measures taken in the face of economic and social instabilities caused by war,
but also for the retrospective imperial view of the legitimacy of Ostrogothic
government. The emperor explicitly confirmed all legal transactions and concessions made by legitimate kings on the request of the Romans or the Senate,
that is Theoderic (called rex) and his successors, while those of Totila (called
a most abominable tyrant) were declared void.130 The Sanction was issued
on the request of Vigilius, then in Constantinople, and some of its provisions
reflect the concerns of the senatorial and ecclesiastical elite. Bishops and local
notables were given a role in the election of provincial governors and some
control over economic policies.131 Justinian ostentatiously reclaimed imperial
prerogatives and the traditional markers of civilitas such as coinage, taxes, care
for the annona, public buildings, and most importantly, legislative authority. The Justinianic Code and all subsequent Novels were to be valid in Italy
125 Pohl, Justinian, pp. 4634.

126 Notably by Momigliano, Cassiodorus, based on Jordanes, Getica 314.
128 Heather, Goths, p. 271.
129 Corpus Iuris Civilis (hereafter as CIC), Nov. Iust., App. 7, ed. Schoell/Kroll; Pilara, Aspetti.
130 C IC, Nov. Iust., App. 7.12, eds. Schoell/Kroll.
131 C IC, Nov. Iust., App. 7.12 and 1819, eds. Schoell/Kroll; see Stein, Bas-Empire, pp. 61319.
40
Heydemann
r etroactively. This was a potent signal that Italy was now part of a single res
publica again, reunited by Gods will.132
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Acta synhodorum habitarum Romae a. CCCCXCVIIII, ed. T. Mommsen, in Cassiodori

Senatoris Variae (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12),
Berlin 1894, pp. 393415.
Anonymus Valesianus, ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe, in Ammianus Marcellinus, vol. 3, London
1939, pp. 50669.
Cassiodorus, Chronicle, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora saec. IV.V.VI.VII, vol. 2
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11), Berlin, 1894,
pp. 10961.
, Orationum reliquae, ed. L. Traube, Cassiodori Senatoris Variae (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894, pp. 45784.
, Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodori Senatoris Variae (Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894; Engl. trans. S. Barnish, Cassiodorus:
Variae (Translated Texts for Historians 12), Liverpool 1992.
Corpus Iuris Civilis, ed. P. Krueger/T. Mommsen/R. Schoell/W. Kroll, 3 vols., Berlin 1872
95 (repr. 1988).
Collectio Avellana, ed. O. Gnther, Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab
a. CCCLXVII usque ad DLIII datae. Avellana quae dicitur collectio, 2 vols. (Corpus
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 35), Vienna 185698.
Ennodius, Panegyric to Theoderic, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 7), Berlin 1885; ed. and German
trans. C. Rohr, Der Theoderich-Panegyricus des Ennodius (Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Studien und Texte 12), Hannover 1995.
Jordanes, Romana, ed. T. Mommsen, Iordanis Romana et Getica (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1), Berlin 1882, pp. 152.
Jordanes, Getica, ed. T. Mommsen, Iordanis Romana et Getica (Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1), Berlin 1882, pp. 53138; Engl. trans. C. Mierow,
The Gothic History of Jordanes, New York 1915 (repr. 1966).
Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis, 2nd ed., 3 vols., Paris 195557;
Engl. trans. R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis): The Ancient Biographies
of the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715 (Translated Texts for Historians 6), 2nd
ed., Liverpool 2000.
132 C IC, Nov. Iust., App. 7.11, eds. Schoell/Kroll.
41
Marcellinus Comes, Chronicle, ed. and trans. B. Croke, The Chronicle of Marcellinus,
Sydney 1995.
Procopius, Wars, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius, 5 vols., London 191528 (repr.
Cambridge, MA 195962).
Procopius, Secret History, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Cambridge, MA 1935.
Amory, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489554, Cambridge 1997.
Arnold, J., Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, Cambridge 2014.
Ausbttel, F., Theoderich der Groe, Darmstadt 2003.
Barnish, S., The Anonymus Valesianus II as a Source for the Last Years of Theoderic,
Latomus 42 (1983), 57296.
, The Genesis and Completion of Cassiodorus Gothic History, Latomus 43
(1984), 33661.
, Transformation and Survival of the Senatorial Aristocracy, c. AD 400700,
, Maximian, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Theodahad: Literature, Philosophy and
Politics in Ostrogothic Italy, Nottingham Medieval Studies 34 (1990), 1632.
, Cuncta Italiae membra componere. Political relations in Ostrogothic Italy, in
id./F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century.
An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 31737.
, Roman Responses to an Unstable World. Cassiodorus Variae in context, in
id./L. Ruggini/L. Cuppo/R. Marchese/M. Breu (eds.), Vivarium in Context, Vicenza
2008, pp. 722.
Barnish, S./Marazzi, F. (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth
Century. An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007.
Barnwell, P., Emperor, Prefects and Kings. The Roman West, 395565, London 1992.
Bjornlie, S., Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople. A Study
of Cassiodorus and the Variae, 527554, Cambridge 2012.
, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: A Case for Continuity, Adaption
and Departure, Early Medieval Europe 22 (2014), 13870.
Brm, H., Das westrmische Kaisertum nach 476, in id./N. Ehrhardt/J. Wiesehfer
(eds.), Monumentum et instrumentum inscriptum. Beschriftete Objekte aus Kaiserzeit
und Sptantike als historische Zeugnisse, Stuttgart 2008, pp. 4769.
Brown, P., Through the Eye of a Needle. Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of
Christianity in the West, 350550 AD, Oxford 2012.
, The Rise of Western Christendom. Triumph and Diversity, AD 2001000, 10th
Anniversary Revised Edition, Chicester 2013.
Carnevale, L., Totila come perfidus rex tra storia e agiografia, Vetera Christianorum 40
(2003), 4370.
42
Heydemann
Chrysos, E., Die Amalerherrschaft in Italien und das Imperium Romanum. Der
Vertragsentwurf des Jahres 535, Byzantion 51 (1981), 43074.
Collins, R., Visigothic Spain, 409711, Oxford 2006.
Croke, B., AD 476The Manufacture of a Turning Point, Chiron 13 (1983), 81119.
, Latin Historiography and the Barbarian Kingdoms, in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek
and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Leiden 2003, pp. 34989.
Dahn, F., Die Knige der GermanenDas Wesen des ltesten Knigtums der germanischen Stmme und seine Geschichte bis auf die Feudalzeit, 11 vols., Wrzburg/
Leipzig 18611911.
Diaz, P./Valverde, R., Goths Confronting Goths: Ostrogothic Political Relations in
Hispania, in S. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period
to the Sixth Century. An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 35376.
Dick, S., Der Mythos vom germanischen Knigtum. Studien zur Herrschaftsorganisation
bei den germanischsprachigen Barbaren bis zum Beginn der Vlkerwanderungszeit
(Reallexikon fr Germanische Altertumskunde Ergnzungsband 60), Berlin 2008.
Ensslin, W., Theoderich der Groe, Mnchen 1947.
Esders, S., Rechtliche Grundlagen frhmittelalterlicher Staatlichkeit. Der allgemeine
Treueid, in W. Pohl/ V. Wieser (eds.), Der frhmittelalterliche Staat. Europische
Perspektiven (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 16) Vienna 2009,
pp. 42332.
, Rmische Rechtstradition und merowingisches Knigtum. Zum Rechtscharakter
politischer Herrschaft in Burgund im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert (Verffentlichungen des
Max-Planck-Instituts fr Geschichte 134), Gttingen 1997.
Fanning, S., Odovacer rex, Regal Terminology, and the Question of the End of the
Western Roman Empire, Medieval Prosopography 24 (2003), 4655.
Fauvinet-Ranson, V., Portrait dune rgente. Un pangyique dAmalasonthe
(Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1), Cassiodorus 4 (1998), 267308.
Geary, P., The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe, Princeton 2002.
Giardina, A., Cassiodoro politico, Rome 2006.
Gillett, A., Was Ethnicity Politicized in the Earliest Medieval Kingdoms?, in id. (ed.),
On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages,
Turnhout 2002, pp. 85122.
(ed.), On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle
Ages, Turnhout 2002.
Goltz, A., Barbar-Knig-Tyrann. Das Bild Theoderichs in der berlieferung des 5. bis 9.
Jahrhunderts (Millennium-Studien 12), Berlin 2008.
Greatrex, G., Justin I and the Arians, Studia Patristica 34 (2001), 7281.
Haarer, F., Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, Cambridge 2006.
Halsall, G., Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376568, Cambridge 2007.
Heather, P., Cassiodorus and the Rise of the Amals. Genealogy and the Goths under
Hun Domination, Journal of Roman Studies 78 (1988), 10328.
43
, The Historical Culture of Ostrogothic Italy, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti

dItalia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullAlto Medioevo, Spoleto
1993, pp. 31754.
Heather, P., Theoderic, King of the Goths, Early Medieval Europe 4 (1995), 14573.
, The Goths, Oxford 1996.
, The Fall of the Roman Empire. A New History, London 2006.
Henning, D., Periclitans res publica. Kaisertum und Eliten in der Krise des westrmischen
Reiches 454/5493 n. Chr. (Historia Einzelschriften 133), Stuttgart 1999.
Innes, M., Land, Freedom and the Making of the Early Medieval West, Transactions of
the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, 16 (2006), 3973.
Jones, A.H.M., The Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theoderic, Journal of
Roman Studies 52 (1962), 36574.
, The Later Roman Empire, 284602, Oxford 1964.
Joye, S./Knaepen, A., Limage dAmalasonthe chez Procope de Csare et Grgoire
de Tours: portraits contrasts entre Orient et Occident, Le Moyen ge 111 (2005),
22958.
Kakridi, C., Cassiodors Variae. Literatur und Politik im ostgotischen Italien (Beitrge zur
Altertumskunde 223), Munich 2005.
Kohlhas-Mller, D., Untersuchungen zur Rechtsstellung Theoderichs des Groen,
Frankfurt 1995.
Krautschick, S., Cassiodor und die Politik seiner Zeit, Bonn 1983.
La Rocca, C., Consors regni: A Problem of Gender? The consortium between
Amalasuntha and Theodahad in 534, in J. Nelson/S. Reynolds/S.M. Johns (eds.),
Gender and Historiography. Studies in the Earlier Middle Ages in Honour of Pauline
Stafford, London 2012, pp. 12743.
Lafferty, S., Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great. A Study of the Edictum
Theoderici, Cambridge 2013.
McCormick, M., Eternal Victory. Triumphal Leadership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium,
and the Early Medieval West, Cambridge 1987.
Martin, G./Gruskov, J., Scythica Vindobonensia by Dexippus (?). New Fragments
on Decius Gothic Wars, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 54 (2014), 72854.
Maskarinec, M., Clinging to Empire in Jordanes Romana, in H. Reimitz/
G. Heydemann (eds.), Historiographies of Identity: Post-Roman Multiplicity and New
Political Identities, Turnhout (in prep.).
Matthews, J., Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, in M. Gibson (ed.), Boethius. His
Life, Thought and Influence, Oxford 1981, pp. 1543.
Mathisen, R., Clovis, Anastasius and Political Status in 508 CE, in R. Mathisen/
D. Shanzer (eds.), The Battle of Vouill, 507 CE. Where France Began (MillenniumStudien 37), Berlin 2012, pp. 79110.
Meier, M., Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches, Stuttgart 2009.
Merrills, R./Miles, A., The Vandals, Chicester 2010.
44
Heydemann
Miranu, D., The Imperial Policy of Otherness: Justinian and the Arianism of
Barbarians as a Motive for the Recovery of the West, Ephimerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 84 (2008), 47798.
Momigliano, A., Cassiodorus and the Italian Culture of His Time, in id., Studies in
Historiography, New York 1955, pp. 181210.
Moorhead, J., Boethius Life and the World of Late Antique Philosophy, in J. Marenbon
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge 2009, pp. 1333.
, Italian Loyalties during Justinians Gothic War, Byzantion 53 (1983), 57596.
, Libertas and Nomen Romanum in Ostrogothic Italy, Latomus 46 (1987),
1618.
, Theoderic in Italy, Oxford 1992.
, Totila the Revolutionary, Historia 49 (2000), 3826.
Nf, B., Das Zeitbewusstsein des Ennodius, Historia 39 (1990), 10023.
Noble, T., Theoderic and the Papacy, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia. Atti del
XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullAlto Medioevo, Milano 26 novembre 1992,
Spoleto 1993, pp. 3954.
ODonnell, J., Cassiodorus, Berkeley 1979.
, The Ruin of the Roman Empire. A New History, New York 2009.
Pilara, G., Aspetti di politica legislativa giustinianea in Italia: proposta di riesame
della Pragmatica Sanctio pro petitione Vigilia, in E. Plebani (ed.), Societ e cultura
in et tardoantica e altomedievale: Studi in onore di Ludovico Gatto, Roma 2006,
pp. 13756.
Pohl, W., Die Vlkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration, Stuttgart 2002.
, Justinian and the Barbarian Kingdoms, in M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005, pp. 44876.
, Rome and the Barbarians, Antiquit tardive 16 (2008), 93101.
, Regnum und Gens, in id./V. Wieser (eds.), Der frhmittelalterliche Staat
Europische Perspektiven (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 16), Wien
2009, pp. 43550.
, Strategies of Identification. A Methodological Profile, in id./G. Heydemann
(eds.), Strategies of Identification. Ethnicity and Religion in the Early Middle Ages
(Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 13), Turnhout 2013,
pp. 164.
Porena, P. (ed.), Expropriations et confiscations dans LEmpire tardif et les royaumes barbares. Une approche rgionale (Collection de lcole franaise de Rome 470), Roma
2012.
Prostko-Prosknski, J., Utraeque Res Publicae: The Emperor Anastasius I Gothic Policy
(491518), Poznan 1994.
Reydellet, M., La royaut dans la littrature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire Isidore de
Sville (Bibliothque des coles franaises dAthnes et de Rome 243), Rome 1981.
45
, Thoderic et la civilitas, in A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e

Occidente, Ravenna 1995, pp. 28596.
Reimitz, H., The Historian as Cultural Broker, in A. Fischer/I. Wood (eds.), Western
Perspectives on the Mediterranean. Cultural Transfer in Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages (400800), London 2014, pp. 4154.
Robinson, P., Dead Boethius: Sixth-Century Accounts of a Future Martyr, Viator 35
(2004), 121.
Rummel, P. von, The Fading Power of Images: Romans, Barbarians and the Uses of a
Dichotomy in Early Medieval Archaeology, in W. Pohl/G. Heydemann (eds.), PostRoman Transitions. Christian and Barbarian Identities in the Early Medieval West
(Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages 14), Turnhout 2013,
pp. 365406.
Saitta, B., La Civilitas di Teoderico: Rigore amministrativo, tolleranza religiosa e recupero dellantico nellItalia ostrogota, Roma 1994.
Schfer, C., Der westrmische Senat als Trger antiker Kontinuitt unter den
Ostgotenknigen (490540 n. Chr.), St. Katharinen 1991.
Sotinel, C., Autorit pontificale et pouvoir imprial en Italie byzantine au temps de
Justinien: le pape Vigile, Mlanges des coles Franaises de Rome et dAthnes 104
(1992), 43963.
Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2 vols., Paris 1959.
Suerbaum, W., Vom antiken zum frhmittelalterlichen Staatsbegriff. ber Verwendung
und Bedeutung von Res publica, regnum, imperium und status von Cicero bis Jordanis
(Orbis Antiquus 16/17), 3rd ed., Mnster 1977.
Teillet, S., Des Goths la nation gotique. Les origines de lide de nation en occident du Ve
au VIIe sicle, Paris 1984.
Vitiello, M., Nourished at the Breast of Rome. The Queens of Ostrogothic Italy and the
Education of the Roman Elite, Rheinisches Museum fr Philologie N.F. 149 (2006),
398412.
, Il Principe, il filosofo, il guerriero. Lineamenti di pensiero politico nellItalia ostrogota, Stuttgart 2006.
, Cassiodoro anti-Boethius?, Klio 90 (2008), 46184.
, Theodahad. A Platonic King at the Collapse of Ostrogothic Italy, Toronto 2014.
Ward-Perkins, B., The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford 2005.
Wickham, C., Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society, 4001000, London
1981.
Wiemer, H.-U., Die Goten in Italien. Wandlungen und Zerfall einer Gewaltgemeins
chaft, Historische Zeitschrift 296 (2013), 593628.
Wolfram, H., Intitulatio 1: Lateinische Knigs- und Frstentitel bis zum Ende des 8.
Jahrhunderts (Mitteilungen des Instituts fr sterreichische Geschichtsforschung
Ergnzungsband 21), Kln/ Wien 1967.
46
Heydemann
, History of the Goths, trans. T. Dunlap, Berkeley 1988.

, Die Goten. Von den Anfngen bis zur Mitte des 6. Jahrhunderts, 5th rev. ed.,
Mnchen 2009.
, Gotische Studien. Volk und Herrschaft im frhen Mittelalter, Mnchen 2005.
Wood, I., The Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages, Oxford 2013.
, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450751, London 1994.
CHAPTER 3
Governmental Administration
M. Shane Bjornlie*
Introduction
The assessment of Ostrogothic administrative practices has long served as
an index for the extent to which late 5th- and early 6th-century Italy may be
regarded as either a direct continuation of the Roman state or something
fundamentally different in terms of its political culture. The common view of
the 6th century as a watershed between late antique and early medieval Italy
has naturally encouraged much interest in the apparatus of the Ostrogothic
state. For some scholars aspects of the administrationthe collection of
taxes, the presence of diverse public offices, the fairly replete numismatic
record, and so onthat survived the economic and political vicissitudes of
the 5th century serve as evidence for the survival of an essentially Roman system of government.1 Others have drawn attention to substantial departures
from Roman political and administrative habits, which often originated in
Roman responses to conditions of the 5th century, prior to the arrival of the
Ostrogoths.2 Only scholarship uninflected by the debates of recent decades
would continue to insist upon a view of the administration of 6th-century Italy
as having experienced collapse and disintegration at the hands of invading
barbarians.3
As more sensitive examinations of the topic have tended to acknowledge,
the very purpose of governmental administration has made it difficult to place
Ostrogothic Italy on a simplistic axis of continuity and decline. At a basic
level the purpose of the administration was to maintain of a set of practices
* The scope of this chapter, in as much as it concerns administrative personnel, overlaps
with other chapters in this volume on the administration of cities (Marazzi) and provinces
(Arnold) and the Senate (Radtki).
1 e.g. Bertolini, Roma di Fronte, pp. 19; Goffart, Barbarians and Romans, pp. 60102; Moorhead,
Theoderic, pp. 1368; Heather, Gens and Regnum, pp. 11417; Wickham, Framing the Early
Middle Ages, pp. 80124.
2 Sinnigen, Administrative Shifts, pp. 45766; Morosi, I comitiaci, pp. 77111; Marazzi,
Destinies, pp. 11959; Tabata, I comites Gothorum, pp. 6778.
3 Carney, Bureaucracy, p. 108; Burns, History of the Ostrogoths, p. 163.
48
Bjornlie
for the redistribution of state resources and to exercise justice, the most essential interface between a government and the governed.4 However consistently
comprehensible the administration attempted to make these functions to the
governed, the means arrogated by the state to exercise fiscal and legal authority nonetheless required constant justification. For this reason the other fundamental function of an administration was the production of rhetoric (or an
ideology) by which the governed understood themselves to be justly ruled.5
Day-to-day administrative practices required the accompaniment of a rhetorical presentation of the state that justified the governments involvement in the
resources and prerogatives of individuals and that explained the allocation of
power visible in the distribution of material resources by the state. It is this
rhetoric produced by the Ostrogothic government that frequently infuses so
much contemporary evidence and makes it difficult to distinguish between
actual administrative practices and ideological pretensions.6 The enormous
cultural value placed on continuity with the past, which late antique government recognized, renders locating Ostrogothic administration on the axis
of continuity and decline even more problematic.7 The extent to which the
state voiced the (perhaps antiquarian) governmental principles of imperial
Rome might give the impression of continuing a venerated tradition while
at the same time masking important departures and innovations in regular
practices.8
An example of this last point can be found in the first letter of Cassiodorus
Variae, by far the most important source for understanding Ostrogothic administration. In Variae 1.1, addressed to the eastern emperor Anastasius, Theoderic
promises to harmonize his governance of Italy with the traditions of imperium
set on display by the example of the eastern court at Constantinople, Our
government is an imitation of yours (regnum nostrum imitatio vestra est).9
The letter suggests a mirroring of the eastern empire by Theoderics kingdom
and the scrupulous preservation of a Roman form of government, which also
agrees with a common refrain in Cassiodorus collection referring to Italy as
4 For law and justice, see Lafferty in this volume.
5 Cecconi, Governo imperiale, p. 11; for the ideology of the Ostrogothic state see Heydemann in
this volume.
6 As noted, e.g. Barbieri, La concezione politico-economica, p. xiv; Colace, Lessico monetario, pp. 15976; De Salvo, Rifornimenti alimentary, p. 411; De Salvo, Politica commercial,
pp. 99113; Di Paola, Lorganizzazione, p. 97; Barnish/Lee/Whitby, Government, p. 166.
7 On the rhetoric of the past in late antique government, Maas, John Lydus; Bjornlie, Politics
and Tradition, pp. 21653.
8 For an excellent study of the production of imperial ideology: Norea, Imperial Ideals.
49
the Roman Republic (res publica).10 The familiarity Theoderic had gained
with Roman political culture during the period of ten years that he spent as a
political hostage at the eastern court would certainly support the notion that
his government preserved Roman practices.11 Nonetheless, however familiar
Theoderic and his followers may have been with the eastern Roman administration, the Italy that they encountered in 489 had undergone political, economic, and military changes on a scale scarcely witnessed in the East.12 Even
if the rhetoric of veneration for Romes imperial past mirrored the scrupulous
implementation of Roman practices, the structural changes that had occurred
in Italy since the early 5th century necessitated that Roman traditions of
administration would have been adapted to substantially different conditions.13

The Dimensions of Administrative Service
One of the conditions that sets the Ostrogothic administration apart from earlier imperial governance and the contemporary eastern administration, and
which is itself a consequence of fundamental economic differences between
the 6th century and the earlier Roman periods, is the scale of administrative
operations, represented primarily by the numbers of bureaucratic personnel.
Viewed through the baroque rhetoric of a text like the Variae the bureaucracy
appears hierarchically complex and numerous, and indeed gives the impression of being on par with the eastern civil service.14 The swelling of governmental apparatus and personnel was certainly one of the defining features of
late antique society. By the end of the 4th century the state provided civil positions for an estimated 40,000 across the empire.15 For the eastern empire of
the 6th century Procopius reports that the court at Constantinople employed
5500 scholares, in addition to the domestici and protectores.16 And Procopius
does not mention the exceptores and scrinarii that filled the officium of the
10 Variae 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 2.26, 3.31, 4.6, 4.13, 5.5, 5.13, 5.16, 9.2, 9.18, 12.4, 12.17, ed. Mommsen.
11 On the imperial character of Theoderics Italy, Giardina, Cassiodoro, pp. 73159; Arnold,
Theoderic.
12 More generally on the difference in structural changes experienced between east and
west: Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall; Ward-Perkins, Old and New Rome, pp. 5378; on
departures originating prior to Theoderics arrival: Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 113.
13 Bjornlie, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes.
14 On this rhetorical function of the Variae: Bjornlie, Politics.
15 Heather, New Men, pp. 1825.
16 Procopius, Anecdota 24.1520 and 24.2426, ed. Dewing; for the function of these and
other administrative offices: Jones, Later Roman Empire.
50
Bjornlie
raetorian prefect in Constantinople.17 Several considerations, however, mitip

gate against assuming such robust figures for Ostrogothic administrative centres. First, the growth of bureaucracy at Constantinople had been continuous
since the founding of the city, while its western counterpart had shifted at various moments between four or five different imperial centres, dislocating with
each change the networks of patronage and kinship, often regionally based,
that supplied civil personnel. Second, the partitioning of the western empire
into successor states over the course of the 5th century entailed a loss of tax
revenues by which the imperial court supported the bureaucracy. The economic truncation of the Italy that Theoderic assumed control over in 493 is
visible in the numismatic profile of Italy, the reduction of tax revenues, and in
the manner by which Ostrogothic soldiers were accommodated through land
settlement.18 That a downsizing of state personnel followed Theoderics arrival
in Italy can be inferred from Procopius, who notes that Theoderic allowed the
previous corps of silentiarii, domestici, and scholares present at Rome to retain
a subsistence-level stipend for the sake of tradition, implying that they had
ceased to hold anything beyond an honorary function.19 Similarly at Ravenna,
Theoderic appears to have purged the palace of former supporters of Odovacer,
if not by execution then at least through a loss of the privileges that had formerly attended palatine service.20
An assessment, however provisional, of the finances allotted to the maintenance of the civil service also suggests reduced administrative personnel.
Administrative personnel received payment in the gold solidus, for which the
Variae offer a modest range of comparative evidence. For example, the salary
of domestici assigned to comites on military campaign amounted to 250 solidi
and ten portions of the annona (rations received from the collection of taxes),
although this was an amount supplemented in order to compensate officials
for service in time of war and does not by itself provide a firm basis for calculating the regular expenses of the administration.21 The payment of pensions
17 On the bureaucracy in Constantinople: Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire; Bjornlie,
Politics, pp. 3981.
18 On coinage: Csaki, Cassiodorus, pp. 5364; Colace, Lessico monetario, pp. 15976;
Stahl, Ostrogothic Coinage, 7535; for bibliography on the debate about taxes and land
settlement: Bjornlie, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes.
19 Procopius, Anecdota 26.2728, ed. Dewing; Variae 2.15, 2.16, 11.31, ed. Mommsen, likewise
describe the domestici at Rome in strictly honorary terms; contrast to Variae 5.14, 6.11, 8.12,
9.13, which describe the domestici assigned to comites in terms of administrative function.
20 Anonymus Valesianus 11.56, ed. Moreau; Ennodius, Life of Epiphanius 122, ed. Vogel.
21 Variae 9.13.2, ed. Mommsen; contrast Variae 5.10 and 5.11, which offers soldiers a supplemental allowance of three solidi while on campaign.
51
to officials from the officium of the praefectus praetorio (praetorian prefect)

may offer a better picture. In a series of four letters, three addressed to cancellarii and one to a canonicarius, Cassiodorus ordered the release of pensions to
individuals upon retirement from tenure in upper grades of the civil service.22
Of these letters, 11.36 discloses the actual amount paid: 700 solidi to a cornicularius. The other letters refer to the payment of so many solidi (tot solidorum).
As the head of the judicial branch of the praetorian officium, the cornicularius was only slightly junior in grade to the princeps augustorum (letter 11.35),
meaning that this represents the higher end of compensation for a lifelong
career in civil service.23 In the East the same official received one pound of
gold per month (864 solidi per year), making the western pension of 700 solidi
less than the annual salary of the eastern counterpart.24 This may seem particularly modest when weighed against legal fines used to penalize the officium
of the praefectus praetorio for various offences. Such penalties were typically
assessed in pounds of gold in multiples of ten (or multiples of 720 solidi with
72 solidi to the pound of gold).25 However, when the pension of the cornicularius is weighed against its source a different perspective emerges.
Each letter (11.3511.38) instructs the officials pension to be drawn from the
third portion (illatio tertia) of taxes collected in a particular province. This
fund corresponds to the schedule by which provincials paid their taxes, the
tertia being a third portion thereof rendered every four months.26 Several letters of the Variae provide some sense of the range of income expected from
a province as payment of the tertia. Letter 11.39 discusses the contribution of
the province Lucania-Bruttium as annual payments (annuis praestationibus)
in the amount of 1000 solidi, which if this represents one of three annual payments, indicates a total annual income for the state of 3000 solidi from this
province. Similarly, the 1500 solidi remitted to the provincials of Liguria in letter 2.8, if representative of the illatio tertia owed by the province, would indicate that Liguria owed a total of 4500 solidi annually. As comparanda, a letter of
Pope Pelagius from the mid 550s claims that the church had received 2160 solidi
annually from the province of Picenum in the time of Theoderic.27 Although
22 Variae 11.35 for princeps augustorum, 11.36 for cornicularius, 11.37 for primiscrinius and 11.38
for subadiutor.
23 On the cornicularius: Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 5636, 58793.
24 On eastern pay: Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 591.
25 Variae 2.26.3 (a penalty of 30 pounds), 3.20.4 (a penalty of 50 pounds), 10.28.3 (a penalty
of 30 pounds).
26 e.g. Variae 2.24.3, 11.7.3, 11.35.3, 11.36.4, 11.38.6, 12.2.5, 12.16.3, ed. Mommsen.
27 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 37.
52
Bjornlie
the church could not collect revenues on the scale of the Gothic state, it was
nevertheless the next-largest revenue-collecting institution in Italy and the figure of 2160 solidi may approximate a level just below the minimum collected by
the state in some provinces. Of course another letter (5.7) concerns the arrears
owed by a manager of estates (a certain Thomas) of the Ostrogothic patrimony
in Apulia to the sum of 10,000 solidi, exceeding by far the amount suggested
for the collection of taxes in Lucania-Bruttium and Liguria. It is worth noting,
however, that letter 5.7 indicates that Thomas had managed to evade payments
for at least several years (indictionibus illa atque illa). A similar letter (5.31)
names individuals who had avoided their tax payments for six years (indictionum octavae nonae undecimae primae secundae et quintae decimae), making
it highly unlikely that the 10,000 solidi owed by Thomas represents anything
approximating the upper range of a provinces annual taxes.
Relying on what can be estimated for the taxes owed by Lucania-Bruttium
as the lower range of fiscal revenue received by the government (3000 solidi)
and that of Liguria as the upper range (4500 solidi), and reckoning by eighteen provinces under Ostrogothic control, returns a tentative average estimate
of 67,500 solidi per annum in tax revenues from municipal collections.28 To
put this into perspective the annual tax revenues of the Gothic court probably
amounted to about 940 pounds of gold, only a fraction of the 11,000 pounds
of gold paid by Justinian as a one-time indemnity to the Persian emperor
Chosroes.29 Of this sum probably only two-thirds (45,000 solidi) would have
been available to the Ostrogothic state for the salaries and pensions of civil
servants and military personnel. Whereas the illatio tertia represented a thrice
yearly schedule of tax collection, it also corresponded to the trina illatio, a
computation of the division of municipal revenues, which allotted one-third
of revenues to the maintenance of the civitas where taxes were collected and
surrendered the remaining two-thirds to agents of the Ostrogothic court.30 The
Variae clearly indicate that the urban leadership of Rome (praefectus urbi) and
each civitas (honorati, curiales, and defensores) drew upon a local fiscal budget
28 For Ostrogothic provinces: Barnish, Cassiodorus, p. 204, lists eighteen; this list could be
supplemented after 511 with the acquisition of provinces in transalpine Gaul and Spain,
but Variae 3.40 and 5.39 indicate fiscal exactions in these regions may not have been
regular.
30 On this: Ward-Perkins, Urban Public Building, pp. 227; Durliat, Cit, impt et integration, pp. 15380; supported by Theodosian Code 4.13.7 and Novella 5.24 of Valentinian,
both in C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels, Princeton 1952.
53
for their needs (albeit often at the direction of the Gothic court).31 Perhaps
even more interesting is that one-third of the proposed annual income (the
portion allotted to local municipal budgets) is quite close (22,500 solidi) to the
21,600 solidi that Theodahad proposed as annual tribute to Justinian as a concession at the beginning of the Gothic War.32
The consumption of fiscal revenues at the local level obviously narrows the
resources available for palatine expenditures. Calculating two-thirds of the
hypothetical income of the state with the salaries of common soldiers, who
received a salary compatible with lower-level bureaucrats, may bring the scale
of the bureaucracy into better focus. Letters 5.10 and 5.11 stipulate the payment of 3 solidi per soldier in preparation for the campaign in Gaul in 507.
Unfortunately, it is not known whether this was merely a supplement for
the occasion, a monthly allowance, or an annual salary. A popular charioteer
received 2 solidi per month while sailors were offered a donative of 5 solidi
for enlistment.33 For the sake of argument, one might postulate the 3 solidi
a thrice annual payment, which would correspond to the traditional schedule for payments to Roman soldiers. In this case the courts annual income of
45,000 could support 5000 civil servants, a small group of officials by comparison to Constantinople but a respectable corps nonetheless. However, many
officials (such as the domestici of letter 9.13) will have received higher pay than
the average soldier. Using an estimate for earlier imperial bureaus, in which the
lower grades of palatine staff comprised three-quarters of the various officia
and drew salaries commensurate with that of Roman soldiers and the remaining senior officials received considerably higher pay, the fiscal revenues of the
Ostrogothic court would have supported somewhat fewer than 4000 officials.34
This estimate only calculates the payment of annual salaries and not the
end-of-career pensions to civil servants or the cost of the military. Although
Gothic soldiers received land as compensation for their role as the military
caste of Italy, they also received annual distributions of a donative and supplemental pay from the annona when serving actively either on campaign or in
frontier garrisons.35 Keeping in mind the expenses of an active campaign (such
31 Variae 1.17.13, 2.34, 5.9.2, 10.27, ed. Mommsen; on the use of this fund at the municipal
level, see Marazzi in this volume.
33 Variae 2.9 for the charioteer; 5.16 for sailors.
34 For the estimate of three-quarters of an officium at soldiers pay see Jones, Later Roman
Empire, p. 591.
35 For the receipt of the annona by soldiers see Variae 2.5, 3.42, 5.11, 5.13, 5.23, 11.16, ed.
Mommsen; for the donativum, Variae 1.10, 4.14, 5.2627, 5.36, 7.42, 8.26.
54
Bjornlie
as that in Gaul), based on the pay of 9 solidi per year to each soldier a meagre
force of 5000 soldiers would cost the entire fiscal income drawn from the provinces (45,000 solidi). It is perhaps best to reckon that at least one-third of the
trina illatio had been reserved for purely military expenses.36 With one-third
of the fiscal revenue of the state reserved for municipal use and another third
reserved for the Gothic military, this would halve the earlier estimate of palatine officials to less than 2000 (costing the state 22,500 solidi per year). As seen
in Variae 11.3538, the cost of pensions for high-ranking officials must also come
out of this sum. Assuming that these four letters represent the average number
of retirements in a given year, at 700 solidi per pension, the state would have
approximately 19,700 solidi for annual salaries. Again calculating that threequarters of the personnel would receive the equivalent of low-ranking soldiers
pay, the Ostrogothic administration shrinks to fewer than 1700 officials.
It will be obvious that the preceding figures and claims are speculative at
best. The evidence available simply does not permit an exact calculation of
the Ostrogothic states administrative resources. That said, something of the
potential scale of Ostrogothic administration emerges from the exercise. The
corps of palatine officials available to a Gothic ruler little resembled the mirror image of Constantinople, as suggested by regnum nostrum imitatio vestra.
Procopius claim that Amalasuentha had at her disposal 400 centenaria37 of
gold (perhaps 40,000 pounds) should not inflate estimates of the dimension
of Ostrogothic administrative capabilities. Amal rulers had resources available to them that did not derive from the taxation organized by civitates in
the provinces. The comitiva patrimonii nostri managed the private estates of
Amal rulers and revenues from these properties could be used to supplement
shortages in the regular fiscal budget, which normally covered the expenses
of the military and civil service. For example, the letter of the Variae concerning the increase in salary for domestici accompanying the Gothic army (9.13)
was addressed to the comes patrimonii nostri who administrated royal estates.
Similarly, Theoderics initiative to build a fleet had tapped resources drawn
from his personal estates.38
36 Jordanes, Gothic History 302, ed. Mommsen, claims that the Goths destroyed 30,000
Franks in Gaul; granted the hyperbole common to such estimates it is still probable that
the Gothic force sent to Gaul was substantialat the very least 5000 strong.
37 Procopius, Wars 5.2.26, ed. Dewing; the exact measure of centenaria is unknown.
38 Variae 5.18 and 5.20, ed. Mommsen.
55
The Impact of Reduced Administration
The important point to recognize is that fiscal resources budgeted for the military and civil service on a more regular basis were not sufficient to support an
administration anywhere near the scale of that in the East. Indeed the difference between the comparative handful of officials at Theoderics court and
the overawing spectacle of the court in the East seems to be manifest in the
literary habit for celebrating rulers. Martial prowess figured as the primary
source of praise for Theoderic in Ennodius panegyric, in contrast to a tradition that typically made the courtly attributes of a ruler complementary to his
excellence in war.39 The contemporary panegyric to Anastasius by Priscian, for
example, builds praise for the emperor first by describing his military campaigns and then by elaborating on the successes of his legal and administrative
accomplishments, which reaches a crescendo in the description of his court
as a home for associates in the just administration of affairs, where adornment in eloquence, learning, and wisdom preserves Roman law.40 Somewhat
later, Corippus would praise the eastern emperor with even greater attention
to the (celestial) qualities of his court.41 It would seem that Ennodius remained
silent in this respect because Theoderic did not fit the model of a ruler who
mediated his authority through the conspicuous drama of a highly elaborated
bureaucracy. In fact rather than sedentary and embedded in urban ritual, as
with the case of the eastern emperor, there are indications that the Ostrogothic
court behaved in an itinerant manner, for which a much-reduced administrative apparatus was an advantage. Smaller officia permitted the Ostrogothic
court to move with ease between royal seats of government, something that a
perspicacious ruler would prefer over leaving a potentially ambitious corps of
personnel to its own devices, equipped as it would have been with the tools of
manipulating the military (through control over money and provisions).
Evidence for the itinerant nature of the Amal court comes from diverse
sources. The Anonymus Valesianus and later Fredegar speak of royal complexes
39 Ennodius, Panegyric to Theoderic 17.7881, 19.8386 and 20.8788, ed. Rohr, in particular,
compares Theoderic to Alexander and Roman commanders of the Republic; cf. Latinus
Pacatus 2.15, on the wisdom displayed by Theodosius in his choice of court attendants,
and Claudius Mamertus 3.16, 3.20, 3.22, on the court of Julian, both in C.E.V. Nixon and
B. Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors, Berkeley 1994; Claudian on the fourth
consulship of Honorius, 12253, focuses on Honorius rearing at court, in M. Platnauer,
Claudian, Loeb Classical Library.
40 Priscian, In Praise of Anastasius, especially 23953, ed. Coyne.
41 Corippus, In Praise of Justin 1.249, 2.189199, 2.28595, 3.7084, 3.17987, 3.21930, 4.90
130, 4.24045, 4.36574, ed. Cameron.
56
Bjornlie
(palatia) used by Theoderic at Ravenna, Verona, and Pavia.42 Similarly, hagiographical tradition associates Theoderic with a substantial residence at Galeata,
approximately thirty miles south-west of Ravenna.43 Letter 10.28 of the Variae
deals with the provisioning of royal mansiones in Rome and Ravenna, but also
at properties near Pavia, Piacenza, and other places (sive per alia loca). Given
the lengthy manifest of foodstuffs considered in this letter, it seems clear that
the itinerary of the court and the management of the kings personal resources
were intimately connected. It was probably while Athalaric was in residence at
Verona that Cassiodorus ordered the canonicarius to supply the court with a
wine distinctive to that area (acinaticium).44 The medieval legend of Dietrich
von Bern (Theoderic of Verona) certainly suggests that it was the historical
association of the Amal family with Verona, not Ravenna, which left a literary residue that persisted at least until the 10th century.45 Another letter of
the Variae suggests that the Amal court maintained a substantial presence at
Pavia and Tortona, where the control of horrea (granaries) there provided the
Amals with leverage over key zones of military settlement.46 The proximity of
Epiphanius and Ennodius to the affairs of Theoderics court also attests to the
importance of Pavia to the Amals. The fact that Boethius was tried for treason
in Verona and then spent his last days in confinement outside of Pavia similarly
describes the peripatetic nature of the court.47 That the Gothic rulers mobile
administration (comitatus noster) would receive petitions and execute the
business of state outside of the presumed administrative centre of Ravenna
is patent in the Variae. Letter 2.20 requisitioned the transport of grain from
Ravenna to Liguria, where the presence of Theoderics officials (comitatus)
had attracted crowds of petitioners (catervas observantium).48 Similar to the
importance of maintaining the royal presence near horrea outside of Ravenna,
the higher frequency of coins minted at Milan (as opposed to Ravenna) speaks
to a strategy for disbursing the instruments of military power (coin and grain)
42 Anonymus Valesianus 12.71, ed. Moreau; Fredegar, Chronicles 2.57, ed. Krusch; on the
importance of these centres to an Amal administrative strategy: Mor, La riforma amministrativa, pp. 704.
43 Bolzani, Teoderico e Galeata; De Maria (ed.), Villa di Teodorico a Galeata.
44 Variae 12.4, ed. Mommsen.
45 De Azevedo, Verona Gota, p. 187.
46 Variae 10.28, ed. Mommsen; on the importance of these granaries, Ruggini, Economia e
Societ, pp. 32640, and Settia, Le fortificazioni dei Goti, p. 130; on the concentration of
Gothic settlements in northern and central Italy, Bierbrauer, Die Ostgotischen Grab- und
Schatzfunde, pp. 2964.
47 Anonymus Valesianus 14.87, ed. Moreau.
48 Variae 2.20.1, ed. Mommsen.
57
that required a smaller, more mobile administrative apparatus.49 Additionally,

the Variae include a formula for warrants that admit petitioners to the presence of the Gothic ruler (princeps), where the location of the princeps is designated as illam urbem (such and such city).50
Rather than viewing Ravenna as the embedded seat of a densely bureaucratic government, it seems more realistic to view Ravenna as serving the
Gothic regime as an entrepot for resources (taxes) travelling to the various
points of the Po River valley that served as residences for the comitatus of Amal
rulers as they endeavoured to remain in constant contact with heavier areas
of Gothic settlement (muster zones of the military). Instructions commanding the fleet (the dromonarii) at Ravenna to assist servants of the public transport system (cursus publicus) with conveyance along the Po River strengthen
this picture.51 There is no doubt that Ravenna played a crucial role in the propaganda of the Gothic regime, as attested by the building programme of the
city, but it seems likely that this attention to the fabric of Ravenna may have
masked a strategy for governing Italy that was strikingly different from that of
the emperor at Constantinople. Attention to parallels between building projects at Ravenna and architectural elements at Constantinople may suggest
that Ravenna served as a stage for diplomacy with the eastern empire.52
Ennodius, on the rare occasions when he mentioned the palatine bureaucracy, associated it with the city of Ravenna. Of course Ennodius references
were limited to the excubitores, Romans holding more or less honorary positions as the palace guard.53 And while the imprint of Felix Ravenna on Gothic
coins attests to the importance of the city to Gothic imperial propaganda
and to relations with the east, it is significant that the letters of the Variae,
despite the attention received by Ravenna in individual letters, never designate
Ravenna as the principal capital of the Amals.54 Indeed the prolongation of
49 On the mint at Milan, Arslan, La struttura delle emissioni, pp. 51739.
51 Variae 2.31, ed. Mommsen, on dromonarii and the cursus publicus; 5.1719 on the assembly of the fleet at Ravenna; on this fleet, Cosentino, Re Teoderico costruttore di flotte,
pp. 34756.
52 On the semiotics of imperium in the architecture attributed to Theoderic: Johnson,
Theoderics Building Program, pp. 7396; on the imperial and post-imperial history of
building at Ravenna more generally: Deliyannis, Ravenna; for comparisons of Ravenna to
Constantinople, see Johnson in this volume.
53 Ennodius, Letter 2.27, 6.21, ed. Vogel.
54 On Felix Ravenna in the numismatic record, Grierson/Blackburn, Medieval European
Coinage, p. 28, attribute this iconography to Odovacer; Arslan, La monetazione dei Goti,
pp. 234, that it originates with Theoderic; on Ravenna as the stage setting in relations
58
Bjornlie
the Gothic War after the capitulation of Ravenna attests to the fact that Gothic
power derived from a strategy that did not depend upon a centralized seat of
government (Totila ruled most of Italy for almost twelve years after Ravenna
fell to eastern control in 540).
In terms of administrative strategy, the Amal court seems to have preferred a style of governance in which an administrative nucleus (referred to
in the Variae as comitatus noster and officium nostrum), including the staffs
of such senior officials as the praetorian prefect, attended the itinerant ambit
of the Gothic ruler. Indeed the formula for the comes patrimonii suggests
that this official did not require formal instruction in traditional precepts
because the office received instruction through personal attendance upon
the ruler.55 This strategy corresponds to the need for royal power to be seen
regularly in regions of military settlement where the idea of the Amal dynasty
as a cohesive political entity required constant reinforcement in the face of
competing patronage and kinship affiliations that might develop locally.56 The
frequent references in the Variae to comitatus noster, the traditional language
for a mobile military retinue, when applied to administrative apparatus, indicate a definite shift to a style of administration that was not as palace-bound
as its eastern counterpart.57 Similarly, the development of officium nostrum as
a means of addressing the Amal court suggests that the direct attendance of
the comitatus upon the Amal ruler involved a transition in which administrative functions had ceased to transmit through clearly delineated departments
but rather through the king discharging the functions of state according to the
proximity of suitable individuals (not necessarily according to the nature of
offices that they held).58 Indeed, in parallel to the officium nostrum as a conflation of palatine departments, the Gothic ruler could occasionally refer to
between the Amals and the eastern empire: Johnson, Theoderics Building Program,
pp. 956.
56 On the disaggregate nature of Gothic identity and its impact on Amal policy, Heather,
Rise of the Amals, 1226; iterated again in Heather, Theoderic, pp. 1445, and Gens and
Regnum, pp. 8691.
57 Variae 1.7.3, 1.8.3, 1.27.2, 2.18.3, 2.20.1, 3.22.1, 3.28.1, 3.36.2, 4.9.1, 4.39.5, 4.40.23, 4.44.2, 4.45.1,
4.46.1, 5.12.3, 5.15.1, 5.27.1, 5.32.3, 7.31.2, 7.34.1, 7.35.2, 8.32.1, 9.15.7, ed. Mommsen; on comitatus: Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 4950, 36673, 45960, 56686.
58 On the frequency of officium nostrum in the Variae and its relationship to the conflation
of competences associated with specific offices: Morosi, I comitiaci, pp. 1019; also on
officium nostrum and the comitiaci: Giardina, Cassiodoro Politico, pp. 4771.
59
specific officials simply as noster miles.59 A similar situation would eventually

obtain in the eastern empire under Emperors Maurice and Heraclius.60
The combination of economic reasons for reducing the numbers of administrative personnel and a peripatetic administrative strategy changed the traditional function of public offices in Ostrogothic Italy.61 The change is best
described as a shift from institutionally defined administrative practices to
an increasing tendency to assign administrative duties on an ad hoc basis by
the king. The relative shortage of personnel had the effect of conflating traditional administrative competences, such that the execution of state affairs
depended on the delegation of tasks to particular attendants at hand. The basic
organs of government remained essentially unchanged, with most offices and
bureaus of the late Roman government visible to some degree, and the basic
functions of the administration as a whole seem to address the same range
of activities.62 The Variae provide a rich tableau of appointments to office,
tax collection, the investigation of legal disputes and maintenance of legal
order, the maintenance of urban and regional infrastructure, the provisioning
and deployment of the army, and diplomatic relations with other statesin
short, the full spectrum of matters pertaining to a late Roman administration.
Nonetheless, the availability of smaller numbers of officials to execute this
range of activities required more flexibility in the scope of administrative functions attended to by some members of civil service. In some ways it is possible
to view, in spite of the faade of governmental traditionalism present in the
Variae, how the dependence of the royal court on a smaller cohort of officials
required widening the authority of many offices. This trend in the government
of 6th-century Italy may parallel processes in the evolution of the legal culture of the state. The simplification of law, particularly visible in a text such as
the Edictum Theoderici, probably has as much to do with the administrative
needs of a bureaucracy with fewer specialized civil servants as it does with the
evolving needs of the people who depended upon the state for justice.63 The
same may be said of other successor states of the West that evolved regional
bodies of law.
59 e.g. Variae 1.7.2, ed. Mommsen.
60 Haldon, Byzantium, pp. 173207.
61 A healthy body of scholarship has already addressed aspects of change in the Ostrogothic
administration: Boak/Dunlap, Later Roman and Byzantine Administration; Sinnigen,
Administrative Shifts, pp. 45667; Barnwell, Emperor, pp. 15969; Tabata, I comites
Gothorum, pp. 6778.
62 The formulae of Books 6 and 7 of the Variae provide a template for this basic structure.
63 On this trend from the legal perspective: Lafferty, Law and Order, pp. 26090.
60
Bjornlie
Probably the most readily available example of this kind of administrative

culture can be found with Cassiodorus. During the course of more than thirty
years, Cassiodorus held three of the most important posts in the Ostrogothic
administration: quaestor, magister officiorum, and praefectus praetorio.
Cassiodorus steady advancement in palatine service is, in part, explained
by the personal nature of his familys attachment to the Amal court.64 As a
valued member of the inner circle of the Amal regime, Cassiodorus had been
entrusted with involvement in the full range of administrative affairs which, as
represented in the Variae, bears a remarkable degree of consistency from one
period of his career to the next (irrespective of the office that he held at any
particular moment). There is of course some debate concerning the degree of
agency implied by Cassiodorus penning of letters on behalf of Amal rulers.65
Regardless of whether one views Cassiodorus as merely the amanuensis of
Gothic rulers, writing the responses of the Gothic court to such a wide array
of administrative concerns implies the dependence of the court upon person,
rather than the specialized competence of a particular office. The fact that various Gothic rulers entrusted the same range of matters to the pen of the same
individual in three different offices, regardless of the traditional competence
corresponding to those offices, speaks to the simplification of the allocation
of personnel. Neither should it be thought that such a situation was unique to
Cassiodorus. Variae 1.12 explains how the promotion of a quaestor to the office
of magister officiorum would involve the transference of this officials former
duties to the new office.66 The conflation of duties associated with more than
one office to a trusted person speaks not only to the exigencies of managing
palatine service on a truncated budget, but also to the increased emphasis on
intimacy with the Amal ruler. As stated in the preface to the Variae, and just
as with lesser officials, the princes seem to set upon you, above any other office
holder, those matters needing attention, and which the appropriate ministers
are unable to unravel.67 It is worth noting that the velut mediocribus fascibus of
this statement implies that the habit of transgressing traditional departmental
boundaries was a feature of civil service particular not only to the higher magistracies, but common throughout the lower offices.
64 For a reconstruction of the context of Cassiodorus public life: Bjornlie, Variae of

Cassiodorus.
65 On this, Bjornlie, Variae of Cassiodorus.
67 Variae, praefatio 1.7, et velut mediocribus fascibus insudanti illa tibi de aliis honoribus
principes videntur imponere, quae proprii iudices nequeunt explicare, ed. Mommsen.
61
Administrative Functions in Action
The remaining portion of this chapter will illustrate some of the ways in which
the conflation of boundaries between personnel is visible in the Ostrogothic
period. Cassiodorus accorded the office of praefectus praetorio a dignity above
all other offices, and indeed the praetorian prefect was closely associated with
the comitatus of the Gothic ruler.68 Having authority over both legal and financial personnel of the administration, the prefect commanded the most numerous branches of the bureaucracy (exceptores and scrinarii). His competence
covered the collection of taxes in all provinces, the local officials involved in
its collection, the distribution of taxes as payment to military and administrative personnel, the maintenance of the public food supply, oversight in local
finances, and rendering final judgement in legal disputes.69 Given the breadth
of the praetorian prefects involvement in various affairs throughout Italy, it
is perhaps unsurprising that the Gothic court would direct him to undertake
tasks traditionally delegated to other ministers. For example, in Variae 2.9 and
3.51, Theoderic orders the prefect to take charge of fairly minor matters pertaining to public spectacles in Milan and Rome (something that might have
pertained to the tribunus voluptatum or vicarius urbae Romae).70 Similarly, in
Variae 11.5, the prefect directs his deputy assistant (vices agenti) to administer the annona in Rome, without mention of the authority that the praefectus
annonae would have had in the matter.71 It may have been the case that the
appointment of specialized officials to govern such matters as public spectacle
and the annona was only periodic and that the Gothic ruler typically required
the praetorian prefect, as the highest-ranking minister attendant in the comitatus, to act in the absence of such personnel.
Other high ministers of the comitatus, however, with competences that were
traditionally much more circumscribed, similarly display evidence of operating in a wide ambit, or at other times having their traditional roles assumed by
others. The relative ease with which traditional administrative roles were conflated among the comes sacrarum largitionum, the comes patrimonii nostri, and
the comes privatarum speaks to a habit of appointing officials to tasks based
68 As described in the formula for praetorian prefect: Variae 6.3.4, ed. Mommsen; on the
itinerant nature of the office: Variae 11.5.13.
69 For descriptions of the duties of the praetorian prefect: Variae, praefatio 1.56, ed.
Mommsen; Variae 1.4, 2.5, 2.37, 2.38, 4.36, 4.38, 4.50, 5.34, 6.3, 12.2; also, Morosi, Praefectus
praetorio, pp. 7193.
70 Cf. formulae at Variae 6.15 for the vicarius and 7.10 for tribunus voluptatum, ed. Mommsen.
71 Cf. formula for the prefect of the annona at Variae 6.18, ed. Mommsen.
62
Bjornlie
on either the suitability of the individual or the magistrates availability at a

given moment. In the Roman administration of the 4th and 5th centuries the
comes sacrarum largitionum had a role of chief importance, exercising authority over the mint (and thereby over the distribution of donatives to the military
and benefactions of the ruler to civilians), mines (linked to coin production at
mints), the production of royal vestments, and customs and taxes from foreign
trade.72 Despite the fact that the formula for the comes sacrarum largitionum
in the Variae (6.7) outlines these same traditional competences, numerous
cases make it clear that this ministers duties were regularly appointed to other
officials. With respect to the oversight of goods associated with foreign trade,
specific cases could be delegated to the praefectus praetorio (Variae 1.34) and
the comes siliquatariorum (Variae 2.12). Similarly, the comes patrimonii nostri could be directed to search for new gold mines.73 Where it appears that
the ships of the state (dromonarii) pertained to the authority of the comes
sacrarum largitionum (Variae 2.31), it is also clear that matters pertaining to
the fleet could be handled by the comes privatarum (Variae 4.15), the praefectus
praetorio (Variae 5.1617), or the comes patrimonii nostri (5.1820). A similar
blurring of roles may be seen in the case of the comes privatarum, the formula
for which included duties concerning laws pertaining to slaves, sexual morality, the protection of the dead, intestate land, and the discovery of abandoned
treasure.74 In contrast to the duties ascribed in the formula for this post, the
Variae describe the comes privatarum in various instances providing a water
surveyor with a salary drawn from the annona (3.53), crediting the accounts
of agents of grain shipments in compensation for shipwreck (4.7), investigating quarrels between the taxpayers (possessores) and local officials (curiales)
of a civitas (4.11), and providing provisions for the army posted in Pannonia
Sirmiensis (4.13), all activities more regularly undertaken by the praetorian
prefect. Similarly, the Variae often describe other officials engaged in activities more properly pertaining to the authority of the comes privatarum: the
investigation of grave robbing by a Gothic comes (4.18), the investigation of the
status of intestate property by a Gothic saio (4.32) or a governor (consularis)
(5.24), an investigation into reports of buried treasure by a Gothic saio (4.34),
and handling a case of adultery by a Gothic dux (5.33). With respect to the
comes patrimonii, whose authority extended to the management and collection of rents from properties owned by the Amal family (and the supply of
the court with provisions from those properties), it appears that his authority
72 Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 36970, 42738, 6245.
63
could at times extend to the collection of regular taxes from a province (again,
the purview of the praetorian prefect).75 In turn the praetorian prefect was
at liberty to requisition provisions for the Gothic court through his agent (a
canonicarius), as opposed to acting through the comes patrimonii. Finally, the
magister officiorum, who formally held authority over the cursus publicus, regularly found that role assumed by the praetorian prefect and saiones.76 The
special competence that the magister officiorum had in controlling the prices
of goods at the marketplace of the Gothic residence similarly could become
subject to the authority of the praetorian prefect.77
This tendency for high ministers of the palatine bureaucracy to exercise
broader administrative powers than might have been the case in a traditional
Roman administration represents the ad hoc appointment of ministers to
administrative needs by the Gothic ruler on the basis of the most suitable
personality available at a given moment. A natural extension of this tendency
is visible in the provinces with the range of authority available to Gothic
comites.78 Rather than a separate branch of specifically military authority, the
Gothic comites are better understood as an additional layer of administrative authority representing the Gothic court in various regions under Gothic
control. A distinctly separate branch of military authority seems to have pertained to the pre-Gothic period, concerning which the Anonymus Valesianus
mentions Odovacers military commanders holding the office of magister
militum.79 Notably by contrast, the Valesianus describes Theoderics military
commanders as comites or duces even after the war with Odovacer, reflecting
what had become administrative reality by the end of the Gothic period in
Italy.80 The Variae similarly describe Gothic comites, particularly in the formulae, where several distinct competences appear.81 In each case these comites
are described in terms of legal and judicial authority combined with military
power. Variae 7.25, 7.27, and 7.28 in particular are formulae announcing to the
local municipal administration (honorati, defensores, curiales) the judicial
competence of the Gothic comites assigned to them. Attention to the role of
75 On the collection of taxes in Dalmatia and Savia: Variae 9.9.3, ed. Mommsen, with Arnold
in this volume; cf. formula for this office at Variae 6.9.
76 Cf. the formula for the magister officiorum: Variae 6.6, ed. Mommsen; for the cursus publicus being managed by other officials: Variae 4.47, 5.5, 11.12, 11.14, 12.15, 12.18.
78 On this phenomenon: Tabata, I comites Gothorum, pp. 6778.
79 Anonymus Valesianus 11.51 and 11.54, ed. Moreau.
80 Anonymus Valesianus 12.68, ed. Moreau.
81 Variae 6.22, 6.23, 7.1, 7.3, 7.26, ed. Mommsen.
64
Bjornlie
the comes in m
anaging the annona suggest that these appointments involved
superintending the collection and distribution of taxes.82 The comites with
the widest such powers were the comites provinciarum assigned to specific
provinces, usually those in regions subject to military threat such as Pannonia
and Dalmatia. The formula for this post emphasizes the balance of military
and judicial powers, explicitly noting the distinction of this authority above
that enjoyed by governors in other provinces and indicating that the comes
provinciae was in fact a branch of the civil administration.83 Descriptions of
the comites Gothorum per singulas civitates assigned to specific cities such as
Syracuse and Naples indicate that these officials also enjoyed the same range
of judicial, administrative, and military powers, albeit restricted to the jurisdiction of a particular city.84 Gothic officials could also be assigned to presumably
less important municipalities as comites diversarum civitatum, holding rank
secondary to other Gothic comites (in illa civitate comitivae honorem secondi
ordinis).85 Similar to the comites provinciarum, urban centres warranted the
administration of a comes on the basis of strategic needs that required the
presence of a substantial Gothic garrison. It is important to note that not every
province or city had a comes; such appointments were selective and often
based on military considerations. Nevertheless, it is clear that these appointments substituted layers of administration present in other provinces and cities. Each comes, whether of a province or a city, had a civilian princeps militum
assigned to superintend his administrative officium.86 The importance of these
comites to the Gothic administration is underscored by the sheer number of
letters in the Variae attesting their various activities.87 The frequent reappearance of specific individuals in various capacities as comites again suggests an
administration based on central personalities affiliated with the Gothic court,
as opposed to an elaborate institutional hierarchy.
One of the obvious advantages to granting administrative competence to
military comites is that it reduced the need in many regions for potentially
expensive gubernatorial officia. In fact evidence seems to indicate that the
presence of actual provincial governors was far less regular than in earlier
periods of Roman government or in the contemporary provinces of the eastern
82 Variae 7.25, ed. Mommsen; similarly, Gothic comites were involved in fiscal matters in
Variae 3.25, 3.26, 4.19, 5.14, 5.15, 5.39, 9.11, 9.14.
84 Variae 6.22, 6.23, 7.3, ed. Mommsen.
86 Variae 6.25, 7.24, ed. Mommsen.
87 Variae 1.5, 1.40, 2.7, 2.29, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.26, 3.45, 4.9, 4.12, 4.16, 4.19, 4.21, 4.23, 4.23, 4.49,
5.14, 5.15, 5.29, 5.35, 5.39, 8.26, 8.28, 9.8, 9.9, 9.11, 9.14, ed. Mommsen.
65
empire. The Variae refer to a small host of dignitaries having authority in the
legal or financial administration of provinces: iudex, rector, consularis, praeses
and corrector. The term iudex tends to be a rather generic referent for someone
with either judicial or financial competence either as a part of the local civitas
administration or as an agent of the Gothic court sent to a particular place, and
not in the specific sense of a person who might be considered a civilian analogue to the Gothic comes provinciae. The Edictum Theoderici refers to a iudex
eiusdem loci, in the sense of a magistrate of a particular civitas.88 Cassiodorus
uses iudex to refer to either a senior palatine minister (Variae 1.4) or unspecified
officials in the provinces having some role in tax collection (Variae 2.24, 11.7,
12.2). Elsewhere in the Variae it becomes clear that iudices provinciarum can
apply to the cancellarii assigned to provinces from the officium of the praetorian prefect (11.14, 12.15). Similarly, the corrector appears to have been a tax official charged with the collection of the bina et terna (a land tax) for the office of
the comes sacrarum largitionum, not a magistrate with general gubernatorial
competence over a province.89 Nonetheless, this agent also seems to have been
vested with the authority to pass sentence in civil cases, again an indication of
the evolving flexibility with which administrative authority could be applied
in the provinces.90 Another indication of this flexibility and a shift away from
an annually appointed governor for each province is the presence of separate
formulae for the rector, consularis, and praeses, each with authority limited to
the bounds of a province. Of the three offices the consularis (Variae 6.20) had
sweeping administrative powers in a province, while the responsibilities of
the rector seem to have been confined to judicial duties (Variae 6.21) and the
authority of the praeses was limited to fiscal matters (Variae 7.2). Even with the
firm identification of the consularis as a provincial governor, by comparison to
the activity of the comes Gothorum, the governor of a province seems to have
been an occasional figure in the Gothic administration.91 Given the emphasis
that the formula for consularis places on the derivation of the title of the office
from the honour of the consul, it is quite likely that consulares were appointed
by the Gothic court on an ad hoc basis (as opposed to annually) from among
local elite such as the honorati, perhaps to compensate for periodic shortages
of administrative personnel in a particular region.92
88 Edict of Theoderic 64, ed. Baviera.

89 Cf. Variae 7.20 and 3.8, ed. Mommsen.
91 Only Variae 3.27, 4.10, 4.32, 5.8 and 5.24, ed. Mommsen, refer matters to the attention of
the consularis; cf. note # 88 for the activities of Gothic comites.
66
Bjornlie
An explanation for the only incidental reliance upon provincial governors

may be found in the more consistent use of other personnel with a broad
range of authority. The saiones of the Gothic court probably best exemplify
this policy.93 Like Gothic comites, the saiones possessed both military and
administrative authority. The letters of the Variae attesting to this range
of administrative function indicate that in each case the saio received his
appointment directly from the Gothic ruler. In contrast, however, rather than
having standing institutional authority in military and administrative matters after the fashion of a comes provinciae, saiones were assigned with specific
authority to supervise a given task. They represent the retinue of noble Goths
who attended the Gothic rulers comitatus and who satisfied the roles of other
magistrates when occasion required. In fact the Variae do not contain a formula for the saio, but rather a formula by which civilians might petition for
the assistance of a saio in a particular (unspecified) situation. The fact that
the formula stipulates that the petitioner must promise property as a bond
for the services of the saio underscores the importance of the personality of
proximity to the royal court.94 It was through the personal attachment of the
saiones to the Gothic court, as opposed to the constitutionality of office, that
the saiones were capable of operating in such an impressive array of capacities.
The Variae describe the saiones mobilizing military personnel for campaign or
for the annual receipt of the donative, providing legal and physical protection
for tax collectors, arresting delinquent taxpayers and individuals accused of
various crimes, collecting ships for the transport of grain, investigating titles
to property and transferring property to private citizens, superintending the
fortification of new settlements, collecting taxes, supervising the remission of
taxes, investigating reports of buried treasure, managing the cursus publicus,
managing the personnel and resources of the fleet, protecting litigants in civil
cases, investigating the various complaints of provincials, and censuring and
arresting other public officials.95
Whereas the award of the title of saio was limited to Goths in the service of the royal court, this does not necessarily mean that the same range
of administrative function was limited to Goths or saiones. Other agents sent
from the Gothic court to investigate specific matters in the provinces such as
comitiaci and apparitores appear to have a similar range of authority, albeit not
93 For previous literature on the saiones: Morosi, I saiones, p. 15065; Bjornlie, Law,
Ethnicity and Taxes.
95 Variae 1.24, 2.4, 2.13, 2.20, 3.20, 3.48, 4.14, 4.27, 4.28, 4.32, 4.34, 4.47, 5.5, 5.10, 5.19, 5.23, 5.27,
8.24, 8.27, 9.2, 9.10, 9.14, 9.18, 12.3, ed. Mommsen.
67
inclusive of managing military personnel or their affairs.96 A similar tendency

is observable with respect to officials embedded in the provinces as representatives of the officium of the praetorian prefect such as cancellarii or canonicarii, which were often delegated to investigate matters similar in nature to the
affairs attended by comitiaci and apparitores.97 Indeed it may be that a comitiacus or apparitor would be sent from the Gothic court only when a cancellarius
or canonicarius from the officium of the prefect was not at hand in the province to attend to a particular matter. This illustrates a tendency for the Gothic
administration to accommodate itself to fewer officials by granting personnel
a wider field of operation in which magistrates representing the Gothic court
had authority over the same range of judicial and financial activities when circumstances required it.
The final aspect of Gothic administrative behaviour that again illustrates
the degree to which bureaucracy had been downsized is the tendency to rely
upon persons in ex officio positions of authority. In keeping with the culture
of the comitatus, which derived its authority from proximity to an Amal ruler,
the Gothic court could expect individuals not properly vested in office to conduct business of the state. Often, as seen in the Variae, these individuals were
among the highest ranking in societymen with patrician, illustris or spectabilis rank. Obviously, fulfilment of such requests depended upon the prestige
that an individual would obtain through association with the Gothic court. The
court in turn relied upon the status of these individuals to grant the authority needed to pursue legal and administrative affairs in ex officio capacity. The
interplay of prestige sharing between court and individual is underscored in
formulae for honorary appointments (such as patrician status), which specify
the honour of attaining rank without official obligations.98 Nonetheless, the
Variae describe elites throughout Italy assigned to various roles: the production of costly goods and building materials, the guardianship of property
rights and the adjudication of property disputes, the coercion of payments
from recalcitrant taxpayers, quelling civil disturbances associated with games
in Rome, investigating the fraudulent use of public funds, arbitration in legal
disputes and the investigation of criminal cases, the maintenance of political
hostages, assistance in the repair of fortifications and other urban infrastructure, investigating vandalism to pubic monuments, maintaining order and
96 Variae 2.10, 2.21, 3.20, 5.6, ed. Mommsen.
97 For the activities of the cancellarii, Variae 11.10, 11.14, 11.39, 12.1, 12.3, 12.10, 12.12, 12.15, ed.
Mommsen; on the canonicarii, Variae 11.38, 12.13, 12.4, 12.7, 12.13.
98 Variae 6.2, ed. Mommsen, describing the rank of patrician; 6.10, for vacantes proceres; 6.11,
for illustris vacantis.
68
Bjornlie
safety in the countryside, and even managing local aspects of the annona and
cursus publicus.99 This tendency to outsource legal and administrative duties
was not limited to the secular elite. It is evident that the same relationship that
depended upon the reciprocal acknowledgement of status and prestige was
also operative between the court and the local bishops who, at the bequest of
the court, could be found involved in the distribution of largesse and in the
repair of urban infrastructure such as aqueducts.100 With respect to ex officio
administrative assignments delegated to lay persons, it may be the case that
some letters of the Variae address individuals who have actual offices that for
various reasons have not been recorded. In the majority of cases, however, it
is clear from the context described in the letter that the court had developed a
habit of delegating specific administrative duties to individuals who required
only the prestige of acknowledgement by the government as payment.
Conclusion
Rather than attempt to assay the full spectrum of administrative activities in
Ostrogothic Italy, this chapter has instead directed attention to what was different about the administration in relation to its eastern imperial neighbour.
Ostrogothic governmental administration is best understood in its 6th-century
context as a consequence of the steady contraction of the western imperial
economy over the course of the 5th century.101 As noted above, the basic structure (in terms of kinds of offices employed) and activities (financial and judicial) remained the same as the earlier Roman administration, but operated on
a much smaller scale and with certain definite consequences to administrative culture. Public officials frequently operated outside of what would have
been standard competences in earlier Roman government and usually did
so at the discretion of the Gothic ruler, as opposed to through institutional
sanction. More dramatically, the use of provincial governors as a system for
extending the reach of the administration beyond the court appears to have
been supplanted, not entirely but in large part, by Gothic comites and ad hoc
appointments such as represented by saiones, comitiaci, and prefectural cancellarii. What this means is that Ostrogothic administration represents a stage
99 Variae 1.2, 1.15, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.23, 1.25, 1.27, 1.39, 2.7, 2.14, 2.22, 2.35, 3.10, 3.13, 3.36, 3.52,
4.6, 4.41, 8.29, 8.30, 8.31, 8.32, 8.33, 12.18, ed. Mommsen.
100 Variae 2.8 and 4.31, ed. Mommsen; note also the level of interaction between Epiphanius,
the bishop of Pavia, and Theoderics court in Ennodius, Life of Epiphanius 109, 12246,
18289, ed. Vogel; on bishops more generally, see contributions by Rizzi in this volume.
101 As noted by Marazzi, Destinies, pp. 11959, and Bjornlie, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes.
69
of governmental development during which Gothic rulers attempted to use

previous Roman administrative tools in a repurposed workshop, where adjusting and tinkering with the available tools was a regular part of producing
governance.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Anonymus Valesianus, ed. J. Moreau, Anonymus Valesianus; Excerpta Valesiana

(Teubner), Leipzig 1961.
Cassiodorus, Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodori Senatoris Variae (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894; Engl. trans. S. Barnish,
Cassiodorus: Variae (Translated Texts for Historians 12), Liverpool 1992.
Corippus, In Praise of Justin, ed. A. Cameron, Flavius Cresconius Corippus: In Laudem
Iustini Augusti Minoris, London 1976.
Edictum Theoderici, ed. J. Baviera, Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani, vol. 2, Florence
1940.
Ennodius of Pavia, Vita Epiphanii, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 7), Berlin 1885.
, Panegyricus Theoderici, ed. and trans. C. Rohr, Der Theoderich-Panegyricus des
Ennodius (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Studien und Texte 12), Hannover
1995.
Fredegar, Chronicles, ed. B. Krusch, Fredegarii et Aliorum Chronica (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Scriptorum Rerum Merovingicarum 2), Hannover 1888.
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 5), Berlin 1882.
Priscian, In Praise of Anastasius, trans. P. Coyne, Priscian of Caesareas De Laude
Anastasii Imperatoris, Leweston 1991.
Procopius, Anecdota, trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius: Secret History (Loeb Classical
Library), Cambridge 1935.
, Wars, trans. H.B. Dewing, History of the Wars, 5 vols. (Loeb Classical Library),
Cambridge 191428.
Arslan, E., La monetazione dei Goti, Corso di cultura sullarte Ravennate e Byzantinea
36 (1989), 1759.
, La struttura delle emissioni monetary dei Goti in Italia, in Teoderico Il Grande
e I Goti dItalia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullAlto Medioevo,
Spoleto 1993, pp. 51739.
70
Bjornlie
Barbieri, G., La concezione politico-economica di Aurelio Cassiodoro, in Verona in

Et Gotica e Longobarda, Verona 1982, pp. 295301.
Barnish, S./Lee, A.D./Whitby, M., Government and administration, in A. Cameron/
B. Ward-Perkins/M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14: Late
Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425600, Cambridge 2000, pp. 164206.
Barnwell, P.S., Emperor, Prefects and Kings: The Roman West, 395565, Chapel Hill
1992.
Bertolini, O., Roma di fronte a Bisanzio e ai Longobardi, Bologna 1941.
Bierbrauer, V., Die Ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien, Spoleto 1975.
Bjornlie, S., Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople: A Study
, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: A Case for Continuity,
Adaptation and Departure, Early Medieval Europe 22.2 (2014), 13870.
, The Variae of Cassiodorus: depingere modo historico colore, in C. Sogno/
B. Storin/E. Watts (eds.), A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide to Letter
Collections in Late Antiquity, Berkeley (forthcoming).
Boak and Dunlap, Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration, New York
1924.
Bolzani, P., Teodorico e Galeata: unantologia critica, Rome 1994.
Burns, T., A History of the Ostrogoths, Bloomington 1984.
Carney, T.F., Bureaucracy in Traditional Society: Romano-Byzantine Bureaucracies
Viewed from Within, Lawrence 1971.
Cecconi, G., Governo imperiale e lites dirigenti nellItalia Tardoantica: problemi di storia
politico-amministrativa (270476 d.C.), Como 1994.
Christie, N., From Constantine to Charlemagne: An Archaeology of Italy, AD 300800,
Aldershot 2006.
Colace, P., Lessico monetario in Cassiodoro: simbologia della moneta e filosofia del
linguaggio, in S. Leanza (ed.), Cassiodoro: dalla corte di Ravenna al Vivarium di
Squillace, Soveria Mannelli 1993, pp. 15976.
Cosentino, S., Re Teoderico costruttore di flotte, Antiquit Tardive 12 (2004), 34756.
Csaki, L., Variarum I.X of Cassiodorus as a program of monetary policy, Florilegium
9 (1987) 5364.
De Azevedo, M., Verona Gota e Longobarda, in Verona in Et Gotica e Longobarda,
Verona 1980.
De Salvo, L., Rifornimenti alimentari e trasporti marittimi nelle Variae di Cassiodoro,
in S. Leanza, Atti della settimana di studi su Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro, Rome
1983, pp. 40920.
, Politica commerciale e controllo dei mercati in eta teodericiana: su alcune
formulae cassiodoree, in S. Leanza (ed.), Cassiodoro: dalla corte di Ravenna al
Vivarium di Squillace, Rome 1993, pp. 99113.
71
Di Paola, L., Lorganizzazione del sistema dei trasporti nelle Variae di Cassiodoro:
nova et vetusta, in S. Leanza (ed.), Cassiodoro: dalla corte di Ravenna al Vivarium di
Squillace, Soveria Mannelli 1993, pp. 8597.
Deliyannis, D., Ravenna in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2010.
Durliat, J. Cit, impt et integration des barbares, in W. Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms of the
Empire: The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity, Leiden 1997, pp. 15379.
Giardina, A., Cassiodoro Politico, Rome 2006.
Goffart, W., Barbarians and Romans: AD 418584, The Techniques of Accommodation,
Princeton 1980.
Grierson, P./Blackburn, M., Medieval European Coinage, vol. 1: The Early Middle Ages
(5th10th Centuries), Cambridge 1986.
Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture,
Cambridge 1990.
Heather, P., Cassiodorus and the Rise of the Amals: Genealogy and the Goths under
, New Men for New Constantines, in P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines:
The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th13th Centuries, Cambridge 1994,
pp. 1133.
, Theoderic King of the Goths, Early Medieval Europe 4.2 (1995), 14573.
, Gens and Regnum among the Ostrogoths, in H.W. Goetz/J. Jarnut/W. Pohl
(eds.), Regna and Gentes: The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval
Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, Leiden 2003,
pp. 85135.
Johnson, M., Toward a History of Theoderics Building Program, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 42 (1988), 7396.
Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284602, 2 vols., Baltimore 1964.
Kelly, C., Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, MA 2004.
Lafferty, S., Law and Order in Ostrogothic Italy, Journal of Late Antiquity 3.2 (2010),
33764.
, Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: A Study of the Edictum
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford 2001.
Maas, M., John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of
Justinian, London 1992.
Marazzi, F., Destinies of Late Antique Italies: Politico-economic Developments of
the Sixth Century, in R. Hodges/W. Bowden (eds.), The Sixth Century: Production,
Distribution and Demand, Leiden 1998, pp. 11959.
Mor, C., La riforma amministrativa di Teodorico, in Verona in Et Gotica e Longobarda,
Verona 1980, pp. 704.
72
Bjornlie
Morosi, R., Lattivita del praefectus praetorio nel regno Ostrogoto attraverso le Variae
di Cassiodoro, Humanitas 27 (1975), 7193.
, I saiones, speciali agenti di polizia presso i Gothi, Athenaeum 59 (1981),
15065.
, I comitiaci, funzionari romani nellItalia Ostrogota, Quaderni Catanesi 3.5
(1981), 77111.
Norea, C., Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power,
Cambridge 2011.
Ruggini, L., Economia e Societ nellItalia Annonaria, Bari 1961.
Settia, A., Le fortificazioni dei Goti in Italia, in Teoderico Il Grande e I Goti dItalia,
Spoleto 1993, pp. 10131.
Sinnigen, W., Administrative Shifts of Competence under Theoderic, Traditio 21
(1965), 45766.
Stahl, A., The Ostrogothic Coinage in Italy from AD 476, Journal of Roman Archaeology
18 (2005), 7535.
Tabata, K., I comites Gothorum e lamministrazione municipale in epoca Ostrogota,
Antiquit Tardive 3 (2002), 6778.
Ward-Perkins, B., From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in
Northern and Central Italy, AD 300850, Oxford 1984.
, Old and New Rome Compared, in L. Grig/G. Kelly (eds.), Two Romes: Rome
and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2012, pp. 5380.
CHAPTER 4
Ostrogothic Provinces: Administration

and Ideology
Jonathan J. Arnold
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the non-Italian lands that were part of the Ostrogothic
kingdom, here referred to as provinces, but not to be confused with the provinces that constituted the two dioceses of Italy. Indeed, those Italian lands
were at the core of the Ostrogothic realm and so synonymous with it that the
term Ostrogothic Italy is commonly used. Yet even in its earliest years, the
Ostrogothic kingdom included lands that lay beyond the diocesan boundaries
of Italy and were thus, strictly speaking, not Italian. Moreover, through military
campaigns and acts of annexation, these territories increased, particularly during the reign of Theoderic (compare Figures 1.1 and 1.2). To the north and east,
the Ostrogothic regime claimed the Illyrian provinces of Noricum, Pannonia
Savia, and Dalmatia, later capturing Sirmium and re-establishing Italian control over Pannonia Sirmiensis. To the west, it annexed portions of eastern Gaul
(Mediterranean Provence), later adding the entirety of the Visigothic kingdom
and expanding into Burgundy. A realm of this magnitude had not existed in
the West since the mid 5th century, and both the Ostrogothic administration
and its Italian subjects, as self-conscious heirs to the western Roman Empire,
celebrated these achievements as a bona fide imperial restoration. Theoderic,
it was claimed, had conquered the barbarians and returned civilitas and libertas to the Gauls; Amalasuentha, likewise, had made the Danube Roman again.
As former imperial territories, the very acquisition of these provinces helped
to legitimize contemporary understandings of the Ostrogothic kingdom as a
revived Roman Empire. But as reintegrated provinces governed according to
a Roman scheme, their possession and administration were also important
and lent further legitimacy to the Ostrogothic regime. That Sirmium produced
coins associating Theoderic with an unconquered Rome is significant; so, too,
the facts that Gaul and Spain were ruled again by a praetorian prefect and a
Gallo-Roman served as consul. No less significant were the taxes and resources
that provincials were expected to yield to the Ravenna government and its
74
Arnold
r epresentatives nor the justice and acts of succour that they were supposed to
receive in exchange.1
This chapter, therefore, will provide an overview of these non-Italian lands,
focusing on their acquisition and administration, ideological importance,
and finally loss. Indeed, though the Ostrogothic kingdom claimed many nonItalian lands and prided itself on their possession, none of these provinces
remained within its grasp beyond the opening years of Justinians invasion.
In the end, and despite its lofty claims and achievements, this revived Roman
Empire remained at its core an Empire of Italy.2

Provinces from Odovacer to Theoderic
By 476 the western Roman Empire had been greatly reduced in size, becoming
essentially a truncated version of the prefecture of Italy. To the south, Africa
had been lost to the Vandals, who wrested the islands of Corsica, Sardinia,
and possibly Sicily from Italia Suburbicaria. To the north, the Alpine reaches
of Raetia and Noricum had been overrun by peoples like the Alamanni and
Rugi and were devolving to self-rule. And to the west and east, only a handful
of provinces bordering Italy remained, the rest having been lost piece by piece
over the course of the 5th century.3
Following his successful coup, Odovacer yielded Italys remaining Gallic territories to the Visigoths, who had overrun Provence in the interim. At the same
time he secured a treaty with the Vandals, who relinquished their claims to
most of Sicily in exchange for an annual payment of tribute. Odovacers dealings with the former imperial territories to the north and east of Italy, in the
diocese of Western Illyricum, were more complicated. Across the Adriatic,
Dalmatia was ruled independently by Julius Nepos, who was still viewed in
Constantinople as the legitimate emperor of the West. At the insistence of the
eastern emperor Zeno, therefore, Odovacer agreed to rule Italy as Nepos subordinate and agent and did so, at least nominally, until the exiled emperors
1 For an elaboration: Arnold, Theoderic, especially pp. 2313.

2 For the term, which was used in reference to the late western empire and the Ostrogothic
kingdom: Prostko-Prostyski, Utraeque res publicae, pp. 1001, and Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 15,
22, 434.
3 Broadly: Stein, Bas-Empire 1, pp. 37797; also Alfldy, Noricum, pp. 21324; Heuberger,
Rtien, pp. 838; Clover, Bluff, pp. 2368; and Drinkwater, Alamanni, pp. 33144.
Ostrogothic Provinces
75
assassination in 480. Consequently, Dalmatia was invaded and conquered in

481/2 and its fictive unity with Italy gave way to an actual political union.4
Odovacers expansion into Dalmatia, however, may have raised some
concerns in Constantinople and contributed to Zenos decision to send the
neighbouring Rugi against him in 486. The attack, led by King Feletheus,
was crushed the following year and met with a counter-attack and invasion
of Noricum in 487/8. The region was occupied briefly, but then evacuated of
its Roman population and abandoned as indefensible in 488.5 That same year
Theoderic and Zeno came to the agreement that the former should invade
Italy and depose Odovacer. Save for the Gepids established at Sirmium and
some wandering Sarmatians, Theoderic and his Goths encountered little resistance in their march through Illyricum, suggesting that Odovacer had temporarily abandoned the region in order to concentrate his forces in Italy.6 Other
temporary losses during the ensuing conflict are better evidenced and include
Sicily, which the Vandals seized, only to be defeated by Theoderics army in 491.
Subsequently, they not only agreed to relinquish all claims to the island but
also abandoned their demands for tribute.7
Hence, when Theoderic assumed control over a war-torn Italy in 493, his
kingdom consisted of little more than the two dioceses of Italy, minus the
Vandal-held islands of Corsica and Sardinia and the Alpine regions of Raetia
and Noricum. Dalmatia might or might not have been part of this kingdom, but
soon it and other Illyrian territories were added, becoming a staging ground for
Theoderics first acts of imperial restoration.

Dalmatia and Pannonia Savia
When exactly Theoderic assumed control over Dalmatia and neighbouring

Pannonia Savia is uncertain. As a former territory of Odovacers kingdom,
however, Dalmatia probably fell to Ostrogothic rule shortly after Theoderics
victory, if not sooner, while expansion into Savia was a logical step, conforming to the defensive policy established along the Ostrogothic kingdoms other
frontiers (discussed below). Both provinces, at any rate, had come under the
4 Stein, Bas-Empire 2, pp. 4652; Wilkes, Dalmatia, pp. 4212; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 910;
and Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 613.
5 Stein, Bas-Empire 2, pp. 524; Alfldy, Noricum, pp. 2246; Wolfram, Goths, pp. 2789; and
Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 1011.
6 See Ennodius, Pan. 2835, ed. Rohr, with Wolfram, Goths, pp. 27980.
7 Stein, Bas-Empire 2, p. 57; Clover, Bluff, p. 239.
76
Arnold
aegis of Ravenna by the opening years of the 6th century, as indicated by the
Variae and other sources.8
In terms of administration, Dalmatia and Savia were ruled jointly from
Salona, the capital of Dalmatia, and placed under the authority of a single
Gothic comes of illustrious rank, known as the comes Dalmatiae et Saviae.
Despite the innovation, the combined provinces appear to have functioned
according to the same Roman administrative scheme as elsewhere, with similar civil and military offices.9 Lesser officials are attested at both the regional
and urban level and were tasked with defending their spheres of command,
ensuring justice, and preventing corruption. These included comites (both
Gothic and Roman) at Siscia, Salona, and on the islands of Curitana and
Celsina (modern Krk and Cersina), consulares (praesides) and principes, local
and itinerant judges, and city-based officials charged with a number of duties,
but most notably tax collection.10 At least for a while there was probably also
an official mint-master at Siscia, given the minting of early Theoderican coinage in this city.11
The most prominent of these officials are mentioned by name in a handful of Variae letters, and these in turn reveal the bulk of what is known
about Dalmatia-Savia under Ostrogothic rule. Osuin, for example, served as
Theoderics comes Dalmatiae et Saviae from at least 507/11 until the accession of Athalaric, who renewed his position and praised his prior conduct.12
In an earlier letter, Theoderic instructed him to procure arms for the soldiers
at Salona and to ensure that they were drilled, urging that, the true safety of
the Republic is a well-armed defender.13 A similarly defensive rationale was
also, in part, behind Theoderics order that Osuin provide assistance to a lesser
comes named Simeon, who was directed to Dalmatia in 510/11.14 Simeon had
been commanded to investigate the iron mines of Dalmatia, from which the
defence of [our] country is derived and both profits are produced for us and
8 Cf. Wozniak, Illyricum, pp. 36570; Wilkes, Dalmatia, p. 424; Wolfram, Goths, p. 320; and
Schwarcz, Westbalkanraum, pp. 623.
9 For an elaboration: Bjornlie in this volume; also Ensslin, Theoderich, pp. 1729, 1913;
Wolfram, Goths, pp. 2902; and Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 10320.
10 Cassiodorus, Variae 1.40, 3.2526, 4.49, 5.1415, 5.24, 7.16, 7.24, and 9.89, ed. Mommsen.
11 Demo, Ostrogothic Coinage, pp. 1336.
12 For the appointments, Variae 1.40 and 9.8. All Variae dates in this chapter have been taken
from Mommsens MGH edition. For possible revisions: Krautschick, Cassiodor.
13 Variae 1.40.1: fida rei publicae salus est defensor armatus.
14 Variae 3.2526.
77
death is procured for our enemies.15 These instructions reveal not only the
military importance of the region but also its economic value. Dalmatia was
a source of raw materials, like iron, which might be turned into weapons in
state-owned factories or, as Theoderic claimed, be manufactured into tools,
such as ploughs.16 Other goods produced at this time may have included salt
and fish, which would have been consumed at home or traded abroad, and
the presence of a mint at Siscia and coin finds along the coast point to the
importance of trade and exchange in the region.17 Indeed, beyond looking into
mining operations, Simeon himself was enjoined by Theoderic to review the
siliquaticum tax owed by Dalmatia for the past three indictions and to correct
any abuses, a task that speaks again to the economic value of the province.
Theoderic hoped to acquire monetary gain from the audit and to arrest the
behavior of [wicked] subjects.18
This desire for peace and profits was also expressed to officials stationed
in Savia and reiterated to their subjects. Fridibad, for instance, who seems
to have been a subordinate of Osuin, was introduced to the population of
Siscia and Savia in 507/11 and was supposed to establish law and order in
the region by punishing animal rustlers, reducing homicides, and condemning thefts.19 Live peacefully, Theoderic told his subjects, live governed by
good customs...He who commits depraved acts should be exposed to our
vengeance.20 Lawlessness, as in the past, was seen as a condition of barbarism
and not in keeping with Roman rule. And while such behaviour was not a new
phenomenon, the Ostrogothic regime claimed that it kept it in check both at
home and abroad as part of its programme of just and recognizably Roman
governance; civilitas, the rule of law, had to be maintained.21 Severinus, who
15 Variae 3.25.2: Hinc auxiliante deo patriae defensio venit....per quam et nobis generantur lucra et hostibus procurantur exitia.
16 For tools: Variae 3.25.2; state-owned factories: Variae 7.1819; factories at Salona: Wilkes,
Dalmatia, p. 424, and Wozniak, Illyricum, p. 367.
17 See Wilkes, Dalmatia, p. 425; for coin-finds: Demo, Ostrogothic Coinage, p. 1689, and Kos,
Numismatic Evidence, p. 113.
18 Variae 3.25.1: quia non tantum lucra quaerimus, quantum mores subiectorum deprehendere festinamus.
19 Variae 4.49, with Wolfram, Goths, p. 320 and 518 n. 426, and Amory, People and Identity,
pp. 3756.
20 Variae 4.49.1: Vivite compositi, vivite bonis moribus instituti...Necesse est vindictae
subiaceat qui pravis moribus obsecundat.
21 See Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 12632; also Heydemann in this volume. Whether the regime
was successful is another matter altogether. Cf. Castritius, Korruption, and Lafferty, Law
and Society, pp. 1545.
78
Arnold
was sent to Savia late in Theoderics reign, provides another case in point.22 His
instructions included a list of local abuses that were of long-standing duration.
In particular, the machinery of tax collection in the region was corrupt, with
many paying less than they should, funds embezzled, rates applied unevenly,
records doctored, and false exemptions offered, all to the injury of the fisc and
the increasingly overburdened provincials. In addition, itinerant judges, who
were supposed to be a source of Roman law and order, were extorting resources
and overstaying their welcome. Not only was this a violation of Roman law,
according to Theoderic, but also it was unjust and patently un-Roman: Our
ancestors, he explained, and by this he meant Roman ancestors, wanted the
travels of judges to exist not for the burden of provincials but for their profit.23
Ostrogothic rule in Dalmatia-Savia, therefore, was idealized as a continuation or restoration of Roman rule, as a source of protection and justice, both
essential to civilized life. As the possessores of Savia were told, even Theoderics
court in Italy was available to all, much like the emperors of old, and some of
these provincials appealed directly to it.24 Yet, as Theoderic also claimed, his
innate piety (an imperial quality) endeavoured to provide remedies to the
oppressed and take away the fatigue of a long journey.25 Hence, agents like
Severinus and Osuin were critical to the Ostrogothic position in this double
province; they served as both administrators for and representatives of a distant regime and in the process hopefully lived up to the assertion that they
were gifted in arms and glorious in justice.26 Beyond these details, however,
little more can be said about Ostrogothic rule in the region.
Noricum
When and to what extent Theoderic assumed control over Noricum is a matter of some debate, as the sources are quite meagre.27 Like Dalmatia-Savia, the
earliest administrative records demonstrate an Ostrogothic claim to the region
22 Variae 5.1415 and 9.9.
23 Variae 5.14.7: Maiores enim nostri discursus iudicum non oneri, sed compendio provincialibus esse voluerunt.
24 For possessores, Variae 5.15; Dalmatians appealing to court, Variae 3.7, 5.24, and 8.12.
25 Variae 5.15.12: ingeniosa pietate repperimus...fatigationem longi itineris abrogare...
speret remedium qualibet pressus iniuria.
26 Variae 9.9.1: qui sunt armis praediti et iustitia gloriosi.
27 See Wolfram, Goths, pp. 31516; idem, Westillyrien, p. 316; and Heuberger, Rtien,
pp. 7782.
79
by the opening years of the 6th century. An earlier date, however, is likely, given
the importance of Noricum to the greater Alpine frontier, which protected
the Ostrogothic kingdoms north Italian core and was the object of extensive
attention following Theoderics victory over Odovacer.28 Forts on the Italian
side of this frontier were described as the gates and bulwarks of Italy, protecting its provinces from hostile tribes and barbarians whose oaths could
not be trusted.29 To their north were the two provinces of Raetia, the date
of Ostrogothic annexation again unknown, but part of the diocese of Italia
Annonaria and ruled by a dux with the rank of spectabilis.30 His forts were seen
as the barriers for Italy, while his soldiers, perhaps local recruits rather than
Goths, were stationed against fierce and very savage peoples and guarded
the tranquility of the kingdom.31
Unfortunately, letters like these to an official in command of the frontier
in Ostrogothic Noricum do not survive, and so it is largely on inference from
Raetia that a similar ducatus of Noricum has been posited. In the case of the
former, its duces were charged with more than just defending their region
(and thus Italy) from external aggressors. As elsewhere, they were supposed to
assure peaceful conditions and the rule of Roman law. One such dux, Servatus,
was even charged by Theoderic in 507/11 with looking into the petition of a
certain provincial, who claimed that local tribesmen had taken his slaves. The
appeal to Theoderics justice is revealing, so, too, Theoderics response: Suffer
there to be no violence in the province over which you rule, but compel all to
the justice by which our Empire flourishes.32 As for Servatus Norican analogue, whose responsibilities would have been comparable, many have found
him in a vir spectabilis named Ursus, who is known from a series of ornate
mosaics that he and his wife, Ursina, dedicated in a church in Teurnia (the
capital of Noricum Mediterraneum) sometime in the early 500s.33 The reconstruction is speculative, since Ursus official capacity in Noricum (if any) and
28 See Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 35764; also Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2412.
29 Variae 2.5.2: porta provinciae...in procinctu semper erit, qui barbaros prohibere contendit...quos fides promissa non retinet; and 3.48.2: claustra provinciae...quia feris
gentibus constat obiectum.
30 See n. 27 (above). The territorial extent of both Raetian provinces is unknown.
31 Variae 7.4.23: Raetiae namque munimina sunt Italiae...contra feras et agrestissimas
gentes...disponuntur....tranquillitas regni nostri tua creditur sollicitudine custodiri,
with Wolfram, Goths, p. 316.
32 Variae 1.11.1: per provinciam, cui praesides, nulla fieri violenta patiaris, sed totum cogatur
ad iustum, unde nostrum floret imperium.
33 Cf. Alfldy, Noricum, p. 216, with pl. 58; Wolfram, Goths, pp. 31617; Heuberger, Rtien,
p. 81; and Prostko-Prostyski, Ostgotischer Statthalter.
80
Arnold
the origin of his rank are not stated in the dedication. But if not Ursus, someone still commanded this region on behalf of the Ravenna government. And
if not an independent dux along the model of Raetia, perhaps this individual
was the subordinate of an official elsewhere, as was the case in nearby Savia.
Regardless, the inhabitants of Noricum did receive orders from the
Ostrogothic king. The sole surviving example comes from around 507, when
these provincials were ordered to trade cattle with refugee Alamanni travelling
through the region.34 A threatening letter directed to the Frankish king Clovis
around the same time demonstrates that Theoderic had welcomed these
refugees into his territory following their annihilation by the Franks, while a
later source suggests that they were settled within the Alpine frontier, likely in
Raetia, Noricum, and possibly Savia.35 Ennodius also treated the event in his
panegyric, focusing on its ideological significance. Here Theoderic was cast in
the role of a Roman emperor and the Alamanni as new federates, former barbarians who would defend the empire from its aggressors. How is it possible,
he asked, that you enclosed the multitude of Alamannia within the boundaries of Italy without any damage to Roman possessions? Having always run riot
with their plundering of our lands, they have been transformed into guardians
of the Latin Empire.36
Ennodius words, therefore, speak as much to the perceived Romanness of
Ostrogothic Italy as to the defensive value of Alpine lands like Noricum to it.
Beyond these notices, however, little more can be said about this province.

Pannonia Sirmiensis
While the details surrounding Theoderics expansion into Dalmatia-Savia

and Noricum are shadowy, those for Pannonia Sirmiensis are far clearer. The
region had fallen to the Gepids after the Goths own departure in 474, and relations with their king, Thraseric, grew strained by the opening years of the 6th
century. Fear of a Gepid offensive against neighbouring Savia might have provoked Theoderics decision to invade, but in keeping with current ideologies of
Roman rule, Ennodius and others imagined the act as a deliberate attempt to
34 Variae 3.50.
35 Variae 2.41 and Agathias, Histories 1.6, trans. Frendo, pp. 1415; also Heuberger, Rtien,
pp. 1002; Wolfram, Goths, pp. 31718; and Drinkwater, Alamanni, pp. 3447.
36 Pan. 72: Quid quod a te Alamanniae generalitas intra Italiae terminos sine detrimento
Romanae possessionis inclusa est?...Facta est Latiaris custos imperii semper nostrorum
populatione grassata.
81
restore a former Roman province and imperial residence.37 Sirmium was once
the boundary of Italy, Ennodius explained, where earlier emperors used to
keep watch, lest the wounds of neighbouring peoples amassed there extended
into the Roman body.38 Through imperial neglect, the city had been lost, but
now Theoderic, as the heir of these emperors, was impelled to reclaim it: Since
your empire grew not, Ennodius claimed, you reckoned it diminished.39
The invasion began in 504 and was led by two Gothic comites, Pitzia and
Herduic, who captured Sirmium (and presumably its associated province) with
ease. In keeping with his motif of imperial restoration Ennodius celebrated the
fact that Pitzia had returned this land to Italy, rather than conquered it, and
that he chose to preserve it under his watchful guidance, rather than ravage it
as a spoil of war.40 Cassiodorus later recorded a similar act of restoration in his
chronicle, writing that Italy regained Sirmium through the valor of our lord
King Theoderic, after the Bulgars had been defeated.41 His laconic account,
typical of the genre, however, conflated the seizure of Sirmium with events
that transpired the following year, when Pitzia came to the assistance of a
nearby Gepid prince and warlord named Mundo, an ally of Theoderic who had
been attacked by an eastern Roman army augmented with Bulgars.42 The ensuing battle in Moesia Superior was celebrated in epic proportions in Ennodius
panegyric, as a test of Gothic virtus that resulted in the Bulgars slaughter and
a disgraceful Byzantine retreat.43 Yet Pitzias victory immediately led to a state
of hostility between Ravenna and Constantinople that was not resolved until
510 or 511, and at the cost of a portion of Theoderics new Pannonian province,
specifically the city of Bassianae, which was yielded to the emperor.44
37 Cf. Wolfram, Goths, p. 321; Wozniak, Illyricum, pp. 36870; Pohl, Gepiden, p. 294;
Schwarcz, Westbalkanraum, pp. 623; Prostko-Prostyski, Utraeque res publicae,
pp. 2202.
38 Pan. 60: Sermiensium civitas olim limes Italiae fuit, in qua seniores domini excubabant,
ne coacervata illinc finitimarum vulnera gentium in Romanum corpus excurrerent.
39 Pan. 601: Haec postea per regentium neglectum in Gepidarum iura concessit....Minui
aestimas quod non crescit imperium.
40 See Pan. 62, with Schwarcz, Westbalkanraum, p. 63; and Pohl, Gepiden, p. 294.
41 Cassiodorus, Chronica, a. 504, ed. Mommsen: virtute dn. regis Theoderici victis Vulgaribus
Sirmium recepit Italia.
42 For reconstructions and commentary: Prostko-Prostyski, Utraeque res publicae, pp. 223
36; Wozniak, Illyricum, pp. 3713; Wolfram, Goths, p. 322; and Croke, Mundo, pp. 12931.
43 Pan. 649. Cf. Jordanes, Getica 3001, ed. Mommsen; and Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon,
a. 505, ed. Mommsen.
44 See Stein, Bas-Empire 2, p. 156; Wolfram, Goths, pp. 3223; and Prostko-Prostyski,
Utraeque res publicae, pp. 2414.
82
Arnold
Despite the concession, the Sirmian campaign was still celebrated at the
time and continued to be important long after the fact. Roman powers,
Ennodius exclaimed, return to their former limits, while Theoderic, like a
good Roman emperor, dictated instructions to the inhabitants of Sirmium in
the custom of our ancestors.45 The coins that were soon minted in this city
echoed such sentiments, associating Theoderics monogram with an unconquered Rome.46 Other individuals, both Goths and Romans, were eulogized
for their actual roles in the war. Pitzia, for instance, was worthy to be honored
forever, according to Ennodius.47 Nearly two decades later, the noble Goth
Tuluin was praised before the Senate for having given death to the Bulgars,
terrible to the whole world in an early test of his martial prowess.48 Likewise,
the senator Cyprian was remembered as a warrior on the then barbarous
Danube. The throng of Bulgars did not terrify you, he was told by Athalaric,
and it was exceptional that you attacked the resisting barbarians and pursued
them as they fled in terror.49
The evidence for the reconquest of Pannonia Sirmiensis and its ideological
meaning, both in the short and long term, is thus comparatively rich. However,
the history of its administration following the Sirmian War is much less complete. Indeed only three letters in the Variae deal specifically with this province,
with two additional letters likely referring to some of its Gepid inhabitants, who
served in the Ostrogothic army and were later redeployed to Gaul.50 The three
letters in question demonstrate that this province, like Dalmatia-Savia, was
placed under the command of single military comes of illustrious rank, who
was based in the city of Sirmium. When exactly this comitiva was established
is not certain, but beginning in 507/11 it was held by Colosseus, whose length
of tenure is unknown. His ethnicity is likewise a matter of some debate, given
his Latin name and military/Gothic office;51 but whatever his background, he
was imagined as the chief source of law, order, and defence in this dangerous
45 Pan. 69: ad limitem suum Romana regna remearunt: dictas more veterum praecepta
Sermiensibus.
46 Demo, Ostrogothic Coinage, pp. 1368, 1401.
47 Pan. 68: celebrandus saeculis Pitzia.
48 Variae 8.10.4: emeritam laudem primis congressibus auspicatus neci dedit Bulgares toto
orbe terribiles.
49 Variae 8.21.3: Vidit te adhuc gentilis Danuvius bellatorem: non te terruit Bulgarum globus...Peculiare tibi fuit et renitentes barbaros aggredi et conversos terrore sectari.
50 For Gepids: Variae 5.1011, with Sirago, Ostrogoti, pp. 724.
51 Cf. Wolfram, Goths, p. 321; Amory, People and Identity, p. 3689; Lafferty, Law and Society,
p. 103.
83
frontier province, which was viewed in Ravenna as having become thoroughly

barbarized in the absence of Roman rule.
Upon his appointment, Colosseus was instructed not only to defend this
province but to order it by laws, so that, among the perverse customs of various peoples, you might demonstrate the justice of the Goths, who have the
prudence of Romans and the courage of barbarians.52 Let our customs,
Theoderic continued, be implanted into savage minds, until the ferocious
spirit grows accustomed to live in a suitable manner.53 Just as in other provinces, the need to decrease violence and have recourse to the laws was thus
pressing. The soldiers under Colosseus command were also of some concern,
doubtless because their ranks drew heavily from local recruits. Efforts were
made, therefore, to ensure that soldiers were properly provisioned, according
to ancient [i.e. Roman] custom, and paid in coin, lest [the army] be forced
to ponder what it might take away by force.54 Similar concerns about barbarization and the need to live like Romans or at least civilized Goths, were also
communicated to the inhabitants of this province. Decrying acts of violence,
vengeance, and vendetta and assuring them of the availability of legal recourse
courtesy of Colosseus and his subordinates, Theoderic enjoined these Romans
and barbarians to continue in their obedience and to acquiesce to justice,
by which the world is made happy. Do not rage against yourselves but the
enemy...Imitate our Goths, who know how to conduct battles abroad but live
modestly at home.55
Beyond this, little more can be said about the administration of Sirmiensis
during the reign of Theoderic. However, his death witnessed some disruption
in the region, most notably a Gepid attack on Sirmium in the late 520s, which
provided yet another opportunity to celebrate ideologies of Roman victory
under Gothic rule. Not only did the future king Witigis, a proven veteran of
the first Sirmian War, defeat the Gepids at this time, but he also pursued them
deep into east Roman territory, taking the city of Singidunum from the Heruli
52 Variae 3.23.23: provinciam armis protege, iure compone...ut inter nationum consuetudinem perversam Gothorum possis demonstrare iustitiam: qui...et Romanorum prudentiam caperent et virtutem gentium possiderent.
53 Variae 3.23.4: Quapropter consuetudo nostra feris mentibus inseratur, donec truculentus
animus belle vivere consuescat.
54 Variae 4.13.12: iuxta consuetudinem veterem victualia praebeantur...Habeat quod
emat, ne cogatur cogitare quod auferat.
55 Variae 3.24.24: parientiam vestram saepius approbatam...monstrate....Adquiescite
iustitiae, qua mundus laetatur....Imitamini certe Gothos nostros, qui foris proelia, intus
norunt exercere modestiam.
84
Arnold
and inadvertently attacking the Byzantine city of Gratiana in the process.56

Once more, the act of aggression raised alarms in Constantinople, heightening
tensions and leading to many acts of diplomacy.57 Yet back in Rome the events
were commemorated in a short panegyric, which praised Athalarics regent and
mother, Amalasuentha. Nearly a century prior, the western empress and regent
for Valentinian III, Galla Placidia, had ceded Illyricum to the East, a division
lamentable to the provinces. But now it was Amalasuentha who made the
Danube Roman again, contrary to the wishes of the [eastern] princeps.58 Later,
a panegyric of Cassiodorus eulogized Witigis own valiant achievements along
the Danube in epic fashion, while Witigis himself (along with some eastern
Romans) cited these campaigns as the principal rationale for his selection as
king in a time of war.59 I was chosen in wide open fields...sought after by
blaring trumpets, so that the Getic people of Mars might discover for themselves a [real] king.60

Gaul and Spain
Ostrogothic expansion into Gaul, and with it Spain, is far better evidenced
than any of the provinces discussed thus far and was the consequence of
Theoderics failed diplomacy combined with the intrigues of the eastern
Roman court.61 Despite his best efforts, war came suddenly in 507 and with
disastrous results. The neighbouring Visigoths, who were Theoderics longstanding allies, were crushed at the battle of Vouill and their kingdom began
to disintegrate;62 worse still, Theoderic himself was unable to intervene, caught
off guard by Byzantine and Burgundian raiders, who harassed his kingdom in
56 For reconstructions: Stein, Bas-Empire 2, pp. 3078; Wozniak, Illyricum, pp. 3779;
Wolfram, Goths, p. 335 and 343; and Sarantis, War and Diplomacy, pp. 213.
57 See Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1.11, and Procopius, Wars 5.3.1521, ed. Dewing.
58 Variae 11.1.910: amissione Illyrici...factaque est coniunctio regnantis divisio dolenda
provinciis....Sub hac autem domina...contra Orientis principis votum Romanum fecit
esse Danuvium, with Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 4851 and 300.
59 See Cassiodorus, Orationum reliquiae, ed. Traube, pp. 4736; Variae 10.31; and Procopius,
Wars 5.11.5.
60 Variae 10.31.2: in campis late patentibus electum me esse noveritis...tubis concrepantibus sum quaesitus, ut...regem sibi Martium Geticus populus inveniret.
61 See Arnold, Vouill, pp. 11925; idem, Theoderic, pp. 2628; Ensslin, Theoderic, pp. 139
42; and Meier, Anastasios, pp. 22630.
62 On the event: Mathisen/Shanzer (eds.), Vouill.
85
a two-pronged assault.63 For the first time since the defeat of Odovacer, Italy
had been attacked. And while vindicating lost provinces had been an avowed
motivation in prior acts of expansion, the security of Italy was far more important, indeed paramount, to the Ostrogothic regime. Hence, when the raiders
had been checked and the army given its marching orders for Gaul, its Goths
were idealized as the defenders of Italy and were dispatched across the Alps,
not to restore another province, but to ensure public utility and the security
of everyone back home.64
Despite such defensive avowals, the invasion, led by the Gothic duces Ibba
and Mammo, quickly developed into a war of conquest that, by its completion, was hailed as the greatest of Theoderics imperial restorations. In 508, the
Franks and Burgundians were defeated in Mediterranean Provence and the
region was annexed, recreating the buffer yielded by Odovacer decades earlier.
If this did not establish a state of war between Theoderic and the current king
of the Visigoths, Gesalec, events the following year surely did, when Ibba captured the Visigothic capital of Narbonne and sent its royal treasure to Ravenna.
Soon Theoderic also began supporting his young grandson, Amalaric, as the
rightful heir to the Visigothic throne, dividing the Visigoths in their loyalty.
Consolidation in Gaul and expansion into Spain followed. To be sure, Gesalec
remained a nuisance until his death in 514; likewise, there continued to be
regional skirmishes for decades, which allowed the Ostrogothic kingdom to
expand its possessions further, pushing the Burgundian frontier to the Drome
or Isere and capturing newly Frankish cities like Rodez.65 Yet for all intents and
purposes, the campaign proper was over by 511, and in this very year Theoderic
announced his triumphs through his choice for the consulship: a Gallo-Roman
aristocrat appropriately named Felix (the prosperous one), the first GalloRoman to hold this office in over fifty years. What could be thought more
desirable, Theoderic asked Emperor Anastasius, than that Rome is gathering
back to her bosom her very own nurslings and numbers the Gallic senate in the
company of her venerable name?66
63 For Byzantines: Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, a. 508, with Variae 1.16 and 2.38. The
Burgundian raid is hypothetical. See Schwarcz, Restitutio Galliarum, pp. 78990, with
Delaplace, Guerre, p. 82, and Arnold, Vouill, 1256.
64 Variae 1.24.1: pro communi utilitate exercitum ad Gallias constituimus destinare, and
4.36.3: pro defensione cunctorum...Italiae defensoribus.
65 For reconstructions: Schwarcz, Restitutio Galliarum, pp. 7914; Delaplace, Guerre,
pp. 837; Diaz/Valverde, Goths, pp. 3601; and Arnold, Theoderic, p. 2702.
66 Variae 2.1.2: Quid enim vobis credi possit optatius quam ut alumnos proprios ad ubera
sua Roma recolligat et in venerandi nominis coetu senatum numeret Gallicanum? See
also Variae 2.23, with Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 294.
86
Arnold
To judge from the Italian evidence, there was little more desirable or worthy
of celebration at the time, and even long after the fact these achievements
remained a major source of pride that did much to legitimize Theoderic and
his successors. Bravo, untiring celebrator of triumphs, Cassiodorus declared
in a panegyric delivered in Theoderics honour. While you fight, the tired limbs
of the Republic are revived and blessedness is returned to our age. We used to
only read in the annals that Gaul had once been Roman.67 Around the same
time the illustrious senator Basilius Decius chose to preserve the glory of so
great a lord in a series of inscriptions erected along the Appian Way, referring
to Theoderic as victor and celebrator of triumphs, always Augustus, born for
the good of the Republic, guardian of liberty, propagator of the Roman name,
and conqueror of the barbarians, words that speak as much to the reception of
Theoderic as his transalpine victories.68 Theoderic, too, promoted his achievements in Gaul and Spain, believing that they were a source of great praise and
would sow the fame of [his] name.69 His commissioning of a series of triple
solidi, represented today by the Senigallia Medallion, likely celebrated these
victories (see Figure 14.4 in Chapter 14). These commemorative coins bore his
likeness standing in the act of adlocutio and holding a globe straddled by a
wreath- and palm-bearing victory, the latter enlarged and facing in the opposite direction on the reverse. Roman victory and dominance on a grand scale
were implied by such iconography and reiterated through the inscriptions,
which described Theoderic as an always most invincible princeps and conqueror of barbarians.70 Soon, a similar looking victory appeared on the coinage minted in Ostrogothic Gaul, probably at Narbonne.71
Nor was Theoderic the only representative of the Ostrogothic regime to be
celebrated for Gauls restoration. Upon returning to Italy in 509/11, for instance,
67 Orationum Reliquae, p. 466, ln. 1419: Macte, infatigabilis triumphator, quo pugnante
fessa rei publicae membra reparantur et ad saecula nostra antiqua beatitudo revertitur.
Galliam quondam fuisse Romanam solis tantum legebamus annalibus, with Romano,
Cassiodoro panegirista, pp. 1417.
68 Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 827, ed. Dessau: Theodericus, victor ac triumfator, semper
Augustus, bono rei publicae natus, custos libertatis et propagator Romani nominis, domitor gentium...ad perpetuandam tanti domini gloriam, with Variae 2.3233.
69 Variae 3.16.2: quos nostris laudibus specialiter credimus adquisitos, and 3.38: ipsa initia
bene plantare debent nostri nominis famam.
70
On the medallions date and significance: Grierson/Blackburn, Medieval European
Coinage 1, p. 35; Delaplace, Guerre, pp. 845; Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 11113 and 273; and
idem, Mustache, pp. 1525 and 1823.
71 See Tomasini, Barbaric Tremissis, pp. 3944; Grierson/Blackburn, Medieval European
Coinage 1, p. 4849.
87
the illustrious comes Arigern was eulogized before the Senate as a skilled
helmsmen, whose mature counsel had restored the glory of civilitas [to the
Gauls], while still displaying the emblems of war.72 Similar statements were
made about the praetorian prefect of Gaul, Liberius. In 514, Ennodius praised
him in a private letter for having corrected the Gauls, who happened not to
taste of Roman liberty before you came, and for having conveyed civilitas [to
them] after the passing of many years.73 Other sources, meanwhile, make it
clear that Liberius was a military man, just like Arigern, and bore beautiful scars as a testament to his deeds in Gaul.74 So did the noble Goth Tuluin,
who had already proven himself during the Sirmian campaign a few years
earlier. In Gaul, however, Tuluin became a hero, who took risks most willingly and captured and then held Arles pontoon bridge against the Franks.75
Later, his wounds were eulogized as a testament to his courage, and he was
celebrated for his defence of Gaul, which acquired a [new] province for the
Roman Republic.76
As for the administration of these newly acquired provinces, the greatest
evidence (namely from the Variae) comes from the earliest period (50811),
when the rudiments of the Ostrogothic regime were being established there.77
This evidence focuses on key cities and speaks broadly in terms of Gaul and
Spain, rather than the individual provinces of these regions, most of which had
lost some of their territorial integrity.78 Nor for that matter does the evidence
distinguish between the provinces that Theoderic had annexed to Italy (east
72 Variae 4.16.1: eius maturitate consilii...et gloriam civilitatis retulit...et bellorum insignia reportavit.
73 Ennodius, no. 447 (Ep. 9.23), ed. Vogel, pp. 3078: ordinatis illis, quibus civilitatem post
multos annorum circulos intulisti, quos ante te non contigit saporem de Romana libertate
gustare.
74 Variae 11.1.16, with Vita Caesarii 2.10, ed. Krusch.
75 Variae 8.10.6: Ammonet etiam expeditio Gallicana, ubi...pericula promptissimus
ingerebat.
76 Variae 8.10.78: vulnera factorum suorum signa susciperet: vulnera...propria lingua
virtutis...Mittitur...ad Gallias tuendas...Adquisivit rei publicae Romanae...provinciam.
77 For commentary: Sirago, Ostrogoti, pp. 6675.
78 As in Illyricum, the exact boundaries are unclear. Ostrogothic Provence included portions of Alpes Maritimae, Narbonensis II, and Viennensis; Septimania included much of
Narbonensis I, some of Aquitania I, and possibly some of Aquitania IIIII; and Spain
included much of Tarraconensis and Carthaginensis, and possibly some of eastern
Lusitania and Baetica. Cf. Ewig, Frnkischen Teilungen, pp. 1234; Schwarcz, Restitutio
Galliarum, p. 793; Kulikowski, Late Roman Spain, pp. 2612 and 2656; and Diaz/Valverde,
Goths, p. 362.
88
Arnold
of the Rhne) and those that he ruled on behalf of his grandson Amalaric.
Indeed all of these provinces became part of the re-established prefecture of
the Gauls, while the Spanish sources make it clear that Theoderic was the king
of the Visigoths, not the regent of his grandson, about whom nothing is heard
until after Theoderics death.79 It may be that the union of both kingdoms was
supposed to be permanent, and Theoderics choice of a successor at this time,
Eutharic, an Amal suddenly discovered living among the Visigoths, married
to his daughter, and adopted by the emperor as his son-in-arms, is certainly
suggestive of this possibility.80
At any rate the actual date for the re-establishment of this Gallic prefecture is a matter of some debate, but there was clearly a prefect ruling from
Arles (the old prefectural capital) no later than 510/11, namely Liberius, who
held this office until 534.81 The Variae provides surprisingly few details about
Liberius and his functions at this time, but other sources attest to the fact that
he was the chief representative of the Ostrogothic regime in the region and
that his sphere of command included important civil and military functions.82
Far more is known of Gemellus, who was also based at Arles and served as
vicar to the prefect beginning in 508. Perhaps initially a subordinate of the prefect of Italy, his instructions make abundantly clear the importance of Gaul to
Theoderic, who desired to sow sentiments of just and Roman rule among his
newest subjects, just as he did in other provinces. Decline avarice, Gemellus
was told, so that the tired province may accept you as the kind of judge it
knows a Roman princeps might send. Prove that she may rejoice in being conquered; let her feel nothing just as nothing was suffered when she asked for
Rome.83 The Gauls themselves were also informed of Gemellus appointment
and enjoined to live like Romans, much like the barbarized inhabitants of
Pannonia Sirmiensis. Roman custom, Theoderic explained, must happily be
obeyed by you who have been restored to it after a long time. Recalled to your
ancient liberty, clothe yourselves in the morals of the toga, cast off barbarism,
79 See the opening minutes for the councils of Tarragona and Gerona, ed. Vives, pp. 34
and 39, with Isidore of Seville, Historia Gothorum 39, ed. Mommsen. Cf. Chronica
Caesaraugustana, a. 513, ed. Mommsen. On the Second Council of Toledo, which probably
places the fifth year of the reign of Amalaric in 531 (rather than 527): Schferdiek, Kirche,
pp. 845.
80 See Diaz/Valverde, Goths, pp. 3647; also Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 21518.
81 Cf. ODonnell, Liberius, pp. 446, and Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2701 n. 46.
82 See ODonnell, Liberius, pp. 468, and Delaplace, Provence, pp. 4969.
83 Variae 3.16.3: avara declina, ut talem te iudicem provincia fessa suscipiat, qualem
Romanum principem transmisisse cognoscat....Effice ut victam fuisse delectet. Nihil
tale sentiat, quale patiebatur, cum Romam quaereret.
89
and abandon cruel minds; it is not right that you live like foreigners in our
just times.84
Again, and as in other provinces, the perceived and actual availability of
Roman law and justice were crucial to such understandings. In Spain, for
instance, Theoderic sought to curb homicides and theft, informing his representatives that a life is truly human when preserved through the order of law.85
Back in Gaul, provincials were assured that the vicar Gemellus would punish
abuses and provide them with remedies;86 indeed, some did appeal directly
to Gemellus and later Liberius for such assistance.87 Others sought legal
recourse from Gothic officials, who often worked in partnership with Romans
like Gemellus and are attested in cities like Narbonne, Avignon, Marseille, and
Barcelona. One such official was asked rather bluntly by Theoderic, Why else
did we accomplish the removal of bewildered barbarians, if not so that [these
provincials] might live according to [Roman] laws?88 Another was enjoined to
let our army live civilly with the Romans, much as Colosseus was instructed
to do at Sirmium.89 Yet another, the mighty general Ibba, was praised by
Theoderic for being famous in war, but instructed to render himself more
extraordinary in civilitas and to restore properties that had been taken wrongfully from the church of Narbonne.90 Finally, at Marseille, the Gothic comes
Marabad was to prove himself zealous for justice. May he bring solace to the
lowly, Theoderic told the inhabitants of the city, and like Servatus in Raetia,
compel all to the justice by which our Empire always flourishes.91
Nor were these the only sources of Roman justice and assistance available to
Theoderics Gallic provincials. Despite persistent concerns about the length of
the journey, Theoderics own comitatus in Italy provided another source, and
84 Variae 3.17.1: Libenter parendum est Romanae consuetudini, cui estis post longa tempora restituti...Atque ideo in antiquam libertatem...revocati vestimini moribus togatis, exuite barbariem, abicite mentium crudelitatem, quia sub aequitate nostri temporis
non vos decet vivere moribus alienis. On the perceived barbarization of Gaul, Arnold,
Theoderic, pp. 23561.
85 Variae 5.39.1: illa vita vere hominum est, quae iuris ordine continetur.
86 Variae 3.17.
87 See Variae 3.18 and 4.12; Ennodius, no. 457 (Ep. 9.29); and Avitus of Vienne, Ep. 35, ed.
Peiper, p. 65. These remedies included the ransoming of captives.
88 Variae 3.43.1: Quid enim proficit barbaros removisse confusos, nisi vivatur ex legibus?
89 Variae 3.38.2: Vivat noster exercitus civiliter cum Romanis.
90 Variae 4.17.3: qui es bello clarus, civilitate quoque reddaris eximius. See also Lizzi Testa
in this volume.
91 Variae 3.34.2: curam possit habere iustitiae, minoribus solacium ferat...omnes cogat ad
iustum, unde semper floret imperium. See also Variae 4.12 and 4.46.
90
Arnold
some in Gaul availed themselves of it.92 One such legal claimant was informed
by Ennodius that he had drawn the attention of a most invincible lord and
that from his losses the notice of a glorious princeps had been acquired.93
Another, bishop Caesarius of Arles, who was sent to Ravenna under suspicious
circumstances, was not only exonerated by Theoderic, but gifted handsomely
by him; later, while in Rome, the Senate and pope honoured him as well, the
latter making Caesarius papal vicar to Gaul and Spain in 514, providing an
ecclesiastical analogue to the prefect Liberius, with whom he worked closely.94
These examples, moreover, were not exceptions. Indeed, and especially in
the early period, whole communities in the prefecture benefited from acts
of benevolence, which were designed to endear newly acquired provincials
to the Ostrogothic regime and assist war-torn regions in their recovery, just
as they did elsewhere.95 These acts ranged from cancelling tribute for entire
regions or specific cities between 508 and 511; to supplying provisions like grain
for the army and, later, for local consumption; to cancelling the siliquaticum
and ordering Italian merchants to sell their wares in Gaul, both, according to
Theoderic, in an attempt to revive the local economy; to sending money and
supplies to Arles to restore its ancient walls; to restoring certain immunities to
Marseille, a prosperous city well on its way to becoming the chief emporium
of the region.96
Such benevolence of course was a temporary expedient enacted, as
Theoderic informed Gemellus, while we desire to be kind to our provincials.97
Yet once the situation in the prefecture was settled and recovery had begun,
these lands were supposed to provide revenues to the state in the form of taxes
and tribute. New taxpayers, Theoderic claimed, had been acquired in Gaul and
Spain, but tribute would be collected from these regions only when they were
at peace; until then, loyalty was payment enough.98 Clearly some individuals
were already paying tribute as early as 508/9; however, the most extensive evidence comes from late in Theoderics reign, from two letters in the Variae dating to 523/6 and dealing with Spain. Both letters are addressed to the Gothic
92 See below, with Variae 4.46 and Ennodius, no. 71 (Ep. 3.4).
93 Ennodius, no. 270.2 (Ep. 6.5.2): invictissimi domini...gratiam conparavit....incliti notitia principis dispendiis invenitur.
94 Vita Caesarii 1.3642; Ennodius, no. 461 (Ep. 9.33); and Symmachus, Ep. 1516, ed. Thiel,
pp. 7239, with Klingshirn, Caesarius, pp. 12345, and Delaplace, Provence, pp. 4936;
also Lizzi Testa in this volume.
95 See Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2812.
96 See Variae 3.32, 3.412, 3.44, 4.5, 4.7, 4.19, and 4.26, with Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2829.
97 Variae 4.19.2: nunc autem, dum provincialibus praestare cupimus.
98 For loyalty and peace: Variae 3.32.2; taxpayers, 4.36.3. Cf. Ennodius, no. 457 (Ep. 9.29).
91
comes Liwirit and his Roman counterpart Ampelius. Their specific offices are
not stated, but their respective ranks, spectabilis and inlustris, are reminiscent
of Fridibad and Severinus in Dalmatia-Savia, and their orders indicate that
they had analogous responsibilities and faced similar problems.
The first letter demonstrates that Spain remitted some of its tribute annually in the form of grain, which supplemented the annona at Rome and seems
to have been paid diligently until Theoderics death. It is just, Theoderic
explained, for Spain to furnish supplies of wheat for the City, so that under us
a happier Rome might receive its ancient tribute.99 The exception of course
was the year in which this letter was dispatched, when the shippers had made
a detour for Africa and sold the grain for their own profit. Theoderic was understandably furious. The second letter provides a long list of abuses, many revenue related, that Liwirit and Ampelius were instructed to investigate. Spanish
provincials accused tax collectors of using false weights, extorting excessive
payments from renters of royal land, exacting unjust and irregular tolls, and
embezzling funds. Others were allegedly minting private coinage or demanding a host of illegal services, even from Gothic troops sent to fight on behalf
of their liberty.100 These abuses were condemned by Theoderic, who expected
Liwirit and Ampelius to correct them to the mutual benefit of his Spanish taxpayers and the royal fisc.
Much more could be said about Ostrogothic Gaul and, to a lesser extent,
Spain given the available evidence. Indeed it is not by accident that the Variae
and other contemporary sources refer far more often to these regions than to
any of the other provinces treated in this chapter. Theoderic, it seems, was
right: Gauls restoration was a crowning achievement of his reign and did much
to legitimize the Ostrogothic kingdom as a revived Roman Empire.101

The End of the Empire
The relative peace and stability of Theoderics reign is generally seen as coming to an end during his final years, which were typified by a series of unfortunate events.102 Chief among these, at least with respect to the integrity of his
99 Variae 5.35.1: aequum iudicavimus Hispaniae triticeas illi copias exhibere, ut antiquum
vectigal sub nobis felicior Roma reciperet, with Procopius, Wars 5.12.4754.
100 Variae 5.39, with Kulikowski, Late Roman Spain, pp. 2624, and Diaz/Valverde, Goths,
p. 363.
101 See Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 233 and 27294.
102 See Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 21248, and Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 295302.
92
Arnold
empire, was the unexpected death of Eutharic sometime in the earlymid 520s.
If Theoderic had intended the union of the Visigothic and Ostrogothic kingdoms to be permanent, Eutharics death and the resulting succession crisis
threw this into question. At the time Theoderics chief representative in Spain,
the future Visigothic king Theudis, was growing increasingly independent, to
the point where a Visigothic revolt was feared. Theudis proved himself a loyal
subject, but these and other factors, not least Amalarics long-standing claim
to the throne, led to the decision that the Visigothic kingdom should go its own
way. How the agreement was reached is uncertain, but upon Theoderics death
in 526 Spain and Gaul west of the Rhne fell to Amalaric, while Italy, Illyricum,
and what remained of the Gallic prefecture fell to Athalaric, the young son of
Eutharic and Theoderics daughter, Amalasuentha. In addition, the Visigothic
royal treasure was returned to Amalarics court, and the Goths of Gaul and
Spain, who had intermarried during Theoderics reign, were allowed to serve
whichever kingdom they wished.103
Despite the obvious loss of territory, manpower, and revenue, the Gallic
prefecture remained an important component of the Ostrogothic kingdom for
another decade, serving as a buffer for Italy in the face of renewed Frankish
aggression.104 Athalarics Gallic provincials swore an oath of loyalty to him
at the beginning of his reign, as did Liberius, who remained their prefect.105
Gothic garrisons likewise guarded the prefectures cities and frontiers, celebrating victories against the Burgundians and Franks during the regency of
Amalasuentha and holding fast in Gaul into the opening years of the Gothic
War.106 Indeed it was not until Justinians invasion of Dalmatia and Sicily in
535 that Ostrogothic rule in Gaul was placed into question. As in the past, Italy
remained paramount. And in response to the Byzantine threat to Italys east
and south, the Ostrogothic king Theodahad turned west and sought a military
alliance with the Franks, promising all his possessions in Gaul and the payment
of 20 centenaria of gold. Nothing came of the offer, since Theodahad was murdered before the negotiations had been concluded. However, the Franks allied
with Justinian in the interim, leaving the prefecture (and thus north-western
Italy) dangerously exposed. The following year, therefore, Theodahads successor, Witigis, renewed talks with the Franks, believing that Gaul was no longer defensible and that concentrating all available forces in Italy was the best
103 Procopius, Wars 5.12.505.13.9. Cf. Isidore of Seville, Historia Gothorum 3940.
104 Wolfram, Goths, p. 334, may overestimate the effect that the loss of soldiers had, as it was
accompanied by a significant reduction in the border length.
105 Variae 8.67.
106 Variae 11.1.1213 and Procopius, Wars 5.11.28 and 5.13.19. Cf. Jordanes, Getica 305.
93
s trategy. He offered the same terms as Theodahad, adding the Alpine reaches
of Raetia to sweeten the deal, and the Franks gladly accepted. The troops in
Gaul were then recalled to Italy, along with their general Marcias, while the
Gauls of Provence and the inhabitants of Raetia, including the Alamanni,
became subjects of the Franks, effectively ending Ostrogothic rule in these
regions by 536/7.107
By this time, other provinces had also been lost or perhaps abandoned
owing to the same defensive rationale. Justinians invasion of Dalmatia in
535, for instance, seems to have led to a Gothic withdrawal from Pannonia
Sirmiensis, which fell almost immediately to the Gepids.108 Meanwhile, the
war for Dalmatia proved tenacious, with heavy casualties on both sides and victories that were only temporary and followed by hasty retreats. By 536, Salona
had exchanged hands three times, and in the following year Witigis dispatched
a fleet and sizeable army in what would prove to be the Goths final attempt at
recovering Dalmatia. These forces were led by Uligisalus and Asinarius, whose
failure to take Salona marks the end of an Ostrogothic claim to the region.
Subsequently, Dalmatia became a Byzantine staging ground for the greater
struggle unfolding in Italy.109
Asinarius efforts to raise additional troops in Savia prior to the attack on
Salona is also the last notice of an Ostrogothic presence in this province.
Following the loss of Dalmatia, most of neighbouring Savia fell to the Lombards,
who also expanded into portions of eastern Noricum.110 The rest of Noricum
fell to the Franks, who disregarded their alliances and attempted to conquer
Italy for themselves. By the mid 540s, the Frankish king Theudebert was claiming an empire that stretched from the ocean to the borders of Pannonia,
included much of northern Italy, and threatened to expand further east.111 He
was likewise minting gold coinage with his own portrait and the word victor,
much like Theoderic had done decades earlier.112 The Roman Empire of the
107 Procopius, Wars 5.13.1429, and Agathias, Histories 1.6, with Wolfram, Goths, pp. 3434.
108 Procopius, Wars 7.33.8 and 7.34.1518, with Wolfram, Goths, p. 323; Wozniak, Illyricum,
pp. 3812; and Sarantis, War and Diplomacy, p. 25.
109 Procopius, Wars 5.5.11, 5.7.110, 5.7.2637, and 5.16.718, with Wilkes, Dalmatia, pp. 4257,
and Wozniak, Illyricum, p. 382. For Totilas later raid on Dalmatia, which was not an
attempt at conquest: Procopius, Wars 7.35.239.
110 Procopius, Wars 5.16.816 and 7.33.1012, with Wolfram, Goths, p. 323, and Sarantis, War
and Diplomacy, pp. 267.
111 Epistolae Austrasicae 20, ed. Gundlach. p. 133; Procopius, Wars 8.24.610; and Agathias,
Histories 1.4.
112 Grierson/Blackburn, Medieval European Coinage 1, pp. 11516.
94
Arnold
Ostrogoths was fading, but a Frankish Empire that occasionally looked to it for
inspiration would eventually take its place.113
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Agathias, The Histories, trans. J. Frendo, Berlin 1975.

Avitus of Vienne, Epistulae, ed. R. Peiper, Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti Viennensis episcopi Opera
quae supersunt (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 6.2),
Berlin 1883.
Cassiodorus, Chronica, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII., vol. 2
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11), Berlin 1894.
, Orationum reliquiae, ed. L. Traube, Cassiodorus Senatoris Variae (Monumenta
, Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodorus Senatoris Variae (Monumenta Germaniae
Chronica Caesaraugustana, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII., vol. 2
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11), Berlin 1894.
Concilios Visigticos e Hispano-Romanos, ed. J. Vives, Barcelona-Madrid 1963.
Ennodius, Panegyricus dictus clementissimo regi Theoderico, ed. C. Rohr, Der TheoderichPanegyricus des Ennodius (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Studien und Texte
12), Hannover 1995.
Ennodius, Epistulae, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta Germaniae
Epistolae Austrasicae, ed. W. Gundlach, Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 3), Berlin 1892.
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, vol. 1, Berlin 1892.
Isidore of Seville, Historia Gothorum, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V.
VI. VII., vol. 2 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11), Berlin
1894.
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1), Berlin 1882.
Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII.,
vol. 2 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11), Berlin 1894.
113 On Theoderic in the Carolingian Empire: Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity,
pp. 2978, and Dutton, Charlemagnes Mustache, pp. 2442.
95
Procopius, Wars, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius, vol. 15 (Loeb Classical Library),
Cambridge, MA. 191428.
Symmachus, Epistolae, ed. A. Thiel, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum Genuinae et quae
ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, vol. 1, Brunsberg 1868.
Vita Caesarii, ed. B. Krusch, Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum Aevi Merovingici et
Antiquiorum Alioquot (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum
Merovingicarum 3), Hannover 1894.
Alfldy, G., Noricum, trans. A. Birley, London 1974.

Arnold, J., The Battle of Vouill and the Restoration of the Roman Empire, in
R. Mathisen/D. Shanzer (eds.), The Battle of Vouill, 507 CE: Where France Began,
Boston 2012, pp. 11136.
, Theoderics Invincible Mustache, Journal of Late Antiquity 6.1 (2013), 15283.
, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, New York 2014.
Castritius, H., Korruption im ostgotischen Italien, in W. Schuller (ed.), Korruption im
Altertum, Munich 1982, pp. 21534.
Aldershot 2006.
Clover, F., A Game of Bluff: The Fate of Sicily after AD 476, Historia 48.2 (1992), 23544.
Croke, B., Mundo the Gepid: from Freebooter to Roman General, Chiron 12 (1982),
12535.
Delaplace, C., La Guerre de Provence (507511), un pisode oubli de la domination
ostrogothique en Occident, in Romanit et cit chrtienne: Permanences et mutations, intgration et exclusion du Ier au VIe sicle, Paris 2000, pp. 7789.
, La Provence sous la domination ostrogothique (508536), Annales du Midi
115.244 (2003), 47999.
Deliyannis, D., Ravenna in Late Antiquity, New York 2010.
Demo, Z., Ostrogothic Coinage from Collections in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia &
Herzegovina, Ljubljana 1994.
Diaz, P./Valverde, R., Goths Confronting Goths: Ostrogothic Political Relations in
Hispania, in S. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period
to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 35376.
Drinkwater, J., The Alamanni and Rome 213496 (Caracalla to Clovis), Oxford 2007.
Dutton, P., Charlemagnes Mustache: And Other Cultural Clusters of a Dark Age, New
York 2004.
Ensslin, W., Theoderich der Grosse, 2nd ed., Munich 1959.
Ewig, E., Die frnkischen Teilungen und Teilreiche (511613), in id., Sptantikes und
frnkisches Gallien: Gesammelte Schriften (19521973), vol. 1, Munich 1976, pp. 11471.
96
Arnold
Grierson, P./Blackburn, M., Medieval European Coinage: With a Catalogue of the Coins
in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, vol. 1: The Early Middle Ages (5th10th centuries), Cambridge 1986.
Heuberger, R., Das ostgotische Rtien, Klio 30 (1937), 77109.
Klingshirn, W., Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique
Gaul, Cambridge 1994.
Kos, P., The Numismatic Evidence for the Period from the 5th to the 10th Centuries in
the Area of Modern Slovenia, in R. Brato (ed.), Slowenien und die Nachbarlander
zwischen Antike und Karolingischer Epoche: Anfange der slowenischen Ethnogenese,
vol. 1, Ljubljana 2000, pp. 10717.
Kulikowski, M., Late Roman Spain and Its Cities, Baltimore 2004.
Lafferty, S., Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: A Study of the Edictum
Mathisen, R./Shanzer, D. (eds.), The Battle of Vouill, 507 CE: Where France Began,
Boston 2012.
Meier, M., Anastasios I: Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches. Stuttgart 2009.
ODonnell, J., Liberius the Patrician, Traditio 37 (1981), 3172.
Prostko-Prostyski, J., Utraeque res publicae: The Emperor Anastasius Is Gothic Policy
(491518), Pozna 1994.
, Ein ostgotischer Statthalter in Binnen-Norikum?, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie
und Epigraphik 139 (2002), 297302.
Pohl, W., Die Gepiden und die Gentes an der mittleren Donau nach dem Zerfall des
Attilareiches, in H. Wolfram/F. Daim (eds.), Die Vlker an der mittleren und unteren
Donau im fnften und sechsten Jahrhundert, Vienna 1980, pp. 239305.
Romano, D., Cassiodoro panegirista, Pan 6 (1978), 535.
Sarantis, A., War and Diplomacy in Pannonia and the Northwest Balkans during the
Reign of Justinian: The Gepid Threat and Imperial Responses, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 63 (2009), 1540.
Schferdiek, K., Die Kirche in den Reichen der Westgoten und Suewen bis zur Errichtung
der westgotischen katholischen Staatskirche, Berlin 1967.
Schwarcz, A., Die Restitutio Galliarum des Theoderich, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti
dItalia: Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullAlto Medioevo, Milano 26
novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993, pp. 78798.
, Der Nordadria- und Westbalkanraum im 6. Jahrhundert zwischen Goten und
Byzantinern, in R. Brato (ed.), Slowenien und die Nachbarlander zwischen Antike
und Karolingischer Epoche: Anfange der slowenischen Ethnogenese, vol. 1, Ljubljana
2000, pp. 5970.
97
Sirago, V., Gli Ostrogoti in Gallia secondo le Variae di Cassiodoro, Revue des tudes
Anciennes 89 (1987), 6377.
Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2 vols., Bruges 194959.
Tomasini, W., The Barbaric Tremissis in Spain and Southern France: Anastasius to
Leovigild, New York 1964.
Wilkes, J., Dalmatia, Cambridge, MA 1969.
Wolfram, H., Westillyrien unter Gotischer Herrschaft (490/493537), in M. Kandler/
et al. (eds.), Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70.
Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters, Vienna 1985, pp. 31517.
, History of the Goths, trans. T. Dunlap, Berkeley 1988.
Wozniak, F., East Rome, Ravenna and Western Illyricum: 454536 AD, Historia 30.3
(1981), 35182.
CHAPTER 5
Ostrogothic Cities
Federico Marazzi*

Cities in Late Roman Italy: A Problem beyond the Ostrogoths
To take the concept of Ostrogothic cities in a literal sense, there would be very
little to report. The Ostrogoths (perhaps with only one exception, in Trento,
discussed later in the chapter) founded no cities, nor can any feature of the
cities they occupied during the period of their rule in Italy be recognized as
distinctly Ostrogothic, unless we consider the slight number of churches dedicated to the Arian Christian communities. This quite simply means that there
is no way to speak about specifically Ostrogothic cities, and that a more profitable discussion must focus on the nature of Italian cities during the period
of Ostrogothic rule. As is well known, this period spans little less than half a
century, that is to say from Theoderics defeat of Odovacer in 493 to the first
years of the Gothic War between the Byzantines and the Ostrogoths. This war
began in 535 and officially ended in 554, but in relation to this topic this chapter will consider 540 as the final date, which corresponds to the moment when
Belisarius army conquered Ravenna and ended the regular functioning of the
administrative system of the Ostrogothic kingdom as it had worked during
the previous decades.1
It would be a mischaracterization of the period to underestimate the scale
of the Gothic governments interest in cities. The main written source for
this period, the so-called Variae collected by Casssiodorus, provide us with
a great deal of information about the attention that King Theoderic and his
immediate successors lavished on the cities located within the boundaries of
their kingdom.2 Italy was presumably the most densely and uniformly urbanized territory of the former Roman Empire. The density of its urban network
was perhaps matched only by that existing in some provinces of the eastern
Mediterranean such as Syria and Palestine, since even in Anatolia and Egypt
there were vast, scarcely populated areas with few or no cities at all.
* I wish to express my deep gratitude to Shane Bjornlie for his extensive revision of my text.
1 Tate, Giustiniano, pp. 683717.
2 Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis; Tabata, Citt dellItalia.
Ostrogothic Cities
99
When the Ostrogoths entered the Italian peninsula, most of the towns that
had flourished in classical times were still alive, although few of them could
show much of their past splendour. Cities were expensive projects. Their development and maintenance had been possible in the number and size we find
in Italy primarily because cities enjoyed a long-standing privileged condition
created by the dominant political status that Rome had established for Italian
regions since Augustus. Low taxation, an abundant flow of spoils from military
campaigns, and the possibility of selling Italian products at very favourable
prices were factors that lasted for more than two centuries. These factors gave
nearly all urban communities in Italy (and particularly their most prominent
citizens) the opportunity to reinvest wealth in ambitious building programmes
that would be visible in both public and private spaces.3
As is well known, things began to change during the 3rd century due to several concomitant factors. Military expansion ceased and so ended the flow of
war booty; Italy slowly began to lose its political primacy to provincial territories; and eventually the pressure of barbarians on the borders of the empire
diverted more and more resources towards the needs of the army and the
bureaucracy that supported it. One of the consequences of all this was that
local communities faced reduced budgets due to the growing fiscal pressures.
In turn the exactions of the central government progressively eroded the discretionary monies that had previously been available to city councils. To be a
local magistrate gradually became a heavy burden, reducing the former prestige derived from the possibility of investing locally collected resources in the
kind of public works that benefited urban populations and made them proud
to be part of an affluent community. The disappearance of inscriptions commemorating public works sponsored by local magistrates in the course of the
3rd century speaks to this change more than anything. For the same reasons,
imperial patronage of public buildings also diminished. Perhaps the fact that
emperors, in general, no longer came from Italian families contributed to a disinclination to invest in the improvement of the cities of Italy. The preference of
emperors for their natal origins is shown, for example, in the case of buildings
erected by Septimius Severus in the towns of Libya.4
By the end of the 3rd century some Italian cities bore evident marks of
material decay, due not just to the lack of newly constructed buildings, but
more to growing difficulties in the maintenance of existing ones. The radical
reforms of the Roman state enacted by Diocletian and Constantine between
the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th became entrenched as
3 Marazzi, Cadavera urbium, pp. 3366.
4 Baratte, Tunisia e Libia.
100
Marazzi
the new state of affairs in late antique cities. Local curiae remained responsible
for tax collection in their territories, while the central government determined
the fiscal assessment for which each city was annually responsible. At the same
time the administrative subdivision of imperial territories, which included
transforming the old regiones of the Italian peninsula into provinces, almost
automatically selected which cities would receive the primary attention of the
central government and which would be capable of making substantial investments in public works.5 Cities that hosted imperial residences, the seats of
praetorian prefects and their deputies, and eventually the chief towns of each
province would become the only places (together with Rome) that remained
the focus of imperial attention and could hope for subventions for the maintenance of buildings and public spaces. The other cities and their councils
could basically rely only on the good will of locals (potentes and patroni) who
had enough influence with the central government to act as representatives of
local communities for the purpose of securing tax reductions or funds assigned
to specific projects, such as the restoration of damaged or decayed buildings
and spaces. These people usually had held high-ranking offices in the imperial
administration and were tied to a given town either as native citizens or as
new landowners with economic interests in a towns territory, and who would
be personally inclined to advocate on behalf of the local community.6 Various
Italian cities have yielded statues, inscribed statue bases or inscriptions celebrating these benefactors who in Late Antiquity (as opposed to earlier periods)
did not derive from the ranks of the local curia. Sometimes these potentes can
be identified with provincial governors who occasionally assisted cities within
their competence, often following some serious natural disaster such as a flood
or earthquake, in order to restore a public building, road or bridge.7 It should
also be added that a number of Italian cities during the 3rd century, although
mostly limited to the northern part of the peninsula, looked to their defence
by erecting walls that enclosed some portion of their built areas. This, too,
affected both the availability of resources previously allocated to the maintenance of civil infrastructure and the survival of buildings left outside the walls.
During the 5th century things began to deteriorate seriously owing to growing political instability in the western empire, the direct impact of barbarian
military expeditions, and the economic crisis caused by the progressive loss
5 Cecconi, La citt e limpero, pp. 35458 and 3656.
6 Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall, 10436.
7 Complete references to these types of artifacts found in Italy can be obtained by browsing
through the database provided by the Last Statues of Antiquity project, created by the
University of Oxford (http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/).
Ostrogothic Cities
101
of the provinces (and their respective tax revenues). This last factor became
particularly evident when Africa was lost to the Vandals in the years after 430.8
Archaeological evidence indicates the widespread decay of urban infrastructure for this period.9 It is also important that much of the surviving resources
available to wealthy benefactors was either diverted to the embellishment of
lavish private houses or invested in a new kind of public patronage: the construction of Christian churches. The church itself became a new and important player within the urban environment, investing its money not simply in
the provision of spaces for worship, but also in the creation of residences for
bishops and clergy and of a number of subsidiary buildings such as the hospitals, guest houses and cellars deemed necessary for the display of the charitable activities that benefited the urban population.10
All this suggests that two different kinds of problems impacted Italian cities
during Late Antiquity: first, deep changes in the administrative structure of the
empire, and second, the economic conditions of the western provinces, which
became particularly severe in the course of the 5th century. When considering
the conditions of late antique Italian cities, it becomes necessary to consider
both the transformation of the cultural and institutional setting of Italy and
the economic changes to the finances of the state that affected the whole of
Italian society.11 Notwithstanding a general picture of decline, growth in the
number of episcopal sees in Italy during the 5th century demonstrates that
towns were neither dead nor deserted by their populations. In fact the very role
of the bishop was predicated on the needs of the urban community. The prominent social role obtained by the church from the late 4th and during the 5th
century captured many of the private resources still available for investment in
urban settings. In addition, the material decline of towns could still elicit direct
response from the imperial government in the form of a wide number of measures taken in order to protect derelict public buildings from improper use.12
Imperial authority sought to preserve not only pagan temples, whose function
as places of worship had been banned since the end of the 4th century, but
also public buildings and spaces that were considered potentially exposed to
8 Ward-Perkins, Fall of Rome, pp. 3362.
9 Brogiolo/Possenti, Let gota in Italia settentrionale, pp. 25796; Brogiolo, Le origini della
citt medievale, pp. 3376.
10 Baldini Lippolis, Larchitettura residenziale, pp. 10234; Marano, Domus in qua manebat
episcopus, pp. 97130.
11 Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall, pp. 36999.
12 Janvier, La legislation du Bas-Empire Romain; Heijmans, La place des monuments publics, pp. 2541.
102
Marazzi
spoliation or squatting. The laws issued to this effect represent the largest legislative corpus dealing with the protection of historical heritage before the modern era. Much of this legislation concerned Rome, but some also applied to the
urban fabric more generally. One may dispute whether these measures had
any real effect in preventing the reappropriation of old and derelict buildings
and spaces or whether they simply exposed the impotence of state authorities
to even slow these processes. Whatever the interpretation, extant laws attest
that enough building projects occurred in Italian cities during the 5th century
to justify dangerous and laborious activities such as dismantling edifices and
transporting harvested materials. Seen from another point of view, these are
also signs that cityscapes were subject to dramatic changes that affected much
of what had survived from the past.

Italian Cities from the Perspective of the Ostrogothic Government
This is the situation that Theoderic encountered upon reaching Italy in 491.
Nevertheless, it is evident that Theoderic recognized cities as the backbone
of an administrative system in which cities and their populations helped to
control a wider landscape of territories. As it has been recently pointed out,
the Variae of Cassiodorus include some forty cities among the addressees
of the letters sent by central offices in Ravenna.13 In most of these letters, the
king or his officials addressed themselves to particular individuals or groups of
people who appear as privileged representatives of the local population. These
fall into four main categories: curiales, possessores, honorati, and defensores.
This picture corresponds more or less to the period that precedes the arrival
of the Ostrogoths. Cities had local magistrates, who sat in the curia and were
responsible for administration and, more importantly, for tax collection on
behalf of the central government. They were appointed to do so by virtue of
having enough wealth and reputation to ensure that their obligations would
be properly fulfilled. This meant that they were usually possessores, but not
all possessores were necessarily enrolled in the curia. The honorati were also
local notables, but these were exempt from curial obligations because they had
held posts of some importance in the central administration or because they
had been personally granted this privilege by the king (apparently along with
honorary senatorial rank). Curiales and honorati do not necessarily comprise
two distinct groups. The honorati were at times former members of the curia
and the title may be used synonymously for curiales. Although not directly
13 Tabata, Citt dellItalia, pp. 435.
Ostrogothic Cities
103
involved in the management of city affairs, the honorati were nonetheless

influential. Needless to say, there was considerable overlap between honorati,
curiales, and possessores. More importantly, the Ostrogothic state followed
previous imperial administrative behaviours by governing not only through
these three classes, but also through other actors capable of reinforcing personal ties between the central government and local community.14 Bishops
had played this role during the later empire and clearly continued to do so
under Ostrogothic rule, but this administrative picture of Italian cities would
be incomplete without mention of two other offices, one of which originated
in the late empire, the other an innovation of Theoderic himself. The first, the
defensor civitatis, was chosen by the consensus of the curiales, possessores, and
honorati, although this appointment also required the approval of the praetorian prefect. The functions of the defensor were primarily judicial, but he was
also involved in the crucial supervision of the gesta municipalia, the register
where all business concerning rights over landed properties were recorded,
thus where the tax rolls and lists of taxpayers were maintained. Second,
the comes civitatis was a Gothic officer appointed directly by the king who
held the military command over the city, and when a Gothic population was
present, acted as a judge in legal cases involving Goths.15 In southern Italy
(especially Sicily), which lacked settlements of Ostrogoths, the comes had
responsibility over the military command of the entire province.16 The roles of
both the defensor and the comes reflect the tendency towards a closer control
of local communities by central power.
This quick overview illustrates the fact that the arrival of the Ostrogoths did
not produce dramatic changes in the criteria that had generated the culture
of town administration in the late empire. Quite the opposite; the peaceful
conditions that Italy enjoyed during the decades of Theoderics rule helped
to consolidate the system. The only real innovation was the appointment in
some cities of a Gothic military commander, although even this has a potential
parallel in the late imperial military administration of frontier provinces. On
the other hand, it has been demonstrated recently and conclusively that the
accommodation of the Ostrogoths on Italian territory consisted of the transfer
of actual land (and not simply of tax revenues) whose portions were drawn
from the properties of Roman owners (or confiscated from former supporters
of Odovacer) where Goths settled within the territorial boundaries of urban
14 Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municipaux, pp. 1815; Cecconi, La citt e limpero.
15 Porena, Linsediamento degli Ostrogoti, pp. 3957; Tabata, Citt dellItalia, pp. 7195.
16 Porena, Linsediamento degli Ostrogoti, pp. 107111.
104
Marazzi
centres.17 This implies once again that Theoderic depended heavily upon the
regular functioning of city councils, which (under the supervision of the praetorian praefectura) determined the success of the whole system that had integrated the Goths within a city-based framework.
Nevertheless, the practical approach taken by Theoderic to maintain the
city-based administrative system inherited from the empire relied on a firm
ideological foundation. Within a strongly centralized system, cities were both
the most expedient and the most efficient mechanism for solidifying the unity
of the Ostrogothic kingdom. But for Theoderic, cities also represented the ideal
context in which to engineer confraternity between Romans and Goths. It was
in cities that the newcomers could display their skills in preserving the prestigious traditions of the Roman Empire, thereby demonstrating their mastery
of those traditions and legitimizing the place in history they had claimed by
installing themselves at the heart of the former empire. From this perspective, cities were the stage where the king performed the role of the restorer
of the decus (beauty) and decor (dignity) of civilized life. Cassiodorus Variae
and a number of inscriptions bear witness to the display of the kings personal
munificence towards urban spaces and also to his sollicitudo (care) that every
urban community should acknowledge its obligation to contribute to the same
goal. A recent and detailed survey of the Variae made by Valrie FauvinetRanson offers a full picture of the vast range of matters Theoderic dealt with
concerning construction, reconstruction, conservation, appropriate use, and
management of buildings, walls, roads, and other kinds of public spaces within
cities.18 What appears particularly remarkable is that Goths were involved in
this task as well as Romans. For instance, between 506 and 511 a letter sent
to all Goths and Romans required that they collect from their fields all the
stones that could be considered useful for the repair of city walls (Variae 1.28).
From approximately the same period the Gothic count Suna was ordered to
ascertain the provenance of marble blocks destined for the repair of city walls
(Variae 2.7), while another letter required the vir spectabilis Tancila to locate a
statue stolen in the city of Como (Variae 2.35).
Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand how and where the Ostrogoths
settled within the cities. No reference to this is given in written sources, nor
does archaeological evidence provide useful positive information.19 The closest available data are found in the Formula comitivae Gothorum per singulas
17 Porena, Linsediamento degli Ostrogoti. See Halsall in this volume for a more detailed discussion of the debate over the terms of accommodation.
18 Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, pp. 47195 and 30377.
Ostrogothic Cities
105
civitates (Formula regarding the appointment of the count of the Goths in

each city, Variae 7.3) and some passages of the so-called Laus Liberii (Variae
2.16), which reports the praise given by Theoderic when, around 510, he celebrated the great work of the patrician Liberius to ensure the peaceful settlement of the Goths following their arrival in Italy.20 In short, both texts make
evident the fact that Romans and Goths lived side by side in towns. A potential
source of problems, it was expected that mutual respect and respect for civilitas would mediate trouble. This attitude, evident in the Laus Liberii, was an
essential piece of political ideology that celebrated the force of law and the
interdependence of both peoples. The Variae acknowledge the judicial controversies that could arise between Goths and Romans (both with respect to
property rights and various crimes committed between the two peoples) and in
each circumstance, cities were the stage where legal disputes would have been
resolved. It bears emphasizing that the city was the place where the two peoples
would have met and where terms of cohabitation would have been forged.

Programme versus Propaganda in the Cities of Ostrogothic Italy
But what kind of framework would cities actually have provided for the kings
plans? Reuse of buildings and materials, displacement of building materials
from one place to another, concessions to individuals for the use of buildings
and spaces contrary to their traditional purposes, and the commencement
of the restoration of existing buildings: these are topics treated by the Variae
concerning the material condition of cities. It is apparent that the emphasis
placed on urban dignity had to do mainly with the preservation and adaptation of existing fabric. The preservation and, where necessary, the restoration
of the antique dignitas of urban fabric was in fact a key element of the governmental ideology disseminated by central authority to its officials throughout
the kingdom.21
From this point of view, Theoderic acted exactly in the same way the Roman
imperial government had done in the previous century. In an interesting essay
written some twenty years ago, Cristina La Rocca asked whether the texts referring to the public works of the Gothic government had been realized in actual
projects, and more precisely, in an actual renewal of Italian cities.22 She eventually came to the conclusion that most of what the sources report should be
20 Porena, Linsediamento degli Ostrogoti, 1733.
21 Bjornlie, Politics and Tradition, pp. 22730 and 24048.
22 La Rocca, Una prudente maschera antiqua, pp. 451515.
106
Marazzi
interpreted as well-orchestrated propaganda, the aim of which was to show

that the king was in fact capable of acting exactly as his predecessors had in
order to keep cities alive and functioning. Nonetheless, the propaganda should
not be interpreted as an actual campaign of urban revitalization. Rather, the
effort seems oriented toward restoring dignity to the role of cities and their
structures by repairing the damages inflicted to them by time and lack of maintenance. The intent was to transform into antique and venerable what had
become old and decaying. From this perspective, antique became paradoxically synonymous with modern, since antiquity was a timeless value for which
any sensible government should take care. La Roccas reading of Theoderics
urban policy is essentially correct. The Indian summer of Theodrics reign
could not have addressed anything more substantial than a careful selection
of projects that would preserve existing fabric. The limited financial resources
available for such undertakings simply could not accommodate directing
attention to the immense architectural patrimony which virtually every Italian
city had inherited from the height of the empire.
Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to underestimate the importance of
what Theoderic did accomplish in the urban setting. Initiatives to safeguard
urban decor not only characterized the reign of Theoderic, but also continued
after his death. The Variae keep account of this until the years when Justinian
declared war against the Ostrogoths. Although certainly influenced by Roman
officials, such as Liberius and Cassiodorus, who played prominent roles in the
kingdoms administration, the urban programme under discussion had to be
shared by Theoderic in order to account for the prominence that it receives
in the sources. Based on the diversity of projects described, it seems clear that
towns still functioned as the vital organs in a body politic that emulated the
classical urban lifestyle. Hence, the Variae attest measures for the upkeep of
walls, sewers, theatres, baths, statues, and aqueducts. Given the common practice of reusing derelict urban structures in the period more generally, it should
come as little surprise that the Variae describe cases that grant individuals the
right to occupy, readapt and even dismantle buildings no longer considered
practicable for public purposes. In other words, the measured pragmatism and
flexibility of this urban programme is more interesting than the ideological
framework upon which it was based. As should be expected, Rome received
the most prominent attention. Since the first years of the 6th century up to the
end of Theoderics reign, a number of measures were taken to provide funding for Romes maintenance and to keep active a number of offices to provide
for that maintenance.23 However, by the time of the Gothic War, Cassiodorus
23 Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, pp. 22755.
Ostrogothic Cities
107
(then in charge of the praetorian prefecture) described the limits of the urban
programme with a candour scarcely seen elsewhere. Cassiodorus admits that
Romes vast size and the grandeur of its buildings resembled oversized garments worn on a body that had become emaciated (Variae 11.39). It had to be
admitted, in his words, that much of the inherited legacy of monuments and
edifices was no longer necessary to actual city life.
Cassiodorus thoughts appear to mark a sharp contrast in comparison to
efforts made toward the upkeep of cities. But upon consideration the contrast
is not as contradictory as it may seem. Cassiodorus, coming to terms with reality, did not deprive the endeavours undertaken under Theoderic of the value
of their intentions. Urban civilization had to be kept alive despite the problems
posed by contemporary conditions, and propaganda had a real function in this
contextnot as a mask to conceal reality, but as a statement of principles that
would guide officials in undertaking efforts to reclaim something of the classical urban culture.
Just a small percentage of Italian towns is mentioned in the corpus of official letters collected in the Variae, and such a representation would prevent
definitive conclusions about actual urban conditions. The archaeological evidence by itself seems to show that the negative trend of the 5th century had
not changed. Cassiodorus indicates that the maintenance of Rome was a great
challenge for the Ostrogothic government. Much of this difficulty resulted
from the disproportion between the quantity of urban fabric surviving from
the past, the resources readily available for restoration projects, and the shortage of manpower, which made many urban projects unsustainable in the long
term. It is difficult to say (but reasonable to suspect) whether these realities
might have played a greater role in changing the strategy of Ostrogothic rule,
particularly in the 530s after Theoderics death, and when the political and
dynastic fortunes of the kingdom had been called into question.
But it is also legitimate to consider whether the centrality of towns to Italian
social life was recognized by the entire population under Ostrogothic rule.
Unfortunately, it is not known how and where exactly Goths settled. Cities
were certainly privileged loci for contacts with the Romans, but it is not possible to reconstruct how many Goths preferred urban as opposed to rural life.24
Gian Pietro Brogiolo has pointed out that some of the prominent late Roman
fortresses discovered by archaeologists on the Italian side of the Alps were still
functional during the Ostrogothic period.25 Some of them, such as Monte Barro
(situated north of Milan near the eastern end of the lake of Come), were more
25 Brogiolo, Dwellings and Settlement, pp. 11417.
108
Marazzi
than simply a military stronghold. They hosted buildings that could be used as
residences for the Gothic commander and as housing for the local garrison. It
is difficult to say whether the Gothic commander lived there permanently or
preferred a nearby town where he might have owned an urban residence. But it
is to be expected that he would have spent a good deal of time with his soldiers
and servants. Permanent residence is clearly suggested by the archaeological
evidence, which includes an extensive area protected by a walled enclosure at
the top of the mountain that was suitable for grazing pigs, cows, and horses.26
Monte Barro, although quite exceptional in its size, is not an isolated case and
it raises the question of where the Ostrogothic elite (whose primary task was
commanding the military forces of the kingdom) had established its regular
headquarters. Perhaps, rather than taking part in local city life, they might
have preferred direct contact with the capital and the kings court.
Romans and especially their elite had traditionally deep ties with city life,
but there has been a debate about the possibility that, despite official encouragement, many of its members at the beginning of the 6th century would have
preferred the countryside and the release from urban habits. Once again, the
discussion has been invigorated by a letter from Cassiodorus (Variae 8.31). In
a letter addressed in 526 or 527 to the governor of Lucania-Bruttium, King
Athalaric reprimanded the curiales and possessores who preferred to dwell
in their country estates in disregard of the cities to which they had been
assigned.27 The city, states Athalaric, is the cradle of civilization, where people
meet to peacefully settle disputes and where the traditional intellectual and
cultural life was preserved. People who lived in towns were like peaceful birds,
which flocked in order to live harmoniously, whereas those who preferred the
countryside adopted the attitude of predatory birds. The lack of interest in city
life is portrayed as a serious danger to the rest of society as a whole. Claude
Lepelley, who has provided perhaps the best commentary for this text, says
that Cassiodorus letter should be read together with an edict issued by the
royal chancery more or less in the same period (Variae 9.2).28 There the king
censures the fact that members of city councils were often the targets of abuse
from state officials, Romans, and Goths. Indeed this situation appears to have
compelled many of them to sell their properties in order to repay the debts
imposed on them by the corrupt practices of the administration of the central
government. According to Athalaric (and Cassiodorus, who wrote the text),
26 Brogiolo/Gelichi, Nuove ricerche, pp. 2231.
27 For an overview on Calabrian cities in Late Antiquity: Raimondo, Le citt dei Bruttii,
pp. 51998.
28 Lepelley, La survie de lide de cit republicaine, pp. 7184.
Ostrogothic Cities
109
the disturbance caused by illegal practices against important members of the

urban population could endanger the health of the whole body of the state.
As stressed by Lepelley, problems of this kind had been quite common since
at least the 4th century and were the effect of changes to the organization of the
fiscal levy introduced by Diocletian and Constantine. By the 6th century more
than two centuries had passed since the municipal (and fiscal) system of the
earlier empire had been replaced. The various problems caused by the implementation of the new system in the late 3rd and early 4th century had never
been completely resolved. Ostrogothic Italy used essentially the same system
and it is somewhat surprising, at least in view of the encumbrances associated
with this system, that municipal councils could be found functioning at all in
the second quarter of the 6th century. Of course, as Lepelley reminds us, city
councils were not comprised of people of equal social position and the tasks
required of them would not have been equally burdensome for each member.
Those who could count on influential ties with the central government, such
as honorati, would inevitably find ways to manage and even profit from the
obligations expected of them.29
The structural inequality among the various actors paradoxically helped
the system to survive and cope with its contradictions. But the price paid was
exactly what Cassiodorus stressed in the two letters mentioned above: cities
generally lacked the power to negotiate their relationship with central government within a flexible and open political, institutional, and fiscal framework. A tightly hierarchical and centralized state structure imposed conditions
from above, making demands mainly to meet the needs of the army and
bureaucracy, and room for negotiation was limited to individual interactions
dependent on personal prestige. With reduced local funds and little room for
collective bargaining with the central government, it is unsurprising that elites
would be hard pressed to view cities as attractive environments in which to
spend time and invest efforts and resources. More than anything, these factors
explain why municipal life declined throughout Late Antiquity, especially in
the West where general economic conditions worsened visibly from the first
half of the 5th century. But this was not enough to suppress completely the
existence of cities. Central administration relied upon cities, and effective
propaganda was necessary in order to show that, despite what one could see
in everyday life, the state went to great lengths to preserve the wellfare and
spirit of urban communities.30 As Cassiodorus recalled, cities incarnated the
very essence of civilized Roman life and to advertise programmes that could
29 Bjornlie, Law, ethnicity and taxes, pp. 1503.
30 Dubouloz, Acception et dfense, pp. 5374.
110
Marazzi
here and there sustain their dignity and role would ameliorate the realities that
Italian cities experienced in the 6th century. As La Rocca has wittily remarked,
one could say that in order to make everything change, everything had to look
as if it was all the same.31
This picture implies that, where possible, the Ostrogothic government
made (or at least claimed to have made) all possible efforts to keep the decus of
Italian cities alive. Of course the first place where the effects of this attention
would have been displayed was the seat of royal power, where the king resided.
Four letters of the Variae (1.6, 3.9, 3.10, 5.8) disclose how Theoderic had repeatedly ordered that marbles, stones, and other building materials should be
transported to Ravenna where they would have been reused for the restoration
of existing buildings or the erection of new ones. The opening sentence of letter 1.6 clarifies what Theoderic had in mind. It states that it was the obligation
of the prince to contribute to the enhancement of the State with the embellishment of its palaces, obtained through new building endeavors. In this
case, the king had ordered the prefect of Rome to send to Ravenna marmorarii
peritissimi, that is to say craftsmen specialized in the handling of marble, who
would restore a basilica dedicated to Hercules. On another occasion, the king
asks that columns and other precious stonework should be sent to the capital
from other Italian cities (including Rome) because he had become aware of
their disuse. To avoid misunderstandings, he stated that to raise new buildings
was as important as preserving old ones, for which reason modern construction should not be made through the mutilation of those already in existence
(Variae 3.9). But this stipulation could be circumvented if buildings had fallen
irrecoverably into ruin and their materials abandoned to evoke nothing but
sorrow and nostalgia for past grandeur. In such a case, it was appropriate for
the king to make all possible efforts so that forgotten beauty could be appreciated again as ancient splendour.32 The rhetoric of these letters conceals the
pursuit of a very practical purpose and, at the same time, reveals that there
was a clear awareness of the long-term decay to which many cities had been
subjected.
The upkeep of the historical heritage represented a considerable challenge.
Everything around Italian cities spoke of the past splendor of the Empires
zenith when Italy had enjoyed a privileged fiscal regime that had allowed
local communities and their most affluent members to invest resources in the
great beauty of their cities. However, the monumentality of the past eventually became an unsustainable burden. Local councils of the 6th century had
31 La Rocca, Una prudente maschera Antiqua, p. 466.
32 Dubouloz, Acception et dfense, pp. 5374.
Ostrogothic Cities
111
little or nothing to invest and their notables had little incentive to contribute
their own resources. The state could not lavish support on every city in need
of repairs and choices had to be made about which projects to privilege. In a
letter written possibly between 523 and 526 (Variae 5.9) Theoderic ordered the
possessores of Feltre (modern northern Veneto) to render their contribution
to the construction of a new city in the nearby area of Trento by building a
portion of the new citys walls with the use of the kings own treasury (domus
divina). It is interesting that the request does not address the city council of
Feltre, but the wealthier members of the local community. It is equally remarkable that the central government apparently could not afford the cost of the
whole operation and opted to distribute the expense among people who, in
addition to their civic obligations, were considered capable of lending money
and manpower. Unfortunately, it is not possible to locate the settlement that
corresponds to the new city and so it is not possible to speculate on the actual
nature and size of the new foundation. Nonetheless, this case illustrates how
cities constituted a crucial part of the political ideology of the kingdom, while
their promotion depended on a more complex range of factors than a mere
assertion of ideological principles.33
On the other hand, the evidence also makes it clear that efforts were especially made in favour of those cities such as Rome and Ravenna, whose reputation was directly linked to the kings name. Although it is difficult to assess
the effectiveness of the attention dedicated to Rome and its proportionality
to the needs of the urban populace, Ravenna was an easier environment to
manage. It was far smaller and had enjoyed the privilege of being a capital
of the (now declining) western empire for more than a century. Ravenna had
therefore been the consistent concern of emperors and their officials, albeit
33 The quote given by the 7th century anonymous author of the Cosmographia (the so-called
Anonymus Ravennate) regarding the existence of a city named Theodericopolis, presumably located in the Alpine region of Raetia, remains a mystery, since it is never mentioned
by sources contemporary with Theoderic. However, it is possible that if such a city ever
existed it might have been some kind of military outpost towards the northern frontier of
the Gothic kingdom, something similar in size (but not necessarily in terms of monumental grandiosity) to the city of Iustiniana Prima founded by Justinian in southern Serbia,
near to his birthplace. The possible foundation of a new city baptized in the name of the
king shows once again Theoderics interest in portraying himself as a typical Roman ruler,
capable of spreading civilization through the dissemination of new urban settlements.
See Saitta, La civilitas di Teodorico, p. 117; see also Arce, La fundacin de nuevas ciudades,
pp. 3162.
112
Marazzi
excepting the second half of the 5th century.34 In Ravenna it would have been
much easier for the king to transform propaganda into reality and to present
the city as a mirror to his own prestige.
Some years ago Ian Wood remarked that there is next to nothing that can
be identified as being specifically Gothic in the architecture and architectural
decoration of Theoderics Ravenna.35 The single reasonable exception is the
decorative frieze that runs around the top of the mausoleum, the ornament
of which can unquestionably be paralleled to Germanic metalwork. From
this point of view, it would seem that the scanty evidence still legible from
Theoderics building activity in Ravenna describes a mimesis with both his
predecessors on the western imperial throne and with his contemporaries
holding power in Constantinople. The complex of the Arian cathedral and its
baptistery must have looked very similar to that of the Orthodox community,
both in terms of its architecture and its iconography. Even more interesting is
what can be said about the original iconography of the palace church dedicated to Jesus Christ (dedicated to Saint Martin after the fall of the Ostrogoths
and then renamed SantApollinare Nuovo in the early Middle Ages). The building suggests a careful imitation of previous examples of imperial patronage
found in Ravenna (mainly the churches of the Holy Cross and of San Giovanni
Evangelista built by Galla Placidia and her son Valentinian III), with emphasis
on the relationship between the ruler and the celestial powers and on the rulers
role as acting intermediary between heaven and earth.36 The use of sculpted
materials ordered from Constantinople for its decoration testifies to the blending of old imperial western iconography with a studied interest in the architectural tastes displayed in what was the contemporary solium imperii. With
this in mind, it should be remembered that the construction of the church of
San Vitale (and likewise the famous mosaic panels portraying Justinian and
Theodora), typically associated with the decades after the Byzantine recovery
of Italy, in fact commenced under bishops Ecclesius and Victor between the
third and the fourth decade of the 6th century.37
In other words, it can be assumed without fear of straying too far from reality that Ravenna served not as the capital of barbarians, but rather the site
where an Ostrogothic king had been able to attain the supreme power, dignity,
and splendour that had once belonged to Roman emperors. Whether or not
34 Gelichi, Ravenna, ascesa e declino, pp. 10934; Augenti, Palatia; Cirelli, Ravenna, pp.
51140; David, La basilica di Santa Croce.
35 Wood, Theoderics Monuments, p. 250.
36 Wood, Theoderics Monuments, pp. 25560.
37 Cirelli, Ravenna, pp. 98100.
Ostrogothic Cities
113
this belief was entirely shared by Theoderics Roman contemporaries (particularly the Roman inhabitants of Ravenna) cannot be said with certainty.
Nevertheless, the king made every possible effort to impress them with a display of power that was infused with his personality, but which also communicated seamless continuity with the imperial past.

The Invisible Guest: Church and City in Ostrogothic Italy
Theoderics building programme in Ravenna indicates a distinct interest in

church building. Nonetheless, one of the most striking features of the Variae
is the absence of reference to the kings activities on behalf of church maintenance or building.38 This omission has been explained by noting the kings
cautious attitude towards religious matters. Given that he and his people were
Arian Christians, it may be that he did not wish to (or could not) act as Roman
emperors had done by favouring the Nicene church.39 In fact all churches
in Ravenna bearing some direct relationship with him pertain either to the
palatial compound or to the place prepared for his burial. The Arian cathedral
must have been supported by and associated with the king, but there is no
clear evidence for his patronage of building activities concerning the erection
of other Arian churches in Ravenna or elsewhere. On the one hand, as Thomas
Brown noted, one can also detect a clear abatement in the construction of new
Nicene churches at Ravenna during Theoderics reign.40 On the other, there
is no indication that an anti-Nicene policy had caused any hindrance to the
construction of new churches.41 Renewed interest in church building at Rome
during this period is indicated by the erection of the two churches of S Stefano
Rotondo (in the second half of the 5th century) and SS Cosmas e Damian
(under pope Felix IV in the late 520s).
It then seems that bishops and churchmen could maintain the prominent
spiritual, political, and economic position gained during the 4th and 5th centuries, thus representing one of the major players within contemporary Italian
society.42 At the dawn of the 6th century a bishop could be found in almost
every Italian city. The Italian diocesan network had become well developed
38 Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 24849.
39 Azzara, Teoderico, pp. 6773. However, see Lizzi Testa, Chapter 16, in this volume for an
alternative interpretation of Theoderics relationship with the Nicene churches.
40 Brown, Role of Arianism, pp. 42342.
41 Pietri, Aristocrazie e clero, pp. 287310.
42 Otranto, Civitates propriis, pp. 3343.
114
Marazzi
between the late 4th and the first half of the 5th century.43 Giorgio Otranto
has calculated that by 450 some 250 episcopal bishoprics were active, with a
remarkable disproportion between the Italia Suburbicaria (centralsouthern
Italy), which contained about 75 per cent of Italian bishoprics, and the Italia
Annonaria (the Po Valley and the Alpine region).44 It is well known that the
Italian peninsula had been more densely urbanized from earliest antiquity,
with Greek and Phoenician colonies and the rise of Etruscan urban centres
pre-dating the rise of Rome and its municipia. By contrast, nearly all towns
of northern Italy had been created by the Romans from the 2nd century BC
with Romes expansion beyond the Apennines. Since most late antique dioceses in Italy are attested only incidentally in the sources, it is impossible to say
whether Otrantos estimation can be considered representative of steady diocesan development or whether these bishoprics were only intermittently active.
The signatures of bishops from the three synods at Rome between 499
and 502, although presumably not representing the entire body of the Italian
Nicene church, provide a good indication for the territorial distribution of
episcopal sees. With some exceptions, the signatures name bishops coming
from central and southern Italy, which vary between 65 and 76 bishops for
each meeting. Not every bishopric is attested consistently, although it is possible to enumerate a total of 120 attested bishoprics. The survey of sources dating between Theoderics conquest and the end of the Gothic Wars made by
Tabata increases this figure to 171 bishoprics.45
The diffusion of bishoprics in late antique Italy clearly demonstrates that
cities had not lost their central function as administrative centres. Comparing
this picture with evidence for problems faced by cities in this period reveals
the transformation process experienced by the Italian urban network from
another perspective. It is quite apparent that every episcopal see (even the
smaller ones) was an entity dependent on a firm economic foundation. Money
was required to support the bishop and clergy, for the maintenance of churches
and other functional buildings, and for the management of all the charitable
activities in the urban setting. This distribution of church resources to four
types of expenditurebishop, clergy, buildings, and charitythe so-called
quadripartitus, is commonly attributed to Gelasius I, whose episcopacy at
Rome (49296) corresponded with the early years of Theoderics reign. In earlier years there had been much contention (mainly in Rome) about whether
43 Lizzi Testa, Chapter 17 in this volume, presents an extensive discussion of the diocesean
networks in Ostrogothic Italy.
44 Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica Cristiana, pp. 936.
Ostrogothic Cities
115
individual benefactors should have any residual rights over how properties
they had donated to the church should be used by bishops and other churchmen. Regulations issued by Gelasius have been considered a response to
donors ability to interfere with church administration through the arrogation
into the bishops hands of the ultimate power to decide, by a clear set of rules,
how to use available resources. The protracted and violent conflicts between
Gelasius successor Symmachus and his opponent Lawrence were caused by
the wish of a powerful faction within the Senate of Rome to reverse Gelasius
policy and to establish at Rome a bishop who would prove more receptive to
the influence of Roman aristocrats over the administration of the sizeable
patrimony that the see of Rome had accumulated over nearly two centuries
since Constantine began favouring Christianity.46 Struggles between the supporters of the two candidates, and the attendant disruption caused in Rome,
occasioned the only instance in which Theoderic intervened in affairs of the
Nicene church. Theoderic mediated between the two factions, attempting to
ameliorate heated passions, although it is interesting that at some stage he
sided with the Laurentian faction, which claimed Symmachus had squandered
episcopal finances. Symmachus apparently favoured the Gelasian method for
administrating church patrimonies. The schism indicates that the matter of
church finances could not be left entirely in the bishops hands and that those
like the members of the Roman aristocracy who had acted as benefactors to
the church, should not have been deprived of an active role in the management of their donations. The church was clearly the focus of political contention because of its finances, and at Rome the conflict was particularly heated
because it was the wealthiest of the Italian bishoprics.
However, a provincial Italian city like Canosa (Canusium, the main centre of
late antique Apulia), reveals more or less the same picture. In the later years
of Ostrogothic rule its bishop Sabinus (perhaps since 514, but certainly from
531 to 552) acted not only as the most prominent local political figure, but also
as the most dynamic patron of city decor and invested conspicuous amounts
of money in the renewal of Canosas urban landscape.47 Of course he interpreted his role from a particularly Christian perspective and, as demonstrated
by recent archaeological investigation, his efforts focused on the construction
of new churches and a number of non-ritual buildings directly connected with
46 Cessi, Lo scisma laurenziano, pp. 1229; Pietri, Le Snat, le peuple chrtien, pp. 12240;
Pietri, Aristocratie et socit clricale, pp. 41767; Marazzi, I Patrimonia, pp. 4778.
47 Volpe, Architecture, pp. 13168; Volpe, Venerabilis vir restaurator, pp. 2352.
116
Marazzi
them.48 Nevertheless, it is impressive how quickly he brought to completion the

works he had planned, including an extremely elaborate construction, the tetraconch church of San Leuciothe architecture of which finds parallels in
a number of similar buildings in the eastern Mediterranean (between Syria,
Greece, and Macedonia) and is comparable to the Milanese church of Saint
Lawrence built at the end of the 4th century under imperial patronage.49
Although gifted with a charismatic personality that may have helped him gain
widespread support for his endeavours, it should be remembered that Sabinus
was still the bishop of a middling town of southern Italy, something that makes
his achievements even more remarkable.
Evidence for building programmes undertaken by local churches indicates
that despite a prolonged process of economic transformation a good deal of
resources remained that could be invested in urban environment. Of course
these resources now rested in hands quite different in social and cultural terms
from those that had contributed to the classical foundation of many Italian cities. Much had changed by the 6th century and the stage was now occupied by
actors whose influence on the urban scene depended on power derived from
sources outside the traditional dynamics of municipal institutions.
The so-called Indian summer of Theoderics reign lasted too short (the
span of barely two generations) to allow the full fruition of some aspects of
urban development outlined in these pages. It is impossible to say whether
in the long term Gothic aristocrats would have played a more active role in
urban life and whether they would have conformed to late Roman customs
in the patronage of urban buildings, spaces, and churches. As previously mentioned, there is little evidence for their interaction with cities and this could
contribute to notions that they might not have been deeply interested in urban
activities. However, it is clear that the central government actively urged local
communities to maintain and improve cities. Much of what can be read, for
example, in Cassiodorus letters can be interpreted as propaganda when compared with the archaeological record of many Italian cities at the dawn of
the 6th century. Then again, it is difficult to say what the results would have
been had the Ostrogoths had more time to consolidate their position before
the showdown with the eastern empire. What is true is that when Justinian
ordered that public buildings of Rome should be repaired and maintained in
554 with his Pragmatic Sanction (section 25) he referred to damage done not by
48 Giuliani, Modificazioni dei quadri urbani, pp. 12966; Giuliani/Leone/Volpe, Larea
sacra di San Giovanni, pp. 73142.
49 Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals, pp. 12948; DAlessio/Gallocchio/Manganelli/
Pensabene, La basilica di San Leucio, pp. 67785.
Ostrogothic Cities
117
the neglect of the Goths, but by the consequences of the war he had unleashed
over Italy.50 Whatever the results of the attention given to cities in Italy by
Theoederic and his successors, they had surely been obliterated by an incarnation of the same empire whose traditions and example the king had held so
high during his reign.
Bibliography

Arce, J., La fundacin de nuevas ciudades en el Imperio romano tardo: de Diocleciano

a Justiniano (s. IVVI), in G. Ripoll/J.M. Gurt (eds.), Sedes regiae (ann. 400800),
Barcelona 2000, pp. 3162.
Augenti, A. (ed.), Palatia. Palazzi imperiali tra Ravenna e Bisanzio, Ferrara 2002.
Azzara, C., Teoderico. Storia e mito di un re barbaro, Bologna 2013.
Baldini Lippolis, I., Larchitettura residenziale nelle citt tardoantiche, Roma 2005.
Baratte, J.F., Tunisia e Libia. LAfrica settentrionale in epoca romana, Milano 2014 (originally published in German as Die Rmer in Tunisia und Lybia. Nordafrika in
Rmischer Zeit, Mainz 2012).
Bjornlie, S., Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople. A Study
, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: A Case for Continuity,
Brogiolo, G.P./Gelichi, S., Nuove ricerche sui castelli altomedievali in Italia settentrionale,
Firenze 1996.
Brogiolo, G.P./Possenti, E., Let gota in Italia settentrionale, nella transizione tra tarda
antichit e alto medioevo, in P. Delogu (ed.), Le invasioni barbariche nel meridione
dellimpero: Visigoti, Vandali, Ostrogoti, Soveria Mannelli 2001, pp. 25796.
Brogiolo, G.P., Dwellings and Settlement in Gothic Italy, in S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi
(eds.), The Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century. An Ethnographic
Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 11342.
, Le origini della citt medievale, Mantova 2011.
Brown, T.S., The Role of Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy: The Evidence from Ravenna, in
S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the
Sixth Century. An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 42342.
Cecconi, G.A., Honorati, possessores, curiales: competenze istituzionali e gerarchie di
rango nellet tardoantica, in R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), Le trasformazioni delle lites nellet
tardoantica, Rome 2006, pp. 4164.
50 Coates-Stephens, La committenza edilizia bizantina, pp. 299316.
118
Marazzi
, La citt e limpero. Una storia del mondo romano dalle origini a Teodosio il
Grande, Rome 2009.
Cessi, R., Lo scisma laurenziano e le origini della dottrina politica della Chiesa di
Roma, Archivio della Societ Romana di Storia Patria 42 (1919), 1229.
Cirelli, E., Ravenna. Archeologia di una citt, Firenze 2008.
Coates-Stephens, R., La committenza edilizia bizantina a Roma dopo la riconquista,
in A. Augenti (ed.), Le citt italiane tra la tarda antichit e lalto medioevo, Firenze
2006, pp. 299316.
DAlessio, A./Gallocchio, E./Manganelli, L./Pensabene, P., La basilica di San Leucio a
Canosa di Puglia. Fasi edilizie, apparati musivi, necropolis, in A. Coscarella/P. De
Santis (eds.), Martiri, santi, patroni. Per unarcheologia della devozione. Atti X
Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Cristiana, Cosenza 2012, pp. 67785.
David, M. (ed.), La basilica di Santa Croce. Nuovi contributi per Ravenna tardoantica,
Ravenna 2013.
Dubouloz, J., Acception et dfense des loca publica, daprs les Variae de Cassiodore.
Un point de vue juridique sur les cits dItalie au VIe sicle, in M. Ghilardi/C.J.
Goddard/P. Porena (eds.), Les cits de lItalie tardo-antique (IVeVIe sicle).
Institutions, conomie, socit, culture et religion, Rome/Paris 2006, pp. 5374.
Fauvinet-Ranson, V., Decor civitatis, decor Italiae. Monuments, travaux publics et spectacles au VIe sicle daprs les Variae de Cassiodore, Bari 2006.
Gelichi, S., Ravenna, ascesa e declino di una capital, in G. Ripoll/J.M. Gurt (eds.), Sedes
regiae (ann. 400800), Barcelona 2000, pp. 10934.
Giuliani, R., Modificazioni dei quadri urbani e formazione di nuovi modelli di edilizia
abitativa nelle citt dellApulia tardoantica. Il contributo delle tecniche costruttive,
in G. Volpe/R. Giuliani (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti urbani in Italia Meridionale fra
tardoantico e altomedioevo, Bari 2010, pp. 12966.
Giuliani, R./Leone, D./Volpe, G., Larea sacra di San Giovanni a Canosa di Puglia dalla
tarda antichit al medioevo, in A. Coscarella/P. De Santis (eds.), Martiri, santi,
patroni. Per unarcheologia della devozione. Atti X Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia
Cristiana, Cosenza 2012, pp. 73142.
Hejimans, M., La place des monuments publics du Haut-Empire dans les villes de la
Gaule mridionale Durant lAntiquit Tardive (IVe-VIe sicles), Gallia 63 (2006),
2541.
Janvier, Y., La legislation du Bas-Empire Romain sur les edifices publics, Aix-en-Provence
1969.
Krautheimer, R., Tre capitali cristiane. Topografia e politica, Torino 1987 (originally published in English as Three Christian Capitals. Topography and Politics, Berkeley/Los
Angeles/ London 1983).
La Rocca, C., Una prudente maschera antiqua. La politica edilizia di Teoderico, in
Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia, Spoleto 1993, pp. 451515.
Ostrogothic Cities
119
Laniado, A., Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans lEmpire protobyzantin,
Paris 2002.
Lepelley, C., La survie de lide de cit republicaine en Italie au dbut du VIe sicle,
dans un dit dAthalaric rdig par Cassiodore (Variae, IX, 2), in C. Lepelley (ed.),
La fin de la cit antique et le dbut de la cit mdivale. De la fin du IIIe sicle
lavenement de Charlemagne, Bari 1996, pp. 7184.
Marano, Y.A., Domus in qua manebat episcopus: Episcopal Residences in Northern
Italy during Late Antiquity (4th to 6th centuries AD), in L. Lavan/L. zgenel/
A. Sarantis (eds.), Housing in Late Antiquity. From Palaces to Shops, Leiden 2007,
pp. 97130.
Marazzi, F., I Patrimonia Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae nel Lazio (secoli IVX). Struttura
amministrativa e prassi gestionali, Rome 1998.
, Cadavera urbium, nuove capitali e Roma Aeterna: lidentit urbana in Italia
fra crisi, rinascita e propaganda (secoli IIIV), in J.U. Krause/C. Witschel (eds.), Die
Stadt in der Sptantike: Niedergang oder Wandel?, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 3366.
Otranto, G., Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica cristiana, Bari 2009.
, Civitates propriis destitutae rectoribus: citt, giurisdizione e territorio diocesano nel V secolo, in G. Volpe/R. Giuliani (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti urbani in
Italia Meridionale fra tardoantico e altomedioevo, Bari 2010, pp. 3343.
Pietri, C., Le Snat, le peuple chrtien et les partis du cirque Rome sous le pape
Symmaque (498514), Mlanges dArchologie et dHistoire 78 (1966), 12240.
, Aristocratie et socit clricale dans lItalie chrtienne au temps dOdoacre
et de Thodoric, Mlanges de lcole Franaise de Rome, Antiquit 93.1 (1981),
41767.
, Aristocrazia e clero al tempo di Odoacre e di Teoderico, in A. Carile (ed.),
Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dallet bizantina allet ottoniana. Territorio, economia e
societ, Venezia 1991, pp. 287310.
Porena, P., Linsediamento degli Ostrogoti in Italia, Roma 2012.
Raimondo, C., Le citt dei Bruttii fra tarda Antichit e Altomedioevo: nuove osservazioni sulla base delle fonti archeologiche, in A. Augenti (ed.), Le citt italiane tra
la tarda antichit e lalto medioevo, Firenze 2006, pp. 51998.
Saitta, B., La civilitas di Teodorico. Rigore amministrativo, tolleranza religiosa e recupero dellantico nellItalia ostrogota, Rome 1993.
Tabata, K., Citt dellItalia nel VI secolo d.C., Rome 2013.
Tate, G., Giustiniano. Il tentativo di rifondazione dellImpero, Rome 2006 (originally published in French as Justinien. Lpope de lEmpire dOrient [527565], Paris 2004).
Volpe, G., Architecture and Church Power in Late Antiquity: Canosa and San Giusto
(Apulia), in L. Lavan/L. zgenel/A. Sarantis (eds.), Housing in Late Antiquity.
From Palaces to Shops, Leiden 2007, pp. 13168.
120
Marazzi
, Venerabilis vir restaurator ecclesiarum, in L. Bertoldi Lenoci (ed.), Canosa.

Ricerche storiche 2007, Martina Franca 2008, pp. 2352.
Wood, I., Theoderics Monuments in Ravenna, in S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.),
The Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century. An Ethnographic
CHAPTER 6
The Senate at Rome in Ostrogothic Italy

Christine Radtki
Introduction
Several sources report Theoderics solemn entry into the city of Rome in the
form of an adventus to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his reign in the year
500.1 The Anonymus Valesianus in particular indicates the detailed course
of this celebration.2 After having contributed to the restoration of peace
within the Roman church, Theoderic entered Rome first to visit the tomb
of Saint Peter. On his way to the city he was approached by the pope, the
entire Senate, and the Roman people. Immediately after his entry he visited
the Senate, addressed the people at a place called ad palmam, and promised
to follow the model of the previous emperors in all his deeds. Furthermore,
he distributed grain and allocated money for the renovation of the city walls.3
We know nothing about the exact procedure of the games that took place, but
the fact that Theoderic staged games says much about his concept of rulership
or, better, about his endeavour to be in dialogue with his subjects. The Roman
Senate played an important role in this strategy of communication.
By preserving the previous structure of the prefecture of Italy, Theoderic
accepted the existing Roman administration together with its still valid and
functioning political organs. Following his declaration of imitatio imperii, found
at the beginning of the Variae,4 Theoderic kept the differentiated structure of
provinces and the specialized bureaucracy needed for it.5 He did not remove
Roman institutions, nor did he completely recast them, but instead layered
Gothic institutions onto the Roman. To the Roman bureaucracy was added
the comitiva Gothorum, adapted from the military structure of the Gothic
army. The king embodied the central administration together with a set of viri
1 Ensslin, Theoderich, pp. 107ff., Wolfram, Die Goten, pp. 288ff., Vitiello, Momenti di Roma ostrogota, pp. 39ff., Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2049.
2 Anonymus Valesianus 6567, ed. Knig.
3 See also Paulus Diaconus, Historia Romana. 15.18, ed. Droysen.
5 Wolfram, Die Goten, pp. 290ff. See also the chapters in the present volume on the Ostrogothic
provinces by Arnold and the Ostrogothic administration by Bjornlie.
122
Radtki
illustres. This administration was presided over by the magister officiorum, who
exercised jurisdiction over subordinate officers and functioned as master of
ceremonies. At his side worked the quaestor sacri palatii who was in charge
of diplomatic correspondence and of issuing laws, edicts, and letters of appointment. The provincial administration presided over by the praefectus praetorio
remained without major alterations of competence.6 Because of Theoderics
wish to continue Roman tradition, the dignity and power of the oldest political
committee, the Senate, was preserved, even if in restricted fashion. According
to the Variae, Theoderic intended to involve the Senate with his decisions,
thereby presenting himself as a respectful preserver of the political and institutional order (vindex libertatis) that envisioned a participatory Senate.7
Before covering the political, economic, and cultural role of the Senate and
its members in the Ostrogothic period, a brief examination of the Senates
development in Late Antiquity and under Theoderics predecessor, Odovacer,
is provided in order to clarify who constituted the Senate and what differentiated a more general elite with senatorial status, the ordo senatorius, from
members of the Senate.

The Late Antique Senate
With regard to the Senates political position and its constitution, the developments of Late Antiquity continued a set of processes that had begun in
the early principate. Already at that time the Senate had lost a considerable
amount of power and influence to the newly installed princeps, but nonetheless kept its social prestige and its role as the central decision-making body.
Within Late Antiquity further changes occurred. Although Constantine
valued the Senate, he changed its composition in a crucial way by installing the clarissimate as a new broadened upper class involving the equestrian elite and the municipal aristocracy.8 Furthermore, he created a second
Senate in Constantinople.9 Instead of the classical hierarchy of offices, a new
6 Ausbttel, Theoderich, p. 80.
7 See e.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 1.3, 1.4, 1.12, 1.13, 1.30, 1.4244, ed. Mommsen or for more examples
Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 209f.
8 Panegyrici Latini 2(12).20.1, ed. Mller-Rettig.
9 There is considerable scholarship on this aspect, but given this chapters focus on the
6th century, the references here are limited to general introductions on the Senate under
Constantine, such as Heather, New Men and Senators and Senates.
123
distribution was implemented with the ranks of clarissimus, spectabilis, and

illustris. From the year 440 onwards, only the highest rank, viri illustres,10 sat in
the curia and were entitled to vote.11 Traditionally, the majority of the senators
received their rank through inheritance. Since the time of the principate, sons,
grandsons, and great-grandsons in the male line had been counted within the
ordo senatorius by birth. Over the course of Late Antiquity, this political and
social elite turned into an ever more closed circle that no longer included the
real policy-makers such as the Germanic rulers who were involved in Roman
affairs throughout the 4th and 5th centuries. This development led to the further deflation of the Senates political power. Changes in the numbers of active
Senate members also impacted its position. While the number of active senators at Rome had increased significantly (perhaps to as many as 2000) under
Constantine,12 it had decreased substantially by the Ostrogothic period to 110
active members.13 Additionally, because of the city of Romes diminished role
as an imperial capital, the Senate lost its former position as an imperial institution and gradually transformed into a municipal council under the control of
the praefectus urbi.14
It is hard to define precisely the Senates role in politics and administration in Late Antiquity. In addition to managing basic administrative needs
at Rome, the Senate could be used to disseminate laws (leges generales). The
senatus consulta were still valid, but needed the emperors confirmation to
be implemented. Thus the Senate could not act as an independent legislative
10 See below for which offices would lead to the status of vir illustris.
11 For a broad overview of the late antique Senate and its composition see Jones, Later
Roman Empire, pp. 32933 and 52362.
12 Whether or not it increased its number up to 2000 members is questionable, as it is based
on a speech given by Themistius half a century later. See Themistius, Orationes 14.13,
ed. Schenkl/Downey/Norman; Chastagnol, Snat Romain, p. 45, who considers this number to be correct. For further details see Nf, Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein, p. 14.
13 Demandt, Sptantike, p. 256. For all of the following prosopographic data see Sundwall,
Abhandlungen, pp. 84ff., Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 9ff. and Martindale,
Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE).
14 Kierdorf, Senatus, p. 404. For the special position of the city of Rome with regard to its
administration, presided over by the praefectus urbi, see Demandt, Sptantike, pp. 349f.
This diminished role of Rome as a capital becomes evident if the overall development
from the early principate into Late Antiquity is taken into consideration, even though
Gillett demonstrates that a number of 5th-century emperors ruled from Rome on a permanent and semi-permanent basis. See Gillett, Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western
Emperors, passim and Bulgarella, Il senato, p. 125.
124
Radtki
body,15 and it was rarely called upon to debate important political issues (and
in those rare cases it was its moral support that was sought).16 The late antique
Senate gathered on twenty-five days per year with fifty members required as
the minimum for a quorum. We do not know much about the content of their
meetings, but we possess the verbatim record of the proceedings in the Senate
when the Theodosian Code was promulgated as a body of law in 438, indicating a detailed procedure of acclamations after the senatorial discussion and
decision-making.17 In the year 446 the Senate was officially given permission
by Theodosius II and Valentinian III to participate in legislative activity, but
it is not certain whether this was simply a token gesture.18 Compared to its
previous role as a constitutional body, the late antique Senates political power
was very limited. However, because of its role in the history of the early Roman
republic, the Senate remained an institution that conferred the dignity of tradition and a degree of legitimacy to the state.19 New emperors could exploit
this legitimating role during episodes of a succession crisis. As a consequence,
although the western Roman Senate lacked actual power, it retained considerable political importance during various crises of the 5th century. For the
western Roman emperors after Valentinian III, the Senate became a source of
stability and, next to the army and the eastern Roman emperor, remained an
important legitimating instrument. Magistri militum like Stilicho, Aetius, and
Ricimer were well aware of this and therefore strove for cooperation with the
Senate, and individual actions by certain emperors/magistri militum are known
that strengthened the Senates position (e.g. Maiorian withdrew the control
over construction work from the praefectus urbi to give it to the Senate).20
In addition to that, a number of 5th-century emperors were even drawn from
the Roman Senate, e.g. Attalus, Maximus, and Olybrius.21
As John Matthews fittingly observed, viewing the Roman Senate of the
time of Odovacer and Theoderic, one might have been forgiven for m
istaking
15 Henning, Periclitans, p. 271. For a general overview of the western Roman Senates
development in Late Antiquity see Henning, Periclitans, pp. 271ff., Nf, Senatorisches
Standesbewusstsein, and Chastagnol, Snat Romain.
16 Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 329.
17 Codex Theodosianus (cited hereafter as CTh), Gesta Senatus. For a detailed description of
this record see Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 330f. and Demandt, Sptantike, p. 255.
18 Codex Justinianus (hereafter CJ) 1.14.8.
19 Otherwise there would be no explanation for Constantine also establishing a Senate in
his new capital. See Henning, Periclitans, p. 271 and Matthews, Western Aristocracies.
20 Nov. Maiorian 4 (458); Henning, Periclitans, p. 273.
21 This is an observation corresponding to the growing significance of the Senate within
the context of a contracting imperial court newly relocated to Italy, see Gillett, Rome,
Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors, pp. 148ff.
125
it for the Senate of the late Republic, as a few great families dominated the
public life of the city.22 It was the members of the old senatorial families
who formed the senatorial elitea relatively exclusive pool of people open
to few new members. In the absence of an emperor the Roman elite of Italy
were apt hands at putting themselves in the limelight of imperial power, and
saw themselves, in spite (or indeed because) of the absence of an emperor,
as the centrepiece of the imperium romanum.23 One of the most numerous,
prosperous, and socially outstanding families was the Decii, a noble family
tracing its origins back to republican times. Its members were, with few exceptions, courted with consulships at very early stages of their careers.24 Another
very influential family, with a number of important branches, were the Anicii,
probably the most prominent and well-researched family.25 Other traditional
families who still held relevance in the 5th and 6th centuries were, to mention only the most important ones, the Petronii, the Ceionii, the Lampadii,
the Symmachi, the Acilii Glabriones, and the Corvini.26 The importance of
all these families was based on the possession of huge estates. The research
done on those families has often emphasized the open rivalries between the
different gentes. As Alan Cameron has shown, though, certain rivalries had
more to do with particular individuals than with the involvement of whole
familial groups.27 It is therefore problematic to assume that the Anicii were
per se a philobarbarian and the Decii a probyzantine family, even though
a certain pattern of preferences among family members can be analysed by
examining the awarding of offices by Odovacer and Theoderic. The rivalries
that existed between the families have to be regarded not so much as ideologically motivated, but rather as a result of antagonism between established and
less-established families and between a Rome-focused aristocracy and a new
palatine elite at the Ravennatic court. The modern reconstruction of the senatorial groups and the constitution of the Roman senatorial elite after the year
476 thus show a complex situation of single interests and favours often based
22 Matthews, Boethius, p. 19.

23 In this context, consider the manner in which Boethius celebrated and staged the consulship of his two sons: Boethius, Philosophiae Consolatio 1.4, ed. Bieler; MacCormack, Latin
Prose Panegyrics, pp. 188f.
24 For examples see Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 149ff.
25 See especially Cameron, Anician myths. Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 12434.
26 Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 149ff. For figures of major families in offices of senatorial rank from the death of Theodosius I to the post-Theoderican Gothic period see
Barnish, Transformation and Survival, pp. 124ff.
27 Cameron, Anician Myths.
126
Radtki
on economic issues.28 What can be said in any case is that all aristocrats living
under Odovacer and the Ostrogothic kings collaborated with their barbarian
masters to their own profit.

The Senate under Odovacer
It is in the context of the interplay between the prestige of the senatorial elite
and the legitimization of rule in Italy that Odovacer and Theoderics behaviours must be understood. Both rulers used the senatorial elite to negotiate
the legitimacy of their respective positions with the eastern Roman emperor.
The period of Odovacers reign can be seen as a peak in the courting of the
Senate and its membersa development that had started in the years of crisis in the mid 5th century in the western half of the empire. Odovacers first
official act was to dispatch a senatorial embassy to the emperor Zeno asking
for the title patricius and for his acceptance as ruler of the prefecture of Italy.29
Odovacers unclear legal position played a crucial role because it demanded
a multilayered legitimization on the part of the domestic elites, the deposed
emperor Nepos, and the eastern Roman emperor. His first step was to seek
the support of the local elites and the senators, many of whom were willing
to represent Odovacers interests in Constantinople from the very beginning.
Following a description given by Malchus, in the year 476 a delegation made
up of senators and several of Odovacers confidants reached the imperial court
and announced that there was no need for a western emperor and that they
had chosen Odovacer as their guardian instead. They requested that Zeno
confirm their election by bestowing on Odovacer the honour of the patriciate and conferring on him the leadership of the prefecture of Italy.30 The
Senate thus functioned as a legitimate messenger for the announcement of
a usurper.31 The senatorial elite came to terms with Odovacer quite quickly
in exchange for a liberal disposition in the distribution of high administrative offices. Furthermore, Odovacer honoured the Senate and its tradition.
28 See especially Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 141ff.; Chastagnol, La prfecture urbaine, pp. 187ff.
29 For details with regard to Odovacers person and career see Henning, Periclitans,
pp. 58ff. Zeno effectively accepted Odovacer, but directed him to Nepos to gain the title;
see Malchus, FHG (Fragmente der griechischen Historiker) 4, p. 119, frag. 10 = frag. 14, ed.
Blockley. Bulgarella, Il senato, p. 126 notes: La decadenza delllmpero dOccidente
emanava, almeno formalmente, da un voto del Senato di Roma, contrario a ripristinarne
la parvenza sotto un fantoccio dimperatore.
30 Malchus, frag. 14, ed. Blockley; Henning, Periclitans, pp. 60f.
31 For the several phases of legitimization see Henning, Periclitans, pp. 60ff.
127
For example, the senatorial embassy of 476 was entitled to act autonomously,
not simply as Odovacers delegation. He also avoided emphasizing his power
too strongly when it came to his self-representation. He did not wear imperial vestments, he forewent certain imperial reminiscences within his title,
and he used a building project in Rome more to court the Senate than to promote himself.32 Odovacers official and ostentatious respect for the traditional
assembly must have granted him sympathy, of which we can possibly get a
glimpse in the Anonymus Valesianus, which describes Odovacer as praised
by nobiles.33 Additionally, he strengthened the Senates position by partially
depriving the praefectus urbi of his power. Under the emperors, the prefect of
Rome had possessed many competences and functioned as the president of
the Senate. The prefects dependency on the single emperor by whom he was
elected and for whom he functioned as a kind of point man had brought the
possessor of this office discredit. Through depriving the office of the praefectus
urbi and establishing the office of the caput senatus, to whom he gave some of
the formers competences, Odovacer supported the Senate in its wish to act
more independently. This new office was given according to the principle of
seniority to the eldest living senator and was therefore out of the emperors
reach and influence. Furthermore, Odovacer bestowed the Senate with the
right to mint coins and to lobby the church (although possibly only theoretically and as part of a royal campaign, respectively).34 Finally, he secured Sicily
from the Vandals, an island full of senatorial estates, and made it accessible
to the senators once again.35 As a consequence, with the continuation of the
western line of consulship in the year 479if not earlierthe Senate at Rome
was on Odovacers side.36

Senatorial Composition and Membership in the Ostrogothic Period
To analyse the Senates position under the reign of the Ostrogothic kings it is
necessary to define the circle of aristocrats sitting in the curia, because not all
32 Henning, Periclitans, p. 179; Chastagnol, Le Snat Romain, pp. 24ff.; Nf, Senatorisches
Standesbewusstsein, p. 195.
33 Anonymus Valesianus 48, ed. Knig; additionally see Eugippius, Vita Sancti Severini 32,
ed. Sauppe.
34 Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 253f.
35 Henning, Periclitans, pp. 178f and 274; Chastagnol, La prfecture urbaine Rome, pp. 668.
36 For a chronological analysis of the list of office holders showing distinct phases in
Odovacers relationship with aristocratic families see Henning, Periclitans, pp. 178f. and
Sundwall, Abhandlungen, pp. 180ff.
128
Radtki
members of the senatorial elite would automatically have earned the right to
speak within the assembly. In fact, as in the East, only men with the rank of
illustris had a seat and a voice in the Senate.37 Clarissimi and spectabiles were
excluded from this privilege, although they might have been allowed to attend
the meetings within the curia as mere listeners.38 In general, holding the highest public offices granted the rank of illustris. Designation as consul, patricius,
praefectus praetorio, praefectus urbis Romae, quaestor sacri palatii, magister
officiorum, comitiva sacrarum largitionum, the comitiva rerum privatarum, and
the comitiva patrimonii provided this rank. In addition, the king could elevate
a candidate per codicillum vacans into the rank of a former consul, prefect,
or quaestor, so that he might gain the title of vir illustris and the right to vote
in the Senate even without having actually held the office. The bestowal of
the illustres offices was the kings prerogative; it was even possible for him to
appoint someone to the Senate directly.39 In this regard, Theoderic obviously
depended upon the practices of earlier Roman emperors, which granted him
significant influence over the membership of the assembly.40 With very few
exceptions, however, Ostrogothic nobles bestowed with the title of vir illustris
were not allowed in the curia, since being a member of this traditional assembly required Roman citizenship.41 On the basis of prosopographical data for
these office holders, it is possible to estimate 110 members of the Senate for the
period between 490 and 540.42
37 In this I am following the detailed analysis undertaken by Schfer, Der westrmische
Senat, pp. 1ff.
38 Cassiodorus, Variae 7.37, ed. Mommsen indicates this with atque ideo te spectabilitatis nitore decoramus, ut sententiam tuam in conventibus publicis spectandam esse cognoscas, cum inter nobiles decorus assederis... For further details see Cracco Ruggini,
Il senato fra due crisi, p. 347.
39 See the Formula de his qui referendi sunt in senatu (Cassiodorus, Variae 6.14, ed.
Mommsen).
40 Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 23; Cracco Ruggini, Il Senato fra due crisi,
pp. 3478.
41 One, but not the only example, was the Goth Tuluin, who was accepted into the curia
after his promotion to patricius praesentalis. See Cassiodorus Variae 8.911, ed. Mommsen,
PLRE II, p. 1132, Sundwall, Abhandlungen, p. 261, Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, p. 8.
Other examples include Arigern (Martindale, PLRE II, pp. 141f.) and Eutharic (PLRE II,
p. 438), consul of the year 519.
42 See all these men enlisted in Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 9117.
129
Senatorial Curricula
As Matthews has shown, two types of senatorial biographies appear under

Ostrogothic rule in Italy, best exemplified by Anicius Manlius Severinus
Boethius43 and Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator.44 With Boethius,
we find a classical senator characterized by a typical career in public offices
(consul ordinarius sine collegam in 510, magister officiorum in 522), the maintenance of a long family tradition, and a focus on Rome in his life and work.
Especially in the Ostrogothic period, a second career type can be identified,
eminently seen in the case of the long-standing court officer Cassiodorus.45 The
family of the Cassiodori can be viewed as social climbers, newcomers to the
late antique senatorial aristocracy.46 Members of this family were long associated with service to the western emperors and their successors in Ravenna.47
As with members of the traditional aristocracy, the Cassidori were affiliated
with the Senate in Rome. The centre of their political service, however, became
oriented on political life of Ravenna.48 Members of the Cassiodori were in
palatine service for four generations, and Cassiodorus Senator and his father
enjoyed direct contact with Odovacer and Theoderic. These positions allowed
them to work in the direct surroundings of these kings and to exert influence
on their rule as mediators of Roman norms and values, as Cassiodorus himself
describes it in Variae. 1.4.49 It seems career progression at the royal court in
Ravenna created new opportunities to members of the senatorial elite, especially to members of less-established families.50

Administrative Function of the Senate
As already indicated, it is difficult to capture the exact role of the late antique
Senate and similarly that of the Senate in Ostrogothic times because of a lack
43 PLRE II, pp. 233ff.
44 PLRE II, pp. 265ff.; Matthews, Boethius, pp. 26ff.; Bulgarella, Il senato, pp. 157ff.
45 For his offices see Cassiodorus Variae praefatio 13, ed. Mommsen.
46 At the time of Ostrogothic rule they can be seen as established, however.
47
For a detailed information on the family members see Cassiodorus Variae 1.4,
ed. Mommsen.
48 Matthews, Boethius, pp. 25ff.
49 Cassiodorus about his father as advocate of justice and morality in Cassiodorus, Variae
1.4.5, ed. Mommsen.
50 For less-established senatorial families in Ostrogothic times and their involvement at the
royal court, see Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 170ff.
130
Radtki
of sources. We do have the Variae and with them a direct insight into the diplomatic and administrative correspondence of the Amal kings, but on a very
selective basis, as Cassiodorus chose only certain letters to be part of his collection published at the end of his political career. In this collection we find
several letters explicitly directed to the Senate, and others addressed to single
members of the Senate on account of their offices or functions such as comes,
magister officiorum or praefectus praetorio.51 Members of the Senate often
received access to the curia via the respective offices, and the work in service
played an important role in many senatorial lives that would need to be taken
into consideration when analysing this elite.52 More relevant to the focus of
this chapter, however, are the letters directed to the entire Senate firstly giving two important pieces of information: first, the Senate at Rome continued
to meet throughout the Ostrogothic period, and second, Theoderic honoured
the committee at least theoretically. The Senate is addressed or mentioned
in many crucial situations of Ostrogothic history. For example, Theoderic
mentions that the emperor Anastasius exhorted him to love the Senate.53
Theoderics death and Athalarics accession in 526 are announced in a series
of eight letters, the second of which to the Senate follows immediately after a
letter to the emperor Justin. This is a pattern found throughout the collection,
possibly reflecting the order of official announcements and thus underlining
the Senates importance.54 Letters to the Senate are full of flattering words
regarding Theoderics humble reverence. They highlight Theoderics restraint
(continentia, moderatio, modestia), his concern for senatorial opinion, and
emphasize his commitment to the prudent selection of its members. These
letters concern a multitude of different topics. The largest group contains
notifications of appointments to office, for which the Amal kings sought the
Senates assent and which it was unlikely that the Senate could have denied.55
This corresponds to the fact (already mentioned) that the bestowal of illustres
offices was the kings prerogative. In fact only two letters request the Senates
assistance as a body: Variae 3.31, when it was asked to pay for the repair of
51 Barnwell, Emperor, pp. 155ff.
52 As they do not relate to the question of the role of the Senate as an institution, they shall
be left out here. For detailed information on the administrative offices in Ostrogothic
times see Barnwell, Emperor, pp. 134ff. and Sinnigen, Administrative Shifts. See also
Cracco Ruggini, Il Senato fra due crisi, pp. 3478 and Bjornlie in this volume.
55 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 144ff. Letters containing these announcements are Cassiodorus,
Variae 1.4, 1.13, 1.30, 1.43, 1.44, 2.3, 2.16, 3.6, 3.12, 4.4, 4.16, 5.4, 5.22, 8.10, 8.14, 8.17, 8.19, 8.22,
9.23, 9.25, ed. Mommsen.
131
public buildings in Rome; and 4.43, when it was commanded to investigate

an attack on a synagogue.56 An evaluation of these letters needs care, as the
Variae comprise a collection of selected letters without an easily determined
purpose behind their publication. Nevertheless, the letters collectively suggest
that the Senate, as a corporate body, contributed little to Ostrogothic government, and its actual participation in state affairs seems to have been very much
reduced. Even the respect Theoderic declared for the Senate cannot obfuscate
the institutions lack of real power.
Indeed for the Amal kings what mattered most was not the Senate as a
body, but rather certain holders of senatorial rank, who were involved in all
aspects of political, ecclesiastical, and diplomatic interaction.57 Members of
the Senate occupied themselves with ecclesiastical politics, for example, when
they became involved in the disorder attending the elevation of Symmachus
to the bishopric of Rome in 502, against the priest Laurentius and his supporters. The evidence suggests that the rival pope Laurentius had been supported
mainly by members of the senatorial elite in the city, who had invested much
in the churches under Laurentius guardianship.58 Symmachus, on the other
hand, was supported by families and single persons with estates based in
the north of the peninsula.59 Members of the Senate also played important
roles in diplomatic missions, such as the negotiations between Theoderic and
Zeno. They were also heavily involved in lobbying the Emperor Anastasius
to acknowledge the Amal kings official status as the emperors substitute in
the West.60 Already at a very early stage in his campaign against Odovacer
in the year 490, Theoderic sent an embassy led by the famous and influential
Flavius Rufius Postumius Festus,61 at that time caput senatus, to Constantinople.
This mission was followed by another embassy in 497, led by Flavius Anicius
Probus Faustus Iunior Niger,62 a man of no less political importance.63 Certain
members of the Senate became highly important for Ostrogothic rule through
56 Barnwell, Emperor, p. 157, note 8.
57 Bulgarella, Il senato, p. 134.
58 Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 212ff. For an alternative treatment of partisan communities in the Laurentian schism, see Sessa in this volume.
59 The conflict between the two parties is manifest in three persons that can be identified
as being supporters of the two popes: Flavius Anicius Probus Faustus Niger, who led the
party of Symmachus, was opposed by Flavius Rufius Postumius Festus and Petronius
Probinus, who supported Laurentius.
60 See Sundwall, Abhandlungen, pp. 200ff., Ausbttel, Theoderich, pp. 68ff.
63 Anonymus Valesianus. 53 and 57, ed. Knig.
132
Radtki
their performance of particular offices. Cassiodorus is the best example of

this type of relationship between Senate and court. Cassiodorus served the
Ostrogothic kings for decades in various positions, and can be regarded as their
mouthpiece.64 Lastly, members of the senatorial elite, or rather, individuals as
representatives of senatorial families, played an important economic role.

Senatorial Economic Relevance
For around half of the 110 identifiable senators, it is possible to determine the
geographical site of their estatestheir economic basis and the prerequisite
for their political and social engagement. Two major economic centres can
be identified. First, as might be expected, there was a high concentration of
senatorial estates in areas surroundings Rome, with a focal point in Campania,
where a large number of illustres had settled. Among them we find, for example, Caecina Mavortius Basilius Decius65 and his son Flavius Vettius Agorius
Basilius Mavortius,66 two members of one of the most important senatorial families. Also the patricius Flavius Rufius Postumius Festus and Anicius
Manlius Severinus Boethius seem to have owned land there. Although they
were involved in several political actions of the Ravennate court, such as
embassies, the centre of their political activities had been Rome. Campania
had great importance as a substitute production zone for the food supply,
after Africa and Sardinia had been lost to the Vandals.67 In the province of
Samnium another branch of the aforementioned Decii can be found in the persons of Basilius Venantius Iunior68 and his sons Flavius Decius69 and Flavius
Paulinus,70 which strengthens the impression that this important family had
its base in very close proximity to their political home at Rome. The same can
be said for the province of Valeria to the north-east of Rome; here a further
branch of the Decii found its home, represented by the consul and praefectus
praetorio Flavius Theodorus.71 Finally the province of Tuscia Suburbicaria et
64 Cassiodorus himself describes the position of the quaestor sacri palatii held by him for a
couple of years as such; see Cassiodorus, Variae 6.5.1, ed. Mommsen.
65 PLRE II, p. 349.
66 PLRE II, pp. 736f.
67 See in this context a heavy dispute about the distribution and purchase of grain in
Boethius, Philosophiae Consolatio. 1.4, ed. Bieler; Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 123ff.
69 PLRE IIIa, p. 391.
70 PLRE IIIb, pp. 973f.
133
Umbria showed Decian property in the persons of the consul Faustus Albinus,72
the son of Flavius Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius Iunior.73 The permanent
residence of these noblemen was the city of Rome, which emphasizes the
repeated connection between the location of senatorial ownership and place
of political career.74
While the rural economy in these areas was focused on the city of Rome,
in the north there was a second concentration of senatorial economic
power. Liguria in particular was a province where many senators owned
extended estates. Among them we find the praefecti urbi Flavius Agapitus75
and Constantius,76 the comites sacrarum largitionum Cyprianus77 and his
brother Opilio,78 the comes rerum privatarum Arator,79 and the comes patrimonii Iulianus.80 Last but not least, the economic base of the family of Flavius
Anicius Probus Faustus Niger was located near the region of Como.81
Apart from these two main areas of senatorial landholding, further possessions could be found in: Apulia and Calabria, Bruttium-Lucania and Sicily
(Cassiodori), Picenum annoniarum (Liberius82), Venetia (Venantius Opilio83),
Dalmatia and Savia (Severinus84), and Gallia (Felix85). In general, the aforementioned illustres were very powerful in their provinces due to the extent of
their properties. Their interest in the welfare of these properties can be seen
in their willingness to become provincial governors, although such offices were
below their social status.86 One very good example for this can again be found
in the family of the Cassiodori. Both the famous writer and his father exercised the position of corrector Brutii et Lucaniae.87 Even the politically involved
Liberius was willing to take over the prefecture of Gallia and with this a life far
73 PLRE II, p. 217.
74 Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 130f.
76 PLRE II, p. 321.
78 PLRE II, p. 808.
81 Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 133ff.
84 PLRE II, p. 1001.
87 For Cassiodorus biography see Jenal, Cassiodorus Senator.
134
Radtki
from the royal court in Ravenna. A reason for this senatorial behaviour can be
found in the fact that it opened up the possibility to exert political influence
over regions where the basis of their financial background, their own property, was concentrated. The great extent of senatorial properties, along with
the need for a considerable number of servants to maintain them, contributed
to their importance. The size of the land the senators owned can be explained
by their social and political needs: land was the basis for funding political
careers, as seen with the family of Flavius Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius.
His sons were designated consuls continuously one after the other and Basilius
had to pay for four consular games within sixteen years. If the financial resource
of property had not been available, some less-established families would have
found it difficult to meet the conditions of a politically active life.
Given the financial profile of these great families, the Ostrogothic kings
plausibly needed their collaboration in order to ensure the stability of Italys
economy and administration.88 When nominating senators for certain positions, Theoderic without doubt took their economic position and importance
into consideration; likewise, senatorial political engagement was often determined by economic needs. From an overall perspective, a division of possessions into two regions can be pointed out. While the established families were
mainly based in the region of Rome, the homines novi possessed estates in the
north with a focus in Liguria.89 This division into roughly northern and southern enclaves of the senatorial elite was one of the main reasons for antagonism
within the order. Such friction was visible in the case of the Laurentian schism
and would be seen again in the affair regarding Boethius and Symmachus in
the early 520s.

Theoderic and the Senatorial Elite
In the early period of Theoderics reign the Amal king followed a policy of
promotion of members of the established families that was very similar to
Odovacers practices. It is likely that the senatorial elite had shifted its allegiences from supporting Odovacer to supporting Theoderic following his victory at the Adda in August 490, when several senators offered themselves to the
88 For examples see Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 195f.

89 This controversially discussed term should be used in the broader way suggested by
Schfer to describe less-established families, see Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 170f.
135
Amal king.90 Interestingly, the father of Cassiodorus, at that time consularis

Sicilae,91 was among these pioneers and initiated a long family tradition of service to the Amals.92 It seems that Odovacer had alienated the Decii at the end
of his reign, who consequently numbered among Theoderics first supporters.93
The Gothic ruler responded to this overture by nominating one of their family,
Faustus Albinus Iunior, as consul of the year 493.94 In fact both Odovacer and
Theoderic nominated a Decius as their first consul. It seems that we are dealing
with a tradition which owes something to a desire to maintain an alliance with
at least part of the Roman aristocracy.95 Theoderics consular nominees for the
490s were moderately distinguished, but they do not compare with those for
the period 50110, when only members of the most important families were
designated.96 In these early and important years of Theoderics reign, we see
an extraordinary group: out of ten western consuls, eight seem to have been
the sons of consuls and seven are known to have held at some point the dignity
of patricius.97 Alternatively, the consuls appointed in the period 51121 were
men of a different stamp.98 Felix,99 consul of 511, was a provincial from Gaul;
in 513 the office passed to Probus,100 a scholarly man whose family does not
seem to have been established; and Cassiodorus, consul in 514, certainly was
the first consul in his family. This significant shift from the first to the second
decade of the 6th century was not a singular phenomenon, as appointments
to the office of praefectus urbis Romae seem to have followed a similar pattern.101
These figures show a significant turn towards homines novi in the second half
of Theoderics reign. Apart from the relief certain senators might have felt for
not being burdened by the negotium again, Theoderics championing of new
90 Anonymus Valesianus 53, ed. Knig; Malalas, Chronographia 15.9, ed. Thurn; Nf,
Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein, pp. 194f.
92 Henning, Periclitans, p. 182.
93 Ibid.
95 Moorhead, Theoderic, p. 148.
96 See Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 148ff. for the complete lists of nominated consuls from 490
to the end of Theoderics reign.
97 For example the western consul for 501, Avienus, was a member of the Decii (PLRE II,
p. 193); in 502 the office was held by Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus (PLRE II, pp. 192f.),
the son of Anicius Probus Faustus Niger, consul in 490.
100 P LRE II, p. 913.
101 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 154f.
136
Radtki
men might not have been well received by the established Roman aristocrats.
The consulship was by then the last surviving magistracy of the Republican
period with any stature, and it was particularly sought after because the consul
gave his name to the year. The consular office offered many possibilities for
gaining popularity among the people. The consular ivories depict consuls sitting on the sella curulis presiding over circus games with bags of money ready
for distribution to the people.102 In the 510s some aristocrats who for decades
had been able to enjoy the prestige of high office found themselves excluded
from the consulship and the urban prefecture. Aristocrats of Rome were no
longer as powerful as they had been, a possible stimulus for resentment.103 It
may be that Theoderic preferred the appointment of homines novi because
it enabled him to create a very loyal and engaged group of officials. Compared to
the serial careers of members of the established families, who could expect
to reach a position granting the rank of illustris in a relatively short amount
of time, some homines novi had to work in the state service for fifteen years
until they were allowed into the curia. Furthermore, less-established men were
willing to take over less-prestigious offices that noble families would typically
refuse. In the course of working in different offices for a long period, homines
novi often excelled through considerable engagement with the Gothic state
(e.g. Senarius took part in twenty-five embassies!) and became strongly loyal
to the Gothic regime.104
In many respects Theoderic placed himself in a Roman tradition of rulership and the elite of the Roman Senate played a crucial role in this presentation
of Theoderics public persona.105 For example, his care for the organization
and conduct of the circus games was a very public form of communication
between Theoderic and the senatorial elite (and the populus Romanus). This
is true in the context not only of his adventus at Rome in the year 500, but also
of the regular games organized by senators, whose peaceful execution of civic
tradition was important to Theoderic.106 In the early period of his reign this
communication between ruler and the economically and politically leading
102 Ibid. pp. 1523.
103 For tensions between the senatorial and the palatine elite see Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 12734.
104 Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 170ff. and 291f.
105 Theoderic himself frequently mentioned this tradition, to which he saw himself as connected. See e.g. Cassiodorus, Variae. 1.1.4 or 1.25.4, ed. Mommsen: Ut antiqui principes
nobis merito debeant laudes suas. On Theoderics imperial kingdom and the ideologies
he applied during his reign, see Heydemann in this volume.
106 In this context see a whole series of letters in the Variae concerning the problems arising
from circus games, e.g. 1.20, 1.21, 1.27 and 1.3033, ed. Mommsen.
137
group seems to have worked, as evidenced in the willingness of the senatorial

elite to play along. Together with the clergy and the people of Rome, senators
approached Theoderic on his way into the city to welcome him. The participation of the Senate signalled the success of Theoderics adventus in Rome and a
similar assessment can be made for the adventus of Eutharic in late 518 and for
his consular games, held in the Colosseum in 519.107

Senatorial Conflicts Toward the End of Theoderics Reign and

under His Successors
The situation changed, however, in the second part of Theoderics reign. What
had become problematic over the years was a tension between some members
of families regarded as homines novi influential at the court in Ravenna and
those established old families who had long been courted, but who had somewhat lost their former position. Often these political tensions resulted from
economic causes or, in some cases, from political activity that had an impact
on economic viability.108 To these two dimensions of possible tension a third
can be added, regarding the relation of many old senatorial families to the
eastern Roman sphere and especially to the imperial court at Constantinople.109
A mixture of these various and often hardly distinguishable developments
led to frequent conflicts between members of the senatorial elite themselves
and between the elite and the Amal kings towards the end of Theoderics
reign and especially after his death.

The Affair Concerning Boethius
In the late period of Theoderics reign several issues remained unresolved concerning Theoderics political position, when Boethius famous treason case
occurred. After the resolution of the Acacian schism (itself a source of senatorial friction), which had brought a rapprochement between the churches of
107 Anonymus Valesianus 65 and 80, ed. Knig; Cassiodorus, Chronica 518519, ed. Mommsen.
108 As an example of such a case the fight for the estates of Paulinus (PLRE II, p. 847) can
be mentioned in which Boethius claims to have saved Paulinus estates from canes
Palatinae, here possibly a disparaging expression for members of the northern Italian
senatorial elite; see Boethius, Philosophiae Consolatio. 1.4.13, ed. Bieler and Schfer,
Der westrmische Senat, pp. 145ff.
109 Burgarella, Il senato, p. 138.
138
Radtki
Rome and Constantinople, Theoderics political situation had changed, though

not necessarily as a consequence of the schisms resolution, as it has been
argued traditionally.110 Rather, a coincidence of several external and internal
factors led to the dreadful development that ended in the death of two famous
members of the senatorial elite and the mistreatment of a pope.111
In 522, the patrician Albinus was accused of exchanging treasonable communication with the eastern court by Cyprianus,112 a court official at Ravenna
who had risen to office through an earlier military career and had made his
way through civil service in the college of tribuni et notarii before becoming
a referendarius.113 Boethius decided to provide legal defence for Albinus and
soon after found himself accused of treason. Thus, the main conflict arose
between Boethius and Cyprianus. Boethius failure to inform on Albinus would
not have caused such turmoil on its own, but his rash declaration for Albinus
and his accusation that Cyprianus had liedundertaken without consideration of his position at Theoderics court and his colleagues willingness to
support himescalated the conflict. As a result, Boethius was arrested in 523,
tried in Pavia, imprisoned near Milan, and put to death in 524. His father-inlaw, Symmachus, shared the same sad fate in 525 for his attempt to defend
Boethius.114 As Schfer has suggested, a tacit but important element of this
conflict was the rivalry for public honour that existed between a member of
the old elite (Boethius) and a member of the newcomers (Cyprianus), who
felt threatened and was able to activate similarly neglected members of the
ordo senatorius to act as witnesses for the prosecution. Following Boethius
own words, the false witnesses included Cyprianus brother Opilio,115 a certain Basilius,116 and Gaudentius.117 Presumably all three were dismissed from
positions at the royal court sometime before the trial. Moreover, members
of the old traditional families (including possibly even Boethius, who clearly
110 On this see Ktter, Zwischen Kaisern und Aposteln, passim.
111 For an exposition of the most important factors (among them Theoderics diplomatic
position, inner ecclesiastical conflicts and the emperor Justins policy against Arian
Christians) see Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy, pp. 416ff.
112 P LRE II, pp. 332f.
113 Bjornlie, Politics, p. 139; Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, p. 55; on the position of referendarius see Cassiodorus, Variae 8.21.4, ed. Mommsen.
114 Procopius, De Bellis Libri 1.5.3239, ed. Haury/Wirth; Anonymus Valesianus 87 and 92,
ed. Knig.
115 P LRE II, p. 808.
116 P LRE II, pp. 215f.
117 P LRE II, p. 495. Boethius, Philosophiae Consolatio 1.4.26, ed. Bieler; Anonymus Valesianus
86, ed. Knig.
139
played a role as delator in a trial against Decoratus,118 a man of similar background to Cyprianus) had hindered all three in their advancement through
the cursus honorum.119 Additionally, these non-senatorial men were based in
northern Italy and, with the exception of Cyprianus and Opilio, were far from
being considered established (they seem to have struggled to become illustres). Concerning this, Schfer observes the influence exercised by northern
Italian senators on the location of the trial (Ticenum, or Pavia, in the sphere of
influence of the homines novi) and its result: Boethius, a grand politician from
an established family, fell from prominence as a consequence of his hostility
towards several senators of the newer families. Alternatively, Cyprianus fellow
senators saw him as a sort of pioneer, fighting against the established elite for
greater influence on the part of the less-established families. Thus one important aspect of this conflict at the end of Theoderics reign can be found in an
inner senatorial conflict: a rivalry between old and new families with regard to
power and to their position in Theoderics favour.
A completely different analysis of this episode is given by Barnish who
emphasizes the succession crisis in the Ostrogothic regime with the sudden
death of the designated heir Eutharic.120 Barnish suggests that after the death
of the only male aspirant old enough to lead the kingdom (Athalaric was still
too young), Goths and even Romans must have looked to Theodahad as the
most desirable monarch (rather than Theoderics daughter Amalasuentha).
One of the Roman supporters of Theodahad could have been Boethius. Given
the possibility that the letter of Albinus concerned the question of a possible
Gothic successor, it might have contained Theodahads name, which would
explain Boethius vigorous fight for Albinus case.121
While the fate of Albinus was never recorded, the deaths of Boethius and
Symmachus were a public relations blunder of gross proportions for the
Amals. Even emperors of fully acknowledged imperial legitimacy...had been
keen to avoid the alienation of the governmental elite by executing prominent
members of the senatorial order.122 For a barbarian basing his rule on the
acceptance of the eastern emperor and the local elites, openly demonstrating
118 P LRE II, pp. 350f.

119 On Decoratus see Boethius Philosophiae Consolatio. 3.4.4, ed. Bieler; Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, pp. 247ff.
120 P LRE II, p. 438.
121 Barnish, Maximian, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Theodahad, pp. 28ff.
122 Bjornlie, Politics, p. 140.
140
Radtki
hostility toward the elite whom Theoderic once courted could disrupt the careful equilibrium that facilitated the governance of Italy.123

After Theoderics Death
Theoderic died in 526 with many problems unsolved. To restore the political
harmony, Amalasuentha, acting as the guardian of Theoderics grandson, tried
to maintain the political position of the Amal court with a policy of appeasement, evident in the restoration of properties that had been seized as a result
of the condemnation of Boethius and Symmachus.124 But despite these
attempts, the executions had cast a shadow on Theoderics last years and continued to be virulent in the years to follow.
The problem facing Amalasuenthas reign was that, apart from the loss of
reputation following the execution of Boethius and Symmachus, strong divisions within the senatorial elite undermined Amalasuenthas position as guardian of the future Amal king and later as queen. The quarrel at this time, on the
eve of the conflict with Justinian, consisted of opposition from a pro-Gothic,
anti-Byzantine party, which favoured affiliation with Gothic military culture,125
and a pro-Roman party interested in reconciling Gothic rule with established
senatorial families. Including among the anti-Byzantine party were wellknown figures such as Cyprianus, Opilio, Decoratus, Gaudentius, and Basilius
(senators who had already opposed traditional senatorial families), with their
leaders Theodahad (Amalasuenthas cousin and later co-regent) and Tuluin,
the new leader of the army. On the other side were senators who still believed
in a peaceful coexistence of Goths and Romans (the values of Theoderics
reign), including the loyal officer Cassiodorus, a man with close and friendly
connections to Amalasuentha, and certain senators originally advanced by
Theoderic but who had been replaced by members from the other party in
527: Abundantius (in 527 dismissed from his position as praefectus praetorio),126
Ambrosius (dismissed from his position as quaestor),127 and furthermore
Arator128 and Liberius. The period between 527 and 534 is hard to characterize
123 Ibid.
124 Procopius, De Bellis Libri 1.2.5, ed. Haury/Wirth; Ensslin, Theoderich, p. 325; Wolfram,
Die Goten, p. 334; Bjornlie, Politics, p. 141.
125 Wolfram, Die Goten, p. 336.
126 P LRE II, pp. 3f.
127 P LRE II, p. 69.
128 P LRE II, pp. 126f.
141
owing to lacunae in the Variae, but it seems that until 533 and Amalasuenthas
appeal for assistance from Justinian, the pro-Gothic party dominated the
political scene and caused the aforementioned dismissals. Following this
development, and possibly as a result of Justinians backing, Amalasuentha
seems to have returned briefly to her previous position of influence before
Theodahad finally had her murdered.129 In this brief period between 527 and
534, Amalasuentha made two important appointments: Liberius, probably her
most loyal officer next to Cassiodorus, became patricius praesentalis and took
command of the Gothic army in Gaul, while Cassiodorus replaced Cyprianus
as praefectus praetorio. Conflict over offices still dominated senatorial motives.
Competition between homines novi and established families for support from
the Amal family turned into a division between supporters of a traditional
Gothic versus a traditional Roman way of life.
Relations with the senatorial elite deteriorated under the reign of
Theodahad.130 With his own political ambitions restricted by his vow to accept
Amalasuentha as his queen, Theodahads only recourse to the direct exercise of power was to arrange Amalasuenthas murder. This act was devisive in
various ways. It proved unpopular with the senatorial elite (presumably out
of appreciation for Amalasuenthas tactful interventions as a ruler), and provided the casus belli for the eastern Roman emperor.131 But apart from his drastic means of eliminating a political opponent, it was Theodahads behaviour
in general that alienated the traditional families. Theodahad departed from
previous minting practices by issuing coins with a stronger representation of
himself as imperator. Similarly, the mistreatment of members of the senatorial
elite (e.g. capturing members of eastern Roman embassies) strained relations.132
By these actions, Theodahad failed to reassure the Roman elite of his ability to
follow Theoderics example; on the contrary, anxiety over Theodahads intentions probably inclined the traditional elite to turn away from the Ostrogothic
regime and entertain pre-existing ties to the East.
129 Wolfram, Die Goten, p. 336. The Franks had invaded Burgundian territory and taken over
Arlesevents that did not even need a pretext for Amalasuentha to send away important military leaders, Tuluin among them, see Procopius, De Bellis Libri 1.13,15, ed. Haury/
Wirth.
130 Procopius De Bellis Libri 1.4.4f., ed. Haury/Wirth and Cassiodorus, Variae 10.2 and 3,
ed. Mommsen.
131 Cassiodorus, Variae 10.19, ed. Mommsen, and Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 141f.
132 Bjornlie, Politics, p. 142; Hahn, Moneta 1, p. 90; Wolfram, Die Goten, p. 540.
142

Radtki
The Destruction of the Senatorial Elite
Belisarius invaded Ostrogothic territory in 535 and in the following year factions of the Roman aristocracy welcomed him into Rome, while others preferred to demonstrate their support for the Amal regime.133 In 540, Belisarius
dissolved the Amal court at Ravenna and transported Witigis and his wife
Matasuentha to Constantinople.134 Interestingly, even in the time of the Gothic
War the main features of a conflict between members of the north Italian
and the Rome-based families remained in force. Those senatorial inhabitants
of the city of Rome who could still be located during the war appear on the
side of Justinian from very early on, and were supported by some northern
illustres like Flavius Rufius Gennadius Orestes,135 a relative of Faustus Niger,
and Liberius, who, after supporting the Amal regime for generations must have
become disappointed by the direction of Ostrogothic policy.136 Some members of this group like Flavius Decius, Flavius Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius
Iunior, and Flavius Rufius Petronius Nicomachus Cethegus were able to leave
Italy in the early 540s and found a new home at Justinians court, where they
sought involvement in plans for the future administration of Italy.137 Others
such as Opilio (whose loyalty to the Ostrogothic regime was evident from his
role in an embassy to Justinian),138 Ambrosius, Arator,139 and Cassiodorus
remained loyal to the Gothic cause. In Cassiodorus case, Witigis capitulation
seems to have marked the end of his political career after a long period of loyalty to the Amals. He may have left Italy with Belisarius.140
The ongoing military conflicts on Italian soil were the main reason for the
disappearance of the Senate as an institution141 and the senatorial elite as
133 Cassiodorus, Variae 10.31, ed. Mommsen; Bjornlie, Politics, p. 143.
134 Procopius, De Bellis Libri 7.1.12, ed. Haury/Wirth.
135 P LRE IIIb, p. 956.
137 On this see Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 144ff.
138 Procopius, De Bellis Libri 1.4.23, ed. Haury/Wirth.
139 P LRE II, pp. 126ff.
140 Cassiodorus is mentioned in a letter written by pope Vigilius dated to 550, which described
him as vir religiosus. For questions of Cassiodorus political involvements and aspirations at the eastern Roman court, see Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 7ff.; Momigliano, Cassiodorus,
p. 219; ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 105ff., Krautschick, Cassiodor, pp. 11f.; Schfer,
Der westrmische Senat, pp. 270f.
141 There are scarce references to senatorial meetings after the war: the last detailed testimony comes in 587 and 580 when it sent two embassies to Tiberius II, see Brown,
Gentlemen, pp. 21f.
143
a class, even though individuals were able to survive.142 The personal losses
caused by several punitive actions against the senatorial elite under Witigis,
Totila, and Teia143 irreversibly fractured the social structure of the Senate,
which had been relatively solid up to that point.144 This was accompanied
by the incremental destruction of the economic and social structures on which
the senators had based their position and life. Both the Gothic and Byzantine
parties liberated a great number of the slaves and coloni, on which senatorial
estates depended. Additionally, according to Procopius, the war provoked a
rural exodus, leaving few left to cultivate the soil. Without these estates, the
senatorial elite was deprived of the economic basis for status and competition.
One of the lamentable results of the Gothic War was an inability on the part
of the senators to play the social and political roles that had been expected of
them. An unmistakable sign of this impotency is the fact that unlike Justinians
previous policy to use western senators in the Italian administration (for
example, the two western illustres initially appointed to praefectus praetorio
of Italy),145 the eastern Roman government later showed a preference for eastern senators. This might express the eastern Roman governments feeling of
unease with western senators or, even worse, a feeling of superiority that made
it unnecessary even to consider involving the western elite. So, the years of the
Gothic War were clearly a decisive and unmistakable caesura: the influence
and standing which the senatorial elite had maintained during the Ostrogothic
period was gone forever.
Conclusion
The Roman Senate played a strong legitimizing role under Odovacer and the
Ostrogoths, which can be seen as the peak of a development engendered by
the general crisis of Roman rule in the western empire during the 5th century.
Even though the Senate as legislative body lacked actual power, its members
were involved in fields of political, ecclesiastical, and diplomatic importance.
The senatorial elite based its power on a strong economic foundation (property) distributed over the whole peninsula, which made it indispensable for
142 On this see Brown, Gentlemen, pp. 21ff.
143 Procopius, De Bellis Libri 1.26.1f.; 4.34.5f.; 4.34.7f, ed. Haury/Wirth; Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, p. 283.
144 Bulgarella, Il senato, p. 159.
145 The two senators were Fidelis (PLRE II, p. 496f.) and Reparatus (PLRE IIIb, p. 1083),
Schfer, Der westrmische Senat, p. 284.
144
Radtki
any new ruler who might seek to establish himself in the Roman Westa fact
that both Odovacer and Theoderic were well aware of. Theoderic especially,
at least in the first years of his reign, had been brilliant at involving the Senate
in his policies, thus allowing the senatorial elite to identify with a ruler who
respected their traditions. Internal senatorial rivalries, however, became manifest in several prominent issues of the Amal reign: the Laurentian schism, the
affair of Albinus and Boethius, the question of cooperation with the Eastern
Roman emperor, and the question of appointments to offices. The strong
resentments between the old, established families of the senatorial elite living near Rome and the homines novi based in the northern part of Italy were
both economically and socially grounded. While the senatorial elite had been
visible in so many aspects of public life and had upheld Roman traditions, the
Gothic War deprived it of economic means, and thus of the foundation for its
political and social engagement. So, with the end of the Ostrogothic reign on
Italian soil, the oldest Roman institution was irreparably damaged.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Anonymus Valesianus, ed. and trans. I. Knig, Aus der Zeit Theoderichs des Groen.
Einleitung, Text, bersetzung und Kommentar einer anonymen Quelle (Texte zur
Forschung 69), Darmstadt 1997.
Boethius, Philosophiae Consolatio, ed. L. Bieler, Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii
Philosophiae Consolatio, Turnhout 1957.
Cassiodorus, Chronica, ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodori Senatoris Chronica Ad A. DXIX.
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Chronica Minora 2), Berlin 1894.
, Ordo generis Cassiodororum, ed. T. Mommsen, in Cassiodori Senatoris Variae
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894,
pp. vvi.
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894; ed. . Fridh, Cassiodori Variae
(Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 96), Turnhout 1973; trans. S. Barnish,
Cassiodorus: Variae (Translated Texts for Historians 12), Liverpool 1992.
Eugippius, Vita Sancti Severini, ed. H. Sauppe, Eugippii Vita sancti Severini (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 1,2) Berlin 1877.
Malalas, Chronographia, ed. J. Thurn, Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae 35), Berlin 2000.
Malchus of Philadelphia, ed. and trans. R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising
Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus,
145
vol. 2: Text, Translation and Historiographical Notes (ARCA. Classical and Medieval
Texts, Papers and Monographs 10), Liverpool 1983, pp. 40262.
Panegyrici Latini, trans. B. Mller-Rettig, Panegyrici Latini. Lobreden auf rmische
Kaiser, vol.1 and 2, Darmstadt 2008/2014.
Paulus Diaconus, Historia Romana, ed. H. Droysen, in Eutropi Breviarium ab urbe condita (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 2), Berlin 1879,
pp. 183224.
Procopius, De Bellis Libri, ed. J. Haury/G. Wirth, Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia,
4 vols. (Teubner), Leipzig 19634.
Themistius, Orationes, ed. H. Schenkl/G. Downey/A.F. Norman (eds.), Themistii orationes quae supersunt, Leipzig 19651974.
Arnold, J.J., Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, Cambridge 2014.
Ausbttel, F.M., Theoderich der Groe, Darmstadt 2003.
Barnish, S.J.B., Transformation and Survival in the Western Senatorial Aristocracy,
c. 400700, Papers of the British School at Rome 56 (1988), 12055.
, Maximian, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Theodohad: Literature, Philosophy and
Politics in Ostrogothic Italy, Nottingham medieval studies 34 (1990), 1632.
Barnwell, P.S., Emperor, Prefects, & Kings. The Roman West, 395565, Chapel Hill/
London 1992.
Bjornlie, S., Politics and Tradition. Between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople. A Study
Brown, T.S., Gentlemen and Officers. Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in
Byzantine Italy AD 554800, Hertford 1984.
Burgarella, F., Il senato, in Roma nellalto medioevo. Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sullalto medioevo 48, vol. 1, Spoleto 2001, 12175.
Cameron, A., Anician Myths, Journal of Roman Studies 102 (2012), 13371.
Chastagnol, A., La prfecture urbaine Rome sous le Bas-Empire, Paris 1960.
, Le Snat romain sous le rgne dOdoacre. Recherches sur Lpigraphie du Colise
au Ve sicle, Bonn 1966.
Cracco Ruggini, L., Il Senato fra due crisi (IIIVI secolo), in Il Senato nella Storia,
vol. 1: Il Senato nelleta Romana, Rome 1998, 223398.
Demandt, A., Geschichte der Sptantike. Das Rmische Reich von Diocletian bis Justinian
284565 n. Chr., 2nd ed., Munich 2008.
Ensslin, W., Theoderich der Groe, 2nd ed., Munich 1959.
Gillett, A., Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors, Papers of the British School
at Rome 69 (2001), 13167.
Hahn, W., Moneta Imperii Byzantini, 3 vols.,Vienna 197381.
146
Radtki
Heather, P.J., New men for new Constantines? Creating an imperial elite in the eastern
Mediterranean, in P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial
Renewal in Byzantium, 4th13th Centuries, Aldershot 1994, pp. 1133.
, Senators and Senates, in A. Cameron/P. Garnsey (eds.), The Cambridge
Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire, AD 337425, Cambridge 1998, pp. 184210.
Henning, D., Periclitans res publica. Kaisertum und Eliten in der Krise des Westrmischen
Reiches 454/5493 n. Chr., Stuttgart 1999.
Jenal, G., (Flavius) Magnus Cassiodorus Senator (ca. 485ca. 580 n. Chr.), in W. Ax
(ed.), Lateinische Lehrer Europas. Fnfzehn Portraits von Varro bis Erasmus von
Rotterdam, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 2005, pp. 21746.
Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284602: A Social Economic and Administrative
Survey, 2 vols., Oxford 1964.
Kierdorf, W., Senatus, in Der Neue Pauly, vol. 11, Stuttgart/ Weimar 2001, pp. 4005.
Ktter, J.-M., Zwischen Kaisern und Aposteln. Das Akakianische Schisma (485519) als
kirchlicher Ordnungskonflikt der Sptantike, Stuttgart 2013.
MacCormack, S., Latin Prose Panegyrics, in Empire and Aftermath, London 1975,
pp. 143205.
Cambridge 1980; vol. 3: AD 527641, Cambridge 1992.
Matthews, J., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, Oxford 1975.
, Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, in M. Gibson (ed.), Boethius. His Life,
Thought and Influence, Oxford 1981, pp. 1743.
Momigliano, A., Cassiodorus and the Italian culture of his time, in id. (ed.), Secondo
contributo alla storia degli studi classici, Rome 1955, pp. 192229.
Nf, B., Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein in sptrmischer Zeit, Freiburg, CH 1995.
Noble, T.F.X., Theoderic and the papacy, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia. Atti del
XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullAlto Medioevo Milano 26 novembre 1992,
Spoleto 1993, pp. 395423.
Schfer, C., Der westrmische Senat als Trger antiker Kontinuitt unter den
Ostgotenknigen (490540 n. Chr.), St. Katharinen 1991.
Sinnigen, W.G., Administrative shifts of competence under Theoderic, Traditio 21
(1965), 45667.
Sundwall, J., Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Rmertums, New York 1975.
Vitiello, M., Momenti di Roma ostrogota: adventus, feste, politica, Stuttgart 2005.
Wolfram, H., Die Goten. Von den Anfngen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts.
Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, 3rd ed., Munich 1990.
CHAPTER 7
The Law
Sean Lafferty
Introduction
While the focus of this study is naturally the law and legal administration of
Ostrogothic Italy, the implications engage the much wider issue of how the
Roman world came to an end. Once considered a catastrophic event that
marked a decisive break from the classical past and ushered in the Dark Ages,
current scholarship tends to view the fall of Rome as a gradualand surprisingly peacefulprocess of transition wherein the fundamental elements
of classical civilization survived more or less unchanged in the aftermath of
Romes political demise. Instead of words like decline and crisis to account
for all of the complex and contested changes taking place in this time, we now
have continuity and transformation. In the context of law and legal administration, Theoderic and his successors (like most of the barbarian kings who
assumed authority in the West following the break-up of the empire) appropriated several key elements of the Roman legal tradition and administration.
But they also introduced important innovations that reflect significant cultural
and institutional changes in Italian society between the 4th and 6th centuries.
Indeed this is not a straightforward case of continuity. Nor is it simply a matter
of decline and ruin. Rather, the history of Ostrogothic law and legal administration is a history of evolutionan evolution towards the simplification and
popularization of the traditions and institutions of classical jurisprudence and
imperial bureaucracy.
A great deal of what we think we know about the laws and legal administration of Ostrogothic Italy comes to us from Cassiodorus Variae, a collection in twelve books of 468 letters, proclamations, formulae for appointments,
and edicts related to the Ostrogothic regime, and in particular the reign of
Theoderic the Great (r. 493526). To judge by this text alone, the administrative
bureaucracy of Ostrogothic Italy was a highly differentiated and specialized
one comprising civil and military officers with clearly defined and separate
functions along similar lines as the late imperial administration. The provincial governor or his deputy functioned as the judge of first instance in serious
cases. His decision could be appealed to the vicar and in some circumstances,
for those with enough time and money, to the praetorian prefect or even
148
Lafferty
the king himself. Under this system there was a strict jurisdictional division
between Goths and Romans. Cases involving just Romans were to be handled
by Roman officials, while the Gothic officers were to handle inter-Gothic disputes. Cases involving both Goths and Romans were to be handled by a pair
of judges: the Gothic count (comes) and his Roman counterpart.1 This division
was not an ethnographic one, however, but a functional one between soldiers
(Goths) and civilians (Romans). Just as they had in the empire, soldiers and
civilians fell into two separate jurisdictions, but they were not necessarily subject to different laws.2
Both in terms of ideology and organization, therefore, Theoderic sought and
largely maintained the institutions and administrative procedures of the later
western imperial administration as he found them.3 The same can be said of
Romes laws. Several letters within the collection stress the need to preserve
the rule of Roman law, demand respect for it, reflect upon its fundamental
correctness, or even cite it.4 Theoderic, too, is often extolled as a champion of
Romes legal heritage. In a letter to the eastern emperor Anastasius, the king
reportedly remarked that his rule was in direct imitation of the emperors, and
noted how his Gothic followers obeyed Roman law (Variae 1.1). Elsewhere in a
letter addressed to his new Gallic subjects written shortly after his taking control of a large portion of southern Gaul in 510, Theoderic described his rule as
Roman, contrasting it sharply with the barbarous rule of the Visigoths:
You, who have been restored to it after so long a time, should gladly obey
Roman custom, for it is gratifying to return to that place from where your
ancestors undoubtedly took their rise. And therefore, as by Gods grace
you have been recalled to ancient liberty, adorn yourselves in the morals
of the toga, cast off barbarism, throw aside savagery of the mind, for it
1 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 7.3. The Variae are cited from the MGH edition of Mommsen, Berlin
1894, pp. 1385. For a selected translation: Barnish, Cassiodorus.
2 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 3.12. Historians have long accepted this functional division as broadly
true in descriptive terms. See e.g. Moorhead, Theodericy, pp. 715; Amory, People and Identity,
ch. 1; Heather, Merely an Ideology?, pp. 3160; id., Gens and Regnum, pp. 88133.
3 On the late imperial court system in Late Antiquity, see Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 1,
pp. 47993; Harries, Law and Empire; Matthews, Laying Down the Law; Humfress, Orthodoxy
and the Courts, ch. 2; Kaser, Das rmische Zivilprozessrecht, pp. 51719. On the imperial civil
service, see Kunkel, Introduction to Roman Legal, pp. 1412; Jolowicz/Nichols, Historical
Introduction, pp. 4235; Cameron, Later Roman Empire, pp. 3941; Kaser, Rmische Rechtsgeschichte, pp. 20810; Stein, Untersuchungen ber das Officium; Delmaire, Les Institutions.
4 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 1.1, 27, 44; 3.17, 43.
The Law
149
does not befit you to abide by foreign customs while living in the justice
of Our time.5
For Theoderic, or rather in Cassiodorus portrayal of him, Roman law was a
source of prestige and authority through which he (Theoderic) sought to
define and justify his rule. It was an ancient institution that symbolized a connection between his reign and those of other glorious emperors of the past,
thereby reinforcing an ideology that his rule truly witnessed a renewal of all
the hallmarks that once defined classical culture.
But in as much as they were intended as a semi-official record of the barbarian regime, the Variae were a product of political expediency that sought to
illustrate the legitimacy and suitability of the Italian bureaucracy for resuming palatine services following the conclusion of the Gothic War. To that end,
Cassiodorus revised and interpolated letters from a pre-existing assemblage,
and in select cases even invented new letters, to highlight the contributions
of the former bureaucratic elite of Ravenna. Thus, while the core content of
the Variae corresponds closely to the conditions of Ostrogothic Italy as they
actually were, much of the material found in the collection represents later
intervention on the part of Cassiodorus, whose selections, omissions, and
interpolations were influenced by powerful currents of cultural and political
exchange between Rome, Ravenna, and Constantinople.6
The elaborate rhetorical purpose for which Cassiodorus compiled the Variae
required revising a significant portion of genuine chancery documents to communicate an idealized image of the bureaucratic elite of Italy as champions
of Romes legal, administrative, and cultural traditions. From all of this there
emerges a highly civilized and Romanized picture of things. A much different
and more accurate picture comes to us from the Edictum Theoderici, or Edict of
Theoderic, a collection and emendation of Roman law comprising 154 provisions in addition to a prologue and epilogue. Once thought to be the work of
the Visigothic king Theoderic II, who ruled the kingdom of Aquitaine in southern Gaul from 453 to 466, the edict was in fact composed around the year 500
5 Cassiodorus, Variae 3.17: Libenter parendum est Romanae consuetudini, cui estis post longa
tempora restituti, quia ibi regressus est gratus, ubi provectum vestros constat habuisse maiores. atque ideo in antiquam libertatem deo praestante revocati vestimini moribus togatis,
exuite barbariem, abicite mentium crudelitatem, quia sub aequitate nostri temporis non vos
decet vivere moribus alienis. See also Variae 4.26, 4.33 and 9.19 for references to Gothic kings
as the successors of the Roman legal heritage.
6 On the problems of the Variae as a propagandistic text, see Bjornlie, Politics; id., What Have
Elephants to Do with Sixth-Century Politics?, pp. 14371.
150
Lafferty
by an unknown group of Roman legal experts working under the authority of

the quaestor in Ravenna.7
Its immediate purpose was to restore peace in the kingdom by reinforcing,
clarifying, and in most cases updating existing Roman law (which was at this
time erratically preserved in sources that were not easily accessible to the general public at large). Theoderic, we are informed from the prologue, received
complaints that laws were not being observed in the provinces. To preserve
the desired peace, the edict was to be posted so that Romans and barbarians
would know what was expected of them. Its authority lay in the fact that it
was derived from novellae leges and vetus ius, that is to say, written enactments and ancient custom preserved in imperial codifications and juristic
commentaries.8 To underscore the point, the epilogue concludes by stating
that it was the responsibility of all, whether learned or ignorant, city dweller
or countryman, officer or citizen, Goth or Roman, to uphold the rule of the law
in equal measure. Romans and Goths were expected to obey the solemnity
of Roman law. This is wholly in keeping with Roman tradition and the ideology of Theoderics regime, the consistent message of which as presented by
Cassiodorus makes the point that the Goths were required to adopt the superior judicial notions of the Roman legal system.9 As Athalaric proclaimed to
the Roman Senate upon his accession in 526:
7 Since the first publication of the text by Pierre Pithou in 1579, the authorship and authenticity of this document was accepted by scholars without question as the work of Theoderic
the Great. In the 1950s, however, Giulio Vismara made a strong case for Theoderic II of the
Visigoths (Romani e Goti, pp. 40763; most notably his Edictum Theoderici). But it can
hardly be doubted that the ET is the product of the Ostrogoth Theoderics administration,
for it clearly mirrors aspects of the Variae in terms of its content and ideology, and three
provisions address issues particular to the Italian peninsula: both ET 10 and 111 refer to Rome
specifically; and ET 145 mentions capillati, an honorific term (meaning long-haired ones)
used on one occasion by Cassiodorus to refer to the Goths living in the northern regions of
Siscia and Suavia (Variae 4.49). See further Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 1; Wormald, The
Leges Barbarorum, pp. 2153. The most accessible editions are those of Bluhme (Edictum
Theoderici regis in MGH Leges 5, pp. 14579 and Baviera (Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani II,
pp. 683710). For a review of the various editions of the ET, see Vismara, Edictum, pp. 911;
Baviera, FIRA II, p. 683.
8 On this distinction between ius and lex, see Mousourakis, Historical and Institutional Context,
pp. 1718; Matthews, Interpreting the interpretationes, pp. 1132 at p. 16; Stein, Roman, pp. 4,
28; For similar usages of the terms in later periods see McKitterick, The Carolingians, p. 38.
9 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 1.1.3, 27; 2.7; 3.17 (cf. 18), 31, 43.1; 4.22, 33, 42; 5.40; cf. 10.5, 7). Similarly,
the Anonymus Valesianus reports (12.66) that soon after his authority was recognized by the
eastern emperor Anastasius, Theoderic made an announcement to the Senate and people
of Rome, promising that with Gods help he would preserve inviolate the Roman law.
The Law
151
We wish that before Us the Goths and Romans be judged by the same
law; and there shall be no other difference between you, except that
they undergo the trials of war for the common advantage, and you may
increase in number through the quiet habitation of the city of Rome.10
By the early 6th century the imperial administration had largely disappeared,
but, however selective and modified, the Edictum Theoderici was a practical
guidebook of Roman law, which presupposed the importance of customs and
formalities that had their origins in a distant and bygone culture.11 In this,
Ostrogothic Italy was not unique. The adoption of a written code of law was an
experience shared by most of the barbarian successor kingdoms that emerged
in the former provinces of the western Roman empire over the course of the
5th and early 6th centuries. In principle, the legislation issued by the barbarian
kings represents their assuming of authority and responsibility for the problems associated with their arrival. Yet the interplay between Roman and barbarian is a far more complex matter than simple confrontation and eventual
replacement of the former by the latter.12 Barbarian kings alike borrowed from
and adapted Roman law to maintain authority within their respective territories. Of all the legal systems borne forth from antiquity, none has left a greater
impression on western legal traditions than that of Romes. Throughout the
Middle Ages and the early modern era, the bleached bones of this dead societys laws inspired kings, popes, and emperors in their respective roles as lawgivers and champions of justice. The well-known story of the Visigothic king
Athaulf (r. 41015) is worth mentioning here. According to the 5th-century historian Orosius (Historia adversus Paganos 7.43.23), Athaulf was often heard
saying that his first intention was to obliterate the Roman Empire and replace
it with a Gothic one. However, realizing that laws were a pre-requisite for statehood, and that his unruly followers had not yet attained such a level of civilization, Athaulf chose to defend existing Roman institutions with Gothic arms.
This issue of reception has long puzzled legal historians. In its broadest sense, reception is the process in law by which one legal system adopts
(se omnia deo iuvante quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt inviolabiliter servaturum promittit.) For an edition and translation of the text see Rolfe, Ammianus
Marcellinus, vol. 3.
10 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.3: Gothis Romanisque apud nos ius esse commune nec aliud inter
vos esse divisum, nisi quod illi labores bellicos pro communi utilitate subeunt, vos autem
habitatio quieta civitatis Romanae multiplicat.
11 For similar views regarding administration see Bjornlie in this volume.
12 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations.
152
Lafferty
substantive or procedural rules developed by and native to another legal

system. In its broadest form, reception may involve the wholesale adoption
of an entire alien legal system or it may involve narrower borrowings. The
Ostrogoths certainly possessed their own rudimentary laws and customs prior
to their arrival on Roman soil. Concerning this tradition, Jordanes says that
Dicineus, the great and mythical civilizer of the savage Goths, gave them laws
by which they learned to live, and which still existed in writing in his day and
were referred to as belagines.13 But it is unlikely that the Goths brought with
them a coherent body of Germanic law. First, they were not a long-established
political or ethnic group, but rather a happenstance collection of military units
and sundry hangers-on who had migrated to and through the empire for generations before they were settled. Second, Theoderic was acutely aware that he
had everything to gain by maintaining rather than upsetting the existing status
quo. His followers comprised only a fraction of the overall population of Italy,
the vast majority of which was Roman or at least thoroughly Romanized in
terms of culture, economy, institutions, and law.14 To that end, he was eager to
preserve as much of the material and cultural heritage of the Roman world as
possible. For its part, the surviving Roman population was anxious to maintain
as much as they could of the infrastructure associated with the highly urbanized culture of ancient Rome. In the aftermath of conquest, accommodation
to the changed realities became a priority of both Romans and Goths within
the newly established Ostrogothic regime. And Roman law would serve as the
basis for this accommodation.

Vulgar Law
As the Edictum Theoderici illustrates, however, the Roman law of Theoderics

kingdom was not the law of Augustan Rome or even Justinians eastern Roman
Empire. Precisely what it was is a question intimately connected with the
much larger issue of Vulgarrecht. The expression vulgar law was first coined
by the legal historian Heinrich Brunner in 1880 to designate a body of relatively
13 Jordanes, Getica 11.69, ed. Mommsen: ...naturaliter propriis legibus vivere fecit, quas
usque nunc conscriptas belagines nuncupant... On the legal tradition of the belagines,
see Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths, p. 246.
14 Theoderics followers comprised some 20,000 troops and their families, a number totalling around 40,000. See further Burns, Calculating Ostrogothic Population, pp. 45764;
Wolfram (History of the Goths, p. 279), estimates about 100,000; and similarly, Ensslin,
Theoderich der Grosse, pp. 624.
The Law
153
simple, perhaps customary, law which was not written down and which governed everyday legal business in the western Roman provinces from the 4th to
the 6th century.15 It was an evolution or, depending upon ones perspective, a
degeneration of purely classical Roman Civil Law, that is, the law that originally applied to the city of Rome.16
But as the application of this law was gradually extended to encompass all
Roman citizens living in outlying provinces, it gradually came to take account
of and to be influenced by custom or provincial practice in a process commonly referred to as vulgarization. Prior to the granting of citizenship to all the
inhabitants of the empire, provincial communities were permitted to continue
observing their own local systems of law and custom, provided they were not
incompatible with Roman rule. As citizenship was gradually extended to ever
increasing numbers of provincials, culminating in 212 with Caracallas constitutio Antoniniana, which granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of
the empire, provincial communities were required to adopt and apply the Civil
Law, the rules and procedures of which were largely unknown to them. Given
that the inhabitants of these communities were often reluctant to abandon the
norms by which they had been governed in the past, elements of these local
systems gradually crept into the Civil Law. Over time, Romes law lost its classical purity and became vulgarized.
The most influential voice for defining vulgar law has belonged to Ernst
Levy, who drew attention to the vulgarizing tendencies inherent in the Roman
laws of property that slowly emerged in the West over the course of the 3rd and
4th centuries. Vulgarizing tendencies, Levy claims, had existed at all times, but
classical jurisprudence kept them in check. Although vulgar law penetrated
even the legislation and was taken over by the elementary books for practitioners and students (for example, the post-classical collection of legal opinions
attributed to the jurist Paul, or the Epitome Gaian abridged version of the
Institutes that did away with all of Gaius complex explanations of the law), the
emperors of the 3rd century strove against this dissolution of the pure Roman
law. The chief protagonist of this fight was Diocletian (r. 284305), and with his
15 Brunner, Zur Rechtsgeschichte der rmischen, pp. 113, 119; id., Forschungen zur Geschichte,
p. 607 n. 1. The fundamental study of the development of Roman law in the East remains
that of Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht. Here, the focus is on the influence of peregrine
law on classical notions and principles of Roman law. For a review of the scholarship see
Liebs, Roman Vulgar Law, pp. 3553.
16 For this definition and a discussion of ius civile, see Mousourakis, Historical and
Institutional Context, pp. 224; Schiller, Roman Law, pp. 3668, 5257; Kaser, Rmische
Rechtsgeschichte, pp. 1303.
154
Lafferty
abdication this imperial policy came to an abrupt end. Now the dams broke,
especially after Constantine the Great, whom Levy regards as the first official
exponent of vulgar lawa sentiment shared by the emperor Julian (331/32
63) as an innovator and disturber of the ancient laws and of custom received
long ago.17 Vulgar law became universal in the East and the West in decrees of
Constantine and Julian, of Honorius and Arcadius, even after the legislation
became dual (429) in the Novels of Theodosius II and of Valentinian III.18
Levy rightly considers that the spread of vulgar law in the West over the
course of the 4th and 5th centuries was due in large measure to its tendency
towards popularization, away from the technicalities of the classical structure,
and the desire for regulations adapted to the conditions of the time. Related to
Caracallas universal grant of citizenship was the spreading relaxation of legal
discipline. A corollary to this was a decline in legal erudition, associated with a
drop in the number of skilled legal professionals. The result was the emergence
of a new type of law. Adhering neither to traditional niceties nor to strict concepts, this law was unable or simply unwilling to match the standards of the
artistic and comprehensive elaboration of logical construction that defined
classical jurisprudence.19 The establishment of the Dominate, the economic
and social revolution, and the administrative procedure of the cognitio led to
a fresh law full of fertile innovation, which was better suited to the needs and
understanding of the common man than the old. This was the vulgar law.20
In sharp contrast to this vulgarization of Roman law were the classicizing
efforts of the jurists in Constantinople. These conservative theorists despised
the heterogeneous vulgar law and continued to interpret the works of the
great classical jurists and the constitutiones of the emperors by applying the
old scholarly methods. Their classicizing tendencies culminated in the crowning achievement of Roman legal science, namely the Corpus Iuris Civilis of the
emperor Justinian (r. 52765).21 It was a counter-revolution against the intrusions of the vulgar law. In the West, vulgar law continued to evolve unhampered, amalgamating from the end of the 5th century with the appearance of
17 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 21.10.8, ed. and trans. Rolfe: novator turbatorque priscarum legum et moris antiquitus recepti.
18 Levy, Pauli sententiae, id., Vulgarization of Roman Law, pp. 1440; id., West Roman Vulgar
Law.
19 Levy, West Roman Vulgar Law, p. 7.
20 Levys theories have found many adherents including, e.g., Fischer-Drew, Germanic
Family, pp. 514; id., Barbarian Kings, pp. 729; Honor, Ausonius and Vulgar Law,
pp. 7982; Sirks, Shifting Frontiers, pp. 14657.
21 Stein, Roman Law, pp. 326.
The Law
155
the so-called leges barbarorum, a body of law that owed more to the traditions
of Roman provincial practice than to the presumed primitive customs of the
Germanic forests.
Vulgar law certainly marked a decline in classical standards of technical
precision and artistic elaboration. But it did not necessarily entail a decline in
legal erudition.22 Trained lawyers and legal experts remained in high demand
throughout the later Roman Empire, serving as advisors (assessors) in the late
imperial scrinia.23 Only after the Visigothic sack of Rome in 410 did their availability become somewhat of a problem.24 Cassiodorus, too, attests to their
continued importance in Ostrogothic Italy.25 But as the Edictum Theoderici
(ET) amply illustrates, knowledge of some of the more complex and technical
aspects of classical jurisprudence were no longer necessary or even practical.26
One example of a loosening of legal precision is what the compilers made of
patria potestas (paternal authority). At ET 94, parents could sell children in
potestate under certain conditions: Parents who are compelled by necessity
to sell their children for the sake of vital necessities shall not prejudice their
ingenuus status; for the value of a free person is considered inestimable.27
22 Wieacker, Le droit romain, pp. 20123; id., Vulgarrecht, pp. 3351. Wieacker reiterates
his position in his Rmische Rechtsgeschichte, 21118, noting that the vulgarization of late
Roman law was a matter of style rather than an indication of any sort of decline in legal
erudition. Moreover, Vandendriessche in her Possessio und Dominium demonstrates convincingly that the fundamental classical differentiation between property and simple
possession was still well known and respected in post-classical legislation of the 4th
and 5th centuries, even if these differences were now versed in non-classical terms. See
also Honor, Conveyances of Land, pp. 13752, who argues against any such notion of
vulgarization. Similarly, through a systematic analysis of late imperial juristic literature
and the identification of practising judicial experts between the 3rd and 6th centuries,
Liebs shows that there was no decline in the standard of classical jurisprudence in Late
Antiquity. See his Die Jurisprudenz im sptantiken Italien; id., Rmische Jurisprudenz,
pp. 20117; id. (ed.), Das Gesetz in Sptantike; id., Die pseudopaulinischen Sentenzen,
pp. 15171; id., Rmische Jurisprudenz; and id., Roman Vulgar Law, pp. 3553.
23 For the use of assessores in the imperial judicial system, see the introductory notes of Liebs
in his Vor den Richtern Roms. On the continuation of this institution in Late Antiquity see
Humfress, Orthodoxy, ch. 3.
24 Nov. Val. 32.6 (31 Jan. 451) referring to the lack of lawyers and judges since the time of
Alarics invasion.
25 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 1.12; 4.3; 5.4; 5.22.
26 Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 377404.
27 ET 94: Parentes qui cogente necessitate filios suos alimentorum gratia vendiderint,
ingenuitati eorum non praeiudicant; homo enim liber pretio nullo aestimatur. This is a
restatement of a legal opinion of the classical jurist Paul (PS 5.1.1), and as such develops
156
Lafferty
What is interesting here, and inconsistent with the ancient institution of patria
potestas, is the use of the term parens, which could mean either parent or any
close relation for that matter, and not necessarily pater.28
Though technical precision such as this would have been a concern primarily
for skilled legal experts and theorists, it corresponds to an overall decline in the
standards of artistry and rhetorical flourish characteristic of the Theodosian
Code and the Corpus Iuris Civilis of Justinian. Indeed this was a greatly simplified law of the towns and countryside of 6th-century Italy, unconcerned with
the traditional niceties of strict classical Roman law, and governed by social
and economic rather than legal considerations. As such, the law remains our
primary point of contact with the realities of day-to-day life experienced, or
perhaps endured, by the average person of Theoderics Italy.
Such realities, which were undoubtedly harsh and brutal at times, are mostly
obscured by the smokescreen of Roman civilitas created by Cassiodorus
selected missives. To begin with, Ostrogothic Italy was a largely rural place
where the vast majority of people scratched out a living through the direct
exploitation of the land.29 Not surprisingly, the bulk of the content of the
Edictum Theoderici deals with the sorts of perennial problems that plague all
agricultural communities, such as the usurpation of land at the hands of powerful magnates (ET 10), the destruction of crops or trees (ET 98), runaway slaves
(ET 80, 845, 87), the lack of available manpower (ET 142), a situation made
worse by recurring droughts and famines,30 the overworking of slaves or oxen
of another (ET 150), cattle rustling and wandering livestock (ET 568), shifting
boundary markers (ET 104),and malicious neighbours and careless farmhands
(ET 98). The arrival of the Goths created a predictable legacy of boundary
disputes that had to be settled in a timely fashion (ET 10, 47). In an effort to
control the violent men of powerful warlords (disingenuously described as
patrons), the compilers bemoaned that armed war bands were carrying off
property, beating people with clubs or stoning them, and setting fires. Such
offences were strongly condemned and subject to the harshest penalties
(ET 75, 89). The compilers also had an eye to commercial matters, regulating
Severan juristic arguments from the late 3rd century. See Humfress, Poverty and Roman
Law, pp. 183203.
28 On the decline of patria potestas as a viable legal concept in Late Antiquity, see MeyerMarthaler, Rmisches Recht in Rtien, pp. 1318; Thomas, Vitae necisque potestas,
pp. 499548; Harris, The Roman Fathers, pp. 8195; Arjava, Paternal Power, pp. 14765;
id., Survival of Roman Family Law, pp. 3351.
29 Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 5.
30 Cassiodorus, Variae 4.5; 4.7; 10.27; 12.25; 12.28.
The Law
157
loans and business transactions in a bid to facilitate economic growth (ET 134,
139, 149). This was also a world where civic life, such as it was, was in sharp
decline. There is nothing in the Edictum Theoderici on the repair of aqueducts
or roads, public monuments and works of art, theatres or gamesin short the
sorts of things that characterized the highly civilized urban culture of classical Rome. To be sure, civic life continued, but on a much smaller scale. Walls,
roads, and aqueducts continued to be maintained well into the early Middle
Ages, at least in Rome.31 But by the 6th century this had become a matter of
private initiative more so than public policy.32

Crime and the Law
While the compilers of the Edictum Theoderici devoted most of their attention
to matters of Roman private law, such as legal status and personality, property
(including slaves), contract and sale, ownership and possession, marriage and
divorce, and succession and inheritance, they also drew inspiration from the
vast compendium of Romes criminal law. Here, just as with private law, continuity was the rule. The laws of Theoderics kingdom attest to the lasting legacy
of Roman criminal law in late antiquity.
Roman law defined crime as any wrongful act that threatened social wellbeing and stability, and whose punishment was pursued in the interests of the
community rather than the victim, who was generally expected to be responsible for his or her own safety. The penalty itself could vary. It could be flogging,
exile, or death, which meant that it affected the status of the wrongdoer exclusively; or it might be sub-capital, which usually involved a fine (multa) that
was paid not to the victim or his family but to the treasury. Acts that fell under
this category included both crimes against the state (e.g. treason and sedition)
and common law crimes that primarily affected only the injured party, such as
murder, kidnapping, and adultery. This category excludes a number of wrongful acts that we might classify as criminal, such as theft, fraud, injurious behaviour, robbery, and some kinds of murder (e.g. of a slave), as well as actions that
we might define as white-collar crime, like embezzlement. In these instances,
it was the victim alone who benefited from the stipulated remedy. While
the state provided the judicial machinery for the settlement of these delicts
through the civil court, it had no vested interest in them.
31 Coates-Stephens, Walls and Aqueducts, pp. 16778.

32 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 3.49.
158
Lafferty
Over time the list of offences that constituted a crime grew to reflect changing social attitudes. So, too, did the range and severity of punishments, such
that by the beginning of the 4th century there was a strong desire, fuelled by
considerations of public interest (utilitas publica) and expressed both in public
opinion and in the minds of legislators, to increase the use of the death penalty. Emperors called for a capital penalty regardless of a persons rank or status
in cases involving such serious crimes as violence (vis); conspiracy to cause
the deaths of illustres, senators, or servants of the imperial household; magic
and soothsaying; murder, forgery and counterfeiting (or deliberately abetting
the same); assaults on holy virgins or widows, and failing to destroy defamatory writing. Adulterers, too, could be punished by death, whereas in previous
centuries adultery entailed a fine and sentence of banishment to an island.33
The laws of Theoderics Italy preserved the basic principles of Roman criminal law and penal policy. For serious offences, penalties ranged from the most
extreme, that is death (in assorted manner),34 to exile (which entailed banishment to another region of the kingdom),35 and flogging (usually carried
out in public and sometimes in lieu of another penalty).36 Financial penalties varied widely, from confiscations and fines (to the benefit of the fisc)37 to
compensation in money or kind, and established according to a fixed amount
(usually fourfold the amount originally taken).38 Sometimes a particularly
gruesome penalty was reserved for an especially heinous act. For instance, a
slave, domestic servant, or freedman who attempted to denounce his master
in court was to be cut down with swords.39 The deterrent effect could be further enhanced if the punishment fitted the crime. Thus, an arsonist was to be
burned alive.40 In addition, this was still a society where members of the upper
class could rightly expect, and lawfully demand, preferential treatment in relation to their social inferiors. More than simply using his wealth to pay a fine
and avoid the otherwise universally stipulated punishment for a given offence,
33 CTh 9.40.1 (314). On the subject of adultery as a capital offence in Constantines reign,
see generally Mommsen, Le Droit pnal romain, vol. 2, p. 426; Dupont, Le Droit criminal,
pp. 228; Bauman, Leges Iudiciorum Publicorum, pp. 103233; Treggiari, Roman Marriage,
p. 290; Evans Grubbs, Law and Family, pp. 95, 216225.
34 ET 1, 9, 17, 21, 3839, 41, 47, 489, 50, 56, 63, 78, 91, 97, 104, 107, 108, 110, 120, 125.
35 ET 18, 42, 75, 83, 89, 95, 97, 108.
36 ET 55, 73, 83, 89, 111.
37 ET 3, 10, 22, 24, 55, 73, 83, 84, 104, 111, 112, 115.
38 ET 24, 10, 11, 64, 70, 71, 80, 84, 97, 109 and 117, 141.
39 ET 48, 49.
40 ET 97.
The Law
159
a honestior could expect to be spared the more humiliating punishments dealt

out to humiliores (e.g., ET 59, 64, 75, 83, 89, 91, 97, 108, 111).
While all of these provisions had a basis in Roman law, significant innovations do occur. Usually this entailed a modification in the methods of punishment and a greater emphasis placed on the discretionary authority of the
judge in matters of punishment. For example, on the subject of forgery ET 41
closely follows a commentary of the 3rd-century jurist Paul (Pauli Sententiae):
ET 41
Anyone who produces or knowingly
uses a forgery, or persuades or
compels another to make one,
shall suffer a capital penalty.41
PS 4.7.2
Not only shall he who tampers with,
suppresses or destroys a testament,
but also anyone else who knowingly
with dolus malus instructs or undertakes this to be done, shall be held
liable for the penalty of the Cornelian
law [i.e. deportation].42
Whereas the original treats the offence as capital and punishes the guilty with
deportation (presupposed by PS 4.7.1), ET 41 is purposefully imprecise in fixing a specific punishment, simply stating that the offender would be punished
capitally. This could mean any number of things, including exile, deportation, and execution. The basis for all of this is the Cornelian law on forgery
(mentioned specifically in PS 4.7.2),43 which was overhauled substantially
by Constantine in the 4th century. But Constantines law applied the maximum penalty (i.e. death) only in the most serious of cases; in most instances
the usual punishment was deportation.44 Documentary proof had acquired
41 ET 41: Qui falsum fecerit, vel sciens falso usus fuerit, aut alterum facere suaserit, aut
coegerit, capitali poena feriatur.
42 Pauli Sententiae (herafter cited as PS) 4.7.2: Non tantum is, qui testamentum subiecit
suppressit delevit, poena legis Corneliae coercetur, sed et is qui sciens dolo malo id fieri
iussit faciendumve curavit.
43 This oversight was not accidental, nor was it an isolated incident. ET 83 follows closely
PS 5.6.14 concerning the unlawful confinement, selling and purchasing of a freeman, but
ignores the reference in the original to the source for thisthe Lex Fabia, a statute of
unknown date (presumably the 2nd or 1st century BC). Similarly in ET 123, a brief provision that prohibited creditors from seizing a pledge without the proper authorization of
a judge, they ignored the specific reference in the original, PS 5.26.4, to the Lex Iulia de
vi private. A similar air-brushing out of this Roman legal tradition is found in the Code of
Euric; see Harries, Not the Theodosian Code, p. 47.
44 Codex Theodosianus 9.19.2.
160
Lafferty
administrative significance as early as the Republic. As the imperial administration became more dependent on the use of the written word, even greater
weight was accorded to the significance of documents as a means of establishing proof. Consequently, forgery became a far more serious offence and was
more widely applied to include offences that under classical law constituted
the less serious delictal act of fraud (dolus).45 The silence in ET 41 concerning
the penal component strongly suggests that by the 6th century the matter had
become one of judicial discretion. While the judge could impose a sentence of
deportation in accordance with earlier imperial law, he could just as well apply
the maximum penalty of death; he was not bound by the fixed limitations
of the Cornelian law. Such discretion, facilitated by the growing importance of
the role of the judge in deciding the outcome of a given suit (in part a consequence of the demise of the formulary procedure in the 1st century AD), was a
defining feature of Theoderics justice system. As our sources reveal, however,
these discretionary powers could be swayed by well-timed gifts or rewards
from litigants hoping to obtain a favourable judgement.46
For particularly heinous crimes the tendency was to increase the scope and
severity of the original penalty. Of particular concern was the illegal usurpation
of property (invasio). Drawing from a decree of the emperors Valentinian II,
Theodosius I, and Arcadius in 389 (Codex Theodosianus 4.22.3), ET 10 punished the offender twofold the value of the stolen property (in addition to the
property itself) as opposed to the simple sum prescribed in the original text.47
The theft of livestock was likewise considered a serious matter. Modelled after
PS 5.18.2, ET 56 punished all such offenders capitally, whereas the punishment
in the original varied from the most extreme (i.e. death by the sword or consignment to the mine) to a form of (unspecified) public labour depending
upon the seriousness of the problem in general or the status of the offender
specifically. Moreover, the Edictum Theoderici went beyond the original to
require that the victim be compensated in the form of fourfold remuneration
and that slaves or originarii that were condemned for the act were to be surrendered by their owners to be punished capitally. Conversely, the largest fine
imposed upon a cattle rustler in the Pauli Sententiae was threefold the original amount.48 Both of these examples illustrate the importance of property in
6th-century Italy and demonstrate the determined concern of the Ostrogothic
45 For this development see Harries, Law and Empire, p. 108.
46 Lafferty, Law and Society, especially ch. 3.
47 For specific instances in our sources: Variae 5.29, 30; 8.28. See further Innes, Land,
Freedom, pp. 3974.
48 PS 5.18.3.
The Law
161
administration to protect property-holders against the open greed of others

and to prevent the anarchy that would have threatened if private individuals
had been permitted to take the law into their own hands.

Judges and Courts
Despite the fact that the justice system was by its nature an imperfect one,
biased in favour of the wealthy and well connected, it was nevertheless a
legitimate system. Where its integrity came under threat was in the actions of
the judges and court officials responsible for putting otherwise abstract rules
into effect. As in the later empire, the courts were administered by the central
administration through provincial governors and their staff, as well as officers
of the local municipalities, including the Roman defensores, duumviri, quinquennales, and the ubiquitous decurions, who had the authority to deal with
civil and minor criminal matters. Also at the local level was the bishops court
(episcopalis audientia), which had jurisdiction over cases involving ecclesiastic
officials.49 But it is clear from our sources that this was a much simplified and
watered-down version wherein the bulk of cases were dealt with by the provincial governor irrespective of the type of case or considerations of a persons
ethnicity or status.50
Outside the courtroom there existed several less-formal (but by no means
less-legal) methods of dispute settlement. Arbitration, or other forms of dispute
resolution such as mediation, negotiation, or self-help, offered an important
alternative to formal litigation, which could be an expensive, unpredictable,
and even risky endeavour. Unfortunately, the law took little notice of these,
and what references we have in the Variae to such informal methods of dispute
resolution reveal no more than one stage in what was, in most cases, a lengthy
and protracted process.51
49 On the functioning of the episcopalis audientia in Late Antiquity, see Rapp, Holy Bishops
in Late Antiquity, pp. 24252; Lamoreaux, Episcopal Courts, pp. 14367; Harries, Law and
Empire, pp. 191211; id., Resolving Disputes, pp. 6882; Lenski, Audientia episcopalis,
pp. 52629. The most extensive work is that of Cimma, Lepiscopalis.
50 Cassiodorus, Variae 5.14, 6.21; Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 3.
51 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 5.29 (the case of the blind veteran Anduit); 5.30 (addressed in
Theoderics name to the dux Guduin, this letter concerns the complaint of two Goths,
Costula and Daila, alleging that the addressee has imposed servile tasks (onera servilia)
on them; 8.28 (a letter in Athalarics name to Cunigast, vir illustris, that concerns the petition of the Romans Constantius and Venerius, which alleges that the Goth Tanca had
seized their farm and reduced them to slavery).
162
Lafferty
A significant challenge for the Ostrogothic administration was that the supply of skilled judges and other magistrates who could effectively uphold the
law was extremely scarce. Concerning provincial governors, only twelve are
known for Italy between 476 and 553a significant drop from the thirty-three
governors attested for the peninsula between 394 and 476.52 Over the course
of the 6th century military officers like the Gothic saio (plural saiones) and
comes (plural comites) began to supersede the traditional civil service (militia
Romana) in terms of importance in the overall administration of the courts.53
The jurisdiction of lesser officials was significantly curtailed as a result. The
defensor civitatis, for instance, once an important feature of late Roman government, was reduced to little more than a paper-pusher: rather than serving
as a local protector and representative of the central administration, by the
6th century this officer was mostly responsible for registering records in the
municipal archives (gesta municipalia).54
The number of civic magistrates seems to have declined also. In ET 52, we
read that transactions were to be witnessed and a record drawn up in the presence of a specified number of municipal officials, as had been done in the
empire. But the compilers acknowledged that the availability of such magistrates could pose a problem: but if these [officials] are not available, the registering of the transaction shall be fulfilled in another municipality which has
these officers, or let a report of what was given be forwarded to the governor
of that province.55
Just as important as the quantity of judges was their quality. As in the later
Roman Empire, officers of the royal bureaucracy were expected to fulfil any
number of functions on behalf of the king. Under this administrative prerogative a judge was any officer who possessed executive authority, such as a count,
duke, governor, or prefect. In other words, there was no branch of government
dedicated exclusively to the maintenance of the law. This lack of a professional
judiciary meant that the majority of judges performed their duties without
the benefit of significant legal training or expertize. This was particularly true
of the military courts. The duces and comites, before whom cases involving
52 Martindale, PLRE 2, pp. 12789; Barnwell, Emperor, p. 158.
53 Sinnigen, Administrative Shifts, pp. 45667; Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 6181,
93101; Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 3; Bjornlie in this volume.
54 ET 52. On the decline of the office of defensor civitatis in Late Antiquity, see Frakes, Some
Hidden Defensores Civitatum, pp. 52632; id., Late Roman Social Justice, pp. 33748,
where he argues that the office existed as early as 319; id., Contra Potentium Iniurias.
55 ET 52: ...qui si defuerint, in alia civitate, quae haec habuerit, allegationis firmitas
impleatur, aut apud iudicem eiusdem provinciae, quod donatum fuerit, allegetur.
The Law
163
s oldiers had to be heard, even if they were not necessarily illiterate Goths, were
normally men who had spent all their lives in the army and were therefore
quite unskilled in matters of law. That the situation in the regular courts was
undoubtedly better is true enough. As Athalaric proclaimed to his quaestor,
Felix: It is agreeable that the matter of justice be administered by judges experienced in the law, since he who knows fairness nor can easily become soiled
by the fault of error can scarcely be able to disregard one whom learning will
have purified.56
But provincial governors and even prefects were by no means always learned
in the law. Many, if not most, owed their positions to such factors as their wealth
and rank, and were generally selected for their noble birth rather than any sort
of demonstrable legal knowledge or ability. As Valentinian III remarked in 451
about Italy: I have learned that both advocates and judges today are rarely if
at all knowledgeable of the laws and customs.57 That the inadequacy of judges
was remedied to some extent by the use of assessores cannot be doubted.58
It would be naive to suppose, however, that judicial incompetence was not a
serious problem that could result in any number of injustices.59
Judicial incompetence undoubtedly played a part in permitting injustice to
flourish, but a judge whose perceived impropriety was the result of venality
or abuse of power was an altogether different matter. Laws dealing with corrupt and venal judges appear with increasing regularity from the 3rd century
onwards.60 Theoderic evidently took the matter very seriously. In all, a total of
ten provisions of the Edictum Theoderici deal with related matters of judicial
corruption and venality and the Variae document several instances of judicial
56 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.18: Professionem constat esse iustitiae legum peritos iudices ordinare, quia vix potest neglegere qui novit aequitatem nec facile erroris vitio sordescit, quem
doctrina purgaverit.
57 CTh Nov. Val. 32.6: Et causidicos et iudices defuisse hodieque gnaros iuris et legum aut
raro aut minime repperiri.
58 In the case of Archotamia, who made a complaint against her former daughter-in-law
alleging that the latter had unlawfully squandered the assets of her children, Cassiodorus
notes (Variae 4.12.3) that three assessors were to be chosen, by consent of the litigants
involved, to help settle the case: cum tribus honoratis, quos partium consensus elegerit,
qui legum possint habere notitiam...proferatis[.]
59 Lafferty Law and Society, ch. 3. For the problem of judicial incompetence in the later
Roman Empire, see Harries, Law and Crime, 3841; MacMullen, Roman Bureaucratese,
pp. 36478. For the early medieval world: Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 3; Wormald,
Lex Scripta, pp. 10538; Rich, Education et Culture, pp. 22931.
60 MacMullen Corruption; Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire; Harries, Law and Empire,
ch. 8.
164
Lafferty
misconduct.61 Scholars today tend to interpret these kinds of laws not as proof
that there was necessarily more corruption in Late Antiquity than there was
in earlier times, but that emperors were more often prepared to say so in a
bid to appear as hardliners against such governmental corruption.62 But this is
an oversimplification. Heightened concern about judicial corruption reflects
a greater sense of cultural and political crisis, as Theoderic and his successors
struggled to maintain order without the benefit of a comprehensive bureaucracy. Thus, while not necessarily a widespread problem, judicial corruption
was nevertheless a serious one. For there was no better measure of a rulers
ability to govern than the individuals who were tasked with upholding the law:
a corrupt judge not only undermined the integrity of the entire justice system, but called into question the suitability of the king as supreme lawgiver.63
Even if one were inclined to dismiss these sorts of complaints as a matter of
literary convention, the fact that the subject of judicial corruption receives so
much attention in the Edictum Theodericia relatively brief document that
is conspicuously devoid of the sort of legal rhetoric found in the Theodosian
Code or Variaeis a strong indicator that it posed a significant problem for
Theoderics administration.
To protect against the various dangers posed by a corrupt and negligent
judge, Theoderic relied upon those whose loyalty he had no doubt, but this
was no guarantee against acts of injustice and lawlessness on their part.64
That judges sometimes put their own interests before those of justice was
an unavoidable consequence of the limitations inherent in the Ostrogothic
administration. Like many emperors before him, Theoderic was hard-pressed
to provide effective government at the local level while at the same time
ensuring that local officers did not act in disregard of the central authority.
Theoderic was acutely aware of this inability, but nowhere does he acknowledge the inequity of the fact that judges were first and foremost servants of the
crown, usually expected to fulfil various other administrative responsibilities
in addition to their judicial functions. While they were required to render justice impartially and equitably as the law demanded, they were equally, if not
more so, obligated to protect the property and privileges of the king. Obviously,
these duties were mutually exclusive, and while in most cases we may presume
61 ET 17, 55, 91, 114. For instances of judicial misconduct in the Variae, see e.g. Cassiodorus,
Variae 9.20; 12.2, 3, 6. For the problem of judicial corruption in Ostrogothic Italy,
see Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 3.
62 E.g. Harries, Law and Empire, ch. 8; Pohl, Perceptions of Barbarian Violence, pp. 1526.
63 Hoeflich, Judicial Misconduct, pp. 79104.
64 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 14758; Matthews, Western Aristocracies, pp. 355, 3868.
The Law
165
that judges recognized the need to proceed according to the law, in those
special circumstances where the interests of the king were involved, they must
have been unsure where law and custom left off and the kings will began.65
The case of Boethius is illustrative. Accused of treason in 524, the senator
was marched to Ticinium (Pavia) where he was put on trial. Despite this being
a capital case, he was never called to defend himself. Instead, the presiding
judge, the urban prefect Eusebius, permitted the dubious claims of a certain
Opilio and Gaudentius (also discussed in Chapter 6), whose testimony secured
them amnesty for previous crimes, to determine the facts of the case. In what
amounted to little more than a show trial Boethius was convicted and sentenced to death.66
Under Theoderic the judicial system worked, but not without its deficiencies. The frequency of laws that deal with some form of corruption or another,
negligence, or disobedience by royal officers, while demonstrating the earnestness with which the central administration addressed concerns of judicial
corruption and misconduct, reveals the magnitude of the problem and the
governments inability to do anything about it. And it is all too clear that the
disintegration of the justice system was already far advanced before Justinians
forces landed in Sicily in 535. In the prologue to his edict, Athalaric outlines
this disintegration from beginning to end:
For a long while, now, complaints from all parts have sounded in Our ears
with frequent whispering that certain people, having spurned civilitas,
have chosen to live in bestial savagery, since, having returned to such a
state of primitive rusticity, they have developed a wild hatred for the laws
of man.67
By 552 Ostrogothic power in Italy was shattered. In the years following the
death of Theoderic in 526, succeeding Ostrogothic rulers engaged in divisive
fratricidal strife. Over the course of the same period, the competing kingdoms
65 Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 3.
66 For a full account of these events see Anonymus Valesiani 14.8587; Boethius, Consolatio
Philosophiae 1.4.1418; Procopius, Wars 5.1.329. That Boethius fictionalized, or at the very
least embellished, these events in an effort to emphasize his suffering is certainly possible, but there is enough correspondence between Boethiuss own account and those
of the Anonymus Valesianus and Procopius to conclude that the account has a basis in
historical fact.
67 Cassiodorus, Variae 9.18: diu est, quod diversorum querellae nostris auribus crebris
susurrationibus insonarunt quosdam civilitate despecta affectare vivere beluina saevitia,
dum regressi ad agreste principium ius humanum sibi aestimant feraliter odiosum.
166
Lafferty
of the Franks and the Vandals began to assert their autonomy and establish
dominance in regions once united under Ostrogothic control. From Athalaric
onwards, the Ostrogothic regime became increasingly incapable of dealing
with the dangers that threatened to pull apart the kingdom, dangers that had
existed since the early days of the empire: the exercise of patronage, judicial venality and corruption, and the inability of the central administration
to establish a strong presence in local communities and thereby ensure that
justice was maintained equally and impartially throughout the peninsula.
These problems were not unique to Ostrogothic Italy, but rather were endemic
throughout the various successor kingdoms as different rulers attempted
to restore peace and order without the benefit of a comprehensive judicial
hierarchy.68 What was different in the case of Ostrogothic Italy, however, was
the barbarian regimes ability to mask these problems behind a rhetoric of
Roman renewal that emphasized the perception of the order and civilitas associated with Ostrogothic rule.
Conclusion
The law of Ostrogothic Italy was an amalgamation of different traditions and
customs that strove toward the simplification and popularization of classical
law. A revealing testament to the character and vitality of this legal culture
is the Edict of Theoderic. For one, it fully bears out the longevity of Romes
ancient laws. Through their selection of topics the compilers displayed an
interest in, an ability to understand, and a desire to preserve the essence of
classical Roman law to a remarkable degree. Procedural rules governing criminal and civil cases, evidentiary matters pertaining to the validity of witnesses
and written documents, the performance of oaths to determine the guilt or
innocence of a person, the general system of succession, rules over marriage
and divorce, the conveyance of property, and many other aspects of Roman
public and private law were transmittedperhaps somewhat simplified
(which was not necessarily a very bad thing), but still in easily recognizably
Roman form. Some might suggest that this conservatism was the result of a
lack of understanding and self-confidence, so that the compilers refrained from
changing the texts of the jurists and the imperial decrees of emperors merely
because they did not know how to do it properly. But innovations do occur.
Some were the result of developments taking place in the Roman court system,
68 Wormald, Lex Scripta, pp. 10538.
The Law
167
and others were the result of changes in Italian society following the collapse
of imperial authority and the arrival of the Goths in the peninsula.69
In revising existing but increasingly outdated Roman law, the compilers of
the Edictum Theoderici were simply adhering to tradition. For centuries emperors, prefects, and jurists adapted Roman law according to current exigencies.
While Constantine was to some extent an innovator of the laws, as his nephew
Julian described him, he was simply acknowledging the current state of affairs.
By the early 4th century, the law which in fact operated in the provinces of
the western Roman Empire was an admixture of civil law and local custom,
differing from region to region and sharing little of the sophistication, complexity, and technical precision that characterized purely classical Roman law
from earlier centuries. It is from this perspective that we should understand
the Edictum Theoderici. It did not mark a break from Romes classical legal past,
normore importantlydid it signify a decline in legal erudition. While the
compilers lacked the artistic and rhetorical skills of jurists like Gaius, Ulpian,
and Tribonian, there is nothing inherently alien or inferior about their work.
On the contrary, they steered a subtle course between the strict formalities of
classical jurisprudence and the demands of local custom. Their efforts offer a
revealing glimpse into the profound social, political, and economic changes
that marked Italys passage from antiquity into the Middle Ages.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe, 3 vols. (Loeb Classical
Library), Cambridge, MA 193540.
Anonymi Valesiani pars posterior, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII.,
vol. 1 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 9), Berlin 1892
(repr. Munich 1981).
Boethius, Consolatio Philosophiae, ed. L. Bieler (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
94), 2nd ed., Turnhout 1984.
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894; Engl. trans. S.J.B.
Barnish, Cassiodorus: Variae (Translated Texts for Historians 12), Liverpool 1992.
Codex Theodosianus, ed. T. Mommsen/P. Meyer/P. Krueger, 2 vols., Berlin 1905.
Edictum Theoderici regis, ed. F. Bluhme (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges
nationum Germanicarum 5), Hannover 1889, pp. 14970; repr. by J. Baviera, Fontes
69 On these developments see Lafferty, Law and Society, especially ch. 2.
168
Lafferty
iuris anteiustiniani II, Florence 1940, pp. 683710; repr. P.L. Falaschi, Edictum
Theoderici regis Italiae, Milan 1966.
Jordanes, Romana et Getica, ed. T. Mommsen (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1), Berlin 1882.
Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, ed. P. Meyer/T. Mommsen, Berlin 1905.
Pauli Sententiae, ed. J. Baviera, FIRA, vol. 11, Florence 1940 (repr. 1964).
Procopius, Wars, ed. J. Haury and trans. H.B. Dewing, 5 vols. (Loeb Classical Library),
Cambridge, MA 191428.
Arjava, A., Paternal Power in Late Antiquity, Journal of Roman Studies 88 (1998),
14765.
, The Survival of Roman Family Law After the Barbarian Settlements, in
R.W. Mathisen (ed.), Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001,
pp. 3351.
Barnwell, P.S., Emperor, Prefects and Kings, London 1992.
Bauman, R.A., Leges Iudiciorum Publicorum, in H. Temporini (ed.), Aufstieg und
Niedergang der rmischen Welt, vol. 2.13, Berlin 1980, pp. 103233.
, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome, London 1996.
Bjornlie, S., What Have Elephants to Do with Sixth-Century Politics? A Reappraisal of
the Official Governmental Dossier of Cassiodorus, Journal of Late Antiquity 2.1
(2009), 14371.
, Politics and Tradition Between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople: A Study of
Cassiodorus and the Variae, 527554, Cambridge 2012.
Brown, T.S., Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in
Byzantine Italy, AD 554800, Rome 1984.
Brunner, H., Zur Rechtsgeschichte der rmischen und germanischen Urkunde, vol. 1: Das
Privaturkund Italiens; das angelschischen Landbuch; die frnkische Privaturkunde,
Berlin 1880.
, Forschungen zur Geschichte des deutschen und franzsischen Rechtes, Stuttgart
1894.
Burns, T.S., Calculating Ostrogothic Population, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 26 (1978), 45764.
Cameron, A., The Later Roman Empire, 284430, Cambridge, MA 1993.
Christensen, A.S., Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a
Migration Myth, Copenhagen 2002.
Cimma, M.R., Lepiscopalis audientia nelle constituzioni imperiali da Costantino
Giustiniano, Turin 1989.
Coates-Stephens, R., The Walls and Aqueducts of Rome in the Early Middle Ages,
AD 5001000, Journal of Roman Studies 88 (1998), 16778.
The Law
169
Delmaire, R., Les Institutions du Bas-mpire romain, de Constantin Justinien, vol. 1: Les
Institutions palatines, Paris 1995.
Dupont, C., Le Droit criminel dans les constitutions de Constantin, vol. 2: Les Peines,
Lille 1955.
Ensslin, W., Theoderich der Grosse, 2nd ed., Munich 1959.
Evans Grubbs, J., Law and Family in Late Antiquity, Oxford 1995.
Fischer-Drew, K., The Germanic Family of the Lex Burgundionum, Mediaevalia et
Humanistica 15 (1963), 514.
, The Barbarian Kings as Lawgivers and Judges, in R.S. Hoyt (ed.), Life and
Thought in Early Middle Ages, Minneapolis 1967, pp. 729.
Frakes, R.M., Some Hidden Defensores Civitatum in the Res Gestae of Ammianus
Marcellinus, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Rom. Abt. 109
(1992), 52632.
, Late Roman Social Justice and the Origins of the Defensor Civitatis,
The Classical Journal 89 (1994), 33748.
Frakes, R.M., Contra Potentium Iniurias: The Defensor Civitatis and Late Roman Justice,
Munich 2001.
Halsall, G., Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376568, Cambridge 2007.
Harries, J., Not the Theodosian Code: Eurics Law and Late Fifth-Century Gaul,
in id./I. Wood (eds.), The Theodosian Code. Studies in the Imperial Law of Late
Antiquity, London 1993, pp. 3951.
, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 1999.
, Resolving Disputes: The Frontiers of Law in Late Antiquity, in R.W. Mathisen
(ed.), Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001, pp. 6882.
, Law and Crime in the Roman World, Cambridge 2007.
Harris, W.V., The Roman Fathers Power of Life and Death, in R.S. Bagnall/id. (eds.),
Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A.A. Schiller, Leiden 1986, pp. 8195.
Heather, P., Gens and Regnum among the Ostrogoths, in H.-W. Goetz/et al. (eds.),
Regna and Gentes: the Relationship Between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples
and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, Leiden/New York 2003,
pp. 88133.
, Merely an Ideology?Gothic Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, in S.J. Barnish/
F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century,
Woodbridge 2007, pp. 3160.
Hoeflich, M.H., Regulation of Judicial Misconduct from Late Antiquity to the Early
Middle Ages, Law and History Review 2 (1984), 79104.
Honor, T., Ausonius and Vulgar Law, Iura 35 (1984), 7982.
, Conveyances of Land and Professional Standards in the Later Empire, in
Peter Birks (ed.), New Perspectives in the Roman Law of Property. Essays for Barry
Nicholas, Oxford 1989, pp. 13752.
170
Lafferty
Humfress, C., Poverty and Roman Law, in M. Atkins/R. Osborne (eds.), Poverty in the
Roman World, Cambridge 2006, pp. 183203.
, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007.
Innes, M., Land, Freedom and the Making of the Medieval West, Transactions of the
Royal Historical Society 16 (2008), 3974.
Jolowicz, H.F./Nichols, B., Historical Introduction to Roman Law, 3rd ed., Cambridge
1972.
Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284602: A Social, Economic and Administrative
Survey, 3 vols., Oxford 1964.
Kaser, M., Rmische Rechtsgeschichte, Gttingen 1976.
, Das rmische Zivilprozessrecht, 2nd ed., Munich 1996.
Kelly, C., Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, MA 2004.
Kunkel, W., An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History, trans. J.M. Kelly,
2nd ed. (based on the 6th German edition of Rmische Rechtsgeschichte), Oxford
1973.
, Law and Society in Ostrogothic Italy: Evidence from the Edictum Theoderici,
Journal of Late Antiquity 3.2 (2010), 377404.
Lamoreaux, J.C., Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity, Journal of Early Christian Studies
3 (1995), 14367.
Lenski, N., Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine,
in R.W. Mathisen (ed.), Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001,
pp. 8397.
Levy, E., Pauli sententiae: a palingenesia of the opening titles as a specimen of research in
west Roman vulgar law, Ithaca 1945.
, Vulgarization of Roman Law in the Early Middle Ages, Mediaevalia et
Humanistica 1 (1963), 1440.
Liebs, D., Roman Vulgar Law in Late Antiquity, in A.J.B. Sirks (ed.), Aspects of Law in
Late Antiquity, Oxford 2008, pp. 3553.
, Die Jurisprudenz im sptantiken Italien (260640 n. Chr.) (Freiburger
Rechtsgeschichtliche Abhandlungen, n.f. 8) Berlin 1987.
, Rmische Jurisprudenz in Afrika im 4. Jh. n. chr, Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung 106 (1989), 20117.
(ed.), Das Gesetz in Sptantike und frhem Mittelalter, Gttingen, 1992.
, Die pseudopaulinischen Sentenzen, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr
Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung 112 (1995), 15171.
, Rmische Jurisprudenz in Gallien (2 bis 8 Jahrhundert), Berlin 2002.
, Vor den Richtern Roms. Berhmte Prozesse der Antike, Munich 2007.
The Law
171
MacMullen, R., Roman Bureaucratese, Traditio 18 (1962), pp. 36478.

McKitterick, R., The Carolingians and the Written Word, Cambridge 1989.
Martindale, J., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2: AD 395527,
Cambridge 1980.
Matthews, J.F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364425, Oxford 1992.
, Laying Down the Law, New Haven 2000.
, Interpreting the interpretationes of the Breviarium, in R.W. Mathisen (ed.),
Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001, pp. 1132.
Meyer-Marthaler, E., Rmisches Recht in Rtien im frhen und hohen Mittelalter, Zurich
1968).
Mitteis, L., Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den stlichen Provinzen des rmischen
Kaiserreichs: Mit Beitrge zur Kenntniss des griechischen Rechts und der sptrmischen Rechtsentwicklung, Leipzig 1891 (repr. Hildesheim 1963).
Mommsen, T., Le Droit pnal romain, trans. J. Duquesne, 3 vols., Paris 1907.
Moorhead, J., Theoderic in Italy, London 1992.
Mousourakis, G., The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law, Aldershot
2003.
Pohl, W., Perceptions of Barbarian Violence, in H.A. Drake (ed.), Violence in Late
Antiquity. Perceptions and Practices, Aldershot 2006, pp. 1526.
Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of
Transition, Berkeley 2005.
Rich, P., Education et Culture dans lOccident Barbare VIeVIIIe sicles, Paris 1962.
Schiller, A.A., Roman Law: Mechanisms of Development, New York 1978.
Sinnigen, W., Administrative Shifts of Competence under Theoderic, Traditio 21
(1965), 45667.
Sirks, A.J.B., Shifting Frontiers in the Law: Romans, Provincials and Barbarians, in
R.W. Mathisen/H. Sivan (eds.), Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, Aldershot 1996,
pp. 14657.
Stein, E., Untersuchungen ber das Officium der Prtorianerprfektur seit Diokletian,
Amsterdam 1962.
Stein, P., Roman Law in European History, Cambridge 1999.
Thomas, Y., Vitae necisque potestas. Le pre, la cit, la mort, in Du chtiment dans la
cit: Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Collection de lcole
franaise de Rome 79), Rome 1984, pp. 499548.
Treggiari, S., Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of
Ulpian, Oxford 1991.
Vandendriessche, S., Possessio und Dominium im postklassischen rmischen Recht. Eine
berprfung von Levys Vulgarrechtstheorie anhand der Quellen des Codex
Theodosianus und der Posttheodosianischen Novelle, Hamburg 2006.
172
Lafferty
Vismara, G., Romani e Goti di fronte al diritto nel regno ostrogoto, in I Goti in occidente: problemi (Settimanae di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sullalto medioevo
3), Spoleto 1956, 40763.
, Edictum Theoderici (Ius Romanum Medii Aevi 2.b.aa), Milan 1967.
Wallace-Hadrill A. (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society, London 1989.
Wieacker, F., Le droit romain de la mort dAlexandre Svre lavnement de
Diocltien, Revue historique de droit franais et tranger 49 (1971), 20123.
, Vulgarrecht und Vulgarismus. Alte und Neue Probleme und Diskussionen,
lecture in Siena 4th December 1979, in Studi in onore di Arnaldo Biscardi I, Milan
1982, pp. 3351.
Wolfram, H., History of the Goths, trans. T.J. Dunlap, 2nd ed., London 1988.
Wormald, P., Lex Scripta and verbum Regis: Legislation and Germanic Kingship from
Euric to Cnut, in P.H. Sawyer/I.N. Wood (eds.), Early Medieval Kingship, Leeds 1977,
pp. 10538.
, The Leges Barbarorum: Law and Ethnicity in the Ostrogothic West, in
H. Goetz/et al. (eds.), Regna and Gentes: The Relationship between Late Antique and
Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World,
Leiden/New York 2003, pp. 2153.
CHAPTER 8
The Ostrogothic Military

Guy Halsall
Introduction
The Ostrogothic kingdom was created and destroyed by conquest and the army
remained a central feature of its politics and society. Discussing m
ilitary affairs
in Gothic Italy therefore requires attending to seemingly unmilitary issues like
the settlement and its nature and the kingdoms ethnic politics, which have been
foci for sometimes fierce recent debate. This chapter is organized according to
three main chronological phases: the period of the conquest, Theoderics reign
as king of Italy, and finally the Gothic War. This permits both the examination
of change and the analysis of issues specific to each sub-period. Although the
Ostrogothic Italian kingdom endured for only three generations, Theoderics
was a long reign by any standards. The troops who accompanied him across
the Isonzo in 489 were very different from those undertaking the military operations of his last years and entirely unlike those of the Gothic Wars.

The Army of the Conquest: Theoderics GothsAn Army

or A People?
Theoderics forces in 489 developed from several Gothic groupings. Principally,

they originated in Theoderics own armed following and in that of his namesake, Theoderic Strabo (the Squinter).1 Neither group can be considered as
the Gothic people, although later sources from within the Italian kingdom and
outside attempted to create that image. The fact that as well as the Toulouse
Visigoths two Balkan Gothic groups existed gives the lie to such a supposition.
Moreover, these were not only two such groups, but simply the most numerous
and, therefore, the most politically and militarily significant.
These bands originated in the instability that followed the fragmentation of
Attilas short-lived trans-Danubian empire in the 450s. Attilas polyglot subjects possessed several levels of ethnicity beneath a unifying Hunnic identity.
In a justly famous story, the east Roman ambassador Priscus met a Greek in
1 Well described in Heather, Goths and Romans, pp. 227308.
174
Halsall
Attilas camp,2 but this Greek also regarded himself as a Hun. Famously, most
known Huns bear Gothic names, not least Attila and his brother Bleda, and
the material culture associated with the Hunnic kingdom emerges from local
Roman and barbarian traditions. After Attilas death, strife broke out between
his sons and other former commanders. Often depicted as a rising of subject
peoples, it seems more reasonably described as a succession crisis. Opponents
of the Attilan dynasty adopted non-Hunnic identities, bringing back to the
surface lower-level ethnicities, like the Greek identity of Priscus interlocutor, which had always existed. Following the defeat of Attilas sons, a bewildering array of peoples came fleetingly into view in the Hunnic kingdoms
wreckage.3 For some, even a solid historical existence can be questioned. Only
three named Skiri are known: Odovacer, his father, and his brother.4 It is difficult to decide whether Skirian identity ought to be considered ethnic or
familial. Nonetheless, a successful kin groups identity might attract enough
adherents for it to operate in uncontrovertibly ethnic fashion. After all, historians are accustomed to describing post-imperial Gaul, its people, and its
culture between the late 5th and 8th centuries using a familial identity originating precisely in Odovacers generation: Merovingian. The families of the
two Theoderics apparently stressed a Gothic identity, just as other people with
Gothic names had adopted or continued to proclaim Hunnic ethnicity. Others
made political claims based around Gepidic, or Herulian, or Rugian identity.
Whether any faction should be considered a reappearing tribe with a long
pedigree seems questionable.
Whether the Goths formed a people on the move as in traditional
Vlkerwanderung interpretations or as in more recent works were simply an
army has recently been debated.5 Extreme interpretations are unsatisfying,
not least because army and people are trickier terms to define than might be
assumed. Consequently, between the polar readings, conclusions are difficult
to pigeonhole as either army or people. Nevertheless, the issue is of consid2 Priscus, frag. 11.2 (Blockley), pp. 26675.
3 Fehr/von Rummel, Vlkerwanderung, pp. 7580; Heather, Goths, pp. 24051; id., Goths,
pp. 1249; Pohl, Vlkerwanderung, pp. 11825; Thompson, Huns, pp. 16776; Wolfram Goths,
pp. 25868; id., Roman Empire, pp. 13943.
4 Goffart, Barbarian Tides, pp. 2035.
5 The debate has focused on Alarics Goths more than on the Ostrogoths but the same issues
apply. For a clear defence of the people on the move see Heather, Goths, pp. 16978. For
discussion of the earlier Goths, many points of which can be made, by analogy, for the
Ostrogoths, see Liebeschuetz, Alarics Goths; Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 18994;
Kulikowski, Nation Versus Army.
175
erable relevance. Gothic factions (like, presumably, the others) are described
having women and children in tow,6 which has been taken as proving that they
were a migrating people.7 This does not necessarily follow. Roman armies
took women and children with them too, as did most armies until well into the
20th century.8 This note of caution, however, does not authorize us to disallow
the view of the Goths as a people on the move. A factional interpretation
permits an intermediate course, envisaging a social group including women
and children, but with young male warriors serving more established leaders
forming the most important element.9
After many years of campaigning, in and out of East Roman service,
three consequences can readily be imagined. One is the knitting of warrior
bands into established quasi-permanent bodies, living together year-round,
practising weapon use, and regularly fighting alongside one another. These
would acquire most of the attributes of regular military units and the whole
organization those of a permanent army. Indeed the Ostrogoths largely functioned as an army during the 470s and 480s. The second consequence, however, will have been the acquisition of wives, children, and undoubtably camp
followers. Paradoxically, then, as the Goths increasingly took on the form and
functions of an army, they will have become more socially varied. The third
consequence is that young warriors got older; mature warriors became old and
possibly infirm. Without an established place in eastern Roman social, military, and political structures, they could not settle down. They had little option
but to continue to move andas long as they couldfight with the rest. This
made the Goths, even if originating and functioning as an army, much more
like a people than most military forces. Therefore, to see the force heading
for Italy in 489 as looking rather more like a people than a normal army, one
need not envisage Theoderics Goths as originating as a tribe that upped and
moved en masse. Once the situations dynamics are thought through, even a
narrowly military reading of the Goths origins and structure (like this one)
must ultimately imagine the force that arrived in Italy as something more
socially variegated.
6 Malchus, frag. 20, ed. Blockley; Ennodius, Pan. 267.

7 Heather has repeatedly expressed this opinion, most sophisticatedly in Goths and Romans,
and Goths.
8 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 1901; Codex Theodosianus (cited hereafter as CTh) 7.1.3.
9 See Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 439, 444, 447 for the importance of age.
176

Halsall
Italian Background
The loss of direct imperial control over Africa in the 420s and 430s produced
crucial changes in Italian politics.10 The seaborne threat from Carthage forced
significant forces to be stationed throughout Italy, rather than (as hitherto)
just in the north. A key element of 5th-century politics was the increasingly
hostile separation of Italian and Gallic aristocracies. However, whereas the
4th-century Italian aristocracy had had little option but to accept the de facto
shift of the imperial core to the Rhine frontier, it now had an armed force to
ensure its control of the centre of politics and patronage. The Italian army
became decisive in peninsular politics, as Ricimers long period of dominance
makes clear. Although unable to establish itself over the factions based upon
the Goths of Toulouse and the Burgundians on the Rhne, the Dalmatian army,
or the Vandals in Africa, it nevertheless dominated Italy, expelling the Gallic/
Gothic faction in 457 and the (legitimate) Dalmatian claimant in 475, as well as
fending off attacks from African Vandals and transalpine Alamanni.
Recruitment remained problematic, however. Lacking effective fiscal control
beyond Provence and the Narbonnaise or Tarraconensis, any Italian emperors
income was greatly reduced. The peninsula became a political hothouse as the
senators, likewise cut off from properties and revenues abroad, competed with
lower-order aristocrats for honours, titles, and patronage, especially where
local wealth differences were now much reduced. This made the governments
ability to levy troops as well as taxes problematic. Therefore, taxation paid for
military recruitment outside Italy, especially in trans-Danubian barbaricum.
These troops, at least initially, lacked local ties and were more easily employed
as a coercive force. Unsurprisingly, the resources used to pay the army were
referred to as the fiscus barbaricus.11
Nonetheless, crucial dynamics operated. Roman troops remuneration
had always involved land. Late Roman forces, as noted, lived and sometimes
moved accompanied by wives and children. Recruits got older, married, and settled down. Hereditary military service12 meant that any children followed their
fathers into the army, which over time became as integrated into peninsular
society and politics as any other group. The soldiery that serially deposed Julius
Nepos and Romulus Augustulus doubtless contained significant numbers of
10 See Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 25783 for Italian political history, and 32838 for
social and economic conditions, with references; Humphries, Italy, AD 425605.
11 Cesa, Il regno di Odoacre, p. 310; Variae 1.19 for its successor, the fiscus gothicus.
12 CTh 7.1.5, 7.1.8.
177
men born and raised in Italy, even if serving in units with barbarian titles:
second-generation Italo-barbarians.
This discussion casts the confrontation between Odovacer and Theoderic
somewhat differently from the clash of barbarian armies sometimes imagined. Both sides originated in a specific 5th-century imperial context. Their
similarities doubtless explain the drawn-out, long-indecisive nature of the
struggle and the common changing of sides.13 Nonetheless, Theoderics troops
military experience and long practice operating as units were probably crucial
to their eventual victory.14
Hospitalitas
Crucial to understanding the militarys place in Gothic Italy is what has been
dubbed, perhaps misleadingly, the Hospitalitas debate.15 The name h ospitalitas
(loosely, hospitality) came from a late Roman billeting law, describing the
division of billets into thirds: the householder taking two and the soldier
the other.16 Procopius Wars allege that the barbarians appropriated a third
of the land of Italy, and Cassiodorus Variae allude to Gothic thirds or shares.
Italy was long understood as having been divided according to that billeting
law, with one-third going to the Goths. This idea fit then-dominant paradigms,
seeing the 5th centurys principal feature as violent barbarian conquest and
viewing the barbarians as land-hungry tribes.
Walter Goffarts Barbarians and Romans undermined that consensus. Goffart
shaped his general theory of barbarian settlement using the Italian evidence
rather than the Burgundian, as had hitherto been more usual. The Italian data
were more contemporary than the relevant clauses of the Burgundian Code.
13 Anonymus Valesianus, pars posterior, 10.5056, ed. Rolfe; Cassiodorus, Chronicle 132031,
ed. Mommsen; Consularia Italica (a collection of annalistic texts grouped by Theodor
Mommsen under this title,which is highly misleading but convenient for citation)
63949; Ennodius, Life of Epiphanius, 10919. Heather, Goths, pp. 21920; Wolfram Goths,
pp. 2814.
14 An army of Gallic Visigoths decisively broke Odovacers siege of Theoderic in Pavia
(Anonymus Valesianus, pars posterior 11.53). Whether this represented pan-Gothic
cooperation is unlikely. It may be preferable to see the Gallic faction chancing its arm
in Italian politics in established 5th-century tradition, with Alaric II following his uncle
Theoderic IIs example.
15 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 42247; for summary of the debate to ca. 2005 and references. Goffart, Barbarian Tides, pp. 11986.
16 CTh 7.8.5 (dated 398).
178
Halsall
Aquitanian Gothic and Burgundian settlements were separated from the

documents that described them by time and several phases of development.
Ennodius and Cassiodorus writings offered a direct view of how barbarian
troops were settled in a Roman province. Goffarts more famous move placed
the settlement within the context of Roman taxation. He proposed that the
Gothic settlers were granted not thirds of land but thirds of tax revenue.
The Roman law of hospitalitas had, Goffart showed, concerned the temporary provision of shelter, not salary, provisioning, or settlement. Procopius testimony was politically motivated, the Wars legitimizing Justinians reconquest
of Italy. Procopius might have distorted evidence to paint Theoderic in a bad
light. His reference to a third of the land might only be hyperbole, with no relationship to the tertia referred to elsewhere. Goffart turned instead to Ennodius
and Cassiodorus contemporary statements that the Goths had been settled
without Roman landowners feeling any loss.17 It was difficult, said Goffart, to
envisage such pronouncements if the senators had really been stripped of a
third of their estates.
Goffart then analysed Cassiodorus Variae and the technical terms illatio
tertiarum and millennarius.18 The former had previously been read as a levy of
one-third of the revenue from land, paid by landowners whose estates had not
been partitioned to house a Goth. Alongside actual expropriation, this would
have represented a serious burden on the Italian aristocracy, making Ennodius
and Cassiodorus rhetorical statements extremely insensitive. The aristocracy
clearly retained its 5th-century prosperity under the Ostrogothsdifficult to
envisage if their revenues had been so drastically reduced. Goffart suggested
that the illatio was a third of the usual tax revenues, diverted to pay Gothic
salaries. The third (tertia) referred to this.19
A millenarius20 had been assumed to be a chiliarch (a commander of
1000 men). The term can mean this but Goffart pointed out that a millena was
also a notional Roman tax assessment unit still used in Ostrogothic Italy.21 In
specific numbers and perhaps drawn from particular fiscal assets, these were
set aside for designated purposes. For Goffart, a millenarius was a Goth paid
17 Ennodius, Epist. 9.26; Cassiodorus, Variae 2.16.

18 Goffart, Barbarians and Romans, pp. 7380. The loci classici are Variae 1.14 and 2.1617.
19 Bjornlie, elsewhere this volume, for the straightforward fiscal connotations of the illatio tertiarum. Relating the tertia to the fiscal payment schedule simplifies the situation
further.
20 Goffart, Romans and Barbarians, pp. 808. Cassiodorus, Variae 5.27, ed. Mommsen is key.
21 See Cassiodorus, Variae 2.37, ed. Mommsen.
179
with a millena of tax revenue.22 Conflicts between Gothic soldiers and Italian
taxpayers arose where the former attempted to convert a legitimate right to
receive a salary into the illegitimate ownership of the land from which that
salary was raised.23
Goffarts simple reading has considerable advantages. No longer need one
envisage hordes of agrimensores touring the Italian peninsula, assessing estates
and their relative value before assigning measured portions to specific Goths.
The state gained a standing army and lost nothing; revenue collection was simplified. Nonetheless, most historians have remained unconvinced.24 Most seriously, Goffarts thesis as originally formulated required readers to understand
terra as meaning fiscal revenue from the land, which, critics argued, was
rather forced. In response, Goffart pointed out that even in straightforwardlooking modern legal documents, land implies a web of relations and obligations. This excluded the proclamation that terra was unambiguous, as though
land were itself straightforward. Furthermore, Goffarts argument relied upon
more than new translations of words like terra, accounting for many other
relationships frequently ignored by anti-Goffartian critiques.
Most problematically for Goffarts critics, the traditional view was rooted
in the appearance of tripartite divisions in the Roman hospitalitas law and in
some texts discussing barbarian settlement. Goffart decisively showed that
the Theodosian Codes hospitalitas had no bearing on the issues confronted in
5th- and 6th-century texts describing barbarian tertia and the rest. Therefore,
even if one finds Goffarts argument unconvincing, a return to old-style expropriationist theses, based ultimately on that hospitalitas law, is impossible.
Even in its most recent formulation, Goffarts interpretation is not
unproblematic.25 Some ground clearing is necessary. We must rigorously
keep to the precise issue under debate and to the particular data relevant to
it. Evidence, for example, of Gothic landowning does not contradict Goffarts
thesis, which concerned the barbarian settlers salary and thus their relations with the state. It discussed accommodation in that precise sense, not
22 Mommsen, Ostgotische Studien, p. 499, nn. 34, related millenarii to millenae. Lot Du
rgime de lhospitalit, p. 1003, and nn. 56, thought millenarii were officers. Generally,
however, it had been assumed that a millena was a fixed amount of land.
23 Goffart Romans and Barbarians, pp. 89100.
24 Principal critiques include: Barnish, Land, taxation and barbarian settlement; Cesa,
Hospitalitas o altre techniques of accommodation?; Halsall, Technique of Barbarian
Settlement; Wood, Ethnicity and ethnogenesis. Goffart has responded vigorously in
Barbarian Tides, Technique of Barbarian Settlement, and Administrative Methods.
25 Pace Goffart, Administrative Methods.
180
Halsall
barbarian landownership. Furthermore, we need not suppose that all the land
of Italy was encompassed in the discussion of thirds. The only text to say so is
Procopius Wars. If, like Goffart, one rejects that testimony, one must logically
reject it all, not pick and choose details from it. The most one may say is that
Procopius mention of a third might have been motivated by the legal arrangements employed. The documents need not imply a universal, peninsula-wide
arrangement, but only that those relationships applied to those lands or
resources necessary for the Gothic armys payment. Indeed one need assume
only that those relationships applied to the lands or resources necessary to pay
those Goths who were paid in that way. There is no implication that all Goths
were remunerated entirely in the fashion discussed in the handful of relevant
documents in the Variae. Goffarts critics have made the point before that it
is unlikely that all Goths received the same payment, albeit on the mistaken
assumption that a standard salary rather than a standard means of paying a
salary was implicit in Goffarts argument.
Goffarts reading of the illatio, tertia, sortes and millenarii seems reasonable.
Late imperial Roman precedents existed for his system, having apparently
been used to pay elite field armies such as in a general sense the Goths were.26
A Gothic warrior would be paid by a draft on taxation,27 which he collected
from designated taxpayers and, as Gothic status apparently equated more or
less with service in the army, this relationship would be inheritable. Most of
this situations elements derived from the late imperial military. The relationship between Goth and Roman was crucially that of government official to taxpayer. No other relative status was implied. A Goth may have been of a higher
or lower standing than the Romans earmarked to pay him his salary.
The Goffart thesis limitation is its insistence that one system entirely sufficed in all cases, in Ostrogothic Italy and elsewhere.28 That requires complex
and sometimes less-convincing argumentation. It is simpler to propose that
while Goffarts proposed system provided the Ostrogothic armys essential
salary, it was not necessarily the only means used. Different Gothic status
groups may have wanted payment in different forms.29 The resources of the
sacrae largitiones and res privata, including landed estates and palaces as well
as revenues, surely passed directly to Theoderic. At least one Gothic family
(the Amals) received land to live upon. It is plausible that, like the e mperors,
26 CTh 7,4.20, 22.
27 That such a system for payment was employed in Ostrogothic Italy is suggested by
Edictum Theoderici (cited hereafter as ET) 126 and especially 144.
28 See Halsall, Barbarian Migrations for discussion of the problems with this assumption.
29 Garca Gallo, Notas sobre el reparto de terras; Wolfram, Goths, p. 224.
181
Theoderic rewarded some of his followers from these resources. Grants of fiscal land on emphyteutic leases are reasonably well attested as a form of imperial patronage.30 Theoderic had otherentirely traditionalresources within
the sacrae largitiones and res privata. Confiscating enemies property was
normal after a civil war.31 It is reasonable to see Odovacers senior supporters
being expropriated, their land used to reward some of Theoderics f ollowers.32
Contemporary sources mention massacres of Odovacers men.33 They had
probably been paid according to a system like that proposed by Goffart but
they had also lived somewhere and that landed property fell to Theoderic to
retain or redistribute. We can easily imagine Theoderics senior or favoured
followers being remunerated with land grants. This has no bearing on the
documents discussed by Goffart or the precise situations they describe, or to
normal Gothic military salary.
A considerable swathe of agri deserti (lacking registered taxpayers) existed.34
The late Roman state had rewarded retiring veterans with land.35 Employing the
agri deserti, yielding no tax revenue, for this purpose cost the government
nothing. Indeed enmeshing them in a system of military obligations extended
fiscal resources. This, however, is also irrelevant to discussions of sortes or
tertia, which relate to tax revenue. Some dynamics within the Gothic army are
important. Not all Theoderics men were warriors in the prime of life. Some
had campaigned for twenty years and doubtless expected to settle down.
Others may have fought on into old age or accompanied the army as infirm exwarriors for the protection provided. They would not normally draw an annual
salary nor periodic donatives in return for military service.36 Land was a more
appropriate reward. Nonetheless, because Gothic soldiers status and duties
were heritable, lands so used were automatically entwined in military obligations, especially when inherited.
Imagine an elderly companion of Theoderic and perhaps Thiudimir, his
father, rewarded with an Italian ager desertus. He has a son serving in the army
30 Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 41720.
31 Cassiodorus, Variae 4.32, ed. Mommsen assigns the property of the proscribed to the fisc.
The Edictum Theoderici specifies the fiscs claim to incoroporate convicted criminals
property in some cases, where there were no heirs. ET 11213.
32 Cassiodorus, Variae 1.18, ed. Mommsen refers more easily to the distribution of expropriated land (and abuses of that situation) when Theoderic conquered Italy than to illegitimate claims on tax revenue.
33 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 267.
34 Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 81223 is the classic basic account.
35 CTh 7.8.1.
36 See Cassiodorus, Variae 5.36, ed. Mommsen.
182
Halsall
who collects his salary from designated taxpayers; in Goffarts terms he is a

millenarius. When the old Goth dies, the son inherits his land.37 But, because
he inherited his Gothic status and obligations from his father, that land is now
subject to military service. This mature Goth now supports himself from the
ager (no longer desertus) and his millena/e, both ultimately granted by the government. Imagine a young Goth who joined Theoderic during his c ampaigns,
with no elderly relatives to support. After the conquest, he is paid from a designated millena. He marries an Italian woman and has children. He may or
may not buy land, but when he retires he is rewarded in Roman fashion, with
a landed allotment. The same features pertain as with the first Goth. His sons
inherit his identity and military duties. When they inherit the ager, that land
becomes part of a new type of fiscal resourceheld tax-free in return for
military serviceand they, too, have two sources of sustenance. Note that in
this hypothetical reconstruction no Roman landlord has been expropriated.
Goffarts interpretation of the standard means of furnishing a soldiers salary
remains entirely intact and no revision is required of his reading of the illatio,
tertiae, or millena/millenarii.
Crucially, however, this system contained the seeds of change. Within a
generation, Gothic soldiers drew their salary not just from taxation: land
with attached military obligations has come into the equation. This situation
resembles that visible slightly later in 6th-century Merovingian Gaul.38 The
growing connection between Gothic troops and landed communities reflects
the dynamic suggested above, whereby earlier barbarian recruits had become
fixed in the Italian landscape. The power relations remain: the government
retained a standing salaried army while simplifying aspects of revenue collection and distribution. The advantage of this reconstruction is its dynamism.
Over time, salaried Gothic soldiers settled in communities with their families,
with social ties beyond those of taxpayer and tax collector. They nevertheless
remained an essentially military body. This allows us to retain Goffarts interpretation and avoid having to explain away references to Gothic landownership or, alternatively, see them as compelling the rejection of Goffarts thesis.
Goffart pointed out another dynamic: the temptation to transfer the right
to collect a salary from a designated fiscal asset into the latters outright ownership. This would completely change the relationships involved, rendering the taxpayer the Goths tenant. Some documents apparently represent
37 An uncles illegal retention and management of the paternal inheritance of an adolescent
Goth of sufficient age to perform military service is discussed in Variae 1.38. This text
could relate at least as easily to an inherited draft on fiscal revenue as to landed property.
38 Halsall, Warfare and Society, pp. 4650 and refs.
183
i nvestigations of or attempts to prevent such abuses.39 During weak, especially

minority, government these can easily be imagined. If we accept Procopius
account, it may even have been behind the demands that led to Orestes downfall, though, as mentioned, rejection of the whole story is probably the most
consistent approach. Yet another dynamic is the purchase or acquisition of
landed properties by Goths. Unlike land granted as remuneration for service,
they would be liable for the capitatio and other relevant fiscal obligations.
Goths might, however, want to extend tax exemption to all their lands.40 This
would be a source of conflict.41 Overall, we should not see the system used to
settle the Gothic army after 492 as taking a single form or imagine that the initial state of affairs remained unchanged throughout the kingdoms existence.

The Army in the Governance of the Ostrogothic Kingdom
After his victory, Theoderics greatest problem was how to unify and govern
Italy. Roman aristocratic power, especially below the level of the old senatorial
nobility, where authority was probably more intensive within specific localities, and the potential threat posed by leading Gothic families, aggravated the
difficulties with communication and the exercise of power posed by Italys difficult physical geography.42 To maintain authority, the king had to scatter his
forces throughout the peninsula. Yet this potentially exacerbated the problem
just described. A local commander (perhaps with as good a claim to nobility
or even royalty as Theoderics) might use his troops, perhaps in alliance with
regional aristocrats, to challenge royal authority.
One solution might be to ensure that Goths did not perform military service in regions where they held millenae, though whether such a solution was
practical in Italy is doubtful.43 Theoderic seems instead to have imaginatively
employed patronage and propaganda.44 The army was seemingly assembled
regularly in the principal royal centres: Pavia, Milan, and Ravenna. Here,
Theoderic paid donatives (supplementary cash payments), rewarded those who
39 Cassiodorus, Variae, 8.28, ed. Mommsen.
40 Such a desire may lie behind the situations described in Cassiodorus, Variae 1.26 and 4.14,
ed. Mommsen.
41 For a Gallic analogy, see Halsall, Warfare and Society, pp. 467.
42 For Theoderics concern with effective and rapid communications, see Cassiodorus,
Variae 1.29, 2.19, 4.47, 5.5, etc., ed. Mommsen
43 Burgundian Code (54.1) suggests something similar being practised in that smaller realm.
44 Well analysed by Heather, Theoderic, King of the Goths, pp. 15265.
184
Halsall
had done well, and punished those who had not.45 This enabled the continuous distribution and redistribution of royal patronage, not only the circulation
of offices but also the geographical redeployment of personnel, preventing any
family or faction from establishing a local power base. Furthermore, it made
Gothic noble or royal families compete with lower-born rivals for royal favour.
The assembled army was subject to manifestations of royal ideology aurally
in speeches and panegyrics and visually in the pictorial and epigraphic decoration of buildings.46 The Senegallia Medallion demonstrates that some of the
largesse distributed carried Theoderican propaganda.47 As Cassiodorus writings show, these ideological productions stressed the armys role as a pillar
of civilitas and consequently its responsibility to maintain harmonious relations with Roman civilians.48 They also stressed Theoderics claim (by the latter half of the reign) to represent an ancient, uniquely royal dynasty.49 Royal
association or authorization trumped all other claims to legitimate authority but competition for this entailed subscription to Theoderics propaganda
and ideology.50 This process undermined pre-existing social distinctions and
ensured that Theoderics royal writ penetrated the geographically disparate
local communities of Italy. Simultaneously, it assured the armys continuing
function as a state-controlled coercive force, in spite of increasingly complex
and deeper-seated social ties.
None of this meant uniformly harmonious relations between army and
local societysuch had hardly existed under the empire. The Variae mention
conflicts and complaints arising from the armys behaviour.51 Gothic troops,
Cassiodorus repeatedly enjoined, should not molest, harass, or steal from
provincials;52 the provincials of the Cottian Alps were compensated for depredations committed as the army passed through the region en route to Gaul
45 Cassiodorus, Variae 5.27, ed. Mommsen: bonos enim laus malos querula comitatur. See
also Variae 4.14, 5.2627, 5.36.
46 Heather, Theoderic, King of the Goths, pp. 1623. Some settings for Theoderican ritual
are analysed by Wharton, Refiguring the Post-Classical City, pp. 10547; Wood, Theoderics
Monuments (which ignores Whartons more theoretically sophisticated analysis, as do
the discussants: pp. 26377). On ideology, see Heydemann elsewhere in this volume.
47 Arnold, Theoderics Invincible Mustache.
48 Cassiodorus, Variae 2.8, 3.16, 3.24, 3.38, 5.26, ed. Mommsen.
49 Heather, Goths and Romans; Heather, Theoderic, King of the Goths. Arnold, Theoderic
and the Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 16274, stresses the early importance of
Theoderics royalty.
50 ET 4344 and 46 undermine the use of patronage to influence legal cases.
51 Most clearly perhaps in Cassiodorus, Variae 4.36, ed. Mommsen.
52 Cassiodorus, Variae 3.38, 4.13, 4.36, 5.1011, 5.13, 5.26, 6.22, 7.4, ed. Mommsen.
185
in 508.53 Like Roman troops, Goths on campaign were supplied with food and
other necessities (annonae) by the fisc. For the kingdoms mountainous northern frontier garrisons this was especially important. Hungry troops could easily start to take what they wanted from their civilian neighbours. Several times
Cassiodorus had to order the rapid and effective payment of annonae.54
Organization
The Variae, a rich source for the armys place within Theoderics realm, provide
no a priori evidence that much had changed at all from the late imperial situation, beyond the armys Gothic composition. Gothic, like late Roman, soldiers
were subject to their own jurisdiction. It seems preferable to read the texts discussing jurisdiction over Goths and Romans in this way rather than assuming
that they refer to ancient Gothic tribal custom. Serving Gothic soldiers were
possibly distinguished from civilians (as in other kingdoms) by their long hair
(as capillati), a survival from the late Roman military.55 Whether this referred
to a particular hairstyle or simply to serving soldiers typically hirsute appearance (cf. the French poilu) is unclear. The heavy chlamys (a type of cloak) continued to signify military authority.56 A possible role in male socialization will
be discussed later but the late Roman army had long espoused real or invented
barbarian characteristics. Its jargon incorporated Germanic terms and the
capillatis long hair might also have manifested barbarian chic.57 The army
had been a bastion of the Arian creed in late imperial Italy.58 Overall, it was
well suited to maintaining the signifiers of Gothic identity, including the use
(at least for specialized technical terms) of Gothic speech.

54 Cassiodorus, Variae 2.5, 3.41, ed. Mommsen.
55 Cassiodorus, Variae 4.49, though Gothicness is not specifically mentioned. Amory, People
and Identity, pp. 3446; Wolfram, Goths, p. 103; Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial
Restoration, pp. 11315.
56 Cassiodorus, Variae 6.15. cf. CTh 14.10.1. The military identification of the donor/s of
Variae 1.26 is suggested only by a reference to the soldiers cloak (lacerna) in the last lines:
tribute is owed to the purple [i.e., here, the king], not to the [military] cloak, so a circular
argument is risked by assuming mention of the cloak refers to military status.
58 Amory, People and Identity, pp. 23676. Robert Markus rebuked the suggestion in a review
of Amorys book, Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1998), pp. 4147.
186
Halsall
Military organization is unclear. Theoderic supposedly disbanded the

Roman guard regiments as useless ceremonial units.59 However, although
the rank of comes domesticorum vacans was certainly honorific, the evidence
does not suggest the guards were disbanded.60 The Variae refer to domestici
and scholares.61 Royal bodyguards are mentioned, albeit with Atticising Greek
terms (hypaspistai, doryphoroi), in accounts of the Gothic War. The reference
to the horse and foot guards as domestici patres equitum et peditum, which perplexed Hodgkin,62 may hint at an important structuring element in the Gothic
army, to which I will return.
The late Roman army had been organized into a field army (comitatenses)
and frontier troops (limitanei or ripenses). Whether this division persisted in
Gothic Italy is unknown.63 There were certainly frontier garrisons; Theoderic
referred to their role in keeping out barbarians using traditional Roman
vocabulary. The Variae, however, give no hint that they were recruited differently from the field army. The term miles is sometimes used when Goths are
not referred to. Goths are more often mentioned in the exercitus, on campaign.
Given the barbarian composition of the late Roman field armies, this might
support the notion. However, the formula for the appointment of the duke
of Raetia makes clear that milites are simply enough soldiers in the exercitus,
contrasting them with Romani and provinciales.64 Nonetheless, 5th-century
Roman aristocratsincluding Cassiodorus great-grandfatherhad raised
and commanded local defence forces65 and it is likely that city garrisons
included Roman as well as Gothic soldiers. A distinction remains possible.
The armys ethnic component has been hotly debated, especially since
Patrick Amory proposed that Gothic identity was essentially a professional
appellation founded in late imperial ideology; to be a Goth was simply to be
a soldier.66 Amorys rational choice interpretation was forcefully criticized
59 Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 256; Moorhead, Theoderic, p. 254. Halsall, Warfare and
Society, p. 45 and n. 24.
60 Procopius, Secret History 26.2728, says that Justinians officials disbanded these corps,
which had been generously left in place by Theoderic, despite their uselessness.
62 Cassiodorus, Variae, 1.10, ed. Mommsen; Hodgkin Letters of Cassiodorus, p. 150, n. 2.
63 Wolfram, Goths, pp. 3167, referring to Variae 1.11 claims that the milites commanded by
Servatus, dux of Raetia, cannot have been Goths. Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 118,
n. 89, mis-cites the source and alleges that Servatus is said to have led limitanei (i.e. inferior quality troops). Cassiodorus, Variae 1.11 mentions neither limitanei nor Romans.
66 Amory, People and Identity, especially pp. 14994.
187
by Peter Heather, who contended that the Goths were a people whose ethnic
identity was grounded in a class of freemen.67 Amorys hypothesis of entirely
fluid ethnicity is too extreme, but Heathers primordialism is overly crude.
At the heart of the controversy is both sides failure to appreciate two points.68
Ethnic change does not imply a straight exchange of one monolithic identity
for another. Ethnicity is multi-layered; change involved not the wholesale
replacement of ones entire ethnic identity but adding a level to it. Different
levels of ethnicity can be situationally reordered. An identity can become that
according to which one normally acts and is categorized, without one necessarily ever abandoning other identities. This process was illustrated earlier, in
the formation of Theoderics Goths from the wreckage of Attilas realm. The
second, related point is that the process whereby someone or, better, a family might change from self-identifying primarily as Roman to self-identifying
primarily as Gothic could take a long time: a generation, perhaps two or three.
This problem is accentuated by the Ostrogothic kingdoms short life. Although
long, Theoderics reign spanned less than two generations. The subsequent succession crises, instability, and especially the outbreak of the Gothic War (only
forty-six years after the Goths arrival on the Isonzo) doubtless put a brake on
these processes. Thus it is hardly surprising that one cannot document clearcut instances of complete ethnic change.
Nonetheless, the Ostrogothic evidence reveals the dynamics of such change.
One index is the attestation of individuals with Gothic and Roman names.
Adding a name was hardly uncommon in Late Antiquity, especially when associated with a change of status. Gregory of Tours appended the name Gregorius
when he entered the priesthood; his maternal great-uncle Gundulf doubtless
took that Germanic name upon entering the service of the kings of Austrasia.69
This was one means of gradually changing ones primary ethnic identification.
Amory also drew attention to the aristocrat Cyprian, who had had his sons
instructed in weapon use and even had them learn Gothic.70 Significantly, this
took place thirty years or so after Theoderics entry into Italy. The competition for royal patronage and the advantages associated with military service
were seemingly causing even wealthy Italo-Romans to adopt Gothic identity.
Service in local garrisons could bring a senior Gothic warriors patronage, entry
into a military household, and thence inclusion in the exercitus. On that basis,
67 Heather, Gens and Regnum; Heather, Merely an Ideology?
68 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 3562, 3326. See also Swain, this volume.
69 Gregory of Tours, Histories 6.11.
70 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.21, ed. Mommsen. Full fluency in Gothic seems less necessarily
implicit in Cassiodorus statement than a competent command of army-Gothic argot.
188
Halsall
Gothic identity might be adopted and eventually become dominant. Had the
Amal kingdom lasted as long as the Merovingian, these dynamics would likely
have had results similar to those observable in Gregory of Tours writings.
The life cycle was possibly important. The Variae state that adolescent Goths
came of age when they were liable to serve in the army,71 plausibly at fifteen.
Cassiodorus mentions the training of iuvenes, apparently archers (saggitarii),
and a mobilization order commands the Goths to bring forth their young men.
Here the mention of domestici patres takes on an added significance, possibly
as a reference to older warriors.72 Comparison with other post-imperial situations permits the suggestion that upon coming of age a Goth learnt his trade
in the household of an older Gothic warrior or in units commanded by such
veterans (like perhaps the archers of Salona). Adoption by arms was possibly important at this stage and would further bind military communities.73
Merovingian comites had followings of pueri; the domestici in attendance on
Theoderics officials ought possibly to be seen the same way.74 Clearly they
were paid by the fisc. At some point domestici may have graduated to more
established units of milites, with a salary provided as outlined earlier. Finally,
they may have married, acquired lands, and settled down, thereafter being
called out only for specific campaigns but training their own households.
This system appears superficially primitivizing, making the Gothic military
resemble the Zulu armys married and unmarried impis. In fact it fits a range
of evidence across post-imperial Europe. Even the late Roman armys twinned
regiments of iuniores and seniores might imply similar careers. The distinction
between doryphoroi and hypaspistai among Belisarius guards (whatever their
actual designation) may suggest a similar life cycle-based career within a regular army.75 The suggested role of the life cycle adds to other dynamics to underline change through time and the evolution of military identities and systems
of remuneration. Theoderic carefully ensured his armies were well equipped
and supplied. Cassiodorus frequently refers to the upkeep of proper military
camps, regular provision of annonae and the supervision of armourers. The
king also took a close interest in ensuring his cities proper fortification.
72 Mommsen read the text as domestici partis equitum et peditum. This appears more logical
but is not grammatically satisfactory. Patres appears to be the more common form, but
the manuscripts do not really allow a decision. I am grateful to M. Maxime Emion for
discussion of this point.
75 Halsall, Warfare and Society, p. 199, n. 110.
189
Archaeological Evidence
The areas where the Gothic army was settled have sometimes been suggested
from the archaeological record.76 Zones of Gothic settlement have been
extrapolated from the distribution of particular types of metalwork, usually
found in inhumations (Figure 8.1). This straightforward interpretation cannot
stand. The origins of most of this (largely feminine) material does not necessarily authorize its designation as Ostrogothic.77 Furthermore, archaeological
material does not have an ethnic identity, so even if such material demonstrably came from the trans-Danubian Gothic homelands, one would not know
whether someone interred with these objects was a Goth who had accompanied Theoderic to Italy or who was descended from one such. Finally, this
material is found in very small quantities. If the costume associated with these
objects was Gothic, not all Goths were buried in this fashion. The rite cannot
therefore simply reflect Gothic settlement. The context of such isolated finds
is consequently crucial. Most items were deliberately and publicly deposited
with the dead. Although, as Figure 8.1 shows, about fifty Italian and Dalmatian
sites contain such burials, there are usually only one or two such graves on
each cemetery. Some are from urban cemeteries, frequently associated with
churches, notably at major centres like Rome, Ravenna, Aquileia, and Milan.
If these artefacts were associated with Gothic holders of political and military power, their display in burial ritual must be significant. Pre-Ostrogothic
weapon burials and other furnished inhumations exist, especially in peripheral areas of Italy, so the custom of displaying a dead persons status in death
was not new. Nonetheless, earlier barbarian troops had apparently not generally manifested their ethnicity like this. That the Goths did so must somehow
illustrate the impact of imperial collapse and Gothic conquest upon Italian
social relationships. Furnished inhumation was a public display.78 In the suburban church burials with possible Gothic connotations, its audience was possibly made up of the politically powerful. In rural contexts, as perhaps (if the
find does not represent a hoard) with the lavish female burial at Domagnano
(San Marino),79 it might have comprised local landowners and lesser people.
The deaths of all members of certain kindreds could be marked by such
displays. Families employing the ritual demonstrated the basis of their pre-
eminence: their association with the Gothic holders of political and military
76 E.g. Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 689.
77 von Rummel, Habitus Barbarus, pp. 32337.
78 Halsall, Cemeteries and Society, passim.
79 Bierbrauer, Archeologia degli Ostrogoti, pp. 194202.
190
Halsall
FIGURE 8.1 Map of supposed Ostrogothic burial sites in Italy and Dalmatia
Map by Guy Halsall
power. This could be linked with competition for royal patronage within
local communities and among the political elite. We must also, however, conclude that people adopting this costume in public ritual were not necessarily
(and possibly were unlikely to have been) Danubian incomers. Nonetheless,
these burials fairly limited number show that while a death produced stress
the threat posed to local standing was not critical. These displays nevertheless illustrate the tensions involved in establishing local power structures. The
finds distribution thus most likely reveals where such stress and competition were most common. These surely included areas where Gothic newcomers dwelt, but the artefacts distribution need have no relationship to that of
Gothic settlements overall. The evidence, almost invariably discovered long
ago in obscure and even dubious circumstances, is of such poor quality that
more detailed social and chronological analyses are impossible. Nonetheless,
in however attenuated a form, these data show that the political and military
power associated with the Goths reached down to local societies and their
power struggles. The objects which seemingly manifested a connection with
191
Theoderics government were feminine as often as masculine, suggesting a

gendering of power and further supporting the suggestion that, however they
were salaried, Gothic soldiers and their families became over time a fixed component of such communities and their politics.
The archaeological record permits few statements about how Theoderics
soldiers were equipped. Weapons are rare in the find complexes just discussed,
not least because so many of them are female burials. Those which are known
are unremarkable. Lavish items of horse harness confirm the written sources
indications that cavalry were a key element of the Gothic army. Several fortifications were occupied in the Ostrogothic period. Invillino (Friuli) is one
of the best known and most thoroughly excavated. Although no phase was
directly related to the Ostrogothic period, its Period III encompassed that
era.80 Theoderics Ostrogothic army was clearly highly organized and efficient. Its Gallic, Spanish, and Balkan campaigns were well organized, well
led, and usually victorious. Success breeds success, warriors continued to join
Theoderic, and the repeated experience of victory made Gothic troops battlehardened and confident.

The Gothic War
Accounts of the Gothic kingdoms cataclysmic downfall provide much

detailed, if problematic, data on the Gothic army in action, but we cannot use
Procopius account to shed light upon the nature of the Goths who entered
Italy in 489. Numerous dynamics were at work that made the armed forces of
the 530s to 550s quite different from those of the 480s and 490s. The Goths,
as they appear in Procopius narrative, owe their nature to the working through
of those processes.
Procopius account demands care. Although filled with the sort of detail
beloved by military historiansand generally absent in early medieval
western Europe81it cannot be taken as straightforward description, even
though Procopius witnessed some events himself. The Wars are enmeshed in
traditional classical ethnographic stereotyping and Procopius strove to make
his account read like the great examples of the historical genre: Thucydides
and Polybius.82 Hence the appearance of doryphoroi and hypaspistai in Roman
80 Bierbrauer, Invillino-Ibligo.
81 Halsall, Warfare and Society, pp. 16, 17780.
82 Cameron, Procopius; Kaldellis, Procopius of Caesarea.
192
Halsall
and Gothic armies.83 Procopius writingat least initiallywas imbued with

Justinianic ideology about the rightness of the reconquest. His accounts of
the Gothic forces, especially at the siege of Rome, must therefore be handled
with caution. Procopius mocked barbarians who wanted to be Romans
thus the tragicomic accounts of incompetently deployed Gothic siege towers
and Gothic generals who fail to note the allegedly decisive military difference
between the two armies, which Belisarius spotted early in the campaign: that
the Romans have mounted archers and the Goths do not.84 Some descriptions are surely hyperbolic. Procopius account of Gothic oplitoi must surely be
heavily ironic.85 Although an apt description of an armoured spearman with
a large round shield, the terms cultural baggagethe Attic hoplite, civilized
citizen-soldier par excellenceand its incongruity when applied to barbarian warriors besieging Rome would not have been lost on Procopius readers. Procopius less-critical attitude towards Totila may stem as much from
Totila correctly performing the role of barbarian warlord allotted to him by
Graeco-Roman ethnographyunlike the comic philosopher-king Theodahad86
or Witigis, bumbling would-be poliorcetesas from disillusionment with
Justinianic policy.87
Close scrutiny suggests that the two sides were very alike. The possible distinction between older and younger warriors, the former acting as officers for
the latter, especially within bodyguard units, has been mentioned. Warriors
on both sides shared the ability to fight mounted or on foot according to the
situation. This fluidity rather than a formal division into units of infantry and
cavalry is characteristic of the early medieval west.88 That the Gothic army, as
Cassiodorus makes clear, was a well-organized, more or less regular army on the
Roman model, rather than the barbarian horde often envisaged in Byzantine
accounts or uncritical modern studies based on the latter,89 also brought the
two sides closer together. Indeed, given the predominance of troops recruited
from beyond the frontier in the imperial army, the Goths may have been considerably more Roman than the forces opposing them. This irony seems to
83 These terms appear in accounts of classical Greek hoplite warfare and, in the case of the
hypaspistai, in Polybius description of Alexandrian Macedonian warfare.
84 Procopius, Wars, 5.18.42, resolved at Wars, 5,27.258, ed. Dewing.
85 Halsall, Funny Foreigners, pp. 11112.
86 Vitielo, Theodahad, argues from verbal usages in Cassiodorus writings that Theodahad
was indeed influenced by Platonic philosophy.
87 Halsall, Funny Foreigners, pp. 11213.
88 Halsall, Warfare and Society, pp. 1808.
89 E.g. Thompson, Romans and Barbarians.
193
be heavily played upon in Procopius account. The similarities between the

armies certainly facilitated the changing of sides. Soldiers in the opposing
forces could be barely distinguishable from each other.90
The Gothic armys dismal showing in the earliest phase of the war probably
attests to the previous decades political stresses and lack of active campaigning. Most of the experienced Gothic troops were located outside Italy, in the
Balkans (where they scored some important early successes against the invading Romans), in Provence, and in Spain, where they were probably involved in
sometimes successful campaigning against the Franks.91 Their opponents, by
contrast, were battle-hardened and confident veterans used to victory (even
if frequently more by luck than judgement) under Belisarius. The dynamics
of the earlier Theoderican period were reversed. They would turn back again
during Totilas long and unbroken run of success.
The Gothic warrior was characteristically equipped with horse, sword, and
shield, as written and archaeological evidence from Theoderics reign suggest. Some used bows, at least when dismounted, and spears were thrown
from a distance as well as used in hand-to-hand fighting. Totilas order that
his men discard all weapons other than their swords (if Procopius is to be
believed) made sound sense in the context of the battle of Busta Gallorum.
A rapid charge directly into close combat would avoid the fatal temptation to
exchange missiles with the Romans, who had the advantage of numbers especially in archers.92
The wars effects on the Italian peninsula are well known.93 Any dynamics
that might have led to ethnic changes like those in Gaul and Spain (and embryonically attested in Theoderics reign) were surely arrested. Sharper boundaries
emerged between Goths and Romans, although more on the basis of political allegiance than biological descent. Most of the rank and file of the 520s
would have been born and grown up in Italy, making them significantly different from warriors born and raised within the peripatetic Ostrogothic army in
the post-Hunnic Balkans. Only a handful of those mustered in Theoderics last
military assemblies, even domestici patres, will have had any clear memory of
life outside the seemingly stable confines of Romano-Gothic Italy. It would be
90 Pohl, Telling the Difference.
91 Gregory of Tours, Histories 3.21, refers to the Goths recapture of territory lost after Vouill.
This must have occurred under the leadership of Theoderics Spanish regent (and later
Visigothic king) Theudis.
92 18th- and 19th-century commanders similarly ordered troops to attack with unloaded
muskets when an advance was to be pressed briskly with cold steel.
93 Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 160, is classic.
194
Halsall
yet more mistaken to see the soldiers facing Belisarius troops, let alone those
who confronted Narses, as shaped by anything other than late antique Italian,
Provenal, or Dalmatian culture. Marriage further blurred familial and genealogical distinctions. The processes discussed earlier had already led to ItaloRomans joining the army and perhaps adding a Gothic dimension to their own
hierarchy of identities. The Goths had always incorporated other groups, sometimes retaining an ethnic label,94 sometimes not. Byzantine deserters joined
them during the wars, doubtless also adding a Gothic identity. Those returning to the East Romans abandoned it again. None of this implies incomplete
assimilation95 or solid boundaries between Goths and others. We do not know
whether Roman soldiers who returned to Justinians armies were the same
men as had deserted earlier. Roman deserters became in some ways Goths,
although these troops non-Italian and frequently indeed non-imperial origin
continued to mark them out. Given the Italian upbringing of most Goths, it
was easier for them to become Roman.
The dynamics stressed throughout this chapter permit a more subtle reading of the Goths ultimate downfall than that recently championed.96 The
kingdoms final demise has been claimed to reveal that the Goths were a people with a defined identity founded in a large class of freemen with a direct link
to the king. The decisive results of the defeat of a portion of the Gothic army
and the threat to wives and children posed by eastern Roman military operations, have been presented as sufficient proof of this. This conclusion, however,
does not emerge from the evidence. The revival of the discredited Germanist
notion of a class of Knigsfreie need not detain us.97 The Gothic armies stratification and inclusion of more numerous rank and file than leaders is hardly
surprising, nor is the idea that the latter had a political role.98 Gothic military
communities were embedded within peninsular society and politics. Their
edges doubtless hardened during the wars and it is unsurprising that serving
Goths families should have been more at risk than in the peaceful conditions
94 Like the Gepids of Variae 5.1011. Late imperial units frequently bore ethnic titles. Many
of these troops doubtless had Gepidic origins but one should not assume that they were
any more a people than late imperial regiments of Franci, Alamanni or Parthi, similarly
redeployed with wives, children, and camp followers.
95 We should note the conservative political connotations of phrases like incomplete
assimilation.
96 Heather, Goths, pp. 3216.
97 Staab, A reconsideration.
98 Representing as a surprising and defining feature of Gothic society the suggestion that
the Gothic rank and file did not blithely follow their officers and social betters instructions is again politically revealing.
195
of Theoderics reign. It might have been safer to take them on campaign than to
leave them behind, giving some Gothic forces a character resembling those of
489. The consequences of the Gothic forces serious defeats have no necessary
bearing on the nature of the Italian Goths. The destruction of its field army
at Adrianople (378) rendered the eastern Empirewith far greater military
manpower reserves than the Italian kingdomeffectively incapable of offensive military action for perhaps a decade. The western field armys slaughter
at the Frigidus was decisive; the West never had sufficient breathing space to
rebuild a substantial force of the same standard.99 Troops can be replaced in
numbers but not necessarily in quality and Procopius underlines how limited
manpower was a worry for both sides, dictating Gothic strategy in the 540s and
50s. The men accompanying Totila in his desperate charge at Busta Gallorum
or who died with Teia in the cataclysmic battle of Mons Lactarius were doubtless the best Gothic warriors. Others died in the disastrous naval defeat of Sena
Gallica in the Adriatic.100 That these defeats effectively ended Gothic resistance is less surprising than the fact that it took three bloody engagements to
do so and that some Gothic garrisons continued to hold out even then.
The Goths subsequent disappearance from history101 is easily encompassed
within the dynamics discussed here, albeit in reverse. Although primarily military in composition and function, the Goths had been more than simply an
army when they invaded Italy. By the time of Totilas and Teias deaths, sixtyodd years later, they hadunsurprisinglychanged in many ways. Their
primarily military character had, however, endured throughout. A kingdom
created by the sword had perished by it.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
1939, pp. 50669.
Burgundian Code, trans. K.F. Drew, The Burgundian Code, Philadelphia 1972.
Cassiodorus, Chronicle, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII, vol. 2
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11) Berlin 1894, pp. 10961.
99 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 199200, 243.
100 Procopius, Wars 8.2932 (Busta Gallorum); 8.35 (Mons Lactarius); 8.23 (naval defeat), ed.
Dewing.
101 Amory, People and Identity, pp. 31415, for attestations of Italian Goths after the
reconquest.
196
Halsall

Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894; translated selections in S.J. Barnish,
Cassiodorus: Variae, Liverpool 1992; summaries with some translations in T. Hodgkin,
The Letters of Cassiodorus: Being a Condensed Translation of the Variae Epistolae of
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, London 1886.
Codex Theodosianus (CTh), trans. C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the
Sirmondian Constitutions, Princeton, NJ 1952.
Consularia Italica, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII, vol. 1
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 9), Berlin 1892,
pp. 249339.
Edictum Theoderici (ET), ed. F. Bluhme (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum 5),
Hannover 187589, pp. 14579; translation in S.D.W. Lafferty, Law and Society in the
Age of Theoderic the Great: A Study of the Edictum Theoderici, Cambridge 2013,
pp. 24394.
Ennodius, Life of Epiphanius, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felici Ennodi Opera (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 7), Berlin 1885, pp. 84109; trans.
G.M. Cook, The Life of Saint Epiphanius by Ennodius. A Translation with an
Introduction and Commentary, Washington, DC 1942.
, Epistulae, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felici Ennodi Opera (Monumenta Germaniae
, Panegyricus, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felici Ennodi Opera (Monumenta Germaniae
Gregory of Tours, Histories, ed. B. Krusch/W. Levison (Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum 1.1), Hannover 1951; trans. L. Thorpe,
Gregory of Tours: The History of the Franks, Harmondsworth 1974.
Malchus, ed. and trans. R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the
Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, Liverpool 1981, pp. 401462.
Priscus, ed. and trans. R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the
Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, Liverpool 1981, pp. 221400.
Procopius, Secret History, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius, vol. 6 (Loeb Classical
Library), London 1935.
, Wars, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius, vols. 15 (Loeb Classical Library),
London 191428.
Arnold, J.J., Theoderics Invincible Mustache, Journal of Late Antiquity 6.1 (2013),
15283.
, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, Cambridge 2014.
197
Barnish, S.J.B., Taxation, Land and Barbarian Settlement in the Western Empire,
Bierbrauer, V., Invillino-Ibligo in Friaul. Die rmischer Siedlung und das sptantik-
frhmittelalterlische Castrum, Munich 1987.
, Archeologia degli Ostrogoti in Italia, in V. Bierbrauer/O. von Hessen/
E.A. Arslan (eds.), I Goti, Milan 1994, pp. 170213.
Byzantine Italy, AD 554800, Rome 1984.
Cameron, A.M., Procopius and the Sixth Century, London 1985.
Cesa, M., Hospitalitas o altre techniques of accommodation? A proposito di un libro
recente, Archivo Storico Italiano 140 (1982), 53952.
, Il regno di Odoacre: la prima dominazione germanica in Italia, in B. Scardigli/
P. Scardigli (eds.), Germani in Italia, Rome 1994, pp. 30720.
Fehr, H./Rummel, P. von, Die Vlkerwanderung, Stuttgart 2011.
Garca Gallo, A., Notas sobre el reparto de terras entre Visigodas y Romanos, Hispania
1 (194041), 4063.
Goffart, W., Barbarians and Romans AD 418585: The Techniques of Accommodation,
Princeton 1980.
, Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire, Philadelphia
2006.
, The Technique of Barbarian Settlement in the Fifth Century: A Personal,
Streamlined Account with Ten Additional Comments, Journal of Late Antiquity 3
(2010), 6598.
, Administrative Methods of Barbarian Settlement in the Fifth Century: The
Definitive Account, S. Diefenbach/G.M. Mller (eds.), Gallien in Sptantike und
Frhmittelalter Kulturgeschichte einer Region (Millennium Studien zu Kultur
und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. 43), Berlin 2013, pp. 4556.
Halsall, G., Funny Foreigners: Laughing with the Barbarians in Late Antiquity, in
G. Halsall (ed.), Humour, History and Politics in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle
Ages, Cambridge 2002, pp. 89113.
, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450900. London 2003.
, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376568. Cambridge, 2007.
, Cemeteries and Society in Merovingian Gaul. Selected Studies in History and
Archaeology, 19922009, Leiden 2010.
, The Technique of Barbarian Settlement in the Fifth Century: A Reply to
Walter Goffart, Journal of Late Antiquity 3.1 (2010), 99112.
Heather, P., Goths and Romans, 332489. Oxford 1991.
, Theoderic, King of the Goths, Early Medieval Europe 4.2 (1995), 14573.
198
Halsall
, Gens and Regnum among the Ostrogoths, in H-W. Goetz/J. Jarnut/W. Pohl
(eds.), Regna and Gentes: The Relationship between late Antique and Early Medieval
Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, Leiden 2003,
pp. 85133.
, Merely an Ideology?Gothic Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, in S.J. Barnish/
F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century,
Woodbridge 2007, pp. 3160.
Humphries, M., Italy, AD 425605, in A.M. Cameron/B. Ward-Perkins/M. Whitby
(eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14: Empire and Successors, AD 425600,
Cambridge 2000, pp. 52551.
Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284602, Oxford 1964.
Kaldellis, A., Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History and Philosophy at the End of
Antiquity. Philadelphia 2004.
Kulikowski, M., Nation Versus Army: A Necessary Contrast?, in A. Gillett (ed.), On
Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages,
Turnhout 2002, pp. 6984.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., Alarics Goths: Nation or Army?, in J.F. Drinkwater/H. Elton
(eds.), Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity, Cambridge 1992, pp. 7583.
Lot, F., Du rgime de lhospitalit, Revue Belge de Philologuie et dHistoire 7 (1928),
9751011.
Mommsen, T., Ostgotische Studien, Neues Archiv 14 (1889), 22349, 451544.
Pohl, W., Telling the Difference: Signs of Ethnic Identity, in W. Pohl/H. Reimitz (eds.),
Strategies of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300800, Leiden
1998, pp. 1769.
, Die Vlkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration, Stuttgart 2002.
Rummel, P. von, Habitus Barbarus: Kleidung und Reprsentation sptantiker Eliten im
4. und 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Berlin 2005.
Staab, F., A Reconsideration of the Ancestry of Modern Political Liberty: The Problem
of the Kings Freemen (Knigsfreie), Viator 11 (1980), 5169.
Thompson, E.A., Romans and Barbarians. The Decline of the Western Empire, Madison,
WI 1982.
, The Huns, Oxford 1996.
Vitiello, M., Theodahad: A Platonic King at the Collapse of Ostrogothic Italy, Toronto
2014.
Wharton, A.J., Refiguring the Post-Classical City. Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and
Ravenna, Cambridge 1995.
, The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples, trans. T. Dunlap, Berkeley 1997.
199
Wood, I.N., Ethnicity and Ethnogenesis of the Burgundians, in H. Wolfram/W. Pohl

(eds.), Typen der Ethnogenese unter besondere Bercksichtigung der Bayern, Vienna
1990, pp. 5369.
, Theoderics Monuments in Ravenna, in S.J. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The
Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century, Woodbridge 2007,
pp. 24863.
Part 2
Culture and Society
CHAPTER 9
Goths and Gothic Identity in the Ostrogothic

Kingdom
Brian Swain

Introduction: The Anxieties of Identity
This chapter will pose more questions than it answers. In this it exemplifies
the state of barbarian identity studies, a sub-field of late ancient and early
medieval history marked by sharp interpretive divergences.1 The literature
on this subject is vast and shows no signs of abating.2 It is an energetic and
sometimes acrimonious field.3 Unlike the study of, say, Roman commerce or
hagiography, the question of barbarian identities carries with it a modern
political relevance. One gets from ancient barbarians to contemporary politics
in the following way: just who the barbarian peoples were bears directly on
the nature of their early medieval kingdoms, whose development informs how
we understand the emergence of European nation-states in the later medieval
and early modern periods, which in turn affects our interpretation of the rise
of nationalist movements in the modern age.4 Nationalist ideologies involved
the conviction that some modern states and the supposed cultural distinctiveness and ethnic purity of their peoples were rooted in the barbarian kingdoms.
The upheavals that resulted from 19th- and 20th-century nationalism linked
what would otherwise be arcane historical issues to the most pressing debates
of the post-war era. The highly controversial politics of the not-so-distant past,
1 Kulikowski, Constantine, p. 347 has noted that the term barbarian, despite its pejorative
connotations, makes no assumptions about ethnicity. It is an efficient and uncontroversial
way of referring to northern and eastern European, non-Roman social groupings.
2 To preserve space for the exposition of ideas in the text, citation of scholarly literature is
kept to a minimum. James, Europes Barbarians, Ch. 5, though, is an excellent synthesis of the
debates.
3 In his concluding comments to a recent volume on early medieval ethnicity, Chris Wickham,
Conclusions, p. 552 remarked, The issue of ethnicity...has been contested a lot, often
fairly unhelpfullyexactly why it is such a hot topic in fifth- and sixth-century studies is
worth a study in itself, for no one in the rest of Late Antique studies gets as upset about anything as do the five or six schools of late antique/early medieval Germanic ethnicity.
4 For a fuller discussion, see Wood, Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages.
204
Swain
therefore, were informed by the interpretation of barbarian history. Given our

own proximity to these events and the fact that identity politics and ethnic
strife still fill the headlines, it should not be surprising that modern debates
about barbarian history are heated and conducted with a sense of urgency.
In the aftermath of World War II, the undergirding principles of the political
and social sciences were reformulated to expurgate ideas about ethnicity and
history that are now widely deemed to have been both flawed and destructive. Barbarian history saw considerable re-evaluation, and it continues in
this reformist vein, highly self-conscious of its former misuses and political
entanglements. But some strands of current scholarship have accused others
of having not moved far enough away from defunct models, while the accused
counter that their detractors work is reductionist to the point of erasing
the barbarians from history altogether. The goal of this chapter is to delineate
these disagreements, as the partisans of the various positions are not in the
business of producing impartial surveys of the state of the field. Its primary
function is to serve as a guide to these complicated, consensus-less debates
over the nature of Gothic identity in the Ostrogothic kingdom. Then, after the
ancient evidence and modern interpretations have been weighed, I will offer
my own suggestions for future inquiry.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, ethnicity5 and social identity were generally thought to be biologically determined, inherited traits, and thus, having
immutable essences, they could be objectively measured by specific markers
such as language and material culture.6 In other words, identity and culture
were both conterminous and determined by ancestry. This led to the intuitive belief that ancient barbarians moved across the map of Europe in groups
that were closed, genetically homogenous, and self-reproducing, and maintained unchanging ethnic identities distinct from and uninfluenced by other
groups. By contrast, after World War II, identity would be considered subjective, mutable, and socially constructed. It came to be seen chiefly as matter of
perception, a situational construct, a reflection of culture and politicsnot
5 Post-war scholars have used the term ethnicity in part as an alternative to race, the prevailing term in 19th- and early 20th-century scholarship that sought to classify humans into
taxonomic groups based on perceived traits. Today, however, most scientists consider such
biological essentialism obsolete, and terms like ethnicity imply less restrictive, more socially
constructed models of categorization. Modern scholarship is justified in projecting the
notion of ethnicity on to past studies because earlier scholars were grappling with many of
the same questions about human groupings as their modern counterparts. For discussion,
Bacal, Ethnicity in the Social Sciences; Eriksen, Ethnicity and Nationalism.
6 Kossina, Die Herkunft der Germanen developed an archaeological model to support this view.
Goths And Gothic Identity In The Ostrogothic Kingdom
205
the other way around.7 Ever changing, identity is now seen as perpetually
renewed and renegotiated through discourse and social praxis.8
This thinking was incorporated into the study of ancient barbarians, and
all serious scholarship now takes for granted this post-war understanding of
identity.9 While the range of interpretations to be discussed in this chapter disagree about many things, they all accept that identity is socially constructed.
They begin at the same point and then diverge. But that divergence happens
quickly. While all acknowledge that identity is contingent and flexible, some
see it as a more durable and deeply rooted phenomenon that changes slowly
and can withstand substantial internal and external stresses,10 while others
view it as a thin social overlay, evanescent, often a matter of mere labels and
easily divestible by individuals if it is to their immediate advantage to do so.11
This interpretive spectrum concerning the strength of identity will be presented below.
Some remarks about terminology are warranted. The terms ethnicity and
identity are sometimes used too loosely, over strictly, or interchangeably,
and some disagreements about barbarian groups are attributable to this
uneven usage. In a recent study on the construction of post-Roman communities, Walter Pohl explained the difference and interrelation between ethnicity and identity in the following cogent way. Social identities have one or
more specific points of reference outside the group, such as a territory, religion, or economic advantage, which serve as the defining characteristics of
that community. Ethnicity, however, implies that the feature distinguishing
one group from another exists within the group itself. The group possesses
a symbolic essence derived from such things as kinship, blood, origin, and
fate.12 Ethnicity, in practice, is not much more than an idea believed to be true
which is then attached to other more tangible forms of communitythat
is, those things which constitute identity: land, religion, language, etc. So, it
might be the case that Goths believed that their Gothicness was innate and
7 For the intellectual history of barbarian scholarship, Amory, People and Identity, pp. 1418;
Heather, Ethnicity, Group Identity, pp. 1726; Kulikowski, Romes Gothic Wars, pp. 449;
Geary, Ethnicity as a Situation Construct.
8 Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, p. 19.
9 Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung was the first major study to do so.
10 Wolfram, Goths; Heather, Goths and Romans; Pohl, IntroductionStrategies of
Identification.
11 Amory, People and Identity; Kulikowski, Romes Gothic Wars; Barth, Ethnic Groups and
Boundaries famously described identity as an evanescent historical construct not a solid
enduring fact.
12 Pohl, Introduction: Ethnicity, Religion and Empire, p. 10.
206
Swain
self-sustaining (and we shall discuss different views about this below), but in
reality it would have only existed and reified itself because of its attachment to
external factorsperhaps Arianism, the Gothic language, or membership in
Theoderics army. Evidence for the expression of ethnicity (distinct from identity) is exceedingly hard to pinpoint in the ancient and early medieval sources,
especially for non-Roman peoples.

The Nodes of Polemic
The state of disagreement in the field is such that it cannot be assumed a priori
that Gothic identity was a historical reality, or that Goths even existedat
least as they are portrayed in the ancient sources. To be sure, most scholars
hold the reality of Gothic cultural distinctiveness as a positive conviction, or
at least a working assumption.13 There is, however, a minority that has made
strong and influential sceptical cases.14 The initial question that must concern
us is not what Gothic identity was, but if it was.
Differences in opinion over whether the people referred to as Goths in the
sources possessed a communal identity and were in fact culturally distinct
from other groups stem both from the nature of our sparse sources and from
the questions that have been asked of them. Some inquiries begin with a fairly
strict definition of ethnicity (e.g. belief in a common origin and a shared past,
distinct language, customs, and laws, and other clear cultural indicia that separate one group from another). If the sources do not yield unassailable proof
of these, Gothic ethnicity is said not to have existed.15 But opponents have
noted that our sources for this period are few and written only by Romans who
were usually uninterested in providing the kind of information necessary to
prove the existence of Gothic ethnicity.16 Looking specifically at Ostrogothic
Italy, some have noted that contemporary Italian sources speak to the highly
Roman character of Theoderic, his regime, and even his Gothic army and
following, and conclude that Goths were essentially Romans and that there
were no appreciable differences between them.17 Their opponents, however,
would point out that some of these Italian writers were in the service of or
influenced by Theoderics court and reflect the Gothic kings propagandizing
13 E.g. Moorhead, Theoderic; Heather, Goths.
14 E.g. Amory, People and Identity; Kulikowski, Romes Gothic Wars.
15 Amory, People and Identity.
16 Heather, Merely an Ideology?.
17 Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration.
207
efforts to present his foreign military rule to Italians as a seamless return to

the Roman status quo.18 Finally, some scholars have argued that there existed
among Goths a deeply held sense of Gothic identity that was bolstered by
distinctive cultural traits, among them the Gothic language, Arianism, military status, demographic segregation, annual donatives from the king, and a
possible sense of ethnicity or at least royal dynastic genealogies.19 It has been
argued, though, that these indicators of Gothicness are merely distortions of
our Roman sources which, following the conventions of classical literary tradition, articulate difference among social groupings in ethnic terms even when
those differences were merely political, religious, or regional.20
Broadly speaking, the various positions currently in play fall within the
parameters just outlined, and focus on specific contested aspects of Ostrogothic
history, namely the nature of the Goths prior to the Italian conquest, Gothic
settlement in Italy, the separateness of Gothic and Italian professional roles,
the Gothic response to imperial invasion, religion, and the Gothic language.
What follows is a discussion of these interpretive flashpoints and their implications for our understanding of Gothic identity in the Ostrogothic kingdom.

The Goths before Italy
Just who the people were who ruled Italy from 493 to 552 has rather a lot to do
with who they were before they arrived. How did they form as a group? Did
they share a long history?21 Were they a people by the time they won Italy?
18 Heather, Gens and Regnum.
19 Wolfram, Goths; Moorhead, Theoderic; Heather, Gens and Regnum.
20 Amory, People and Identity; Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration.
21 This is also a complicated issue that cannot be treated fully here. In short, there are two
questions at hand: what is the earliest evidence for a people called Goths? And did these
people have anything to do with the people who ruled in Italy under Theoderic? Writing
in the late 1st century AD, Pliny recounts a report of the 4th-century BC Pytheas who
spoke of Gutones (Natural History 4.14.99). In ca. AD 98, Tacitus mentions Gotones
(Germania 44.1), and the 2nd-century Ptolemy writes about (Geography 3.5.8).
These sources, in conjunction with Jordanes 6th-century account and archaeological evidence in Poland, have prompted some to argue that there is evidence for the existence of
Goths in the 1st century AD (Kazanski, Goths; Heather, Goths). Others suggest that these
associations are too loose: the ethnonyms Gotones, et al. are not demonstrably analogous
with the Goths, and the arguments for Polish archaeological evidence are text-hindered,
meaning that, without Jordanes accounts of the Goths migration to the Baltic, nobody
would have thought the Polish material to be Gothic (Kulikowski, Romes Gothic Wars,
208
Swain
The story of the formation of Theoderics following in the Balkans is long and
complicated and cannot be told in full here.22 But certain essentials must be
considered. The origins of the group known as the Ostrogoths is placed either
in the context of the Roman Balkans following the collapse of the Hunnic
hegemony in the 450s or centuries earlier in northern Europe, well outside the
territory or influence of Rome. The latter position is grounded in the belief that
Theoderics Amal dynasty had ruled the ethnically distinct Ostrogoths for many
generations before 493.23 The main evidence for this is a long Amal genealogy
provided by Jordanes, himself a Goth and author of a Gothic history written in
Constantinople in 551.24 Jordanes used the Gothic history of Cassiodorus, now
lost, which was commissioned by Theoderic and believed by some to have contained legitimate tribal memories including the Amal genealogy.
The historicity and even Gothicity of this royal genealogy, however, have
been impugned by arguments that it is the product of sheer fabrication mixed
with the account of the 4th-century Roman historian Ammianus.25 These arguments are made by those who prefer a Balkan provenance for the Ostrogoths,
which is the majority view.26 Now, among those who aver Balkan origins, there
are two main ways of understanding Ostrogothic coalescence. Both see it
occurring in the chaotic period following the break-up of Attilas short-lived
confederation and as the amalgamation of different groups into a supergroup
known as the Ostrogoths, but they understand the identity of these people in
different ways. One position holds that in the 450s a group of Goths previously
ch. 3). These dissenters propose that the earliest evidence for the Goths comes from the
3rd century: e.g. a 208 Latin inscription from Roman Arabia probably indicating Gothic
auxiliaries (LAnne pigraphique 1911, no. 244); the mid 3rd-century Canonical Letter of
Gregory Thaumaturgus mentions the Goths in the aftermath of their first major incursion into Roman territory (Patrologia Graeca 10.10201048); the lost Scythica of Dexippus
detailed Romes 3rd-century wars with the Goths (fragments in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente
der griechischen Historiker vol. IIA, Leiden 1926, pp. 45280). The following discussion
will show that there are those who believe that the 3rd-century Goths and the Goths of
Ostrogothic Italy shared some measure of cultural and political relation. (Heather, Goths).
Another view suggests that the Italian Goths were connected in no way to earlier groups
with the same name (Amory, People and Identity).
22 For fuller treatments, Heather, Goths and Romans; id., Gens and Regnum; id., Restoration
of Rome; Moorhead, Theoderic; Amory, People and Identity.
23 Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung; Wolfram, Goths.
25 Heather, Cassiodorus and the Rise of the Amals.
26 Balkan Ostrogothic origins are today preferred, at least in Anglophone scholarship, e.g.
Heather, Goths and Romans; Amory, People and Identity.
209
under Hunnic control was settled in Roman Pannonia under the leadership of
Theoderics uncle Valamer.27 These people had retained a distinct Gothic identity under Hunnic domination and reasserted it once in Roman lands. They
were by no means homogenous, however.28 Valamers following consisted of
various Gothic and barbarian warbands whom he united under his leadership.
Gothic was the identity of both the ruling elite and the majority, but many
retained their own separate identities (Hun, Alan, etc.) or later changed their
identities to become Goths.29 Over the next three decades, these Pannonian
Goths fought with and against the emperors, and variously sought their favour
and concessions.30
Valamers group also competed with another large group of Goths in Thrace
who had been part of the eastern Roman military apparatus for decades.31
This group served and sometimes sought exactions from the emperor, but
generally enjoyed better relations with the empire than did the Pannonian
Goths. To strengthen their own position, the emperors Leo and Zeno pitted
the two Gothic groups against each other, and in 483/4, in a move motivated
by mutual self-preservation, the two Gothic groups merged under the leadership of Theoderic the Amal.32 Before their unification the two groups had
had separate histories for at least several generations, and potentially for
centuries.33 It is their union that marks the emergence of the Ostrogoths that
would eventually conquer Italy. Before this time, it is anachronistic to refer
to this particular group as the Ostrogoths, though Jordanes neat Ostrogoth/
Visigoth division has been so influential that many historians project it into
the past.34 It has also been suggested that more than material calculation
and immediate advantage m
otivated the merging of the two large and independent Pannonian and Thracian Gothic groups. Either group, especially the
Thracians, might have melted back into the imperial military establishment,
but chose perhaps a riskier path that preserved their autonomy as a Gothic
political unit. The operation of an active and shared sense of Gothicness might
27 Heather, Gens and Regnum.
29 That the majority had Gothic identities: Heather, Goths and Romans, ch. 79; Wolfram,
Goths, p. 300.
30 Pannonian Goths: Jordanes, Getica 262 f.; Valamer: Getica 199200, 2523; Romana 331, ed.
Mommsen.
31 Thracian Goths: John of Antioch: frags., ed. Roberto; Malchus, frags., ed. Blockley.
32 For a fuller account, Heather, Goths and Romans, part III; id., Restoration of Rome, ch. 1.
33 id., Restoration of Rome, p. 99.
34 For the terms Ostrogoth and Visigoth and their use or non-use by those eponymous
groups, Gillett, Jordanes and Ablabius, appendix.
210
Swain
explain the choices that led to the initial Ostrogothic formation and its subsequent durability during the conquest of Italy, Theoderics reign, and the long
war with Justinian.35
The second position that sets the formation of the Ostrogoths in the postAttilan Balkans also rejects the notion that this group was bound by a sense of
cultural or ethnic distinctiveness or possessed a corporate Gothic i dentity.36 In
this view, the sources for the late 5th-century Balkans that speak of Goths and
Romans as separate groupings are misleading. They reflect only classicizing
literary conventions that explain political alterity in ethnographic terms, and
belie the fact that that these historical actors were all part of the same Balkan
military culture. This was a world of merging Mediterranean and frontier societies: polyglot, amorphous, and so mixed that distinctive ethnic boundaries
would have been impossible to maintain. In the absence of imperial military
hegemony, various generals sought power for themselves. And with the name
Roman claimed by the emperor, rival generals chose monikers for their followings by drawing from the accumulated bric-a-brac of ethnographic terminology. They called themselves Goths or Gepids for the sake of political
cohesion and to associate themselves with the martial prowess and ferocity
that those names evoked. Similarly, outsiders would append ethnographic
names to groups to denote alterity. In reality, though, Theoderic was a member of the Balkan Roman military aristocracy and his Goths bore no relation
whatsoever to the Goths of the 3rd-century sources. Romans, Goths, and
other warbands bearing tribal names were indistinguishable except for their
artificially contrived names that signalled allegiance (usually temporary) to
this or that general or emperor. The group that Theoderic would lead to Italy
was a mercenary army, not a people.37
The wide and steep divide separating these two interpretations constitutes
the intractability of the Gothic identity question.

The Road to Ravenna and Settlement in Italy
Whether a mercenary army or an ethnic group, Theoderics force was some

20,000 to 30,000 strong and its presence in the Balkans was a problem for the
emperor Zeno. Despite their cooperation in the struggle against Zenos Isaurian
rival Illus, relations between the emperor and the Gothic leader broke down.
35 Heather, Gens and Regnum, pp. 1012.
36 Amory, People and Identity, ch. 8.
211
Theoderic ravaged Thrace in 486 and a year later marched on Constantinople.38

In circumstances that are not clear, Zeno and Theoderic arrived at a mutually
beneficial arrangement whereby the Goths would wrest control of Italy from
Odovacer and rule there in some capacity in the emperors stead.39 Zeno was
spared the continued nuisance of the Goths, and Theoderic avoided the risks
of a struggle against a more powerful rival and gained the opportunity to establish his own kingdom in a less dangerous part of the world. Theoderic and his
following struck out for Italy in 488.40
But who went with him? This is yet another flashpoint of debate. Was it just
Theoderic and his army that went to Italy or were there warriors accompanied
by women, children, and non-combatants, a group of perhaps 100,000 people?41
The answer has considerable implications for how one envisions the place
of the Goths in Italian society. Without families of their own, Gothic warriors
would have intermarried with the indigenous population, an action that would
have quickly blurred the lines between Goths and Italians. Evidence for this is
yielded by a few prosopographical examples of such intermarriage.42 At least
one influential commentator has considerable doubts that Theoderic brought
with him a large immigrant population.43 The picture of an entire people
on the move comes from Procopius, an East Roman historian writing 60 years
after the fact, whose account, it is argued, is inflected by an ethnographic
migration trope and is not to be trusted. Further, building upon the arguments
of Walter Goffart, who suggested that Theoderic did not grant his Goths a
third of Italian lands but actually a third of tax revenues, it is held that Goths
then bought land throughout the peninsula where they ensconced themselves
38 Theoderic in the Balkans: Malchus, frags.

39 Count Marcellinus, Chronicle s.a. 489; Malalas, Chronographia 15.9; Anonymus Valesianus
49; Procopius, Wars 5.1.1011; Ennodius, Panegyric 6.25; Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica
3.27; Theophanes, AM 5977; John of Nikiu, Chronicle 115; Fredegar, Chronicle 2.5.7.
40 For the journey to Italy: Wolfram, Goths, pp. 27981; Heather, Restoration of Rome, ch. 1.
41 Halsalls chapter in this volume also addresses this question. Population based on Malchus
frag. 17 f (Blockley 18.4.20); John of Antioch frag. 211; Burns, Calculating Ostrogothic
Population; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 668; Wolfram, Goths, p. 279; Heather, Merely an
Ideology?, pp. 3640; Schfer, Probleme, pp. 1823.
42 Cassiodorus, Variae 5.32 shows two instances of Gothic men marrying Italian women:
Brandila and Procula and Patza and Regina. Though, it must be said that the Roman
identity of these women and the Gothicness of their husbands is conjectural and based
on assumptions about those bearing Roman and Germanic names. See Bjornlie, Law,
Ethnicity and Taxes.
212
Swain
into the local Italian landowning classes.44 As Theoderics initial invading army
split up and settled in different locales, any sense of Gothic identity, had it ever
existed, would have been impossible to maintain.45
But the evidence is sparse and does not allow us to demonstrate intermarriage or peaceful land purchases to any great degree. Other scholars argue for
a full wagon-train migration and believe that Goths in Italy lived among fellow Goths in a few militarily strategic locations.46 Evidence for families making the trek with the Gothic army is furnished not only by Procopius but also
by Ennodius, a Gallo-Roman cleric active in Ostrogothic Italy. The presence of
these families is attested in two of Ennodius texts, one of which was a panegyric delivered before Theoderic and other Goths.47 Had the description been
untrue, it would have been strange to utter it in front of those who had made
the journey about fifteen years earlier.48
As for the location of their settlement, some commentators have argued
that the vast majority of Goths lived in the northern half of Italy, mostly in the
far north. There are various arguments for this. The northern city of Ravenna
was the seat of Theoderics power and his permanent residence. Some have
suggested that there was a particular Gothic quarter in the capital where
Goths lived and worshiped, namely in the north-eastern portion of the city.49
Evidence for this is derived from Agnellus, a Ravennan cleric, who identifies
a cluster of churches in that part of the capital as being Arian.50 This style of
habitation would speak to an active sense of shared identity and community
among Goths. Others, though, have noted that there are Arian churches elsewhere in the urban area and reckon that the evidence is too scant and inconclusive to suggest a concentration of Goths in one part of the city.51
The most important arguments for northern Italian settlement, however,
hinge on the allegedly Gothic grave goods that have been located in the north
in the vicinity of Pavia and Milan, and along the central to northern Adriatic
coast. Meanwhile, there is an absence of such goods south of a line from
44 Goffart, Barbarians and Romans. Discussed further by Halsall in Chapter 7 in this volume.
45 Amory, People and Identity, pp. 917.
46 Heather, Merely an Ideology?.
47 Ennodius, Panegyric 267; Life of Epiphanius 11819.
48 There is, however, some debate about whether Ennodius publicly delivered the panegyric: Rohr, La tradizione, pp. 2704; Rota, Teoderico, pp. 2046.
49 Budriesi, Ortodossi e ariani, p. 109; Lazard, Goti e Latini, p. 122.
50 More on Gothic Arianism below.
51 Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity, p. 116.
213
Rome to Pescara, in Sicily, and in the western country from Rome to Genoa.52
A number of these inhumations contain certain items, namely adornments
such as eagle brooches and buckles with semi-precious stone and coloured
glass inlays.53 Some have argued that these artifacts and their associated style
of dress are indicative of both Gothic identity and the locations of Gothic
settlement.54 Others challenge that equating material culture with ethnic and
social identities is a precarious methodology that has been problematized over
the past few decades.55 These dissenters have pointed out that artifacts in this
polychrome style were being produced across the Mediterranean during
this period.56 Important elements of the eagle brooch design, therefore, were
adopted within the empire, and cannot be said to signify some extra-Roman,
distinctly Gothic provenance.
Interestingly, some who argue for a positive relation between the brooches
and Gothic identity appreciate this last point. It is recognized that analysis of
these items must be context-specific, and that a given artifact cannot, across
time and space, remain a constant marker of identity. To think otherwise is
to misunderstand the mutable nature of both identity and the function of
symbols.57 After all, the eagle had long been a meaningful symbol among
Romans and even Huns, and it is entirely plausible that this inspired Gothic
usage.58 The brooches and their burials can be linked with the Goths because,
within Italy, their central and mainly northern distribution maps onto the
locations of Gothic settlement provided by Procopius.
Procopius also associates these settlements with military deployment,59
and this makes sound strategic sense as well: the Gothic army would have
covered transalpine routes into Italy, along the east coast to defend against
eastern imperial aggression, and across the main eastwest routes over the
52 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 689; Bierbrauer, Die Ostgotischen Grab, pp. 20915; Heather,
Goths, p. 237 n. 31 notes that there are 126 such Gothic graves.
53 For an illustrated survey of the graves: Bierbrauer, Archeologia.
54 See n. 49.
55 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, pp. 3368 for arguments against mapping Gothic identity
onto these allegedly Gothic burials; Curta, Some Remarks on Ethnicity for a summary of
the debate over this archaeological methodology.
56 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, p. 337.
57 Heather, Goths, p. 311.
58 Greene, Gothic Material Culture, pp. 1215.
59 The Procopian evidence was assembled by Bierbrauer, Die Ostgotischen Grab, pp. 2341.
See also Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 6671; Heather, Merely an Ideology?, pp. 401.
214
Swain
Apennines.60 Dispersing the Goths throughout the peninsula would have

reduced their military effectiveness.61
This picture of clustered military settlement has implications for Gothic
identity. Procopius observation related to the mid 530s at the outset of
the imperial invasion and suggests that, a generation after the creation of the
Ostrogothic kingdom, Goths in Italy were still living in largely Gothic communities. They had not integrated into the rest of Italian society. Procopius, who
spent a number of years in Ostrogothic Italy while on campaign with Belisarius,
implies throughout his narrative that Goths were distinct from Italians. It has
been argued that Procopius account is a rhetorical distortion, a tribalizing
ethnographic topos.62 But no convincing motive has been given for this distortion: the distinction is made in all contemporary sources writing about the
war, regardless of their politics. Others trust in Procopius status as an eyewitness and believe that the distinction reflects the way that his contemporaries
perceived reality. In this case, an argument for Gothic identity can be made.
Similar to disagreements over settlement and grave goods, debates about
Gothicness have also concerned such seemingly mundane things as hats
and hairstyles. In the Ostrogothic context, a case in point is the Senigallia
Medallion, a commemorative coin upon which Theoderic is depicted sporting a moustache.63 Some have argued that this particular type of facial hair
proclaimed, perhaps defiantly, a distinctly Gothic appearance in conscious
contradistinction to a more typical Roman one.64 This, they argue, was clear
proof of Gothic identity. It has been pointed out, though, that our only evidence of moustachioed Goths is limited to images of Theoderic and his nephew
Theodahad. Other Ostrogothic kings appear clean-shaven or with beards, and
the same goes for earlier depictions of Goths such as those on the Column
of Arcadius. Moreover, it turns out that numismatic and statuary evidence
yield more than a few instances of Romans with moustaches, suggesting that
there is nothing distinctively Gothic about this type of facial hair.65 But even
if there was something Gothic about the moustache, it is unclear how contemporaries, Roman or Gothic, would have understood it in the wider context of a
Roman culture that regularly appropriated foreign habits of dress and personal
60 Heather, Merely an Ideology?, p. 41.
61 Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity, p. 110.
63 For general discussions of the medallion: Grierson and Blackburn, Medieval European
Coinage, p. 35; Wroth, Catalogue, p. xxxii.
64 McCormick, Eternal Victory, p. 269; Ward-Perkins, Fall of Rome, p. 73.
65 Arnold, Theoderics Invincible Mustache.
215
a dornment. Certain items of clothing could have ethnic origins and connotations (Gallic cloaks, Phrygian caps), but might, when adapted by Romans,
come to signify Romanness as much as anything else. Given this, moustaches
or other ethnic symbols might not have been effective at signifying an identity
clearly demarcated from Roman.66

Ostrogothic Society: Civilians and Soldiers
The question of Gothic settlement is closely tied to the Gothic armyanother

fraught subject. Questions about the army are not self-contained, however,
and touch on the nature of society in the Ostrogothic kingdom more broadly.
In a statement that has become almost emblematic for later historians,
Cassiodorus wrote: While the Gothic army wages war, let the Roman be at
peace.67 Cassiodorus hereby delineates two primary roles in Italian society,
soldier and civilian, and associates Goths with the former and Romans with
the latter. But what did this mean in practice? Was participation in the Gothic
army restricted to Theoderics original following and their descendants, or was
there recruitment among the Italians? And, concomitantly, how did the composition of the military map onto questions of separation or integration in the
rest of society?
There are, again, two main approaches: scholars who accept a functional
separation between Goths and Italians in both military and social spheres, and
those who see strong assimilative processes at work. To take the latter first,
some point to the fact that Theoderics army had originally come from mixed
origins in the Balkans and then likely absorbed the remnants of Odovacers
army, itself comprised of Rugians, Scirians, Sarmatians, among others, and also
likely Romans. It follows that Theoderic and his successors would continue to
recruit from among the Italian population.68 Further, the appearance in the
sources of Italo-Romans serving in military capacities indicates that the army
was integrated. In a letter by Cassiodorus in Theoderics name, the Italo-Roman
noble Cyprian and his father Opilio are celebrated for their military service,
and in another letter Cyprian is again praised for his success in both military
and civilian roles, and for rearing his sons in the martial fashion of the Goths.69
66 Arnold, Theoderics Invincible Mustache; see also von Rummel, Habitus Barbarus,
p. 2613.
67 Cassiodorus, Variae 12.5.4.
68 Wolfram, Goths, pp. 3002; Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall, pp. 3646.
69 Cassiodorus, Variae 5.41, 8.21.17; Amory, People and Identity, pp. 734, 1545.
216
Swain
Cassiodorus also mentions one Servatus, the dux of Raetia and arguably an officer in the Gothic army, who commanded troops perhaps drawn from the local
population.70 If this holds, it is evidence that both Romans and provincials
served in the Gothic military.71 It has also been noted that Procopius provides a
number of accounts of Italians fighting alongside Goths. And at least one commentator has suggested that, by late in Theoderics reign, the military and civilian populations were indistinguishable in Italy.72 Over the years Theoderics
original force had subsumed Odovacers troops, retired and bought land all
over Italy, and replenished its ranks with native Italians. Certainly, a number
of the descendants of the invading Goths would have joined the military, but
given its many transformations the Gothic army could not have functioned as
a preserve or conduit of Gothic identity for any extended period of time.73
Many other scholars, however, accept the distinction made at numerous
places in the Variae that Goths filled the military role and Romans the civilian
one.74 Rare instances of militarized Italians do not change this picture because
close inspection reveals that the majority of these refer to local defence forces,
not the regular Gothic army.75 Cyprian, admittedly, was an exception, but it has
been suggested that his participation in the campaign against the Bulgars represents a specific move for political advancement rather than a general trend
in recruitment.76 Beyond this, there is no evidence for any substantial Italian
participation in the standing Gothic army. The example of Servatus Raetian
troops have been explained away as limitanei, essentially an auxiliary force,
and not part of the Gothic field army.77 It follows that the Gothic military was a
restricted body. One means of restriction and indeed exclusivity was an annual
donative paid out by Theoderic to all Gothic men of military age.78 Access to
these funds would have been a jealously guarded privilege, which likely precluded recruitment from those outside of Theoderics original army and their
offspring and perhaps even Odovacers forces. Further, as Theoderic would
not have wanted to pay anyone ineligible, it is probable that records of Gothic
70 Cassiodorus, Variae 1.11.
71 Wolfram, Goths, pp. 31617.
72 Amory, People and Identity, pp. 1645; cf. Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial
73 Amory, People and Identity, pp. 152, 165.
74 Cassiodorus, Variae 6.1.5, 7.3.3, 7.4.3, 8.3.4, 9.14.8, 12.5.4; Moorhead, Theoderic, p. 71.
75 Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 118; id., Merely an Ideology?, p. 43.
76 Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 119; Cassiodorus, Variae 8.21.
77 Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 118 n. 89.
78 Procopius, Wars 5.12.478.
217
soldiers were kept.79 One letter from the Variae orders Gothic soldiers from
Samnium and Picenum to assemble in Ravenna to be reviewed by Theoderic
personally and thereafter to receive their donative. These practices suggest
mechanisms for mutual identification. It is not certain that Gothic troops were
summoned before the Gothic king on an annual basis, but if they were, and
the Procopian evidence of annuality suggests that they might have been, the
combined elements of professional exclusivity, monetary reward, and contact
between soldiers and their king must have reinforced a shared and elitist sense
of Gothic identity.80
Related to debates over the functional roles of Goths and Italo-Romans
are questions about the laws governing them. Were Goths and Romans subject to separate juridical structures? Provisions from the Variae indicate that
disputes among Goths were adjudicated by a comes Gothorum, a Gothic official appointed by Theoderic. Cases involving only Romans were settled by
Roman officials, and those with mixed disputants required that the comes consult with a Roman legal expert and thereafter render a decision.81 Some see
this as a clear indication that the legal integration of Goths into Italo-Roman
society was not seamless, and that the Goths maintained their own traditions of dispute resolution.82 The nature of these practices remains unclear to
us. Ostrogothic Italy seems never to have produced a legal code similar to those
of other western successor states in which separate Roman and barbarian laws
were in use.83 The Goths in Italy possibly operated with wergilds, feuds, and
customs similar to those on the books in other barbarian kingdoms.84 Others
disagree, pointing to specific Cassiodoran language: We do not permit those
whom we wish to defend with the same purpose to live under separate laws;
79 Cassiodorus, Variae 5.36 records that the vir sublimis Starcedius was granted an honourable discharge and that his donative had been revoked. This suggests the keeping of a
central register of the Gothic soldiery: Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 120; James, Europes
Barbarians, p. 87.
80 Heather, Theoderic, King of the Goths, pp. 1612; id., Gens and Regnum, p. 120; Sirago,
I Goti nelle Variae di Cassiodoro, pp. 1889; cf. Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial
Restoration, p. 135 n. 75, who contests that the donatives promoted Gothic identity.
81 Cassiodorus, Variae 3.13.2, 7.3.1, 8.3.4.
82 Ensslin, Theoderich der Grosse, pp. 2312; Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 122; Moorhead,
Theoderic, pp. 7580.
83 Useful here is Lafferty, Law and Society which argues that the so-called Edict of Theoderic
is based on demonstrably Roman legal practice, but adapted to the 6th-century needs of
Ostrogothic Italy; the Edicts preface states that it was intended to govern both Romans
and barbarians.
84 Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 122.
218
Swain
justice should be judged in common.85 Rather than erecting social and legal
divisions, then, Theoderic sought to break down barriers between Goths and
Romans by applying the same laws to all subjects. It is also argued that the legal
arrangements seen in the Variae were not a Gothic innovation, but bespeak
the well-established late Roman practice of maintaining separate courts for the
old Roman army.86 Countering this, though, is the argument that Gothic cases
were judged by Gothic officials, regardless of whether those involved were in
the military. This entails, at least legalistically, that ones status as a Goth was
not determined merely by military service, but was a marker independent of
social role.87

Roman-Gothic Integration
Even those who hold that Goths lived largely among each other in regional
clusters, monopolized the military, and maintained their own cultural and
political identity still recognize that Gothic and Roman societies were in the
process of merging in Italy. The mixed marriages of Brandila and Procula
and Patza and Regina have already been mentioned.88 Various inscriptions and
papyri also attest to other unions between partners with barbarian and Roman
names.89 Certain individuals seem to have been known by both Roman and
Gothic names, and there are instances of parents with Gothic names giving
their children Roman ones.90 Classical learning was adopted by some of the
Gothic elite. Gothic geographers are attested in the Ravenna Cosmography.91
Theoderics nephew Theodahad was versed in Latin literature, Platonic philosophy, and ecclesiastical writings, and the kings daughter Amalasuentha
was fluent in Greek, Latin, and Gothic, and sought to provide her son Athalaric
with a similar Roman education.92 Acculturative exchange went the other way,
too. Cyprian, the Italo-Roman who served in the Gothic army, had his sons
85 Cassiodorus, Variae 3.13.2; Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration,
pp. 1289.
86 Amory, People and Identity, pp. 51 n. 24, 15165.
87 Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 122; Cassiodorus, Variae 5.29.
88 See n. 42.
90 Ibid., p. 86.
91 Staab, Ostrogothic Geographers.
92 Theodahad: Procopius, Wars, 5.3.1, 5.6.19, 16; Cassiodorus, Variae 10.3.4f.; Amalasuenthas
languages: Variae 11.1.6; Athalaric: Wars 5.2.6. For recent work on Theodahad see Vitiello,
Theodahad: A Platonic King.
219
educated in the Gothic language at the royal court.93 And even those who
think that the army was primarily a culturally Gothic institution allow that
Italians were increasingly undertaking martial roles. Liberius, Cyprian, and
Cassiodorus held military posts.94 It is also possible that Italo-Romans from
humbler social strata found ways into the Gothic military apparatus. An oftcited, though variously interpreted, aphorism of Theoderic holds that while the
rich Goth acted the Roman, the poor Roman played the Goth.95 It is possible
that the range of Gothic traits adopted by lower-class Romans extended to the
military, and that Gothic regiments were reinforced by Italo-Roman recruits
making sideways moves from garrisons to field armies.96 There is agreement
that boundaries between Goths and Romans were being eroded, and given
time Ostrogothic Italy would have experienced the same sort of socio-cultural
integration that occurred in Visigothic Spain and Frankish Gaul. Some argue,
though, that the outbreak of the Gothic War halted these processes, and that
the preceding forty years were not sufficient to collapse cultural divisions.
Staunch resistance against imperial armies for the better part of twenty years
was proof that a communal sense of Gothicness continued to operate.97
It is possible, however, to interpret the Roman-Gothic dynamic in substantially different terms. Instead of merely recognizing that cultural integration was something in the works, some models aim to eliminate differences
between Goths and Romans almost entirely. One approach gives specifically
Roman answers to the question of the Gothic role in Italian society. With an
emphasis on the plasticity of Romanness, it argues that Gothic traits were
subsumed and renegotiated by a Roman culture that had a thousand years
of imperialist experience folding outsiders into itself. The initial foreignness of
Goths is not denied, but any perceived Gothic difference (bellicosity, savagery)
was co-opted and recast as an established Roman virtue (military excellence,
indomitability). Goths and Gothicness came to represent martialism, which
was itself the old idealized Roman trait of virtus. The Goths were heroized as
Italys defenders, vital to the protection of what was in fact the restored Roman
Empire. Under this regime, Goths and Italo-Romans became the Romans,
93 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.21.67. More on the Gothic language below.
94 Liberius: Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1.16; Cyprian: Variae 8.21.5; Cassiodorus: Variae 9.25.9.
It should be noted, though, that the duties of these postings were markedly different.
Liberius commanded soldiers in military engagements, while Cassiodorus was merely
responsible for dispensing to soldiers provisions from local annonarial exactions.
95 Anonymus Valesianus 12.61.
96 Halsall, Barbarian Migrations, p. 335.
97 Heather, Merely an Ideology?, p. 55.
220
Swain
while others remained or became barbarians. The traditional Roman worldview was thereby maintained. In the end Roman in its inherent malleability
and adaptability became the primary characteristic of Gothic.98
Another model even more emphatically blurs lines between Goths and
Romans. Indeed it claims that Goth and Roman are but rhetorical and ideological abstractions in our sources, and unreflective of social realities. The people living in what historians term Ostrogothic Italy were substantially the
same, retaining differences derived only from regional or economic variations.
Here, the Goths who conquered Italy were the hybridized Balkan mercenary
army described earlier. They took on ethnographically inspired names such
as Goth to differentiate themselves from other peer armies. After their conquest of Italy, their leader Theoderic maintained this ethnographic rhetoric
as part of a governmentally sanctioned ideological programme. In an effort
to regularize relations between the invading army and the Italian population,
Theoderic propagated an ideology that cast the army as Goths and civilians
as Romans. The latter would create and purvey respectable culture (civilitas)
while the former would protect it with arms. The rhetoric was meant, to fuse
the former extera gens of the Goths to the social structure of the res publica,
and thereby to establish a consensus of governance among the settlers and
indigenous population.99 Historians, however, have failed to disentangle ideology from social reality, with the result that prevailing models understand
Ostrogothic Italy to have been populated by two distinct peoples. Rather differently, Theoderics army and their descendents became enmeshed in local
Italian societies and quickly grew indistinguishable from everyone else. The
Gothic army, which recruited from the whole population, was not the bastion
of an ethnically separate people.100 The army might have inculcated a military
identity among its members, but this identity like all social identities in Italy
were functions of profession and locality, not ethnicity.

Imperial Invasion and Gothic Cohesion
One imagines that a full-scale imperial invasion would serve as a convenient historical barometer for testing the ephemerality or substantiality of
Gothicness in Italy. If Gothic were merely an ideological concept, it seems
likely that it would have buckled under imperial pressure. If it were a coherent
98 Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, especially ch. 5.
99 Amory, People and Identity, pp. 50, 43.
100 Ibid., p. 165.
221
group identity, however, one might expect to see stiffer resistance. What do the
sources suggest? Frustratingly, both; and lines of debate have been drawn up
accordingly.
On the one hand, it is argued that the pressures exerted by Justinians armies
provide clear proof that hard allegiances to Gothic or Roman identities did
not determine individuals resistance to or cooperation with invading imperial forces. Instead, immediate concerns on the local, civic, and personal levels
predominated and influenced peoples choices. The terms Goth vs. Roman
which Justinians war foisted upon the inhabitants of Italy were abstract and
unrealistic, and people picked sides (and sometimes changed them) for the
sake of survival and personal advantage. The Italo-Roman noble Liberius,
originally loyal to Odovacer, later served the Gothic kings only to eventually throw in his hat with Justinian. The Gothic royals Amalasuentha and
Theodahad were inclined to cut deals with Constantinople that guaranteed
their safety and comfort in exchange for the surrender of Gothic Italy.101 At
the start of the war the mere approach of Belisarius army saw the surrender
of the Gothic commander Pitzias together with half the Goths in Samnium
without resistance.102 And perhaps most strikingly, a papyrus reveals the case
of a certain Gundila, a Gothic soldier and Arian whose land was seized by
Justinians armies, was later returned upon his conversion to Catholicism, was
then taken by Totilas Gothic forces, re-taken by imperial armies, and finally,
only after Gundila pleaded with the Roman bishop Vigilius, was returned to
him.103 It is suggested that Gundilas vicissitudes belie any notion of a stalwart
allegiance to a Gothic cause and instead reveal only an individual trying to
remain whole in the face of a destabilizing war. Gundila shed his Gothic military and religious identity at the drop of a hat in favour of a Roman Catholic
one purely for economic reasons. Local and immediate concerns were more
potent than notions of Gothicness or Romanness and characterized the conduct of the war on both sides.104
On the other hand, opposing interpretations point out that despite the
quick surrenders and swapping of allegiances, a substantial number of people
who were called and self-identified as Goths resisted the armies of the empire
for nearly thirty years. An aggregate of separate reactions to immediate economic advantage and personal interest cannot account for this sustained
101 Procopius, Wars 5.2.239, 5.3.1 ff., 5.4.1122; Secret History 16.1.
103 The papyrus (PItal 49) is translated with commentary in Appendix 1 of Amory, People and
Identity, pp. 3215.
222
Swain
military effort, but a coherent and widely shared Gothic identity can. One particular line of argument admits that our limited and lacunose sources cannot
confirm or deny the existence of a Gothic ethnicity constituted by notions of
blood ties, common origins, divine ancestry, etc. They can, however, attest to
a fully functioning Gothic political identity forged by long and mutually experienced military struggle and, importantly, maintained by exclusive rights to
military participation, which furnished economic benefits in the form of tax
shares and royal donatives. The maintenance of Gothic identity, therefore, was
an extension of the desire to maintain a position of advantage.105 Further, the
primary bearers of Gothic identity can be pinpointed in the sources. Procopius
routinely differentiates between two categories of the Gothic soldiery, the
higher of which are called aristoi, dokimoi, or logimoi.106 While these terms
refer to significant Gothic individuals and policy-makers, they are also applied
to much larger Gothic military contingents. This broader military elite, it is
argued, perhaps a fifth of the 20,00030,000 strong Gothic army, were politically enfranchised and central to group cohesion and morale. Over the many
years of the Gothic War this group proved durable and the eventual end of
Gothic resistance should be associated with its substantial reduction.107

Gothic Language and Religion
By almost all accounts, a distinct and commonly spoken language contributes

substantially to group cohesion.108 It is not surprising, then, that proponents of
the existence of Gothic identity argue for the prevalence and centrality of the
Gothic tongue among Goths in Italy, while detractors minimize its importance
and cultural capital. Spoken Gothic is attested in various sources. Cassiodorus
letters indicate that Cyprian knew Gothic, that Athalaric was impressed when
that Italo-Romans children learned our language, and that, in addition to the
105 One notices that, at their core, both Amorys and Heathers arguments for the absence or
existence of Gothic identity hinge upon individuals reactions to economic advantage.
Amorys model, though, suggests individualized, ad hoc responses to the exigencies of
the moment. Heathers economics are better thought of as an investment in Gothicness,
in the notion that group solidarity, even in the face of danger, will continue to yield
dividends.
106 Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 97.
107 Arguments developed in Heather, Theoderic, King of the Goths; id., Goths; id., Gens and
Regnum; id., Merely an Ideology?; id., Restoration of Rome.
108 Pohl, IntroductionStrategies of Identification, p. 4.
223
classical languages, Amalasuentha spoke her native tongue.109 In Procopius,

Belisarius orders Bessas, an imperial commander of Thracian Gothic origin, to
converse with the Goths in the language of the Goths, and later there is an
account of Goths speaking to each other in their native tongue as they rescue
an imperial soldier and a fellow Goth from a hole into which they had fallen.110
It is made clear that the imperial soldier could not speak Gothic. For some,
the fact that the sources reveal Gothic being spoken in both military and court
contexts indicates that the language was widely known by the Goths of Italy.111
Others are less convinced, arguing that every account of the spoken language that modern commentators call Gothic derives from a military setting,
including those concerning Theoderic and his family because they came from
the Balkan military world. Given this, Gothic was probably the military pidgin
cant of the Mediterranean armies, a mix of Greek, Latin, and Germanic elements, the product of the intermingling of soldiers of diverse backgrounds in
the 5th and 6th centuries.112 It should not be thought of as widely known or
as the primary language of the people our sources call Goths. Latin held that
distinction, a language known by all inhabitants of Italy regardless of origin.113
This can be inferred because the sources never indicate that communication
was a problem. Liberius is not known to have spoken Gothic, but had no trouble leading troops. Many of Cassiodorus letters are addressed to people with
Germanic names and they were written in Latin. The Gothic language (never
called Gothic in the sources that attribute it to any given individual) is not
commensurate with a sense of communal identity among Theoderics original followers.114 Further, it need not have had any relation to written Gothic,
which it is argued was an archaic and ritualistic formulation used only in religious and liturgical contexts. When uttered aloud in an Arian church service, it
would have been perceived as a mystical and impenetrable code, just as modern Catholics encountered Latin before Vatican II.115
This latter point is disputed, however, and connected to the larger question
of Gothic religion in relation to group identity. There is no sound philological
109 Cassiodorus, Variae 5.40.5, 8.21.67, 11.1.6.
110 Procopius, Wars 5.10.10, 6.1.1120.
111 Wolfram, Goths, p. 325.
113 Ibid., pp. 86 f.; so, too, Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, p. 138 and
n. 91 who argues for the prevalence of Latin. Goths might speak Gothic, but this was not
a meaningful barrier between them and Italo-Romans.
114 Amory, People and Identity, p. 107.
115 Ibid., p. 248.
224
Swain
basis for disassociating written from spoken Gothic, and the fact that the vast
majority of the extant Gothic literary tradition was produced in Ostrogothic
Italy means that the Goths actively cultivated a specific feature of their culture that was distinct from that of their Roman partners.116 In fact they were
the first post-Roman barbarians to do so. As an indicator of separateness, the
Gothic language would have contributed to a sense of Gothic alterity and thus
identity. It was given written form by the Roman missionary Ulfila sometime
between 340 and his death in 381/2.117 The alphabet was based mostly on Greek
letters, though a few characters probably came from Latin and runic models.118
Ulfilas efforts were motivated by the evangelization of the Goths and he produced for them a translation of the entire Bible, excepting the Book of Kings.119
All that remains of this translation, though, are fragments of Nehemiah and
portions of the New Testament. These have been preserved in several major
manuscripts, most of which were probably produced in northern Italy during the Ostrogothic period.120 The most notable is the Codex Argenteus, a lavish production of the Gospels written on purple-dyed parchment with silver
script and gold lettering in the initial portions. Also of importance are the
fragments of a text that came to be known as Skeireins.121 It is a commentary
on the Gospel of John, and intriguingly contains cadence and pause marks
indicating that it was read aloud to congregants. For some, this indicates the
intersection and similarity of written and spoken Gothic. Countering this, it
has been argued that the Skeireins is derived from a 4th-century Greek text
by Theodore of Herecleia,122 and indicates, as does the Ulfilan Bible, the artificiality of the Gothic language in its derivation from a linguistically Greek
and religiously Roman context.123 Others, though, suggest that the Gothic
Bible relies on Greek only in syntax and specialized vocabulary, and that the
116 Greens comments in Brown, Role of Arianism, pp. 42930.

117 Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica (cited hereafter as HE) 2.5.
118 Green, Linguistic and Literary Traces, p. 392; Murdoch, Gothic, pp. 1567.
119 Philostorgius, HE 2.5 tells us that it was feared that the books violent content would
inflame the warlike passions of the Goths.
120 The dating and provenance of these fragments is not certain, though; Green, Linguistic
and Literary Traces, p. 394.
121 The title was appended to the text in the 19th century. It is the Gothic word meaning
explanation or interpretation.
122 That the Skeireins may be related to the text by Theodore is also attested by Green
Linguistic and Literary Traces, p. 394.
225
Skeireins contains language of a more idiomatic nature, revealing that Gothic

was indeed a living language.124
Another important document is a Ravenna papyrus from 551 of two deeds
of sale from the cathedral of St Anastasia, part of the ecclesia legis Gothorum,
in which nineteen individuals are listed: fifteen with Germanic names and four
with Roman ones.125 Of these, four signed their names with Gothic characters,
while seven did so in Latin. Some might argue that the writing of Gothic letters
in a 6th-century context suggests that the Gothic language was not a relic of an
earlier period but a living attribute of Gothic culture.126 The counterargument
is that written Gothic was purely religious and ecclesiastical in nature, so it is
unremarkable that the signatories, being representatives of the Gothic church,
would employ their churchs archaic and institutional language.127
But who were the people who signed this document? Goths? Italo-Romans?
Both? Perhaps those with Germanic names were Gothic while those with Latin
ones were Romans.128 It has been pointed out, though, that it is exceedingly difficult to determine an individuals ethnicity or group affiliation on the basis of
name alone.129 Recall the Gothic parents who gave their children Latin names.
But even if it is assumed that Germanic names denoted Gothicness, there are
still those with Germanic names who signed in Latin script, suggesting that
they did not know Gothic, or at least how to write it. This has ramifications
for those who associate that language with Gothic identity. Or perhaps those
Goths knew Gothic, but they were illiterate and Latin speakers wrote their
names for them. Additionally, given that this was an official document of the
Gothic church, does this suggest that all of the names belonged to Goths? If
not, that would mean that some of the signatories were Italo-Romans and yet
still belonged to the Gothic church. This raises questions about the nature of
the Gothic church, and what if anything it had to do with Gothic identity.
Gothic Christianity is classified as Arian, though its precise relationship to
the theology of Arius is unclear.130 What seems certain is that the Gothic creed
was a non-Nicene, Homoean form of Christianity deemed heretical by the
124 Green, Linguistic and Literary Traces, p. 393; Schferdiek, Kirchengeschichtliches,
p. 447.
125 P. Ital. 34, in Tjder, Die nichliterarischen, p. 102.
126 Luiselli, Cassiodoro e la storia, p. 230.
128 Tjder, Die nichliterarischen, p. 95.
130 This study, though, at times refers to the Gothic church as Arian to reflect scholarly conventions. See also Cohens chapter in this volume.
226
Swain
imperial Nicene church. What concerns the present study is the relationship
between Gothic identity and Gothic Christianity and its church. More than
other possible components of that identity, Gothic Arianism has long been
considered a distinctive marker of Gothicness, and one which acted as a barrier
between the Gothic and Roman communities of Italy.131 Though it seems that
Theoderic did not proselytize Gothic Christianity and never interfered with
the practice of Nicene Christians, he was a patron of the Gothic church and
personally identified with its faith. Addressing a group of Nicene bishops, he
spoke of your religion and ours.132 And Theoderic supported the construction
of Arian churches in Ravenna.133 With its many properties and royal patronage, the Gothic church was a formidable institution, but one ultimately considered heretical by the overwhelming majority of the Italian Nicene population.
This, it is argued, clearly set Arian Goths apart from their Nicene neighbours,
and the maintenance of this minority sect sustained deep divisions between
Goths and Romans in Italy. Some even argue that the continued practice of
Arian Christianity was a way by which the Goths could underline their separation from Nicene Romans.
This divide, though, was not clear-cut. There is evidence that some Goths
converted to Nicene Christianity or perhaps had always been Catholics.134 And
one line of argument holds that conversions went the other way as well.135
According to this interpretation of the religious landscape, the Gothic church
cannot be seen as an ethnically Gothic institution or one that stood outside
the rest of the Italo-Roman population. Rather, the Gothic church evidenced
in the 6th-century sources was only the continuation of the Italian Arian
church of the 5th century, which upon the advent of the Arian Theoderics
rule in Italy had rebranded itself as the ecclesia Gothica in an effort to secure
the protection and generosity of the Gothic king. A prosopographical collection that includes both Nicene Goths and Italo-Roman Arians shows that
there was nothing inherently Gothic or Roman about either Arianism or
131 Chadwick, Boethius, p. 3; Burns, History of the Ostrogoths, pp. 15961; Wolfram, Goths,
pp. 3246; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 8997; Heather, Goths, p. 245; Brown, Role of
Arianism, p. 423.
132 Anagnosticum regis, ed. T. Mommsen (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894, p. 425.
133 Though Amory, People and Identity, p. 246 has argued, without evidence, that the construction of some of these churches can be traced to the period of Odovacer. See also
Cohens and Johnsons chapters in this volume in which Arianism and Arian churches are
discussed.
134 Procopius, Wars 6.6.18; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 957 for further examples.
227
Catholicism.136 Theoderic never explicitly associated the name of Goth with

his church137 because he knew that most people who were considered Goths,
like most people in Italy, were or became Catholics.138 But reactions against
this analysis have been adamant that while there were individual Arian soldiers of barbarian origin in Italy in the 5th century there is no evidence for an
organized Arian church in Italy between the time of Ambrose in the 380s and
Theoderics Arian patronage of the early 6th century. The revival of the Arian
church must be associated with the coming of the Goths.139

Moving Forward
It is hoped that a tour of these seemingly irreconcilable debates does not leave
the impression that the field is in a state of disarray. Quite the contrary: acute
disagreement has stimulated ever more sophisticated arguments and sharpened our knowledge of the many contours and nuances of the sources. They
have served as a kind of intellectual pressure cooker, with the beneficial result
that this little corner of history has been more thoroughly inspected than
many others no less deserving of similar scrutiny. Each of the above models
has merits. Individual facets of opposed positions are, in isolation, entirely
plausible and likely true. Ultimately, though, some arguments affirm that the
Goths were a collectivity and possessed a sense of distinctive Gothic identity,
while others hold that such a thing did not really exist. These cannot both be
right. What to do?
Distances between opposed positions need to be shortened. Extreme interpretive polarities have already engendered a certain degree of scholarly tribalism (if I may be allowed the pun); if allowed to deepen or become entrenched,
this will inevitably result in an intellectual inertia that will hinder the cooperative growth of the field. Steps should be taken to maintain the analytical rigour
that these debates have fostered, but should also work to rehabilitate untenable models built on otherwise sound analysis. Two such steps come to mind.
First, the formative force that Rome exerted on barbarian peoples in and
outside the empire must continue to be recognized. Scholars across the interpretive spectrum have already acknowledged this to differing degrees, and this
mode ought to be maintained and even strengthened. For centuries d uring
136 See the prosopographical appendix in Amory, People and Identity, pp. 348484.
138 Ibid., p. 274.
139 Markus, review of Amory; Heather, Gens and Regnum, p. 126.
228
Swain
the Republican and early Imperial periods, barbarian societies beyond the
frontiers were profoundly influenced by the economy and culture of their
Roman neighbours. And from the 3rd century onward, many of these peoples
lived within and served the empire as farmers, soldiers, and citizens.140 The
Ostrogoths were, in significant ways, a product of late Roman politics and
military policy. Rome had, a century earlier, supplied the Goths with their religion and written language. Rome had granted the Pannonian Goths land on
which to settle. It was from Rome that both the Pannonian and Thracian Goths
sought to extract employment and funds. And it was a Roman state apparatus that Theoderic, himself the product of a Roman education in the imperial
capital, curated and promoted more than any other barbarian king. The Goths
and those signs and practices that made them Gothic were demographically
and culturally permeable. The instances of Italo-Roman participation in the
Gothic military and the Gothic absorption of various barbarian peoples bear
this out.
But flexibility and permeability do not mean that Gothic identity did not
exist, or that Goths did not exist before the Romans invented them. Groups
with coherent identities can incorporate external elements while still maintaining their sense of distinctiveness.141 Italo-Romans would have had to join
the Gothic army in staggeringly high proportions to undermine its culturally
Gothic identity, and there is no evidence that this ever happened. In fact there
is proof against it. Given time, the Gothic and Roman communities would
have continued to merge. Perhaps the success of Theoderics stewardship
of the Roman state combined with the Roman identity of the vast majority of
the population would have seen the full assimilation of the Goths into a postimperial Roman order. But in historical fact the Ostrogoths only ceased to exist
because of an act of imperial aggression. Given this, we must be careful not
to project backward our knowledge of their eventual demise and let it colour
views of the evanescence or fragility of Gothicness.
And this brings us to the second recommended step. We face two obstacles
in coming to terms with Gothic identity: poor sources and the fact the Goths
do not exist today. This is a substantial degree of remove. In certain regards this
distance can aid us: detached from any personal, political, or contemporary
entanglements we can better do the work of dispassionate historical analysis.
Conversely, it can render a subject a mere abstraction. Our subject, though, is
people and the very question of their peoplehood. Declaring the non-existence
of a people by means of philological arguments is an act that should give us
140 Whittaker, Frontiers; Woolf, Becoming Roman.
141 See Woolf, Tales of the Barbarians.
229
pause. Being wrong about that is substantially different from being wrong
about the metre in a line of Vergil. One need only exchange the Goths with
a modern-day ethnic group, embattled by a more powerful imperial state, to
appreciate its rather pronounced ramifications. A certain degree of caution
and circumspection is in order in future consideration of these questions.
If it can be accepted that Goths thought themselves to be Gothic and that
Gothicness was influenced by Roman culture, questions about Gothic identity can begin to move away from the did it exist? variety. Instead, we might
ask: what did it look like? Or, in what ways was Gothicness substantially different from Romanness? These sorts of questions allow us more accurately to
assess the cultural transitions that characterized the end of the Roman period
and the dawn of the Middle Ages.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Anagnosticum regis, ed. T. Mommsen (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores

Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894.
Anonymus Valesianus, ed. and trans. J. Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus, vol. 3 (Loeb
Classical Library), Cambridge, MA 1952.
Cassiodorus, Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodorus Senatoris Variae (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894; ed. Fridh, Magni
Aurelii Cassiodori Senatoris Opera 1 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 96),
Turnhout 1973; trans. S. Barnish, Cassiodorus: Variae, Liverpool 1992.
Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 7), Berlin 1885; trans. G. Cook, The Life
of Saint Epiphanius by Ennodius, Washington, D.C. 1942.
, Panegyricus dictus clementissimo regi Theoderico, ed. and trans. C. Rohr, Der
Theoderich-Panegyricus des Ennodius (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Studien
und Texte 12), Hannover 1995; ed. and trans. S. Rota, Magno Felici Ennodio: Panegirico
del Clementissimo Re Teoderico, Rome 2002.
Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez/L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of
Evagrius with the Scholia, London 1898; trans. M. Whitby, The Ecclesiatical History
of Evagrius Scholasticus, Liverpool 2000.
Fredegar, Chronica, ed. B. Krusch (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum
John of Antioch, fragmenta, ed. and trans. (Italian) U. Roberto, Ionnis Antiocheni
Fragmenta ex Historia Chronica (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur 154), Berlin 2005.
230
Swain
John Malalas, Chronographia, ed. H. Thurn (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35),
Berlin 2000; trans. E. Jeffreys/M. Jeffreys/R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas,
Melbourne 1986.
John of Nikiu, Chronicle, trans. R. Charles, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, Oxford
1916.
Jordanes, Getica and Romana, ed. T. Mommsen, Iordanis Romana et Getica (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1), Berlin 1882; trans. C. Mierow, The
Gothic History of Jordanes, Princeton 1915.
Malchus, History, ed. and trans. R. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of
the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus, vol. 2: Text,
Translation, and Historiographical Notes, Liverpool 1983.
Marcellinus Comes (Count Marcellinus), Chronicon, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora
Saec. IV. V. VI. VII., vol. 2 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi
11), Berlin 1894.
Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiatica, ed. J. Bidez/F. Winkelmann, Philostorgius
Kirschengeschichte, 2nd ed., Berlin 1972.
Procopius, ed. J. Haury, Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, Leipzig 1906; Wars, ed. and
trans. H. Dewing, Procopius, vols. 15 (Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, MA
191428.
Theophanes Confessor, Chronica, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols., Leipzig 18835; trans.
C. Mango/R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor: Byzantine and Near
Eastern History, AD 284813, Oxford 1997.
Amory, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489554, Cambridge 1997.
Arnold, J.J., Theoderics Invincible Mustache, Journal of Late Antiquity 6.1 (2013),
15283.
, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, Cambridge 2014.
Bacal, A., Ethnicity in the Social Sciences: A View and Review of the Literature on Ethnicity,
Coventry 1991.
Barnish, S./Marazzi, F. (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth
Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007.
Barth, F., (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Ethnic
Difference, Boston 1969.
, Archeologia degli Ostrogoti in Italia, in V. Bierbrauer/O. von Hessen/E. Arslan
(eds.), I Goti, Milan 1994, pp. 170213.
Bjornlie, S., Law, Ethnicity and Taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: A Case for Continuity,
231
Brown, T., The Role of Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy: The Evidence from Ravenna, in
S. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth
Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 41726.
Budriesi, R., Ortodossi e ariani: questioni ravennati (riassunto), Corso di cultura
sullarte Ravennate e bizantina 37 (1990), 10920.
Burns, T., Calculating Ostrogothic Population, Acta antique Academiae Scientarum
Hungaricae 26 (1978), 45763.
, A History of the Ostrogoths, Bloomington 1984.
Chadwick, H., Boethius, Oxford 1981.
Curta, F., Some Remarks on Ethnicity in Early Medieval Archaeology, Early Medieval
Europe 15 (2007), 15985.
Deliyannis, D., Ravenna in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2010.
Ennslin, W., Theoderich der Grosse, 2nd ed., Munich 1959.
Eriksen, T., Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, London 1993.
Geary, P., Ethnicity as a Situational Construct in the Early Middle Ages, Mitteilungen
der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 133 (1983), 1526.
Gillett, A., Jordanes and Ablabius, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History,
vol. 10, Brussels 2000, pp. 479500.
Goffart, W., Barbarians and Romans AD 418584: The Techniques of Accommodation,
Princeton 1980.
Green, D., Linguistic and Literary Traces of the Ostrogoths, in S. Barnish/F. Marazzi
(eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic
Greene, K., Gothic Material Culture, in I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeology as Long-Term
History, Cambridge 1987, pp. 11742.
Grierson, P./Blackburn, M., Medieval European Coinage: With a Catalogue of the Coins
in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, vol. 1: The Early Middle Ages (5th10th centuries), Cambridge 1986.
Hall, J., Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 1997.
, Goths and Romans, 332489, Oxford 1991.
, The Historical Culture of Ostrogothic Italy, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti
dItalia, Spoleto 1993, pp. 31753.
, Theoderic King of the Goths, Early Medieval Europe 4.2 (1995), 14573.
, Gens and Regnum among the Ostrogoths, in H. Goetz/J. Jarnut/W. Pohl (eds.),
Regna and Gentes, Leiden 2003, pp. 85133.
232
Swain
, Merely an Ideology?Gothic Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, in S. Barnish/

F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An
Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 3160.
, Ethnicity, Group Identity, and Social Status in the Migration Period, in
I. Garipzanov/P. Geary/P. Urbaczyk (eds.), Franks, Northmen, and Slavs: Identities
and State Formation in Early Medieval Europe, Turnout 2008, pp. 1749.
, The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders, Oxford
2014.
James, E., Europes Barbarians, AD 200600, Harlow 2009.
Kazanski, M., Les Goths (IerVIIe sicles aprs J.-C.), Paris 1991.
Kossina, G., Die Herkunft der Germanen: zur Methode der Siedlungsarchologie, 2nd ed.,
Wurzburg 1926.
Kulikowski, M., Romes Gothic Wars, Cambridge 2007.
, Constantine and the Northern Barbarians, in N. Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge 2012, pp. 34776.
Lazard, S., Goti e Latini a Ravenna, in A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1, Venice
1991, pp. 10933.
Liebeschuetz, J., The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford 2001.
Luiselli, B., Cassiodoro e la storia dei Goti, in Passaggio dal mondo antico al medio evo
da Teodosio a San Gregorio Magno (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 45), Rome 1980,
pp. 22553.
McCormick, M., Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and
the Early Medieval West, Cambridge 1986.
Markus, R., review of P. Amory (1997), Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1998),
pp. 41417.
Murdoch, B., Gothic, in B. Murdoch/M. Read (eds.), Early Germanic Literature and
Culture, Woodbridge 2004, pp. 14870.
Pohl, W., Introduction: Ethnicity, Religion and Empire, in W. Pohl/C. Ganter/R. Payne
(eds.), Visions of Community in the Post-Roman World: The West, Byzantium and the
Islamic World, 3001000, Farnham 2012, pp. 123.
, IntroductionStrategies of Identification: A Methodological Profile, in
W. Pohl/G. Heydemann (eds.), Strategies of Identification: Ethnicity in Early Medieval
Europe, Turnhout 2013, pp. 164.
Rohr, C., La tradizione culturale tardo-romana nel regno degli Ostrogoti -il panegirico
di Ennodio a Teoderico, Romanobarbarica 16 (1999), 26184.
Rota, S., Teoderico il Grande fra Graecia e Ausonia: La rappresentazione del re ostrogotico nel Panegyricus di Ennodio, Mlanges de lcole Franaise de Rome: Moyen
ge 113.1 (2001), 20323.
233
Schfer, C., Probleme einer multikulturellen Gesellschaft. Zur Integrationspolitik im

Ostgotenreich, Klio 83 (2001), 18297.
Schferdiek, K., Kirchengeschichtliches und Skeireins, in H. Jankuhn/et al. (eds.),
Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, 2nd ed., Berlin 1998, pp. 44553.
Sirago, V., I Goti nelle Variae di Cassiodoro, in S. Leanza (ed.), Atti della Settimana di
Studi su Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro (Cosenza-Squillace 1924 settembre 1983),
Soveria Mannelli (1986), pp. 179205.
Staab, F., Ostrogothic Geographers at the Court of Theoderic the Great: A Study of
Some Sources of the Anonymous Cosmographer of Ravenna, Viator 7 (1976), 2758.
Tjder, J., Die nichliterarischen Lateinischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445700, vol. 2,
Stockholm 1982.
2014.
von Rummel, P., Habitus Barbarus: Kleidung und Reprsentation sptantiker Eliten im
4.und 5. Jahrhundert, Berlin 2007.
Wenskus, R., Stammesbildung und Verfassung: Das Werden der frhmittelalterlichen
Gentes, Cologne 1961.
Whittaker, C., Frontiers of the Roman Empire, Baltimore 1994.
Wickham, C., Conclusions, in W. Pohl/C. Ganter/R. Payne (eds.), Visions of Community
in the Post-Roman World: The West, Byzantium and the Islamic World, 3001000,
Farnham 2012, pp. 5515.
Wood, The Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages, Oxford 2013.
Woolf, G., Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge
1998.
, Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West, Chichester
2011.
Wroth, W., Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards and of the
Empire of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum, London 1911.
CHAPTER 10
Urban Life and Culture

Introduction
When examining urban life in the Ostrogothic period, we are faced with
contradictory sources of information. On the one hand, there are many written sources that report ideals about cities that Theoderic and his successors
wished to promote. On the other hand, archaeology, inscriptions, and documentary sources sometimes provide a countervailing picture. For example, the
letters recorded by Cassiodorus in the Variae heavily promote the idea that
Roman cities are being revived and even improved by Theoderic, with the full
range of amenities enjoyed by Romans. There is some archaeological evidence
to support that this was happening, especially in Ravenna and Rome, but in
other cities there is material evidence that it was not happening.1
The most ironic testimony to the divergence between ideal and reality is
Variae 8.31. In it, Cassiodorus praises cities as the location of education, culture, and government:
Let the cities return, then, to their original glory; let no one prefer the
delights of the countryside to the public buildings of the ancients. How
can you shun in time of peace a place for which wars should be fought to
prevent its destruction? Who does not welcome a gathering of noblemen?
Who does not enjoy conversing with his peers, visiting the forum, looking
on at honest crafts, advancing his own cases by the laws, or sometimes
playing at checkers, going to the baths with his fellows, exchanging splendid dinner parties? He who wishes to lead his life in the constant company
of his slaves will assuredly lack all these things. (trans. Barnish, 1992)
The point of the letter, however, is to require that the possessores (landowners)
and curiales (town councillors) return to their cities, and to pay a fine if they
1 For an excellent synthesis of this topic see Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, especially
pp. 197300.
Urban Life And Culture
235
do not. In other words, the evocative picture of city life did not exist, either
materially or functionally, or it had lost its appeal for Italys elite.2
In this chapter, we will examine the specific elements listed in Variae 8.31
elite residences, artisanal, commercial and legal activity, baths, and water
suppliesin order to see what evidence we can find that they were still in
existence in Ostrogothic cities. As we will see, while there is a certain amount
of archaeological evidence for these things, our analysis will depend largely on
textual sources. One reason for this is that there do not seem to be materially
distinguishable changes between the 5th and the early 6th centuries, and thus
while objects with dates attached to themsuch as some inscriptionscan
precisely pinpoint them in the Ostrogothic period, most other objects such as
building materials, jewellery, or pottery that are generally dated to the 5th century or the early 6th century may or may not actually be Ostrogothic.3 The
textual sources are at pains to stress the continuity of Ostrogothic Italy with its
Roman past, and modern scholars have agreed with that assessment, at least
in the larger cities of Italy. In general, historians and archaeologists see a significant change in the 3rd century and another after the Gothic War and the
Lombard invasion; thus, Ostrogothic cities are viewed as more or less the same
as they had been in the later Roman Empire.4
However, while cities with origins in the early imperial period had indeed
been embellished with large public buildings and decorations, such as paved
streets, a forum with government buildings, statues, porticos, temples, public
baths, sewers, and places of public entertainment, by the 4th century these
structures were already decaying in most of Italys cities.5 The memory of
Roman urban infrastructure remained, but much of it no longer functioned.6
Many cities in northern Italy had been devastated by invasions in the 3rd century and had not been rebuilt.7 Thus, there may not have been much material
difference between cities in the Ostrogothic kingdom and in the immediately
preceding period, except in the rhetoric about cities that Theoderic and his
propagandists promoted.
2 See Lepelley, Un loge nostalgique.

3 Brogiolo, Dwellings and Settlements, p. 113.
4 e.g. Humphries, Italy, AD 425605.
5 Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, p. 199, citing Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity, p. 12.
6 Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, p. 226.
7 Fauvinet-Ranson, idem, pp. 2004.
236

Deliyannis
The Restoration of Cities in Ostrogothic Rhetoric
Variae 8.31 is only one of many letters in the Variae that praise cities as centres
of culture. Patronage of public buildings and infrastructure was an important
aspect of civilitas, a highly visible reminder of good government.8 Theoderic
promoted himself as a rebuilder of the infrastructure of Roman Italy, in the
tradition of Roman leaders of the past;9 he also encouraged wealthy Romans
to fund these works themselves.10 A letter in the Variae states that the most
worthy royal enterprise was the rebuilding of ancient cities, while another
describes a desire to renew the monuments of antiquity.11 La Rocca has usefully pointed out that Theoderics rhetoric about revival and restoration of
antiquitas was propaganda that, among other things, contrasted him with
immediately preceding rulers who had let the cities decay.12 Moreover, Kalas
has noted that the idea of restoration was not new to Theoderic, but had been
commemorated in inscriptions at Rome for the previous two centuries and
more, and was always intended to praise the present at the expense of the
immediate past.13 Regardless of whether Theoderic was doing something new
or traditional, the fact remains that cities were central to his concept of the
Roman society and culture that he sought to preserve.14
The Variae give pride of place to Rome, of which Cassiodorus has
Theoderic say:15
since he who wants to undertake the repair of ruins gives a gift to the
republic, especially in that city [Rome], where it is fitting that all buildings
8 See Saitta, La civilitas di Teoderico, pp. 10338; and La Rocca, Una prudente maschera
Antiqua, p. 488.
9 See most recently Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 198200.
10 Saitta, La civilitas di Teoderico, pp. 10338; Johnson, Toward a History.
11 Variae 1.28 and 4.51, cited by Johnson, Toward a History, p. 76. See also Variae 1.25, 2.7, 3.31
and 44, 4.51, and 7.15
12 La Rocca, Una prudente maschera Antiqua, p. 466.
13 Kalas, Writing and Restoration in Rome.
14 See also Marazzi in this volume.
15 Variae 3.29: ...quia confert magis rei publicae munus quisquis diruta maluerit suscipere
reparanda, in ea praesertim urbe, ubi cuncta dignum est constructa relucere, ne inter
tot decora moenium deformis appareat ruina saxorum. in aliis quippe civitatibus minus
nitentia sustinentur: in ea vero nec mediocre aliquid patimur, quae mundi principaliter
ore laudatur. Cf. also Variae 3.30. See Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 20130 and 21824; FauvinetRanson, Le devenire du patrimoine monumental romain, notes that Theoderic treated
Rome like a museum. For Rome, see also Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, pp. 22655.
237
shine, lest within such beautiful walls there might appear an ugly ruin of
rocks. Indeed in other cities less beauty can be supported; in this one
nothing should appear ordinary, since it is praised beyond others by the
worlds mouth.
Letters in the Variae state that Theoderic ordered numerous construction
works for the walls, sewers, palace, Curia, Theatre of Pompey, aqueducts, and
granaries.16 In many if not most of the cases, what is being done is not new
construction but repair.17 Another city that is mentioned several times in the
Variae is Theoderics capital, Ravenna, where in contrast to most of the other
cities, the focus seems to have been on new construction as well as repairs, so
that our desire for the adornment of that city may be gratified.18 The Variae
also contain several other references to Theoderics support for the structures
of Roman civic life in the cities of Arles, Abano, Catania, Spoleto, and Parma
we will examine the specific details below.19
There are many references in the Variae to ruins within cities. For example,
three letters from the Variae order individuals or groups to send fine building
materials to Ravenna: from Aestuna, from the Pincian Hill in Rome, and from
Faenza Theoderic requests old marble and columns that are lying around.20
Others permit the use of building materials from ruins to be used by city governments or by individuals.21 There are also several letters that confer some
ruined public building on a private citizen;22 the rationale is explained in a
formula for this act, which states:23
16 Variae 1.21, 25, 3.2931, 4.30, 51, 5.9, 7.7, 15. For bibliography, see Johnson, Toward a
History, p. 77 n. 44.
17 E.g. Variae 1.25. See especially on the topic of repair, La Rocca, Cassiodoro, Teodato,
pp. 17.
18 Variae 5.8. See La Rocca, Una prudente maschera Antiqua, pp. 4804.
19 Johnson, Toward a History, p. 77; Variae 2.39 (Abano), 3.44 (Arles), 49 (Catania), 4.24
(Spoleto), 8.2930 (Parma).
20 Variae 3.9 and 10, and 5.8.
21 E.g. Variae 3.49 (permits citizens to repair the city walls with stones from the ruined
amphitheatre), and 4.24 (permits a deacon to pull down a ruined portico and use the
materials for new building). See Bavant, Cadre de vie, pp. 47887.
22 Variae 3.29 (granaries at Rome) and 4.30 (property near the Forum); see Arnold, Theoderic,
pp. 2278.
23 Variae 7.44: Nescio quid grande de se videtur promittere, qui loca desiderat publica possidere. hoc enim ita fieri decet, si res squalida in meliorem loci faciem transferatur et
revocetur ad ornatum quod pridem iacere videbatur incultum...age itaque ut per te
238
Deliyannis
What benefit is there to be gained from one who desires to take possession of public property? This is fitting only if a squalid property is transferred to a better appearance...act thus...so that you may deserve to be
praised as a good citizen, if you beautify the appearance of your city.
As a formula, this letter indicates the idea that it was not only the ruler who
was supposed to adorn or restore cities, but also the good citizen.24 As already
mentioned, one point of these accounts is to emphasize the decay of the
Roman Empire under previous rulers and its restoration under Theoderic.
In addition to the letters in the Variae, contemporary texts written
about Theoderic emphasize his building activity as an element of his good
governance.25 Cassiodorus in his Chronica says that in his happy reign many
cities were renovated, strong forts were founded, marvellous palaces rose up,
and ancient miracles were surpassed by his great works.26 Ennodius, in his
panegyric to Theoderic, says I see unhoped-for splendor rising from the ashes
of cities, and palatial roofs shining everywhere under the plenitude of civilitas.27
The Anonymus Valesianus calls him a lover of construction and restorer of
cities, and lists his constructions at Ravenna, Pavia, and Verona.28 The portrayal of Theoderic as a builder was also a convincing indicator of his greatness
for later historians. Fredegar, a Frankish chronicler writing in the 7th century,
cites an earlier biography of Theoderic to say that all the cities that he ruled he
restored and fortified most ingeniously with wonderful works.29
decorem sumat quod neglectum incuriosa vetustate iacuerat, quatenus boni civis laudem
invenire merearis, si faciem tuae civitatis ornaveris.
24 The concept of reusing materials from ruined buildings to beautify the city is also found
in Roman law; see Dubouloz, Acception et dfense. Cf. also Variae 8.30 and Variae 1.21.1.
25 See especially Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, pp. 26182.
26 Cassiodorus, Chronica, a. 500.
27 Ennodius, Panegyric 11.
28 Anonymus Valesianus 71: Hic aquae ductum Ravennae restauravit, quem princeps
Traianus fecerat, et post multa tempora aquam introduxit. Palatium usque ad perfectum
fecit, quem non dedicavit. Portica circa palatium perfecit. Item Veronae thermas et palatium fecit et a porta usque ad palatium porticum addidit. Aquae ductum, quod per multa
tempora destructum fuerat, renovavit et aquam intromisit. Muros alios novos circuit civitatem. Item Ticino palatium, thermas, amphitheatrum, et alios muros civitatis fecit. Sed
et per alias civitates multa beneficia praestitit.
29 Anonymus Valesianus 70; Fredegar, Chronica 2.57 (MGH SRM 2, p. 82): Civitates universas
quas regebat miri operis restaurare et munire sollertissime fecit. Palatia quoque splendedissime Ravennae urbis, Veronae et Papiae, quod Ticinum cognomentum est, fabricare
iussit. Tantae prosperitatis post regnum tenuit, pacem cum gentibus vicinas habens, ut
239
According to all these sources, the categories of structures patronized by

Theoderic divide almost equally between monumental (porticos, palaces)
and functionally useful (baths, aqueducts, city walls). Saitta has noted that
even works that seem purely commemorative contributed nevertheless to the
development of industries that benefited the infrastructure of his kingdom.30
All of the items described in the sources are secular constructions; Theoderics
church patronage is not listed, nor is he said to have supported church construction by others. This is perhaps not surprising, given that Theoderics churches
were built for Arian worship and all of our authors were Nicene; nevertheless,
it skews our image of what was going on, since undoubtedly churches were
being built in the cities of Italy at this time.31

Infrastructure of Ostrogothic Cities
Despite Theoderics reputation as a great patron and the rhetoric about Roman
cities that appears in writings from his reign, his government contributed relatively little to most of the cities of Italy.32 Many of these urban centres had
existed throughout the Roman imperial period, and still contained the buildings, infrastructure, and works of art erected in the first two centuries. However,
they were in far from pristine condition. We have already seen that letters in
the Variae repeatedly talk about the need to eliminate ruined buildings from
cities, and archaeology has largely confirmed that a general shrinkage of urban
infrastructures had taken place by the 5th century.33
Even at Rome, excavations at the Crypta Balbi have shown that public buildings such as the theatre, portico, and temples of the Largo Argentina had lost
their functions and were becoming filled with debris. Some of the buildings
were enclosed and reduced, and this can be seen at other places in Rome also.34
mirum fuisset. See La Rocca, Una prudente maschera Antiqua, and Bjornlie, Politics,
pp. 1578.
30 Saitta, La civilitas di Teoderico, p. 105.
31 Bavant, Cadre de vie, pp. 47887, notes that at the same time, new churches were being
built. La Rocca, Una prudente maschera Antiqua, pp. 4645 and 4845, suggests that
the omission of churches is because that kind of activity did not distinguish the king
from his aristocratic subjects; secular patronage, however, by this time was viewed as the
proper sphere of rulers.
32 Brogiolo, Ideas.
33 See Marazzi in this volume; also Marazzi, The Last Rome and Liebeschuetz, Decline and
Fall.
34 Marazzi, The Last Rome, pp. 2869.
240
Deliyannis
Rome of course had been sacked in 410 and 455 and lost its grain shipments
from North Africa in the 430s. Earthquakes struck Italy in the late 5th and early
6th centuries also, as recorded by an inscription dating to AD 484 or 508 that
records repairs to the Colosseum.35 Elsewhere in Italy, excavations at Brescia
have revealed a functioning Roman town with forum, capitolium, theatre, and
a few elite houses until the 4th century; in the 5th century the public buildings
went out of use and the houses were subdivided into smaller units.36 Thus,
many of Theoderics cities were already shells of their former selves, a process
that Theoderic recognized and attempted to reverse.
One reason for this shell impression is that by the late 5th century,
Roman cities were defined by their walls.37 We can see this, for example, in
the Ostrogothic mosaics in SantApollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, in which Classe
is depicted as a set of walls with buildings inside it. According to the Variae,
Theoderic was very concerned about city walls. One letter addressed to all
Goths and Romans commands all his subjects to provide stones suitable for
rebuilding city walls to his government, stating that: The construction of a
city is most worthy of royal attention, since the repair of old cities is praised
in which both an adornment in time of peace is acquired, and a necessity is
on guard in time of war.38 Restorations are specifically mentioned for Arles,
Catana, and Rome.39 The Anonymus Valesianus says that Theoderic built new
walls at Verona and Pavia, which have been interpreted as interior walls demarcating citadels within the older city walls.40 Thus, walls built in earlier periods
now surrounded buildings that were falling into ruin, and it was these that
Theoderics propaganda targeted. The following sections will address certain
types of buildings, and what we know about them.
35 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (hereafter CIL) 6.32094; Rea, Il Colosseo and Christie,
Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 1989.
37 Gelichi, La citt in Emilia-Romagna, pp. 5723, Dey, Aurelian Wall, pp. 1317, Christie,
Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 28499, 31948, and 35769, and Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor
civitatis, pp. 2048.
38 Variae 1.28: Digna est constructio civitatis, in qua se commendet cura regalis, quia laus
est temporum reparatio urbium vetustarum: in quibus et ornatus pacis adquiritur et bellorum necessitas praecavetur...Quid est enim gratius quam videre crescere publicum
decus, ubi omnium utilitas in generalitate concluditur?
39 Variae 3.44, 3.49, and 1.25, and Anonymus Valesianus 67. Bricks stamped with Theoderics
name were used to repair the Aurelian Walls of Rome, see Dey, Aurelian Wall, pp. 501
and 293.
241
The Forum
According to Variae 8.31, Who does not enjoy...visiting the forum, looking
on at honest crafts, advancing his own cases by the laws, or sometimes playing
at checkers (Palamediacis calculis)? There is evidence for the persistence of
the forum as a central or market space in many cities, but in others the forum
may have gone out of use even before the Ostrogothic period.41 For example,
at Aquileia the old Roman wall had surrounded a large area that included a
palace, circus, forum, amphitheatre, and cathedral. Sometime in the 5th century a new wall was built that reduced the size of the defended city by about
half; the new perimeter included the cathedral and the amphitheatre but
excluded the palace, the circus, and the forum.42 The Huns destroyed Aquileia
in 452, but some occupation continued in the reduced city where another wall
was built sometime in the 6th century. We know that Aquileia was no longer
an imperial residence and thus perhaps had no need for a palace or circus, but
why jettison the forum?
Aside from its practical uses, the forum in a Roman city served as a monumental display area, filled with statues and inscriptions that testified to the
glory and/or benefaction of its major citizens. However, such inscriptions had
not been produced in large numbers since the late 4th century.43 Most of the
6th-century inscriptions that survive were found in churches, either as dedications or as epitaphs of elite members of society.44 At Rome some inscriptions were erected in the Forum that record repairs undertaken by Theoderic
or his elites, including the one mentioned above that commemorates repairs
to the Colosseum.45 Tiles stamped with Theoderics name were used to repair
the Basilica Aemilia, the Temple of Vesta, and other buildings in the Roman
Forum.46 An inscription now in Ravenna states that one Gundila restored a
41 See Fauvinet-Ranson, Le devenire du patrimoine monumental romain, p. 209, who usefully notes that fora are not mentioned as notable places in many of our written sources,
but that does not mean that they were not still in use. id., Decor civitatis, pp. 20813, notes
that in cities where excavations have taken place, such as Oderzo, Brescello, Luni, and
Roselle, the basilicas had gone out of use in the 4th century, but in some of those cities
the forum remained in use as a marketplace.
42 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 216 and 2914.
43 See, e.g., Everett, Literacy in Lombard Italy, pp. 23640, Trout, Inscribing identity, and
Randsborg, The First Millennium AD, pp. 11014.
44 See, for northern Italy, Witschel, Der epigraphic habit.
45 CIL 6.32094; see Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2256 and Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne,
pp. 1989.
46 Pani Ermini, Forma urbis e renovatio murorum and Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2213.
242
Deliyannis
statue at Faenza that had been toppled in an earthquake.47 Thus, at least in a

few cities, Theoderic was attempting to revive or continue Roman commemorative traditions. Moreover, Procopius tells a story about a mosaic picture of
Theoderic in the forum at Naples.48 A letter in the Variae concerns the recent
theft of a bronze statue from some public place in Como.49 However, in other
cities we do not find similar inscriptions or images, except on epitaphs or
church dedications. Thus, by this time, even if fora still functioned as marketplaces or central gathering spaces, they seem to have been replaced as local
commemorative spaces by churches, as Ward-Perkins has noted.50
Water
Cassiodorus notes that one of the glories of the Roman urban system was
the provision of running water, which allowed for large public bathing complexes, a sewer system, and other amenities.51 Our textual sources imply that
at the start of Theoderics reign many of these had gone out of use and had
to be restored, and they also imply that this restoration was a crucial part of
Theoderics programme. We also know from Procopius Gothic Wars that part
of the siege of a city involved cutting its aqueducts, indicating that they were
functional. Finally, we have evidence of bathing complexes in several Italian
cities. We can see that water was part of the Ostrogothic image of what a city
should be, although whether the aquatic systems actually still worked was
sometimes in doubt.
We have the most evidence about water from Ravenna. An aqueduct had
been built in the Roman period, supposedly by the emperor Trajan (98117), to
bring in water from the south-west.52 We must assume that it still functioned
when the imperial court moved to Ravenna around 402, but by 467 Sidonius
47 CIL 11.268 Ravenna; see Amory, People and Identity, p. 379.

48 Arthur, Naples, p. 44, cites Procopius story, BG 5.24.
49 Variae 2.35.
50 Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity; see also Yasin, Saints and Church Spaces, pp. 10150.
51 Variae 7.6. But see Scobie, Slums, sanitation, and mortality, who suggests that these features did not really improve life for most urban residents.
52 We know this date only from Anonymus Valesianus, ca. 71; see Prati/Antoniazzi, Flumen
aquaeductus, pp. 324 and 446, and Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity, pp. 34 and
1223.
243
Apollinaris wrote But the drawback is that, with water all about us, we could
not quench our thirst; there was neither intact aqueduct nor filterable cistern, nor gushing spring, nor unclouded well.53 Whether this was the situation earlier in the century, or whether it was a result of the semi-abandonment
of the city after 450, we have no way of knowing. Theoderics restoration of
this aqueduct was seen as a major feat. The Anonymus Valesianus says that
He [Theoderic] restored the aqueduct of Ravenna, which the ruler Trajan had
built, and after much time he introduced water.54 Cassiodorus in his Chronica,
says In this consulship lord King Theoderic brought water to Ravenna,
whose aqueduct he fittingly restored, which had been out of use for a long
time before.55 The reconstruction of the aqueduct was confirmed in 1938 by
the discovery in Ravenna of lead fistulae, or water pipes, with the inscription
D[ominus] N[oster] Rex Theodericus civitati reddidit.56 Moreover, in the Variae,
Theoderic declares to the landowners around Ravenna that he has a particular
concern for aqueducts, and charges them to clean out all the bushes and saplings that had grown in the channel.57
Other cities also had functioning water systems. One letter in the Variae specifically comments on the restoration of the aqueducts at an unknown city.
Parma, which apparently did not have an ancient aqueduct, had one built by
Theoderic.58 Letters also remark on the maintenance of Romes aqueducts,
which even had an official with the title comes formarum.59 In the formula of
appointment of this official, Romes aqueduct system is said to be a marvel,
surpassing natural marvels such as the river Nile.60 Procopius mentions that
53 Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 1.5.6: nisi quod, cum sese hinc salsum portis pelagus impingeret, hinc cloacali pulte fossarum discursu lyntrium ventilata ipse lentati languidus lapsus umoris nauticis cuspidibus foraminato fundi glutino sordidaretur, in medio undarum
sitiebamus, quia nusquam vel aquaeductuum liquor integer vel cisterna defaecabilis vel
fons inriguus vel puteus inlimis.
54 Anonymus Valesianus 71 (cited in n. 28).
55 Cassiodorus, Chronica, a. 502.
56 Prati/Antoniazzi, Flumen aquaeductus, p. 27 and especially pp. 4650; Johnson, Toward a
History, p. 78.
57 Variae 5.38.
58 Variae 4.31 (unknown) and 8.30 (Parma).
59 Variae 3.31 and 7.6.
60 Variae 7.6.
244
Deliyannis
aqueducts at Rome and Naples were cut during the Gothic Wars; at Naples he
says that the Neapolitans didnt mind as they had wells inside the walls.61
In the letter to the landowners of Ravenna, Cassiodorus includes a statement explaining the importance of having running water in a city:62
Then there will be a suitable maintenance of the baths, then the pools
will swell with glass-like waves, then the water will cleanse, not stain, and
it will not be always necessary to rewash things...if sweet water for
drinking shall flow in, all that is used in our food will be better, since no
food seems pleasing to human life where clear sweet water is lacking.
While we know little about washing and cooking in Ostrogothic Italy, we do
have some evidence for bathing.63 As usual we can start with the Variae, which
mention public baths at several cities. At Ravenna, as we have just seen, a
proper water supply allowed the baths to be maintained. At Spoleto Theoderic
subsidized the admission fees to the public baths for the peoples health.64 At
Abano, where there were natural hot springs, he sent money to pay for the
repair of the baths built around them.65 The mirabilis magnitudo thermarum
is noted as an example of the glory of Rome,66 so at least some of them must
have been still functioning in the 5th and 6th centuries, and indeed tiles with
Theoderics name were used to repair the Baths of Caracalla.67 The Anonymus
Valesianus tells us that Theoderic built baths at Verona and Pavia.68 And finally,
we know that the Porta Marina baths in Ostia were restored under Theoderic,
because excavations there found brick stamps containing his name.69
61 BG 5.8 (Naples) and 5.19 (Rome). See Coates-Stephens, Walls and Aqueducts, especially
pp. 1713.
62 Variae 5.38: Tunc erit exhibitio decora thermarum, tunc piscinae vitreis fontibus fluctuabunt: tunc erit quae diluat aqua, non inquinet, post quam lavari continuo non sit
necesse....si ad potandum unda suavis influxerit, omnia nostro victui redduntur accepta,
quando humanae vitae nullus cibus gratus efficitur, ubi aquarum dulcium perspicuitas
non habetur.
63 Variae 6.6 also notes that Romes aqueducts feed the baths.
64 Variae 2.37; he mentions these baths again in another letter about the city (4.24).
65 Variae 2.39; later (9.6) Athalaric sends an official on vacation to the hot baths at Baiae and
Theodahad (10.29) sends another to the hot springs of Bormio.
66 Variae 11.29.
67 Pani Ermini, Forma urbis e renovatio murorum, pp. 2202; Arnold, Theoderic, p. 223.
68 Anonymus Valesianus 71.
69 Boin, Ostia in Late Antiquity, pp. 4850.
245
The running water provided other benefits as well. At Rome water from the
aqueducts was apparently being used to power the citys many mills, although
this was a practice that was illegal.70 Another service was sewers. Here again,
in the Variae Cassiodorus points out the importance of maintaining the sewer
system, in the context of Parma where it had been allowed to run down, and
at Rome.71 Thus, at least as an ideal, the inhabitant of a reasonably large city
could assume access to fresh water and public bathing facilities, and some
level of publicly regulated waste disposal.

Spectacle and Entertainment
Most cities of any size included a theatre and possibly an amphitheatre or circus, dating to the first two centuries AD. The entertainments that took place
in them were extremely popular throughout the Roman period, and despite
the opposition of Christian churchmen, continued to take place into the
6th century.72 The emperor Honorius was said to have ended gladiatorial combats in 404 after seeing a priest mauled to death,73 but we know quite a bit
about the other spectacles thanks to Cassiodorus learned discourses in the
Variae about chariot racing, theatrical performance, and gladiatorbeast
combats.74 Theoderic ostentatiously supported such entertainments in the
circus and amphitheatre, at least at Rome, for which the Anonymus Valesianus
tells us that he was compared to the Roman emperors Trajan and Valentinian.75
When Theoderics son-in-law Eutharic was selected as consul in 519, extravagant games were held in Rome and Ravenna.76 Boethius, too, describes in his
70 Variae 3.31.
71 Variae 8.2930 and 3.30.
72 Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity, pp. 92118.
73 Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 5.26.
74 Variae 3.51 (chariot racing), 4.51 (theatre), and 5.42 (gladiatorbeast combat).
75 Anonymus Valesianus 60: exhibens ludos circensium et amphitheatrum, ut etiam a
Romanis Traianus vel Valentinianus, quorum tempora sectatus est, appellaretur.... Per
tricennalem triumphans populo ingressus palatium, exhibens Romanis ludos circensium. Anonymus Valesianus 67 tells us that Theoderic gave circus games at Rome in honour of his thirty-year anniversary. See Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 21218, and Fauvinet-Ranson,
Decor civitatis, pp. 379440.
76 Cassiodorus, Chronica, a. 519 (MGH AA 11, p. 161): Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula,
editionibus singulis stupente etiam Symmaco Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque
donatas. Dignitates cessit in curiam. Muneribus amphitheatralibus diversi generis feras,
quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretus, exhibuit. Cuis spectaculis voluptates etiam
246
Deliyannis
Consolation of Philosophy the games that he gave when his sons were raised to
the consulate in 522.77
Public entertainments, at least in large cities like Rome and Milan, were
under the authority of an official called the tribunus voluptatum.78 This is
because charioteers, dancers, and actors were paid directly by the government.
Theoderic writes several letters about the appointment of a government-paid
pantomime to the Green party at Rome (one of the citys four chariot-racing
teams), he pays stipends to some retired charioteers, and he orders the consuls
to pay charioteers in Milan and gladiator-hunters in Rome.79 The most popular
and also the most controversial sport was chariot racing, which had become
ever more popular in the 5th century, especially after the ending of gladiatorial
combats. In imperial cities such as Rome, an important part of the palace complex inside the city walls was the public racecourse or circus.80 Romes Circus
Maximus was the largest and most famous in the Roman world, but in Italy
smaller circuses existed at Milan and Aquileia. It is not clear whether a circus
had been built at Ravenna in the imperial period, as evidence is almost nonexistent.81 Several letters in the Variae describe riots and lawsuits surrounding
the circus factions in Rome, indicating both the popularity of the sport and the
partisan tensions it aroused.82 Cassiodorus says several times that chariot racing, beastgladiator fights, and the like are deplorable in every way, but since
the people want them, rulers must provide them.83
Since the spectacles continued, some structures must have remained in use.
Indeed in some cities the Roman entertainment complexes still stand today,
but in many cases they have largely disappeared, their stones used for other
esquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. Cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto
amore civibus Romanis insederat, ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam
ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. Ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque
dona largitus est, ut solus potuerit superare quem Romae celebraverat consulatum.
77 Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity, p. 102; Boethius, Consolatio Philosophiae 2.3.
78 Variae 1.43, 5.25, and 7.10.
79 Variae 1.20, 32, and 33 (pantomime), 2.9 and 3.51 (retired charioteers), 3.39 and 5.42 (payment by consul).
80 See especially Humphrey, Roman Circuses, pp. 578638, who documents circuses for
Nicomedia, Trier, Sirmium, Milan, Aquileia, Thessalonike, and Antioch.
81 See Vespignani, Il circo di Ravenna, Gillett, Rome, Ravenna, pp. 15960, Johnson,
Toward a History, p. 83, Cirelli, Ravenna, pp. 902, and Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late
Antiquity, pp. 5960.
82 Variae 1.20, 27, 31, and 32, and 6.4. See Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity, pp. 1067,
and Cameron, Circus Factions.
83 Variae 3.51 and 5.42.
247
urban buildings.84 There is archaeological evidence that many had gone out
of use by as early as the 270s and certainly by 450, especially in the smaller
towns;85 in others we have inscriptions that record repairs or games through
the 4th century,86 and in those cities we cannot tell when these structures
stopped being used.87 The Variae tell us that the amphitheatre in Catana
was a useless ruin in Theoderics day and that he permitted the citizens to
use the stones to rebuild their city wall.88 The Anonymus Valesianus says that
Theoderic built an amphitheatre in Pavia,89 and a surviving inscription praises
Athalaric for sponsoring games there in 528/9: D.N. Atalaricus Rex gloriosissimus has sedis spectaculi anno regni sui tertio fieri feliciter praecepit.90 Romes
Colosseum continued to function, although already in the mid 5th century the
upper tiers of seats had been put out of use and access to the underground
rooms reduced; on the other hand, between 470 and 520 the names of the
occupants were inscribed on the high-prestige seats.91 Moreover, as we have
seen, an inscription from the Ostrogothic period records repairs to that stadium after an earthquake.
Most scholars consider the entertainments described in the Variae and
other texts as the last gasp of a dying culture. There is no evidence for any of
these forms of public entertainment after the Gothic War, when there was no
longer a government with an interest in paying for them.
84 The most famous example of this is the church of San Lorenzo in Milan, supposedly built
from the masonry of the amphitheatre after it was closed in the late 4th or early 5th century. See Kinney, Evidence for the Dating of S. Lorenzo, pp. 98101.
85 Malineau, Le thtre dans les cits, provides a list of all known theatres in late antique
Italy. Material evidence (stones robbed, graves or houses inside them) suggests that the
following had gone out of use (been abandoned?): Rome (Theatre of Marcellus and
Theatre of Balbus), Alba Fucens, Amiternum, Benevento, Gioiosa Ionica, Locri, Miseno,
Nuceria Alfaterna, Scolacium Minervia, Venafro, Asolo, Albintimilium, Aquileia, Augusta
Bagiennorum, Aosta, Bologna, Brescia, Civitas Camunnorum, Iulia Concordia, Pola, and
Volterra. See also Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 2223, and Fauvinet-Ranson,
Decor civitatis, pp. 2215.
86 Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity, pp. 956.
87 For example, Naples had an amphitheatre and stadium, of which no trace survives,
although the Roman-era theatre and odeion still survive today. Archaeological evidence
suggests that these two public structures had gone out of use by the later 6th century
(Arthur, Naples, pp. 401).
88 Variae 3.49.
89 Anonymus Valesianus 71.
90 CIL 5.6418; The inscription was placed on a slab of a 2nd-century Roman sarcophagus.
248
Deliyannis
Churches
Rita Lizzi Testa discusses the role of the church in towns in this volume. Here
we need only remark that by the late 5th century, regardless of the state of the
rest of their urban infrastructure, most Roman cities had at least one church
(usually more), often associated with a bishop. The churches were one part of
the infrastructure that was not in ruins. As the public role of the bishop was
enlarged in the late antique empire, his residence became a public space in
which he could give audiences, judge legal cases, hold assemblies of clergy,
and entertain guests. Evidence of episcopia from the 4th and 5th centuries is
sparse. In places such as Milan, Rome, Geneva, Naples, Grado, Parenzo, and
Aquileia, we know that one component was a large audience hall, in some
cases richly decorated,92 but there does not seem to be any standard layout or
type for a bishops residence.93
As mentioned above, churches had become the favoured objects of donations by wealthy citizens, and were often covered in inscriptions or images
commemorating the donations. And while we may not be certain whether
other urban facilities were still in use in the early 6th century, we can be sure
that the churches were being maintained as social as well as religious hubs.
Cassiodorus went out of his way to avoid mentioning churches in the Variae,
but we know that in this period even some formerly public buildings were
being converted to churches, presumably with official approval. The most
notable example is the church of SS Cosmas and Damian in Rome. Because
the building in which the church was installed was originally a secular government structure in the Roman Forum, it is usually assumed that King Theoderic
or his daughter Amalasuentha must have given it to Pope Felix and authorized
its conversion to a church. However, there is no evidence for this and the dedicatory inscription only mentions Pope Felix IV.94 In other cities, there is evidence of church construction taking place very actively during the Ostrogothic
period, most notably in Ravenna, where there is the only surviving evidence of
Arian churches as well as several notable Nicene constructions.95
92 See especially Miller, The Bishops Palace, pp. 337; Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity,
pp. 20811, states that episcopal complexes strove for functionality rather than ostentation, but this was clearly not the case in cities such as Ravenna.
93 See Mller-Wiener, Bischofsresidenzen.
94 See Kalas, Conservation, Erasure, and Intervention, p. 4.
95 See Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity, pp. 139200 and Sessa in this volume.
249
Housing
One type of change in the Italian urban habitat that has received a lot of rather
inconclusive attention is the layout of houses.96 It seems clear that there were
dramatic changes in the layout and construction materials of wealthy residences between the 4th and the 10th centuries, based on archaeology of the
elite urban peristyle house for the early period and descriptions in documents
of multistorey wooden houses with the main rooms on the upper storey for the
latter.97 However, there is little evidence, written or archaeological, to explain
at what point in the period between the 3rd and the 10th centuries these
changes became significant. Gelichi has proposed that such structures were
being built in Classe in the 7th century.98 Discussions of houses in Ravenna
note that Roman house-types and building materials lasted surprisingly late,
that is into the 6th century.99 It seems, therefore, that the elites in Ostrogothic
cities continued to live in Roman-style elite houses, perhaps even more luxurious that in earlier centuries.
Certainly Theoderic (or Cassiodorus as the author of the letter) recognized
this as an issue, and was not necessarily in favour of it. Variae 4.51 satirically
praises the patrician Symmachus for his magnificent houses:100
Since you have taken such care for private building as to create public
works of a sort in your own dwelling, it is right that you should be known
as he who maintains in its wonders Rome, which you have embellished
by the beauty of your houses. You are are an oustanding founder and a
great adorner of buildings, since each springs from wisdomgood
design, and the tasteful decoration of existing works...Of antiquity you
are the most careful imitator, of modern works the noblest founder.
In a way, this is something of a slap at Symmachus, accusing him of putting too
much time and effort into his houses; as a result, Theoderic gives him money
and asks him to supervise the repair of the Theatre of Pompey.101
96 Ellis, The End of the Roman House, Gelichi, Ledilizia residenziale, and Baldini-Lippolis,
La domus tardoantica.
97 See, e.g. Ortalli, LEdilizia abitativa, Gelichi, La citt in Emilia-Romagna, pp. 57087,
Gelichi, Ledilizia residenziale, and Bavant, Cadre de vie, pp. 50923.
98 Gelichi, La citt in Emilia-Romagna, p. 585 and Ledilizia residenziale, pp. 161 ff.
99 Gelichi, The Cities.
100 Variae 4.51, trans. Barnish, p. 79.
101 See Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 2245, and Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 1701.
250
Deliyannis
Archaeology provides evidence of such deluxe houses at Ravenna, for

example, at the Via DAzeglio excavation in the north-eastern part of the old
oppidum. Since the 2nd century BC two houses had faced each other across a
five-metre-wide street, but now in the late 5th or early 6th century the street
was blocked off by a room that served as a monumental entrance to a new,
grander house built to the north of the street, with a second equally grand
house built to the south, perhaps both opening on to a street to the west. The
main rooms on both the north and south sides were covered with elaborate
mosaic and opus sectile floors.102 These buildings may have housed members
of Theoderics court or the Ravennate upper class, and the modification of the
imperial-era street network indicates new urban priorities at work. Big elite
houses with apsidal halls and mosaic or opus sectile floors are also known from
the 5th and 6th centuries at Rimini, Cesena, Faenza, Modena, and Imola.103
In the few cases in which upper-class houses can be definitely assigned to
the Ostrogothic period, a new type has been identified by Gian Pietro Brogiolo.
Seen in castella built by Theoderic as well as in the episcopal palace of Pore,
they consist of two-storey buildings with storerooms and porticos at the
ground level and reception rooms and offices in the upper storey.104 This type
of structure, however, co-existed with older Roman elite houses of the traditional style, which were reused or modified. The large house discovered on the
Pincio in Rome, for example, was laid out traditionally, with a hemicycle portico, a large apsed hall, a hypocaust (heating) system, and very rich decoration;
built after the sack of Rome in 410, it continued in use until it was damaged by
the earthquake of 484 or 508.105
As for non-elite housing, we have very little evidence at all, largely because
of the difficulties of dating occupation. In some cases, such as at Brescia, elite
houses had been subdivided into smaller units already in the 5th century,106
but in other cities this seems to have happened after the end of the Ostrogothic
period. All we can say is that because the Roman walls that enclosed most cities had been built for much larger populations than were living there in the
early 6th century, there must have been room for everyone to spread out more
than had been the case in earlier periods.
102 See Montevecchi (ed.), Archeologia urbana a Ravenna.
103 Gelichi, Ledilizia residenziale.
104 Brogiolo, Dwellings and Settlements, pp. 1246.
105 Broise/Dewailly/Jolivet, La fouille du Piazzale, and V. Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis,
p. 98, who suggest that this was the house from which Theoderic ordered materials to be
brought to Ravenna in Variae 3.10.
251
Granaries and Warehouses
The contributions of Bjornlie and Marazzi in this volume consider government

in the Ostrogothic kingdom. Here we must simply observe that Ostrogothic
government, like Roman, was based in cities, and therefore any city that had
governmental offices and staff had also to maintain a population that could
support these functions. This could include housing for the officials and the
soldiers, warehouses to store supplies, and secure buildings for storing the local
tax income and money for outlays. The letters in the Variae clearly convey that
towns were expected to have these pieces of infrastructure. Government granaries in particular are said to have existed at Marseilles, Pavia, Dertona, Treviso,
Trent, Rome, and Ravenna, and they are frequently mentioned in the context
of royal provision of grain to areas experiencing hardship or famine.107 The
praefectus annonae of Rome was expected to regulate the activities of bakers
and distribute portions appropriately in order to please the people.108

The Urban Population
How large were Ostrogothic cities? In the absence of any definite surveys,
all we have are estimates. Romes population, which may have once been as
high as 1,000,000, might have been down to 300,000 in the late 4th century and
down to 100,000 by 500, but it was still by far the largest city in Italy.109 Under
Theoderic the population of Ravenna swelled to its largest size, perhaps as
large as 10,000.110 Naples, too, may have had a population as large as 10,000 at
this time.111 We know little about the cities of northern Italy, except that the
most notableAquileia, Pavia, and Milanand doubtless others had been
sacked by the Huns in 452.112 What this might have done to their infrastructures and populations is not entirely clear, but certainly Theoderic at least did
much to rebuild Pavia.
107 Variae 2.20 (Ravenna), 3.29 (Rome), 3.41 (Marseilles), 3.44 (Arles), 10.27 (Pavia, Dertona,
Treviso, and Trent), 10.28 (Rome, Ravenna, Pavia, Piacenza), and 12.27 (Pavia, Dertona).
108 Variae 6.18.
109 Bavant, Cadre de vie, pp. 4736.
110 Cosentino, Lapprovvigionamento annonario di Ravenna, p. 411.
111 Arthur, Naples, p. 22.
112 Jordanes, Getica, 219222. Paul the Deacon (Hist. Rom. 14.913) says that Concordia,
Altinum, Padua, Vicenza, Verona, Brixia, and Bergamo were also all sacked by the Huns.
252
Deliyannis
Who was living in the cities? In general, populations seem to have remained
what they had always been. In important coastal cities such as Ravenna, Rome,
and Naples there were populations of people from the eastern Mediterranean.113
There were settled communities of Jews in the larger cities of Italy, as we know
from accounts of urban unrest concerning synagogues in Ravenna, Rome,
Genoa, and Milan, and from Procopius mention of Jews in Naples.114 Jewish
inscriptions have been found at Ravenna, Naples, and Venosa. One striking
amphora fragment found in an excavation at Ravenna contained an inscription in Hebrew, evidence perhaps of Jewish merchants in Ravenna, as may also
be attested on papyrus documents from 540 and 541.115
Cities for which there is evidence of a Gothic garrison, as found in several letters of the Variae, would have had a resident population of Goths.
Bierbrauer has mapped finds of Gothic womens jewellery found in graves
and concluded that the majority of Goths were settled in northern Italy and
the Po Valley, which corresponds to Germanic place names and inscriptions
with Ostrogothic names. Bierbrauers ideas and maps have been accepted by
many scholars.116 Many of these find spots are in or just outside Roman cities, including Aquileia, Ascoli Piceno, Firenze, Milan, Parma, Pavia, Ravenna,
Reggio Emilia, Rome, Trento, Udine, Brescia, Pistoia, Ravenna, and Spoleto.117
Textual sources provide additional information. People with Gothic names are
mentioned in the Variae in Ascoli Piceno, Dertona, Salona, Milan, Ravenna,
Cesena, Osimo, Narni, and Naples.118 In most cases they are there as government representatives. Procopius in his Gothic Wars mentions Gothic garrisons
or populations in many cities also, as Bierbrauer has catalogued.119 Taken all
together, we can see that while some of the Gothic population might have
been settled in rural settlements or in fortresses along the borders, many cities
113 Brown, Ebrei e orientali a Ravenna; Arthur, Naples, pp. 234.
114 Rutgers, The Jews of Italy; Somekh, Teoderico e gli Ebrei di Ravenna, lists Anonymus
Valesianus 812 (Ravenna) and Variae 2.27, 3.45 (Samaritans), 4.33 and 45, and 5.37. For
Naples, Procopius, BG 5.8 and 10.
115 Somekh, Teoderico e gli Ebrei di Ravenna; for Naples and Venosa see Noy, Jewish
Inscriptions, pp. 4757 and 61149.
116 Bierbrauer, Die Ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfund and Die Ansiedlung der Ostgoten in
Italien. However, Amory, People and Identity, pp. 3327 has pointed out that jewellery
found in graves does not necessarily tell us about the ethnic background of the wearer,
and, moreover, that even before 489 many people in Italy might have worn similar objects.
117 This list derived from Bierbrauer, Die Ansiedlung der Ostgoten in Italien.
118 Lecce, La vita economica dellItalia, p. 358.
119 Procopius, BG 6.11, mentions Chiusi, Orvieto, Todi, Ascoli Piceno, Osimo, Urbino, Cesena,
Monteferetra, and Rimini; he also mentions their wives and children at Petra.
253
and especially strategically important ones would have had a population of

Goths, at least soldiers but perhaps also their families in some cases.
As with other aspects of urban life, we have better evidence about urban
Gothic populations from Ravenna, the capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.120
Ravennas central role in Ostrogothic policy can be seen in the fact that Gothic
soldiers had to pick up their donatives in person in Ravenna.121 We know,
however, that Goths were not just soldiers. The early 8th-century Anonymous
Cosmographer of Ravenna identifies three authors of his sources as Gothic
philosophers; it is usually assumed that he was using geographical texts written by Goths for Theoderic.122 One Gothic scribe who was producing books
in Ravenna may have been Wiliarit (or Viliaric), identified in a papyrus document as a spodeus and bokareis and in an Orosius manuscript as a magister
antiquarius. Fragments of manuscripts also attest the production of bilingual
Gothic-Latin texts in Ravenna.123 Finally, Ravenna and its suburbs had several
Arian churches that are assumed to have been for worship by Goths, including
one that was later known as the ecclesia Gothorum.124
One often-repeated idea is that there was a Gothic zone, a particular area
of the city where Goths lived and worshiped, in the north-eastern part of
Ravenna.125 This has been argued primarily on the basis of maps showing the
distribution of churches identified as Arian, namely the Arian episcopal complex and two other Gothic churches. However, Arian churches also existed in
other parts of Ravenna: there was a church dedicated to St Eusebius outside the
120 Brown, Ebrei e orientali a Ravenna, p. 82; Procopius (BG 5.11) notes a large number of
Goths in the city in 536, although this was at a moment when Goths from other cities
taken by the Byzantine troops had withdrawn to Ravenna.
121 Wolfram, Goths, p. 298.
122 Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia, ed. J. Schnetz, Itineraria Romana 2 (Leipzig, 1940); on
this text, see Staab, Ostrogothic Geographers and Dillemann/Janvier, La Cosmographie
du Ravennate.
123 Lazard, Goti e Latini a Ravenna, p. 119, has noted that no other artisans and businessmen mentioned in the surviving texts have recognizably Gothic names. Wiliarit is mentioned in Marini, no. 119, pp. 1803; Tjder, 1954, vol. 2, no. 34, pp. 91104. The Orosius
manuscript is Biblioteca Laurenziana, Florence, Plut. 65.1. See Bertelli, The production
and distribution of books, p. 55. Cavallo, La cultura scritta a Ravenna, p. 84, notes that
another manuscript, Paris lat. 2235, is in the same hand, and that two other related manuscripts may also have come from Ravenna or Vivarium. See also Tjder, Der Codex argenteus in Uppsala. On the bilingual manuscripts see Radiciotti, Codici latini di ambiente
ostrogoto.
124 These are identified only in the 9th-century Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (ch. 86
and 121).
125 See, e.g. Budriesi, Ortodossi e ariani, p. 109.
254
Deliyannis
northern Porta Sancti Victoris, Arian churches in Ravennas suburbs of Classe

and Caesarea, and Theoderics basilica dedicated to the Savior next to the palace. Moreover, documents show some Goths living side by side with Romans.126
Thus the evidence is too scanty and inconclusive to propose a concentration of
Goths in one part of the city.127

Urban Occupations, Production, and Trade
Other than government officials and soldiers, what did the occupants of
Ostrogothic cities do? Here we have little evidence except for Rome and
Ravenna.
Ravennas evidence comes from a variety of textual sources, including
documentary papyri, as well as inscriptions and archaeology. In addition to
the government and palace officials, both aristocratic and bureaucratic, a
municipal elite served as the magistrates and members of the local curia, or
town council.128 The documents that name them indicate that these officials
consisted of notaries and tabelliones, bankers (argentarii) and businessmen,
doctors, and lawyers.129
Artisans also appear both in the documents and in the Variae.130 Quantities
of building materials and possibly workmen were imported from the eastern
Mediterranean or were moved between cities in Italy under Theoderic; the
many buildings that he erected needed a large workforce of masons and craftsmen. Workshops for luxury items in Ravenna may have continued to exist from
the previous century. In particular, large numbers of stone sarcophagi from the
early 6th century still survive in Ravenna, and their sculptural style and iconography show influences derived both from Constantinople and from earlier
local practices.131 Theoderic gave the stoneworker Daniel a monopoly on the
furnishing of sarcophagi to the inhabitants of Ravenna, but abjures him not to
126 Lazard, Goti e Latini a Ravenna, p. 116.

127 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 205; Brogiolo, Dwellings and Settlements, p. 121.
128 Brown, Ebrei e orientali a Ravenna, pp. 967, has traced the names of thirty men identified as curiales in the papyri from 472 to 575.
129 Pietri, Aristocrazia e clero, pp. 3001; Brown, Ebrei e orientali a Ravenna.
130 See Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, pp. 28990.
131 Farioli Campanati, Ravenna e i suoi rapporti con Costantinopoli, pp. 1619.
255
overcharge grieving family members for his products.132 Excavations in Classe

have uncovered a ceramics kiln and a glass furnace dating to this period.133
It was clearly in the royal interest to support commerce and trade in Ravenna,
both for the purposes of catering to the members of the community and for
the provisioning of troops stationed there.134 Classe continued to function as
an important commercial port throughout the Ostrogothic period, actively
encouraged by Theoderic. Excavations at the site of Podere Chiavichetta have
revealed a section of the port city that flanked the canal leading to the harbour. The island in the centre of the canal contained paved roads, shops, and
food vendors, and was linked by a bridge to the city to the south. On the south
bank a major street was repaved at the time of Theoderic, and buildings in
this area were modified, rebuilt, and systematized with continuous porticos.
A row of large warehouses and public buildings faced the canal through one
such portico.135 From the many thousands of ceramic fragments found on
these sites, we can identify imports, especially from North Africa, but also from
Palestine and Syria, the Aegean and Asia Minor, Egypt, Lusitania, and Sicily
(mainly wine, but also oil and honey).136 The imported ceramics are significant
because in much of inland Italy they had almost entirely disappeared by this
time, demonstrating the anomalous status of Ravenna.137 The harbour itself
housed Theoderics fleet of warand grainships, and thus must have included
sailors, shipbuilders, and their families among its population.138
Romes administration occupied a central place in the Variae, and we thus
know about many occupations and productive sectors in the city. In large cities food was bought and sold in a variety of contexts. Theodahads letter to the
praetorian prefect confirming monopolies for various officials lists stewards
and merchants of wheat, wine, cheese, meat, wine, grain, and hay, as well as
general provision dealers and those who derived revenue from taverns, not just
in Rome but also at Ravenna, Pavia, and Piacenza.139 The praefectus annonae
was in charge of having the grain from the annona baked into bread by the
132 Variae 3.19.
133 See Bermond Montanari/Maioli, Ravenna e il porto di Classe, Maioli, Rapporti commerciali, Augenti, Nuove indagini, and id., Ravenna e Classe: archeologia.
134 See Cosentino, Lapprovvigionamento annonario di Ravenna, pp. 41519 for a detailed
study of this issue.
135 See especially Augenti, Nuove indagini, and id., Ravenna e Classe: archeologia.
136 Especially Augenti, Ravenna e Classe: archeologia, pp. 2016.
137 Marazzi, Destinies, pp. 13641.
138 Variae 5.16, also 5.1720. See Mauro, I porti antichi di Ravenna, for more on the fleet of
Ravenna.
139 Variae 10.28.
256
Deliyannis
b akers (and was also in charge of the pork-butchers).140 There are also references in other letters to Romes enormous grain mills run by water.141 The
government also oversaw industries that manufactured crucial materials such
as lime (for building) and weapons.142 There was even an official known as
the comes archiatrorum who oversaw doctors.143 All of these casual references in the Variae testify to the existence of a diverse set of artisans and merchants in the larger cities of the Ostrogothic kingdom.
Conclusion
Thus, in most of the cities of the Ostrogothic kingdom life seems to have gone
on much as it had in the previous century. Walls surrounded most cities, and
contained within them a set of older buildings that were perhaps crumbling,
alongside newer churches and houses that testified to new evergetistic interests, new elites, and more space because of reduced populations. In the larger
cities, trade and manufacturing continued as did the construction and/or restoration of Roman-style buildings in a consciously antiquarian style. Theoderic
and his partners in government attempted to foster enthusiasm for Roman
urban life and culture by funding both infrastructure and activities that would
demonstrate its appeal.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Agnellus, LPR, ed. D.M. Deliyannis, Agnelli Ravennatis Liber pontificalis ecclesiae
Ravennatis (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 199), Turnhout 2006;
trans. D.M. Deliyannis, The Book of the Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna, Washington,
D.C. 2004.
1939, pp. 50669.
Boethius, Consolatio Philosophiae, ed. L. Bieler (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
94), 2nd ed., Turnhout 1984.
140 Variae 6.18.

141 Variae 3.31, 11.39.
142 Variae 7.1719.
143 Variae 6.19.
257
Cassiodorus, Chronica, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII, vol. 2
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 11) Berlin 1894, pp. 10961.
, Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodorus Senatoris Variae (Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894; trans. S. Barnish, Cassiodorus:
Selected Variae (Translated Texts for Historians 12), Liverpool 1992.
Ennodius, Panegyric to Theoderic, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 7), Berlin 1885; ed. and trans. C. Rohr,
Der Theoderich-Panegyricus des Ennodius (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Studien und Texte 12), Hannover 1995.
Fredegar, Chronica, ed. B. Krusch (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1), Berlin 1882.
Paul the Deacon, Hist. Rom., ed. H. Droysen, in Eutropi Breviarium ab urbe condita
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 2), Berlin 1879, pp. 183224.
Procopius, BG, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius: History of the Wars, 5 vols. (Loeb
Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia, ed. J. Schnetz, Itineraria Romana, vol. 2, Leipzig
1940.
Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistolae, ed. and trans. W.B. Anderson, Sidonius: Poems and
Letters, 2 vols. (Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, MA 193665.
Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, trans. B. Jackson, in P. Schaff/H. Wace (eds.), A Select
Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd series, vol. 3:
Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rifinus: Historical Writings, etc., New York 1892,
pp. 33159.
Andrews, M., A Domus in the Subura of Rome from the Republic through Late
Antiquity, American Journal of Archaeology 118.1 (2014), 6190.
Arthur, P., Naples, From Roman Town to City-state: an Archaeological Perspective,
London 2002.
Augenti, A., Archeologia e topografia a Ravenna: il Palazzo di Teoderico e la Moneta
Aurea, Archeologia Medievale 31 (2005), 734.
, Nuove indagini archeologiche a Classe, in Ravenna: Da Capitale imperiale a
capitale esarcale, vol. 1, Spoleto 2005, pp. 23752.
, Ravenna e Classe: archeologia di due citt tra la tarda Antichit e lalto
Medioevo, in A. Augenti (ed.), Le citt italiane tra la tarda Antichit e lalto Medioevo,
Atti del Convegno (Ravenna, febbraio 2004), Florence 2006, pp. 185217.
258
Deliyannis
Baldini Lippolis, I., Articolazione e decorazione del palazzo imperiale di Ravenna,

Corso di cultura sullarte ravennate e bizantina 43 (1997), 131.
, La domus tardoantica. Forme e rappresentazioni dello spazio domestic nelle
citt del Mediterraneo, Bologna 2001.
Bavant, B., Cadre de vie et habitat urbain en Italie centrale byzantine, Mlanges de
lcole franaise de Rome: Moyen getemps modernes 101 (1989), 465532.
Bermond Montanari, G./Maioli, M.G. (eds.), Ravenna e il porto di Classe. Venti anni di
ricerche archeologiche tra Ravenna e Classe, Imola 1983.
Bertelli, C., The Production and Distribution of Books in Late Antiquity, in R. Hodges/
W. Bowden (eds.), The Sixth Century: Production, Distribution, and Demand, Leiden
1998, pp. 4160.
, Die Ansiedlung der Ostgoten in Italien, in K. Bhner (ed.), Les relations entre
lempire romain tardif, lempire franc et ses voisins: colloque XXX: Nice, mercredi 15 septembre, Paris 1976, pp. 4270.
Bjornlie, M.S., Politics and Tradition Between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople: A
Study of Cassiodorus and the Variae 527554, Cambridge 2013.
Boin, D., Ostia in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2013.
Brogiolo, G.P., Ideas of the Town in Italy during the Transition from Antiquity to the
Middle Ages, in id./B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between
Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden 1999, pp. 99126.
, Dwellings and Settlements in Gothic Italy, in S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.),
The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic
Broise, H./Dewailly, M./ Jolivet, V., La fouille du Piazzale de la Villa Mdicis Rome,
Comptes rendus des sances de lAcadmie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 144 (2000),
72950.
Brown, T., Ebrei e orientali a Ravenna, in A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1:
Dall et bizantina all et Ottoniana: Territorio, economia e societ, Venice 1991,
pp. 13549.
, Everyday Life in Ravenna under Theoderic: an Example of his Tolerance and
Prosperity?, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia: Atti del XIII Congresso
Internazionale di Studi sullAlto Medioevo, Milano, 26 novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993,
pp. 77100.
Budriesi, R., Ortodossi e ariani: questioni ravennati (riassunto), Corso di cultura
sullarte ravennate e bizantina 37 (1990), 10920.
Cameron, A., Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium, Oxford 1976.
Cavallo, G., La cultura scritta a Ravenna tra antichit tarda e alto medioevo, in
A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.2: Dall et bizantina all et Ottoniana:
Ecclesiologia, cultura e arte, Venice 1992, pp. 79125.
259

Aldershot 2006.
Cirelli, E., Ravenna: archeologia di una citt, Ravenna 2008.
Coates-Stephens, R., The Walls and Aqueducts of Rome in the Early Middle Ages, AD
5001000, Journal of Roman Studies 88 (1998), 16678.
Cosentino, S., Lapprovvigionamento annonario di Ravenna dal V allVIII secolo:
lorganizzazione e i riflessi socio-economici, in Ravenna: Da Capitale imperiale a
capital esarcale, vol. 1, Spoleto 2005, pp. 40534.
Deliyannis, D.M., Ravenna in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2010.
Dey, H.W., The Aurelian Wall and the Refashioning of Imperial Rome AD 271855,
Cambridge 2011.
Dillemann, L./ Janvier, Y. (eds.), La Cosmographie du Ravennate, Brussels 1997.
Dubouloz, J., Acception et dfense des loca publica, daprs les Variae de Cassiodore:
un point de vue juridique sur les cits dItalie au VIe sicle, in M. Ghilardi/C.J.
Goddard/P. Porena (eds.), Les cits de lItalie tardo-antique, IVeVIe sicle: institutions, conomie, socit, culture et religion, Rome 2006, pp. 5374.
Ellis, S.P., The End of the Roman House, American Journal of Archaeology 92 (1988),
56576.
Everett, N., Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. 568774, Cambridge 2003.
Farioli Campanati, R., Ravenna e i suoi rapporti con Costantinopoli: la scultura (secoli
VVI), in C. Rizzardi (ed.), Venezia e Bisanzio. Aspetti della cultura artistica bizantina da Ravenna a venezia (VXIV secolo), Venice 2005, pp. 1343.
Fauvinet-Ranson, V., Le devenire du patrimoine monumental romain des cits dItalie
lpoque ostrogothique, in M. Ghilardi/C.J. Goddard/P. Porena (eds.), Les cits de
lItalie tardo -antique, IVeVIe sicle: institutions, conomie, socit, culture et religion,
Rome 2006, pp. 20616.
, Decor civitatis, decor Italiae: monuments, traveaux publics et spectacles au
VI sicle daprs les Variae de Cassiodore, Bari 2006.
Gelichi, S., La citt in Emilia-Romagna tra tardo-antico ed alto-medioevo, in
R. Francovich/G. Noy (eds.), La storia dellalto medioevo ialiano alla luce
dellarcheologia. Atti del convegno internazionale, Siena 26 dicembre 1992, Firenze
1994, pp. 567600.
, The Cities, in C. La Rocca (ed.), Italy in the Early Middle Ages, 4761000,
Oxford 2002, pp. 16888.
, Ledilizia residenziale in Romagna tra V e VIII secolo, in G.P. Brogiolo/
S. Gelichi (eds.), Edilizia residenziale tra V e VIII secolo, Atti del IV Seminario sul
Tardoantico e lAltomedioevo in Italia centrosettentrionale (Monte Barro-GalbiateLecco, 24 settembre 1993), Mantova 1994, pp. 15767.
Gillett, A., Rome, Ravenna, and the last Western Emperors, Papers of the British School
at Rome 69 (2001), 13167.
260
Deliyannis
Humphrey, J., Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing, Berkeley 1986.
Humphries, M. Italy, AD 425605, in A. Cameron/B. Ward-Perkins/M.L. Whitby (eds.),
The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14, Cambridge 2001, pp. 52551.
Johnson, M.J., Toward a History of Theoderics Building Program, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 42 (1988), 7396.
Kalas, G., Conservation, Erasure, and Intervention: Romes Ancient Heritage and
the History of SS. Cosma e Damiano, ARRIS Journal of the Southeast Chapter of the
Society of Architectural Historians 16 (2005), 111.
, Writing and Restoration in Rome: Inscriptions, Statues, and the Late Antique
Preservation of Buildings, in C. Goodson/A.E. Lester/C. Symes (eds.), Cities, Texts
and Social Networks 4001500: Experiences and Perceptions of Medieval Urban Space,
Ashgate 2010, pp. 2144.
Kelly, C., Emperors, Government and Bureaucracy, in A. Cameron/P. Garnsey (eds.),
The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13, Cambridge 1997, pp. 13883.
Kinney, D., The Evidence for the Dating of S. Lorenzo in Milan, Journal of the Society
of Architectural Historians 31 (1972), 92107.
La Rocca, C., Una prudente maschera Antiqua. La politica edilizia di Teoderico, in
Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia: Atti del XIII Congresso Internazionale di Studi
sullAlto Medioevo, Milano, 26 novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993, pp. 451515.
, Cassiodoro, Teodato e il restauro degli elefanti di bronzo della Via Sacra, Reti
Medievali Rivista 11 (2010/2), 120.
Lazard, S., Goti e Latini a Ravenna, in A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1:
Dall et bizantina all et Ottoniana: Territorio, economia e societ, Venice 1991,
pp. 10933.
Lecce, M., La vita economica dellItalia durante la dominazione dei Goti nelle Varie
di Cassiodoro, Economia e storia 3.4 (1956), 354408.
Lepelley, C., Un loge nostalgique de la cit classique dans les Variae de Cassiodore, in
M. Sot/et al. (eds.), Haut Moyen ge, Culture, ducation, et socit. tudes offertes
Pierre Rich, Nanterre 1990, pp. 3347.
Maioli, M.G., Ravenna e la Romagna in epoca gota, in E.A. Arslan (ed.), I Goti, Milan
1994, pp. 23251.
, Rapporti commerciali e materiali di Ravenna e Classe in epoca teodericiana,
in A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti fra Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna 1995, pp. 22736.
Malineau, V., Le thtre dans les cits de lItalie tardo-antique, in M. Ghilardi/
C.J. Goddard/P. Porena (eds.), Les cits de lItalie tardo-antique, IVeVIe sicle: institutions, conomie, socit, culture et religion, Rome 2006, pp. 186203.
Marazzi, F., The Destinies of the Late Antique Italies: Politico-economic Developments
of the Sixth Century, in R. Hodges/W. Bowden (eds.), The Sixth Century: Production,
Distribution and Demand, Leiden 1998, pp. 11960.
261
The Last Rome: From the End of the Fifth to the End of the Sixth Century, in
S.J.B. Barnish/id. (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century:
An Ethnographic Perspective Woodbridge 2007, pp. 279316.
Mauro, M. (ed.), I porti antichi di Ravenna, Ravenna 2005.
Miller, M., The Bishops Palace: Architecture and Authority in Medieval Italy, Ithaca 2000.
Montevecchi, G. (ed.), Archeologia urbana a Ravenna: la Domus dei tappeti di pietra, il
complesso archeologico di via DAzeglio, Ravenna 2004.
Mller-Wiener, W., Bischofsresidenzen des 4.7. Jhs. im stlichen Mittelmeer-Raum,
in N. Duval (ed.), Actes du XIe Congrs International dArchologie Chrtienne, vol. 1,
Rome 1989, pp. 651709.
Noy, D., Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, vol. 1: Italy (excluding the City of Rome),
Spain and Gaul, Cambridge 1993.
Ortalli, J., LEdilizia abitativa, in A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall et
bizantina all et Ottoniana: Territorio, economia e societ, Venice 1991, pp. 16792.
Pani Ermini, L., Forma urbis e renovatio murorum in et teodericiana, in A. Carile
(ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna 1995, pp. 171225.
Pietri, C., Aristocrazia e clero al tempo di Odoacre e di Teoderico, in A. Carile (ed.),
Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall et bizantina all et Ottoniana: Territorio, economia e
societ, Venice 1991, pp. 287310.
Prati, L./Antoniazzi, A. (eds.), Flumen aquaeductus: nuove scoperte archeologiche dagli
scavi per lacquedotto della Romagna, Bologna 1988.
Radiciotti, P., Codici latini di ambiente ostrogoto: nuove osservazioni paleografiche,
Ravenna, Studi e ricerche 9.1 (2002), 189207.
Randsborg, K., The First Millennium AD in Europe and the Mediterranean: An
Archaeological Essay, Cambridge 1991.
Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of
Transition, Berkeley 2005.
Rea, R., Il Colosseo. Detrutturazione e riuso tra IV e VIII secolo, Mlanges de l cole
franaise de Rome, Moyen ge 111 (1999), 18395.
Rutgers, L.V., The Jews of Italy, c. 235638, in S.T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of
Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006, pp. 492508.
Saitta, B., La civilitas di Teoderico. Rigore amministrativo, tolleranza religiosa e recupero dellantico nellItalia ostrogota, Rome 1993.
Scobie, A., Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World, Klio 68 (1986),
399433.
Somekh, A., Teoderico e gli Ebrei di Ravenna, in A. Carile, ed., Teoderico e i Goti fra
Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna 1995, pp. 13749.
Staab, F., Ostrogothic Geographers at the Court of Theoderic the Great: A Study of
Some sources of the Anonymous Cosmographer of Ravenna, Viator: Medieval and
Renaissance Studies 7 (1976), 2758.
262
Deliyannis
Tjder, J.O., Die Nichtliterarischen Lateinischen Papyri Italiens Aus Der Zeit 445700,
3 vols., Lund 1954.
, Der Codex argenteus in Uppsala und der Buchmeister Viliaric in Ravenna, in
U.E. Hagberg (ed.), Studia Gotica: Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen
Schweden und Sdosteuropa, Vortrge beim Gotensymposion im Statens Historiska
Museum Stockholm, 1970, Stockholm 1972, pp. 14464.
Trout, D., Inscribing Identity: the Latin Epigraphic Habit in Late Antiquity, in
P. Rousseau/J. Raithel (eds.), A Companion to Late Antiquity, Chichester/Malden, MA
2009, pp. 17086.
Vespignani, G., Il circo di Ravenna regia civitas (secc. VX), in Ravenna: Da Capitale
imperiale a capitale esarcale, vol. 2, Spoleto 2005, pp. 113342.
Northern and Central Italy, AD 300850, Oxford 1984.
Witschel, C., Der epigraphic habit in der Sptantike: Das Beispiel der Provinz Venetia
et Histria, in J.-U. Krause/C. Witschel (eds.), Die Stadt in der Sptantike, Niedergang
oder Wandel?, Munich 2006, pp. 359411.
Wolfram, H., History of the Goths, translated by T.J. Dunlap, Berkeley 1988.
Yasin, A.M., Saints and Church Spaces in the Late Antique Mediterranean: Architecture,
Cult, and Community, Cambridge 2009.
CHAPTER 11
Landowning and Labour in the Rural Economy

Cam Grey
Introduction
Two fundamental challenges confront the study of the rural economy in
Ostrogothic Italy. First, and common to almost all fields of agrarian history,
the textual evidence available for reconstructing patterns of landowning and
structures of labour is thinly and unevenly distributed, and filtered through
a series of legal, political, religious, and cultural lenses that serve to obscure
whatever realities we may imagine to have existed on the ground. Second, we
must engage with questions about temporal resolution, not only as a result of
the very different time-frames presented by our documentary and archaeological evidence, but also in seeking to identify legally, socio-economically, culturally, and materially the rather short period of time during which Ostrogothic
kings ruled over the Italian peninsula. Is it possible to discern anything distinctively Ostrogothic about land use, agricultural practices, or labour relations in
this sixty-year period?
In what follows I explore this question by taking a collection of soundings
into the documentary, literary, archaeological, and environmental evidence
for the period. I take as my starting point the proposition that the impact of
the Ostrogoths on rural socio-economic structures was in fact rather negligible
and lightly felta proposition arrived at on the strength of the thinly scattered evidence for distinctively Ostrogothic settlement (insofar as it is even
valid to make such an identification on the basis of material culture) and the
continuation of what we might, with caution, describe as Roman legal categories, structures, and practices. I place alongside this proposition the fruits of
recent scholarship on Ostrogothic-period agricultural practices together with
environmental reconstructions of the Italian peninsula during the 5th and 6th
centuries, which may allow us to nuance and expand upon our understanding
of the ongoing dialectical interactions between the countrysides of the Italian
peninsula and the various peoples who lived in, settled upon, and exploited
those countrysides.1
1 Scattered distribution: e.g. Vera, Propriet terriera, p. 145; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 689.
Terminology: e.g. Costambeys, Condition of the Peasantry, pp. 96101. Agricultural practices:
264
Grey
My intention is not to write the Ostrogoths out of the story of the rural
economy of Italy in the period. Rather, I will suggest that to impose a simple
dichotomy between Ostrogothic and non-Ostrogothic elements or to choose
between identifying Ostrogothic impacts or averring a complete lack of influence, is to adopt a rather limited and limiting approach. Instead, we should use
the opportunity provided by this tightly constrained time period to explore the
experience of rural populations in the face of a collection of political, military,
economic, and environmental pressures, which together do give this period
a particular flavour. I return to this proposition in the concluding section of
this chapter, where I suggest that the concepts of vulnerability and resilience
provide powerful analytical tools for that project. First, however, I lay out what
is known or can be surmised about the physical, socio-economic, and legal
conditions of the rural economyor, better, economiesof Ostrogothic Italy.

Rural Italy and Ruralization under the Ostrogoths
Scholars seem increasingly willing to suggest that the Italian peninsula that
the Ostrogoths encountered when they arrived in AD 488 was in the midst
of a long-term series of processes that transformed the countryside from a
world dominated by the city and the villa to one characterized by the village.2
Where disagreement does persist is over the coherence, timing, and causes of
that transformation. On the one hand, studies of the documentary evidence
appear to suggest that the legal terminology for different categories of exploitation and settlement continued largely unchanged into the 7th century at
least, and probably later. On the other, the archaeological evidence seems to
attest a breakdown in the agrarian structures and dispersed patterns of settlement that had characterized the preceding centuries, and their replacement
by agglomerated settlements and (somewhat less clearly) agricultural and
e.g. Forni, Dallagricoltura dei Goti; Kokowski, Agriculture of the Goths. Environmental
reconstructions: e.g. Motta, I paesaggi di Volterra; Rottoli/Negri, I resti vegetale carbonizzati; Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 4847.
2 Most succinctly, Francovich and Hodges, Villa to Village. Also Wickham, Development of
Villages; Arthur, Vicus to village. Costambeys, Condition of the Peasantry, pp. 936, summarizes. See also the refocusing of the debate provided by Chavarra Arnau, Changes in
Scale, pp. 1239.
265
pastoral practices that were subtly but fundamentally different from what
had gone before.3
In recent scholarship, it has been convincingly argued that this seeming
contradiction can be ascribed to differences in the temporal resolution and
explanatory capabilities of these two categories of evidence. As a consequence,
it would be unwise to read the evidence of the charters as providing incontrovertible support for arguments about the decline of the villa system, aggregation of peasant residences, and the emergence of demesne-style agricultural
management practices.4 Certainly the documentary and legal evidence displays continuity in the terminology employed to describe areas of land, units
of production, and modes of labour exploitation, but against this apparent
continuity must be placed an appreciation of fundamental changes in the way
that the law is functioning in the period, and in the bases upon which legal
obligations were enforced.5 On the other hand, in acknowledging change we
must resist the urge to assume that there was a monumental, unitary shift from
one form of rural lifeway to another, for in reality processes of agrarian change
in the period are by no means clear and coherent.6 Further, it seems overly
simplistic to identify the Ostrogothsor the Lombards, or indeed any single
factoras the fundamental causational factor in any observable transformations of settlement patterns or economic structures.
Nevertheless, there remains a strong sense in the scholarly literature that
Ostrogothic Italy was a more ruralized society than previously. In what follows,
therefore, I offer a brief and relatively unsystematic account of the archaeological evidence that has been exploited in the construction of this interpretation.
However, since the longer-term fate of rural settlement on the Italian peninsula is not the principal focus of attention here, I suggest that we should not
seek to place the sketchy and incomplete evidence that we currently possess
for rural contexts during the Ostrogothic period within the framework provided by narratives of incastallemento, for to do so is to impose a misleading
3 For synthetic, orienting discussions of changes in agrarian regimes, techniques, and practices, Reigniez, Histoire et techniques; Rommelaere/Raepsaet, Les techniques de traction
animale.
4 Costambeys, Condition of the Peasantry, p. 102.
5 Vera, Propriet terriera, pp. 1445; Costambeys, Condition of the Peasantry, p. 98. Koptev,
Colonate in the Theodosian Code, p. 263. Compare Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 1668.
6 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 427, summarizing arguments developed on the basis
of the field survey evidence; Costambeys, Condition of the Peasantry, pp. 1037, providing
further references.
266
Grey
coherence upon what appears in reality to have been a rather incoherent collection of micro-regional experiences.7
In physical and topographical terms the peninsula of Italy is highly compressed, the product of an exceptionally complex set of tectonic interactions,
which continue to be manifested today in the rather active volcanology of the
peninsula. The result of these geological processes is a landscape that combines a collection of mountain ridges and slopes of varying height and steepness with a series of fertile plains and river valleys. It is the latter which tend
to attract both settlement and agricultural exploitation, but our evidence suggests that there was episodic and ongoing human presence in upland regions
as well.8 On the basis of both modern climatic data and the fragments of proxy
indicators for late antique conditions, we should expect that this variation in
physical geography was matched by climatic variation over the course of a year,
from year to year, and from region to region. Indeed in recent reconstructions
it has been suggested that the 5th and 6th centuries witnessed a particularly
high level of variability, manifested primarily (though not solely) in warmer
summers and wetter, colder winters.9
The relative absence of proxy data sets for environmental conditions in
Italian contexts together with a comparable dearth of written sources that
mention climatic phenomena in the period under discussion here make it
difficult to arrive at anything approaching a fine-grained reconstruction of
the climate of Italy during the Ostrogothic period.10 However, we do observe
some evidence for potential perturbations to that climate. The considerable
seismic activity of the peninsula appears to have been manifested in an eruption of Vesuvius, on the Campanian plain west of the central Apennines,
7 For the debate over incastellamento see, briefly but with further references, Wickham,
Framing the Early Middle Ages, pp. 4835; Cheyette, Climatic Anomaly, pp. 12930 with
note 7. Note Wickhams emphasis elsewhere on micro-regional experiences: Wickham,
Conclusioni, 353.
8 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 4768; Citter, Late Antique and Early Medieval
Hilltop Settlements; Costambeys, Condition of the Peasantry, p. 105.
9 For broad, synthetic treatments drawing on a range of proxy data sets, see Luterbacher
et al., 2000 Years of Paleoclimate Evidence; McCormick et al., Climate Change. Also,
for an attempt to parse out local effects of these broader trends, Del Lungo, Paesaggio,
cultura e vocazioni, pp. 1979.
10 Note the broader methodological and analytical cautions of attempts to extract climatological data from the textual sources of Squatriti, Floods of 589, pp. 8003. Compare
McCormick et al., Climate Change, pp. 1712, who remain much more optimistic about
the utility of the textual evidence.
267
in AD 472 and subsequent unrest or activity around 512.11 A massive but thusfar unidentified volcanic eruption generally dated to 536 or 537 is also attested,
and comparative evidence suggests that eruptive activity of this magnitude
is likely to have impacted upon regional climate by limiting the quantity and
quality of sunshine able to penetrate the dense cloud of fine volcanic dust.12
I return briefly to the possible implications of this phenomenon for agriculturalists in the 6th century below. For our present purposes it suffices to observe
that, given the evidence for physical heterogeneity and climatic variability, we
should not be surprised to discover a comparable diversity in human settlement types and patterns across rural Italy before, during, and after our period.
Historically, our capacity to fully appreciate this diversity has been hampered by the tendency to accord the Roman villa a privileged position, both in
archaeological survey projects and in the landscape reconstructions that are
the result of those survey projects. In recent decades, with the development of
more exhaustive survey practices, scholars have come to recognize a multitude
of sites of varying sizes in rural contexts, and the central place of villas as the
socio-economic foci of the countryside has been called into question.13 In Italy
a decades-long tradition of archaeological survey has revealed an extraordinary
variety of late antique landscapes undergoing a heterogeneous and messy collection of transformations. Several recent accounts have eloquently sketched
the longer-term trajectories of settlement and exploitation on the Italian peninsula, so it would be redundant to attempt such a project here.14 We might
quibble with the tendency in some quarters to produce an over-simplistic narrative that renders the conflict between Theoderic and Odovacer a period of
widespread rural instability, equates the political peace of Theoderics reign
with rural prosperity, and then sees inevitable rural decline attending the
Gothic-Byzantine War and the subsequent arrival of the Lombardsand I
return to this narrative in the concluding section of this chapter.15 Nevertheless,
it seems reasonable on the basis of the survey evidence to suggest that the
11 Summary accounts of the physical evidence in Albore Livadie et al. Eruzioni pliniane del
Somma-Vesuvio; Cioni et al., The 512 AD Eruption of Vesuvius.
12 Hodges, The Year Merlin (Supposedly) Died, providing further references. Also the
essays collected together in Gunn (ed.), Years Without Summer.
13 Seminal is van Dommelen, Roman peasants. For late and post-Roman contexts see the
crucial discussion of Bowes/Gutteridge, Rethinking the Late Roman Landscape. Also
Lewit, Vanishing villas; Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 408.
14 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 40196 offers a masterful survey and summary.
See also, for complementary accounts, Cantini, Aree rurali e centri urbani; Negrelli,
Le strutture del popolamento rurale; Vaccaro, Four river basins.
15 Note the cogent account and critique of Marazzi, Destinies, pp. 1326.
268
Grey
period between the second half of the 5th century and the second half of the
6th century was, on the whole, characterized by stability or a slight increase in
the number of identifiable rural sites.
In Apulia, for example, recent work has identified something of a settlement boom over this period,16 and a comparable boom appears to have been
underway on the Campanian plain when it was momentarily interrupted by
the eruption of Vesuvius in 472.17 In Emilia Romagna and the area around
Venice we observe some decline in numbers of rural sites in the period, but
also significantly a reorganization in the distribution of those sites and corresponding changes to the character of settlement and exploitation in the region.
Likewise in Tuscany the ceramic evidence appears to document a small but
nevertheless noticeable redistribution in the number, distribution, and size of
rural sites in the period, largely in favour of agglomerations that we may term
villagesalthough, as elsewhere, whether this redistribution entailed changes
in population numbers is difficult to determine.18
In proposing these processes, scholars have become increasingly aware of
the implications of changing proportions of imported African Red Slip ware
and local wares, for these changes may be interpreted as reflecting interruptions or perturbations of long-distance trade and a corresponding florescence
of local production and distribution networks.19 Moreover, in recent scholarship the ongoing connections between the rural sites of Tuscany at least and
the urban centres that continued to draw upon their produce and function as
nodes for both the purchase and sale of goods have been stressed.20 Certainly,
we should not assume that any imagined or actual expansion in the rural population was necessarily matched by a precipitous decline in the populations or
wealth of the cities of Ostrogothic Italy.
When we turn to clear indications of Ostrogothic presence in rural contexts,
the evidence is sparse and unevenly distributed.21 Depending on how we wish
16 Volpe, Paesaggi e insediamenti rurali dellApulia.
17 Albore Livadie et al. Eruzioni pliniane del Somma-Vesuvio; Di Vito et al., Human colonization and human activity; Mastrolorenzo et al., The 472 ad Pollena Eruption.
18 Vaccaro, Four River Basins; Cantini, Aree rurali e centri urbani. For explicit discussions of depopulation, Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 2178 (arguing in favor); Christie,
Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 4926 (suspending judgement); Cheyette, Climatic
Anomaly, 1378 (offering broader geographical and methodological perspectives on the
problem).
19 Loseby, Mediterranean Economy, pp. 60817 provides an elegant, synthetic discussion
of the problem. Also Marazzi, Destinies, pp. 13641.
20 Cantini, Aree rurali e centri urbani.
21 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 451; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 679.
269
to interpret the terms on which the Ostrogoths were settled on the land, we
may choose to see a massive influx in rural contexts as Ostrogothic settlers
moved onto rural estates en masse or a much smaller rural footprint with the
bulk of Ostrogoths simply receiving revenues from those estates. It is not my
intention here to weigh into that debate, for it is the subject of a subtle and
persuasive chapter elsewhere in the present volume.22 But, for our current
purposes we may observe that if the Ostrogoths did settle on the land in large
numbers, they have left little in the way of a distinctive material culture behind
them, and that material culture is rather geographically restricted. A relatively
small number of tombs have been excavated whose (mostly female) occupants have accoutrements that appear to mark them as Ostrogothic.23 These
tombs cluster in central and northern Italy and along the Adriatic coast, but
are to date entirely absent from southern Italy and Sicily, and from the territory
west of Rome.24 Similarly, inscriptional evidence containing Gothic personal
names and modern place names with Gothic elements occur almost exclusively north of the Po River, leaving the strong impression that Ostrogothic
presence on the Italian peninsula was primarily concentrated in the northern
and eastern parts.25 This proposition brings into high relief questions about
the purpose of the Ostrogothic settlements. It does not seem likely that only
these regions were economically impoverished, so arguments that rest upon
economic necessity are problematic.26 On the other hand, attempts to ascribe
this distinctive pattern to military factors appear to founder on the predominance of female burials among funerary contexts that have been recognized as
Ostrogothic.27 And in any event the extensive estates ascribed to Theodahad
before his accession as king in Tuscia, for example, raise doubts about an
overly neat equation of the distribution of Ostrogothic material culture and
the dispersal of the human population.28 At the current state of knowledge
these questions must remain open.
22 See Halsall, The Ostrogothic Military (Chapter 7) in this volume.
23 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 451, with further references.
24 Bierbrauer, Die ostgotische Grab- und Schatzfunde remains seminal. Note also the recent
discussion of Ostrogothic cemeteries in De Vingo, Archologie du pouvoir.
25 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 6970, with further references. Note, however, Christie,
Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 453 with figure 96, arguing strongly in favour of settlement
predominantly in rural areas.
26 Thus, for example, Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 455.
27 See also Halsall and Swain in this volume.
28 Procopius, Gothic War 1.3.2. For Theodahads landholdings, Vera Propriet terriera,
pp. 1378; Vitiello, Theodahad: A Platonic King, pp. 317. See, for a comparable argument
about southern Italy, Noy, Social Relations.
270

Grey
Land and Its Exploitation
The survey evidence briefly explored in the preceding section encourages

the conclusion that settlement patterns were undergoing a series of gradual
transformations in the period. It is less easy to use that evidence to answer
questions about landownership, but it seems reasonable to propose that small,
medium, and large landholdings continued to coexist in the Italian countryside, just as they had done in preceding centuries.29 Further, the evidence of
the charters detailing land units attached to the church of Ravenna, together
with certain chapters of the Edictum Theoderici suggest the existence of a market in land, although the extent to which that market involved participants at
all socio-economic levels is difficult to determine. Certainly, it is possible to
identify exceptionally wealthy landowners with extensive holdings, and ecclesiastical estates are also a noteworthy feature of the Ostrogothic landscape.
But it is overly pessimistic to assume that the period witnessed the widespread
dispossession of small landowners and the transformation of these erstwhile
free individuals into dependent tenants. In what follows, I explore practices
of exploitation and patterns of landholding as they can be reconstructed from
the rather limited textual evidence, leaving discussion of tenancy and other
types of labour relations for the following section.
Scholars now recognize that Theoderic and his Ostrogoths did not encounter agriculture for the first time when they arrived in Italy, although manifest
challenges attend any attempt to establish with absolute certainty the nature
of their agricultural regimes and the relationship between grains and animals
in their diet.30 It is likewise difficult to untangle the impact of immigrating
populations on agricultural technologies such as ploughing, although these
difficulties have not discouraged scholars from engaging enthusiastically in
this debate.31 In broad terms, we should expect that the agricultural regimes
that the Ostrogoths did encounter in the late 5th century encompassed cultivation of cereals and other plants as well as animal husbandry. If the roughly
contemporaneous Opus Agriculturae of the Gallo-Roman agronomist Palladius
is anything to go by, a diversity of crops were known in the period and those
crops were typically planted in combinations in three distinct plantings: wheat
29 See, for a broad survey account and fuller references, Grey, Concerning Rural Matters.
30 See the attempts of Forni, Dallagricoltura dei Goti, especially p. 680; Kokowski,
Agriculture of the Goths. Also, the synthesis and comments of Del Lungo, Paesaggio,
cultura et vocazioni, pp. 21314.
31 Forni, Dallagricoltura dei Goti, pp. 7001 dismisses a Germanic origin for the new,
heavier ploughs of the period.
271
and barley in the autumn, pulses in late winter or early spring, and a range of
other crops in the summer.32
Relatively little analysis of archaeobotanical data of late antique rural contexts on the Italian peninsula has to date been undertaken, and so we are
poorly placed to advance hypotheses about the combination of environmental, technological, economic, and cultural factors that might have acted upon
agricultural decision-making in the period, such as have been produced for
northern European contexts.33 The modern-day province of Tuscany provides
a fairly rich amount of evidence, although it is difficult to determine the extent
to which these results may be used as proxies and analogues for what we might
expect to find elsewhere on the Italian peninsula in the period. At the Podere
San Mario farmstead in the Volterra region, for example, we observe autumnsown wheat and barley, fava beans, and other pulses that can be assigned to
winter or early spring, as well as evidence for a range of grasses, a small but
suggestive sample of olive, and a high proportion of grapes.34 It has been suggested that the bulk of vine cultivation in Italy in this period was undertaken
by smaller landowners, and the evidence from Podere San Mario adds some
weight to this hypothesis.35
Elsewhere in Tuscany, archaeobotanical evidence from the excavations at
the larger villa site of Filattiera-Sorano provides a complementary picture of
the crops cultivated during the late antique period and of the vegetation of the
surrounding hinterland. The bulk of the analysed material was from carbonized contexts, so it is possible that there is some degree of selectivity or bias
in the sample. Nevertheless, the volume of remains and the combination of
wood fragments, kernels, fruits, and seeds allow for the development of relatively robust hypotheses about cultivation practices and the physical environment during the 5th and 6th centuries AD. Again, we observe a combination of
cereals and pulses. Wheat predominates and millet is also present, indicating
autumn and late spring sowings at least. Evidence for fava beans, vetch, and
peas suggest that there is likely to have been a winter or early spring sowing of
pulses, which signals perhaps the existence of a three-season sowing regime.36
Noteworthy is the appearance of small amounts of rye, a grain credited with
a relatively high tolerance for cool, wet soil conditions and consequently
32 Palladius, Opus Agriculturae, 2.46; 4.3; 10.2.
33 E.g. McCormick, Climate Science, pp. 837; Cheyette, Climatic Anomaly, pp. 15565.
34 Motta, I paesaggi di Volterra, p. 258. Also Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 485.
35 Ruggini, Economia e Societ nellItalia Annonaria, p. 180; Forni, Dallagricoltura dei
Goti, p. 694.
36 Rottoli/Negri, I resti vegetale carbonizzati, p. 207.
272
Grey
sometimes used as a marker of a change towards a colder, damper climate in

northern European contexts.37 At our current state of knowledge we should be
careful not to place too great an interpretational weight upon this sample, but
the evidence is nonetheless suggestive. Meanwhile, high proportions of oak
and in particular chestnut, suggest a certain amount of human intervention
in and maintenance of woodland resources in the periodand I return to this
proposition below.38
A range of animals, exploited variously for their meat, their muscle, and their
milk is attested, too. Again, robust archaeozoological samples are currently few
and far between, but we are served by a small number of suggestive contexts.39
At Podere San Mario, for example, the evidence hints at a small flock of sheep
and/or goats as well as pigs and cattle. At the somewhat larger site of Monte
Barro in the modern-day province of Lecco in northern Italy, young pig, sheep,
and goat appear to have been butchered for meat, while poultry and cattle are
also present along with a small sample of horse.40 It is difficult to move from
these isolated samples to a systematic appreciation of the relative presence or
role of these various animals in agrarian regimes, and we should not expect
homogeneity either geographically or socio-economically. A rough appreciation of their relative value in the eyes of the law may be gleaned from a chapter
in the Edictum Theoderici establishing penalties for rustling of livestock, which
appears to present a set of rough equivalences: one stallion to two mares, two
cows, ten female goats, or five pigs.41
This catalogue is clearly influenced by the estimation of the horse as a symbol of wealth and status, but it does reflect the relative value of cattle, which
are undeniably the most versatile of the animals characteristically found in an
agricultural context. Bovines can be used to plough fields, exploited for milk
and meat, while their hide, horn, and bone can be employed in making tools,
household items, ornaments, and clothing. We catch hints of the potential
economic value of plough animals from a chapter contained in the Edictum
Theoderici that determines a penalty of one solidus per day for the exploitation
37 McCormick, Climate Science, pp. 835; Cheyette, Climate Anomaly, p. 163.

38 Rottoli/Negri, I resti vegetale carbonizzati, pp. 2013. Chestnut is also found in significant proportions at Monte Barro: Castiglioni/Cottini/Rottoli, I resti archeobotanici,
p. 224. Note also the discussion of Squatriti in this volume.
39
See, for recent surveys of archaeozoological materials in Italy, Baker/Clark,
Archaeozoological Evidence; Valenti/Salvadori, Animal Bones.
40 See the table in Baker, Subsistence, Husbandry and Status, pp. 2523.
41 Edictum Theoderici 57. See also Edictum Theoderici 56; 58.
273
of a cow belonging to another without that individuals express permission.42

Meanwhile, a letter of Cassiodorus to the provincials of Noricum recommends
a programme of interbreeding between their cattle and those of a group of
Alemanni who had been stationed in the region.43 The stated intention of
this programme is to improve the stocks of both breeds and consequently the
economic robustness of the communities in question. We should be cautious
about taking this single incident as an indication of a wider phenomenon in
animal husbandry. But if there was any follow-through on the suggestion, this
is a striking exercise in economic interventionism. It is also a reminder that
cattle populations might have retained their diversity in Italy in the period, a
phenomenon that appears to contrast with contexts further north in Europe,
where skeleton sizes shrank markedly over the course of the early medieval
period.44 Certainly, Cassiodorus reminds us that certain regions of Italy continued to enjoy a reputation for particularly robust cattle populations in the
period, although our attempts to quantify or measure these claims are currently hampered by a dearth of physical evidenceand in any event it is
unlikely that the effects of any intervention or any change would be discernible in the short temporal window with which we are interested here.45
We may imagine a complementary relationship between these animals and
grain cultivation, perhaps as part of an articulated regime of fallowing and
field rotation. It is likely also that we should take more seriously the role of forests in a household or communitys exploitation strategies, as sources of food,
fuel, and other resources. Certainly, it would seem that the boundary between
ager and silva in the early medieval period was rather permeable, producing
an exceptionally dynamic, multidimensional cultivated landscape.46 We have
observed this phenomenon already in the archaeobotanical evidence from
Filattiera-Sorano, and we catch glimpses of the degree to which agricultural
fields and forests might have been integrated in the Ostrogothic period from
a chapter in the Edictum Theoderici concerned with apportioning damages
in the event of a carelessly set fire. The text is explicit in identifying the fire
as having been lit in a field (ager), but identifies the neighbouring holdings
as fruit groves or woods as well as the more expected vineyards or grainfields
42 Edictum Theoderici 150.
44 Summarized briefly but effectively by Cheyette, Climatic Anomaly, 1523.
46 Squatriti, Landscape and Change, pp. 14 and 80; Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne,
p. 412; Cheyette, Climatic Anomaly, pp. 1501 offers a broader European perspective on
the phenomenon.
274
Grey
(arbores frugiferas, aut sylvas, vineta, vel segetem).47 While it is difficult to ascertain whether this apparent interpenetration of cultivated fields and maintained woodlands is a novelty of the period, it is nonetheless striking that it
is acknowledged so explicitly in the Edictum Theoderici, for as the legislation
on agri deserti reminds us the late Roman sources tend to seek to maintain
a strict dichotomy between cultivated and uncultivated land.48 This does not
appear to have been the case in the Ostrogothic period, and as a consequence
we should resist the temptation to interpret the dissolution of this distinction
as evidence for a widespread deterioration in cultivation practices or proportions of cultivable land.
At any rate the mention of a dispute over damage to property invites us to consider who owned the fields and forests being exploited during the Ostrogothic
period. It is certainly not difficult to find individuals and institutions possessing large and extensive holdings. The widespread holdings of Theodahad in
the territory of Tuscia have already been mentioned, while the holdings of the
Gothic noblewoman Ranilio seem also to have been considerable.49 Alongside
these large landowners, we must imagine small-scale agriculturalists whose
holdings may perhaps be visible in the seeming explosion of small sites in
rural Italy over the course of the 6th century.50 Of course the archaeological
evidence cannot provide definitive evidence for ownership of these holdings, but we catch occasional glimpses of small landowners in our texts, as for
example, in a letter of Cassiodorus who responds to the petition of two such
individuals who claim to have been forcibly dispossessed by a more powerful
figure of their rightful property, a small farm, or agellus, known as Fabricula.51
This incident has been taken as evidence for the practice of invasio, or forcible dispossession of small landholders by the powerful, a phenomenon that
receives a certain amount of attention in the Edictum Theoderici and which
has as a consequence been identified as a particularly pressing problem under
the Ostrogoths.52
However, we should not assume uncritically that large landowners completely drove out smallholders in the period, or that forcible dispossession was
widespread, for the legal prominence of a phenomenon is not by any means
48 Grey, Problem of Agri Deserti, pp. 3623; 3703. Note the contrasting interpretations of
Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 4224; Lafferty, Law and Society, p. 98.
49 Ranilio: P. Ital. 13. Fuller discussion in Vera, Propriet terriera, p. 161.
51 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.28; cf. 4.44.
275
a straightforward proxy for its pervasiveness in society. Certainly, we observe

in the chapters of the Edictum Theoderici a keen interest in the maintenance
of property boundaries, and in clearly establishing the ownership of specific
fields. Thus, for example, we witness entries forbidding individuals from raising either their own titles of ownership on property belonging to another or
the name of another on their own property.53 If boundary markers are tampered with, punishments are prescribed, which vary according to whether the
domini of the fields in question are found to be complicit or solely the cultivators (coloni or servi) who are responsible for working those fields.54 Forcible
seizure of anothers propertyeven it would seem in the case of debtis singled out for particular opprobrium, and assigned a capital penalty, as a case of
violentia.55 Moreover, sales and donations of property are to be publicly transacted and acknowledged, and the resulting changes in ownership entered into
the municipal registers (gesta municipales).56
These concerns are entirely in step with the legislation of the 4th and 5th
centuries, where the motivation for prescribing the public transaction of
transfers of property and forbidding forcible expulsion of ones neighbours
was to maintain the integrity of the tax system, which had come to rest even
more heavily and explicitly on establishing clear and transparent connections
between particular parcels of land and the individuals who could be held
responsible for the fiscal burdens assessed on that land. However, the attendant system of recording proved to be unwieldy, and difficult to reconcile with
the rather more flexible land management strategies employed by large and
small landowners alike, for these rested upon a fluid and dynamic market in
land both for rent and for purchase.57
The expectation that responsibility for the tax burden assessed on a parcel of land would be publicly acknowledged added a fiscal dimension to these
strategies that rendered them legally problematic, even in situations where
the intentions of the landholders in question were not to defraud the state.
Moreover, this tension between fiscal ideals and economic realities also served
to colour the interpretation of a range of other peasant survival strategies in
54 Edictum Theoderici 104105. See also, for conflicts over land occasioned by changes in the
courses of rivers, Cassiodorus, Variae 3.52; Ennodius, Life of Epiphanius 2125, and, more
generally, Squatriti, Riverains et rivaux, pp. 1389.
56 Edictum Theoderici 52; 53. See, for similar interest in public documentation, Cassiodorus
Variae 5.14.7.
57 Full discussion in Grey, Concerning Rural Matters, pp. 6334.
276
Grey
the period. Thus, for example, Augustine remarks upon peasants in early 5thcentury North Africa placing boundary markers belonging to their powerful
neighbours on their own fields in order to take advantage of the others reputation, and the mid 5th-century Gallic presbyter Salvian describes small landowners seeking to take advantage of the mutual obligations and expectations
that attended becoming the registered tenants of more powerful landowners.58
Each of these phenomena can be glimpsed in the collection of provisions
promulgated during the reign of Theoderic. Further, documentary evidence
detailing landholdings of the church around Ravenna, as well as charters from
the later 6th century and beyond, reveal an ongoing concern to determine the
productive capacity of particular units of land, using terminology that is redolent of the tax system of the late Roman Empire.59 While we should be careful
not to rely too heavily upon the impression of continuity that this evidence
provides, it nevertheless seems reasonable to suggest that the evident concern
in the Edictum Theoderici to determine property rights was impelled at least in
part by the need to ensure that the fiscal obligations assessed on particular parcels of land continued to be acknowledged by the individuals who had been
entered into the tax rolls as fiscally responsible for those parcels of land.60 It
is for this reason that we see such close attention paid to both sale of land and
gifts and bequests in wills. The evident inconcinnity revealed here between the
information entered into the tax rolls and the economic realities on the ground
offers glimpses of a market in land that is no less fluid and dynamic than in
preceding centuries.
In such circumstances the maintenance of clear boundaries between properties would seem essential, both for the fiscal purposes of the state and for
the economic interests of the landowners in question. A letter of Cassiodorus
reveals the potential for disputes, ignorance, and confusion over the precise
whereabouts of boundaries when it remarks upon the problems that might
attend impermanent or mobile boundary markers.61 This letter provides a context for the directive contained in the Edictum Theoderici against the raising of
boundary markers belonging to another on ones own property. The potential
58 Augustine, Dolbeau 4.2; Salvian, On the Governance of God, 5.8.3943, with fuller discussion in Grey, Constructing Communities, pp. 21012.
59 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 3.20. See the recent detailed discussion of Costambeys, Condition
of the Peasantry, pp 96101.
60 Cassiodorus, Variae 3.14; 5.14. For fuller discussion of the particularities of the tax system
of Ostrogothic Italy as it emerges from Cassiodorus correspondence, see Bjornlie, Law,
Ethnicity, and Taxes, pp. 1479.
277
for confusion over boundaries is here exploited by small landowners as they

employed a strategy aimed at protecting themselves against loss or predation
by taking advantage of the reputation of a powerful figurejust as in the cases
noted by Augustine.62 Of course this is not to say that these smallholders were
immune to the depredations of larger landowners in the period, nor to suggest
that this strategy was viable, or even effective. Indeed their impulse to take this
action together with the legal measures against forcible dispossession offers
compelling evidence that such dispossession was taking place. But we should
not interpret the rhetorical force of the legal pronouncement as evidence for
the prominence or extent of the practice as a socio-economic problem. After
all, legal evidence documents only legal facts, and it is the legal fact of fiscal
responsibility that seems most important here.

Tenancy, The Labour Market, and Economic Strategies
The labour regimes available to large landowners in exploiting their estates

during the Ostrogothic period appear, as in preceding centuries, to have
involved combinations of slaves, tenants, and wage labourers, sometimes overseen by a chief tenant or farm manager.63 A chapter contained in the Edictum
Theoderici concerning loans of money to various individuals on an estate identifies procuratores, conductores, coloni and servi.64 We witness also originarii,
individuals who appear to have been legally registered on a specific plot of
land, or origo. As we shall see, the legal relationship that these individuals
enjoyed both with that land and with its owner, or dominus, seems to have
been considered analogous to that of liberti and servi with their owner or former owners.65 Finally, in chapters aimed at preventing a dominus from taking
on anothers colonus or seeking to exercise control over anothers rusticus, we
catch glimpses of an active market in casual or seasonal labour.66 In what follows, I elaborate on these propositions, and explore rural labour relations of
the period as they can be reconstructed from our rather recondite and patchy
sources. I will suggest that the labour market of the period continued to be
62 See, analogously, provisions against the transfer of notices of debt to a more powerful
individual so as to collect the debt more easily: Edictum Theoderici 122.
63 For vilici, Cassiodorus, Variae 5.39, with Vera, Propriet terriera, p. 160.
64 Edictum Theoderici 121, which reflects and responds to CTh 2.31.1 and 2.31.2: Lafferty, Law
and Society, p. 221.
66 Edictum Theoderici 89; 150.
278
Grey
accessed by both the powerful and the relatively powerless as part of their customary economic regimes.67
The frequent incidence in the Edictum Theoderici of the term originarius to
denote agriculturalists invites a connection with the tax system instituted in
the late 3rd century under Diocletian and his colleagues in the Tetrarchy. The
intricacies of this tax system need not detain us here, although it seems likely
that as in other post-Roman kingdoms it continued under the Ostrogoths, at
least in some form.68 Scholars generally agree that as a consequence of this
new tax system there developed over the course of the 4th and 5th centuries a
legal category of registered tenancy that placed obligations on both the coloni
and the domini of the land upon which the coloni were registered, their origo.
On the strength of this, an historical narrative has developed whereby there
was progressive decline both in independent small landowners or tenants and
in rural slaves in the period, and the rise of a form of dependent, obligated
tenancy, the so-called colonate of the late Roman Empire.69 It is tempting
to interpret rural labour relations under the Ostrogoths with reference to this
historical narrative.
This temptation should be resisted. In recent scholarship, the coherence
and centrality to the fiscal process of this phenomenon have been questioned.
It has been proposed that registered tenancy may be best interpreted not as an
end in itself for the late Roman state or aristocratic landowners, but rather as
a product of the heavy weight placed upon the origo as the cornerstone of the
fiscal system of the period.70 The project of legal codification itself has come
under scrutiny and it has been observed that the decisions made by the compilers of the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Justinianus to include constitutions or fragments of constitutions under particular headings has given an
impression of unity of purpose that might only be valid in hindsight or in the
context of the codification process.71 It has in addition been argued that our
view of the 4th- and 5th-century legislation concerning the position of coloni
has been further coloured by the later Interpretationes that were attached
67
For elaborations of these principles, Grey, Constructing Communities, p. 54; Grey,
Concerning Rural Matters, pp. 6367.
68 Bjornlie, Law, Ethnicity, and Taxes, p. 148 offers brief comments. Also Costambeys,
Condition of the Peasantry, p. 109. For continuation of the tax system under the
Visigothic realm in Gaul see Grey, Two Young Lovers, pp. 2967, with note 49.
69 Carri Roman des Origines remains seminal. Grey, Contextualizing colonatus, pp. 156
61, explores the debate since Carri. For an application of the concept in the Ostrogothic
context: Schipp, westrmische Kolonat, pp. 272310.
70 Grey, Contextualizing colonatus, pp. 1705.
71 Humfress, Cracking the Codex, p. 243.
279
to many of the entries in the Codex Theodosianus when those entries were
incorporated within the early 6th-century Breviarium of the Visigothic King
Alaric II. Those Interpretationes are aimed primarily at making a diffuse and
heterogeneous set of enactments workable and intelligible in a rather different
political and legal landscape.72 Finally, it has been suggested that the colonate
(as modern scholars might recognize it) was realized as a coherent concept
only with the dissemination of the Codex Justinianus, the great codification of
law carried out under Justinian and published in a second edition in 534, for it
was in the vision of Justinian and his codifiers that the many disparate strands
of registered tenancy were first linked together.73
These propositions have significant implications for our view of the position of registered tenants in the Ostrogothic kingdom. If it is the project of
legal codification that imposes coherence upon this particular fiscal phenomenon, then we may legitimately ask two questions. First, what was the purpose
of the Edictum Theoderici as a codification of law? And second, what relation
did the legal and fiscal relations that it sketched out bear to socio-economic
realities in Italy at the time? I take each question in turn. Scholars have long
noted the preponderance of regulations concerning rural economic activity
in this collection. But it is also difficult to discern a clear and coherent organizational structure, such as we observe in the codifications of Theodosius II
and Justinian. For this and other reasons, it seems reasonable to suggest that
the Edictum Theoderici was a rather different kind of legal project.74 With specific reference to rural labour relations, Justinians codification appears to have
sought to maintain and preserve the role of the state in brokering the relationship between dominus and registered colonus. Justinian was also seeking to
make new law and to shape fiscal and socio-economic relations using that law.
By contrast, the provisions of the Edictum Theodericilike the Interpretationes
contained in the Breviarium of Alaricsought largely to gloss and adapt
already existent legal pronouncements, so as to render them explicable in a
new and rather different fiscal and socio-economic context.75 As a result, these
pronouncements are descriptive and reactive rather than prescriptive and
72 Koptev, Colonate in the Theodosian Code, p. 263. Also Matthews, Interpreting the
Interpretationes, pp. 1718.
73 Sirks, Colonate in Justinians Reign, especially pp. 1212.
74 See now the full and detailed exploration of the Edictum Theoderici in Lafferty, Law and
Society, passim, especially pp. 1653.
75 Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 6099 offers an essential and masterly discussion of both
the sources for the Edictum Theoderici and the ways in which it adapts those sources.
More succinctly: Vera, Propriet terriera, 1445.
280
Grey
roactive. Moreover, the perspective they take is arguably more limited, for
p
their objective is not to extend the scope of the law, but rather to interpret the
legal implications of the socio-economic phenomena they encounter.
With particular reference to rural socio-economic relations, there are both
apparent continuities and evident departures from the legal constructs of the
preceding centuries. In the Edictum Theoderici, originarii appear to occupy a
legal position with reference to the owners of the land upon which they were
registered that is analogous to that of freedmen and slaves.76 Like liberti and
servi, they could not be heard in a legal case against their domini or the children of their domini.77 They were associated with servi when punishments
were mandated for various crimes against property and persons.78 There is
a clear conceptual slippage here between a public law arrangement (originarius and dominus) and a private law relationship (servus and dominus).
But originarii were not servi, and the concern in this collection to maintain
a juridical distinction between the two may be compared with that found in
the Interpretationes of the Breviarium.79 Elsewhere in the Edictum Theoderici
great care is taken to distinguish servi from freeborn men (ingenui), who were
not to be taken by solicitation, stolen, sold, or kept as a slave, nor were they
to be enslaved for debt or claimed as slaves.80 It seems therefore reasonable
to conclude, with caution, that the position of originarii lay in some kind of
middle space between freedom and slavery, but was neither intermediate nor
transitional between the two.81
The basis upon which this legal position was grounded is difficult to establish. We might expect it to have been their origo, the land upon which they
were registered, which would be in keeping with the legal position of registered tenants during the late Roman period. However, this impression is complicated by a chapter of the Edictum Theoderici which grants domini the liberty
to move both servi and originarii between their estates. This chapter builds
76 See the recent exposition of Schipp, westrmische Kolonat, p. 277.

78 E.g. Edictum Theoderici 56; 63.
79 For the continued separation of slavery and freedom in the Breviary: Koptev, Colonate in
the Theodosian Code, pp. 2678. For juridical distinctions in Ostrogothic Italy, see Vera,
Propriet terriera, pp. 1435, and compare the detailed exposition of Schipp, westrmische Kolonat, 27788 who sees somewhat more slippage. Note also the briefer comments of Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 1712.
80 Edictum Theoderici 78; 79; 96.
81 Thus Vera, Propriet terriera, pp. 1456. Note the contrasting but not necessarily contradictory position of Koptev, Colonate in the Theodosian Code, p. 282.
281
on a rescript of Valentinian III,82 and appears to acknowledge the needs of

these large landowners for flexibility in the utilization of their labour force.
Significantly, it directs that the right of these domini to distribute their servi
and originarii according to their needs cannot be challenged by any juridical
means, not even sub oppositione originis, by the opposition of the origo. This
laconic statement has been taken by some scholars as indicating the complete dissolution of the origo as the basis for the obligation of originarii and its
replacement by a personal obligation to their dominus.83 However, elsewhere
in the same chapter it is observed that these individuals must be returned to
the estates (praedia) from whence they were originally moved at the pleasure
of their dominus. No temporal horizon is given for this requirement, and we
have no further means of explicating the oppositio originis. But it seems clear
that the connection with a particular unit of land is in fact preserved here.
It may therefore be the case that the intention here is to prevent third parties from bringing a suit against domini with reference to the labour force on
their own estates, rather than to dissolve wholesale the connection to the land.
If so, the provisions of this chapter may be fruitfully connected with other
chapters in the Edictum Theoderici, which treat the reception, enticement, or
exploitation by domini of coloni, rustici, and servi belonging to another estate.84
At issue is the entitlement of individual domini to employ the labour of the
individuals who are under their potestas (in the case of slaves), or obligated to
their fields (in the case of originarii), as against the expectation among both
large landowners and other inhabitants of the countryside that they could
enjoy the advantages provided by a dynamic labour market, involving both
legally obligated and legally unobligated individuals.
We may imagine, for example, that some rustici owned small parcels of land
themselves, while also taking tenancies on fields belonging to another landowner (whether large or small) and undertaking seasonal or occasional labour
contracts with yet another. These individuals might in some circumstances be
called rustici or coloni, while in others they were denoted as originarii. The evident terminological messiness that we encounter here reminds us that legal
evidence always simplifies and misrepresents reality, and scholars of the late
and post-Roman period have long wrestled with questions about the analytical
weight that can be placed upon the appearance of particular words in the legal
and other sources. It would appear that the immense diversity in the vocabulary used to denote registered tenancy in late Roman legislation had dissipated
82 Nov. Valent. 35.18.
83 Most recently: Schipp, westrmische Kolonat, pp. 2856.
84 Edictum Theoderici 80; 846, with Schipp, westrmische Kolonat, pp. 2804.
282
Grey
somewhat by the Ostrogothic period.85 But it is no less difficult to determine

the extent to which differences in terminology reflect different legal categories,
still less the relationship between whatever legal categories might have existed
and socio-economic realities. In the Edictum Theoderici the word colonus
seems not to function explicitly and universally as an indicator of registered
tenancy. What, then, does it denote: tenancy or simply agricultural activity?
Cassiodorus generalizing observation that coloni sunt qui agros iugiter colunt would seem to indicate the latter, but we should be cautious about assuming congruence in the vocabulary employed in a letter and a legal text.86 While
we appear to be on firmer terminological ground in regarding originarius as
an indicator of registration on an origo, it seems unnecessarily reductive to
assume that this legal category excluded the possibility of these individuals
also appearing in other guises in our texts. That is, we should be careful not to
assume that legal categorizations reflected, still less determined, the economic
strategies open to small agriculturalists.87
In this context, too, provisions forbidding domini from inducing a slave or
originiarius of another dominus to leave their estate place this tension between
legal-fiscal ideals and socio-economic realities in high relief. Consequently, it
would appear that the provisions of the chapter concerning the oppositio originis hinge on claims about where the tenant or labourer in question is legally
registered. Evidently, the act of registration continued in the Ostrogothic
period to present a certain security for small agriculturalists but also to act as a
potential impediment to long-standing practices of labour exploitation, which
rested upon a flexible and dynamic labour market.
At any rate the coincidence of a certain conceptual slippage between slavery and freedom, the employment of the vocabulary of slavery as an analogy
for the obligations of registered tenants to their origo, and continuing efforts
to police the boundaries between servi and ingenui may be interpreted as a
continuationalbeit perhaps in a rather less nuanced formof phenomena
we see in the legislation concerning slaves and registered coloni of the 4th and
5th centuries.88 This concern to police the boundaries between slavery and
freedom serve as a reminder that slaves continued to exist and their labour
85 For this terminological diversity and its implications, Grey Contextualizing Colonatus,
pp. 1705. For the Ostrogothic period see Vera, Propriet terriera, pp. 1445. Schipp,
westrmische Kolonat, p. 285, explicitly translates originarii as Kolonen, thereby avoiding
questions of terminology.
87 Vera, Propriet terriera, pp. 1478.
88 For fuller exposition: Grey, Slavery in the Late Roman World, pp. 5026.
283
c ontinued to be exploited in the period. Quantification is impossible on the

basis of the existing evidence and we should once again be cautious about
equating the number of times they are mentioned in our legal sources with
their numerical importance in rural contexts. Nevertheless, the roles that
they are envisaged to play in rural contexts by our sources do not appear to be
markedly different from those of preceding centuries.89 Slaves are mentioned
as agents of their domini, as well as perhaps independent actors whose illegal behaviour might or might not be the responsibility of their owner.90 They
appear alongside coloni on rural estates and seem also to have continued to
intermarry with some of the free poor, if the concerns of our legal sources to
ascribe a proper legal status to the offspring of such unions are any indication.91
We observe them also serving as bailiffs or farm managers at least at the beginning of our period in the correspondence of Gelasius.92
Of course we should not expect that the definitional contortions of our
legal texts were the defining principles determining the nature of rural labour
in the period. Instead, we should imagine that rustici practised a multiplicity of socio-economic strategies, which combined in a complex and multidimensional manner, in order to manage the risk of a catastrophic subsistence
failure most effectively. We catch occasional glimpses of these multifaceted
socio-economic strategies. The existence of mixed agro-pastoral regimes and
multiple sowing seasons as well as mechanisms to take advantage of the reputation of a powerful neighbour have already been noted. Marriage is likely also
to have been a useful strategy for managing risk, for it functions to expand the
pool of resources a family or household can call on at need. In several chapters
of the Edictum Theoderici we witness the possibility that originarii registered
on different estates might marry, although it is unclear what the geographical
range of such marriages might be.93
Diversification of a households economic portfolio is another strategy, and
as noted above another chapter of the Edictum Theoderici imposes a hefty fine
upon individuals who exploit the labour of a cow belonging to another. In the
process it offers hints that plough animals might be rented out or loaned by
an enterprising or financially fortunate farmer.94 The complaints of a certain
Nimfadius that his beasts of burden were stolen by countryfolk while he slept
89 See the more general discussion of Vera, Propriet terriera, pp. 15760.
90 Edictum Theoderici 63; 104; 109; 121.
91 On estates: Ranilio: P. Ital. 13. Mixed unions: Edictum Theoderici 657.
92 E.g. Gelasius Ep. 22. Vera, Propriet terriera, p. 160, with fuller discussion and references.
93 Edictum Theoderici 67; 68.
284
Grey
remind us irresistibly of other instances where wealthy city dwellers evinced

distaste and distrust for peasants, but it is nonetheless tempting to infer that
the rustici of Ostrogothic Italy were not above opportunistic theft or even banditry, particularly when it involved a resource as valuable as livestock.95
Likewise, we should take with a grain of salt Cassiodorus description of
countryfolk raiding a market held during a fair for Saint Cyprian, but not lose
sight of the evidence for rural exchange that the letter provides.96 In the same
letter Cassiodorus waxes lyrical about the nature and extent of this exchange.
This fair, we are told, attracts all the finest produce from the surrounding
regions of Campania, Bruttium, Calabria, and Apulia, such that no person will
go away unsatisfied. He includes also a particularly striking image of young
boys and girls being offered for sale so that by their servitude in the city they
will be freed of rural toil. While it is tempting to associate this with a chapter of
the Edictum Theoderici which seeks to safeguard the free status of children sold
because of their parents dire economic straits, and to infer widespread economic depression in rural Italy, it seems more likely that they are evidence for
the continuation of long-established practices whereby a childs labour might
be sold, rented, or leased for a specified period of time.97
Be that as it may, the close and ongoing connection between city and country that Cassiodorus presents here is striking, although we should not assume
that it was the only possible pattern for urban-rural relations in the period.
As noted above with specific reference to ceramic typologies, for example, we
should imagine that with contraction, or at the very least reconfiguration, of
long-distance networks of exchange, the degree to which cities were integrated
into those networks might have changed.98 Nevertheless, we should assume
that some cities at least continued to function as nodes for both the distribution and the consumption of the resources of their surrounding countrysides
and beyond.

97 Edictum Theoderici 94. For fuller discussion of the phenomenon in the late Roman period,
Vuolanto, Selling a Freeborn Child.
98 For broader discussions of these phenomena in the period, Wickham, Production,
Distribution, and Demand; Loseby, Mediterranean Economy, pp. 61820.
285
Conclusion: Rural Populations under Pressure?
Broadly speaking, I have argued throughout this chapter in favour of enduring

continuity in the structures and practices that constituted the rural economies
of Italy under the Ostrogoths. Patterns of landownership and exploitation were
heterogeneous, and that heterogeneity appears to have persisted. Strategies
of labour exploitation among large landowners appear to have intersected
with the socio-economic strategies of smaller agriculturalists in a labour market that continued to be dynamic and multidimensional. Market exchanges
endured, even if the geographical scope over which goods travelled is likely to
have contracted, together with the volume of goods that travelled.
Nevertheless, rural populations of the period experienced a collection
of sudden, acute events that cannot fail to have impacted upon the socio-
economic resources available to them and upon their capacity to exploit those
resources. Our sources attest instances of food shortage or famine, which
are likely to have been attributable to a variety of causes. Most particularly,
we observe shortages of grain in Rome caused by drought in Africa, Gaul, or
elsewhere, which led to an interruption in the transportation of grain from
those areas to Rome.99 These events will have placed pressure on the produce
of agriculturalists in Romes immediate hinterland and further afield in Italy.
A description by Boethius of the catastrophic effects of forced sale of grain
in Campania in the early 520s, for example, gives a sense of what the local
impacts of these more distant events could have been.100 We may also imagine
instances where food shortages could be exploited by producers or suppliers
from other regions, and a letter of Cassiodorus offers glimpses of Athalarics
attempts to control such speculation in Gaul.101 We observe the effects of both
the war between Theoderic and Odovacer and the Gothic Wars of Justinians
generals upon urban contexts, in the form of famines and epidemics in
besieged cities, and we may imagine both direct and indirect consequences of
these events on rural populations as well.102
99 Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence collects primary references and secondary literature. See, in the present context, nos. 75 (pp. 2467); 77 (p. 248); 86 (p. 261).
100 Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, 1.4.12(8), with Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence,
p. 261.
101 Cassiodorus, Variae 9.5, with Ruggini, Economia e Societ nell Italia Annonaria, pp. 262
76; Loseby, Mediterranean Economy, p. 618.
102
See the series of events recorded by Procopius, Gothic War 2, and collected by
Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 2707. Note also Cassiodorus, Variae 12.28.
286
Grey
While the supply and availability of grain is the most compelling proxy
for pressures on rural populations, it is by no means the only one. The socalled Justinianic Plague, which began in the mid 6th century, is likely to have
impacted on population levels in some way, although the extent and acuteness of those effects in Italy (and elsewhere) remain hotly debated.103 A pair
of earthquakes is attested around Ravenna in the early 6th century, and while
the textual evidence is slim and our archaeological evidence non-existent (or
at the very least unpublished), nevertheless it seems likely that agriculturalists in the region experienced both short- and longer-term disruption.104 The
unknown volcanic eruption of ca. 53637 noted above appears to have resulted
in the widespread diffusion of a dust veil, which as described in the evocative and rhetorically coloured account of Cassiodorus produced anomalous
weather conditions and interrupted sowing and growing seasons.105 Ice core
evidence suggests that this event was of a level of magnitude greater than the
massive eruption of Tambora in 1815the largest eruption in recorded historyso it should not surprise us that its effects on human populations in the
vicinity could linger for several years.106 In addition, archaeological evidence
for the movement of sites upslope and out of river basins may imply increased
flooding events in the period, either as a result of climatic disruptions caused
by this eruption or as a consequence of the increase in climatic variability that
has been posited for the period.107
Scholars have tended to account for the experience of the rural inhabitants
of Italy in the face of these and other pressures with reference to convenient or
conventional explanatory paradigms. Thus, for example, the period is taken to
have witnessed a widespread and inevitable depression in the socio-economic
position of agriculturalists, who came to be dependent on the large and powerful landowners who now exploited their labour for their own purposes.108
Alternatively, famines and food shortages caused by warfare, environmental
pressures, and economic inefficiencies led to depopulation and an increasingly
103 Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, 27794 collects references. Christie, Constantine
to Charlemagne, pp. 5004 outlines the scholarly debate. Note also the account of Sarris,
Justinianic Plague.
104 References collected and discussed by Guidoboni, Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes,
p. 310.
106 Hodges, The Year Merlin (Supposedly) Died, p. 75; Vera, Propriet terriera, p. 151 with
notes 712, discusses a famine dated to this period in Italy 53536.
107 See, for example, Hodges et al., Vacchereccia, 15865; Neboit, Les basses terrasses alluviales, 404.
108 Vera, Propriet terriera, pp. 1556.
287
squeezed labour market, which may briefly have advantaged small agriculturalists but also impelled large landowners towards registered tenancy as a
mechanism for ensuring that they could call on the labour of their originarii.109
These explanations fit with long-established paradigms for interpreting longterm socio-economic changes in the countrysides of the late- and post-Roman
world. But they lack precision when pressed into service to explain events or
processes over a period of less than a century. In this concluding section, therefore, I employ a collection of concepts drawn from the interdisciplinary field of
disaster studies to signal an alternative way of engaging with the experience of
rural populations during the Ostrogothic period. I make no pretence of completeness or comprehensiveness, but seek rather to point towards a new set
of tools for exploring the particularities of rural economies in the Ostrogothic
period.
Over the past several decades, scholars engaged in the study of disasters
have developed a collection of concepts that serve to relocate the focus of
attention from the crisis moment or hazardfor example, an earthquake, a
volcanic eruption, or a military invasionto the longer-term socio-economic
structures and societal processes that together constituted a society or communitys experience of that hazardand most importantly what that experience
allows us to say about the nature of the disaster as an unfolding process.110 For
our present purposes, we may briefly explore two of these concepts: first, vulnerability or the characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity
to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a...hazard;111
and second, resilience, a measure of an individuals, groups, or communitys
capacity to weather a sequence of hazards in quick succession.112
By employing these concepts, I suspect we will discover that the populations of rural Italy during this period were indeed vulnerable. But, because
these concepts demand that we pay closer attention to the collections of physical, environmental, socio-economic, and politico-military factors that constituted the various micro-regions of the peninsula, we may be able to move
110 For succinct, synthetic summaries of the state of the scholarship see Juneja/Mauelshagen,
Disasters and Pre-industrial Societies, pp. 47; Schenk, Historical Disaster Research;
Lindell, Disaster Studies.
111 Wisner et al., At Risk, p. 11.
112 For fuller exposition of the concept as used in Disaster Studies see the recent surveys
of Aldunce et al., Framing Disaster Resilience; Lizarralde et al., Systems Approach to
Resilience. Note also the suggestive observation of Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne,
p. 494.
288
Grey
beyond the grand narratives that have hitherto stood in for explanation and
begin upon the process of constructing more nuanced and subtle accounts of
the experiences of different rural communities in different parts of Italy in the
period. That is, the employment of these concepts allows us to pose a series of
questions about the rural economies of Italy under Ostrogothic rule.
These questions can be preliminary only at this stage and they may be unanswerable. Nevertheless, I suggest they serve to reorient our attention in productive and thought-provoking ways. Thus, for example, we could ask what
characteristics or qualities might render certain rural populations more or less
vulnerable than others in this period? Were the inhabitants of the Campanian
plainwho may be observed requesting tax relief from Theoderic in perhaps
512 on the strength of ongoing volcanic activity on Vesuvius and were the subject of forced grain sale in the 520s or 530s, but who enjoyed especially fertile and productive growing conditions precisely because of the presence of
Vesuvius to their south-eastmore or less vulnerable than the populations
of the Po River valleywho appear to have witnessed an influx of barbarian
settlers in the late 5th or early 6th century, but also perhaps to have been the
victims of quite frequent flooding in the period?113 Did the presence of those
barbarians stimulate economic activityas has been inferred from the presence of large quantities of coins in areas inhabited by members of the military
during the 4th century114or was it an unsupportable economic burden that
caused intense hardship to local landownersas Theoderic seems to accept in
a letter relieving taxes to the residents of the Cottian Alps?115 Did living near a
large landowner such as Theodahad expand the number of survival strategies
available to small agriculturalists in Tuscia, or did it enhance the risk that they
would be forcibly dispossessedas Procopius accuses?116
When we turn to the consideration of the reorientation of markets and trade
networks in the period, we may ask whether production for a local market
or for the church of Ravenna or in response to an unforeseen grain shortage
around Romeencouraged farmers to adopt certain agrarian regimes, and
whether those regimes made them more or less able to manage the risk of subsistence failure in the medium or long termespecially if changes to environmental conditions necessitated changes in the timing of sowing seasons
113 For flooding and its potential implications: Saggioro, Late Antique Settlement, p. 521. But
note the critique of the literary tradition by Squatriti, Floods of 589, pp. 8036.
114 Fulford, Economic Hotspots.
116 Procopius, Gothic War 1.3.2.
289
and the types of crops sown. Did living closer to a large urban centre produce
opportunities for the continuation of economic strategies such as Cassiodorus
describes at the fair of St Cyprian? Or did it render communities more vulnerable to the effects of the warfare and sieges and plagues and epidemics that
stand like bookends at either end of our period. Or both?
Fundamentally, these questions may be boiled down to this: how resilient
were the rural populations of Italy in the Ostrogothic period? If, as seems likely,
some households or communities did indeed crumble in the face of a succession of hazards that included food shortage, plague, fiscal super-exactions, and
warfare, which ones, why, and in what circumstances? Most particularly, how
might we use seemingly descriptive phenomena such as topography, climatic
conditions, agricultural regimes, socio-economic structures, and cultural
mores as analytical tools in pursuit of our answers? While these questions
might seem disingenuous, perhaps even tendentious, they have the advantage
of taking seriously the strict chronological constraints that characterize the
Ostrogothic realm in Italy. They also force us to construct arguments about the
fates of rural populations in this period, rather than simply falling back on generalizing assumptions of widespread decline and impoverishment that seem,
increasingly, to be declining and impoverished themselves.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Augustine, ed. F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons au peuple dAfrique, Paris 1996.

Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy, ed. L. Bieler, Philosophiae Consolatio, 2nd
ed. (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 94) Turnhout 1984.
Codex Theodosianus, ed. T. Mommsen, Berlin 1905.
Edictum Theoderici Regis, ed. F. Bluhme (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges
Nationum Germanicorum 5), Hanover 1889, pp. 14970.
Ennodius, Vita Epiphani, ed. W. Hartel (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
6), Vienna 1882.
Gelasius I, Epistolae, ed. A. Thiel, Epistulae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae
ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium, vol. 1, Brausnberg 1868 (repr. New
York 1974).
Novellae Valentiniani, ed. P.M. Meyer, Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum Pertinentes,
Berlin 1905.
290
Grey
Palladius, Opus Agriculturae, ed. R.H. Rodgers, Leipzig 1975.

P.Ital. = Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445700, ed.
J.-O. Tjder, 3 vols. (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae), Lund/Stockholm 195482.
Procopius, History of the Wars, ed. J. Haury/trans. H.B. Dewing (Loeb Classical Library),
Cambridge, MA 191428.
Salvian, On the Governance of God, ed. C. Halm, Salviani Presbyteri Massiliensis Libri
Qui Supersunt (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 1), Berlin,
1877.
Albore Livadie, C./Vecchio, G./Mastrolorenzo, G., Eruzioni pliniane del SommaVesuvio e siti archeologici dellarea nolana, in P.G. Guzzo and R. Peroni (eds.),
Archeologia e vulcanologia in Campania. Atti del Convegno (Pompei, 21 dicembre
1996), Napoli 1998, pp. 3986.
Aldunce, P./Beilin, R./Handmer, J./Howden, M., Framing Disaster Resilience: The
Implications of the Diverse Conceptualisations of Bouncing Back, Disaster
Prevention and Management 23.3 (2014), 25270.
Arthur, P., From Vicus to Village: Italian Landscapes, AD 4001000, in N. Christie (ed.),
Landscapes of Change: Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,
Aldershot 2004, pp. 10333.
Baker, P. The Animal Bones from Strs. IIVII: Subsistence, Husbandry and Status, in
G.P. Brogiolo/L. Castelletti (eds.), Archeologia a Monte Barro, vol. 2: Gli Scavi 199097
e le Richerche al S. Martino di Lecco, Lecco 2001, pp. 24968.
Baker, P./Clark, G., Archeozoological Evidence for Medieval Italy: A Critical Review of
the Present State of Research, Archeologia Medievale 20 (1993), 4577.
Bierbrauer, V., Die ostgotische Grab- und Schatzfundein Italien, Spoleto 1975.
Bjornlie, S., Law, Ethnicity and Taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: A Case for Continuity,
Adaptation and Departure, Early Medieval Europe 22 (2014), 13870.
Bowes, K./Gutteridge, A., Rethinking the Later Roman Landscape, Journal of Roman
Archaeology 18 (2005), 40518.
Cantini, F., Aree rurali e centri urbani tra IV e VII secolo: il territorio toscano, Antiquit
Tardive 21 (2013), 24355.
Carri, J.-M., Un roman des origines: les gnalogies du colonat du Bas-Empire, Opus
2 (1983), 20551.
Castiglioni, E./Cottini, M./Rottoli, M., I resti archeobotanici, in G.P. Brogiolo/
L. Castelletti (eds.), Archeologia a Monte Barro, vol. 2: Gli Scavi 199097 e le Richerche
al S. Martino di Lecco, Lecco 2001, pp. 22347.
Chavarra Arnau, A., Changes in Scale in the Italian Countryside from Late Antiquity
to the Early Middle Ages, in J. Escalona/A. Reynolds (eds.), Scale and Scale Change
291
in the Early Middle Ages: Exploring Landscape, Local Society, and the World Beyond
(The Medieval Countryside 6), Turnhout 2011, 12132.
Cheyette, F.L., The Disappearance of the Ancient Landscape and the Climatic
Anomaly of the Early Middle Ages: A Question to Be Pursued, Early Medieval
Europe 16 (2008), 12765.
Christie, N., From Constantine to Charlemagne: An Archaeology of Italy AD 300800,
Aldershot 2006.
Cioni, R./Bertagnini, A./Androcino, D./Cole, P.D./Mundula, F., The 512 AD Eruption
of Vesuvius: Complex Dynamics of a Small Scale Subplinian Event, Bulletin of
Volcanology 73 (2011), 789810.
Citter, C., Late Antique and Early Medieval Hilltop Settlements in Central Italy: State
of Research and Interpretations, in H. Steuer/V. Bierbrauer (eds.), Hhensiedlungen
zwischen Antike und Mittelalter von den Ardennen bis zur Adria: Atti del convegno internazionale. Freiburg im Breisgau 2008 (Lexikon fr germanischen
Altertumskunde, Ergnzungsband 58), Berlin 2008, pp. 74964.
Costambeys, M., Settlement, Taxation and the Condition of the Peasantry in PostRoman Central Italy, Journal of Agrarian Change 9 (2009), 92119.
De Vingo, P. Archologie du pouvoir dans les ncropoles du haut Moyen ge du
Pimont centromridional entre occupation ostrogothe et conqute lombarde,
in J. Pinar Gil/T. Jurez Villena (eds.), Contextos funeraris a la Mediterrnia NordOccidental (Segles VVIII): Atti della Tavola Rotonda organizzata dalla Associazione
per la Ricerca, lo Studio e la Diffusione della Tarda Antichit (AREDAT), Sant Cugat
del Valls (Barcellona), 13 ottobre 2009, Gausac 2009, pp. 5989.
Del Lungo, S., Paesaggio, cultura e vocazioni agricole del territorio tuderte
dallantichit al medioevo, in Todi nel Medioevo (secoli VIXIV): atti del XVI convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 1015 ottobre 2009, Spoleto 2010, vol. I, pp. 193290.
Di Vito, M.A./Castaldo, N./de Vita., S./Bishop, J./Vecchio, G., Human Colonization and
Volcanic Activity in the Eastern Campania Plain (Italy) between the Eneolithic and
Late Roman Periods, Quaternary International 303 (2013), 13241.
Forni, G., Dallagricoltura dei Goti a quella italiana al tempo dei Goti, in Teoderico
il grande e i Goti dItalia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullalto
Medioevo, Milano, 26 novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993, pp. 679720.
Francovich, R./Hodges, R., Villa to Village: The Transformation of the Roman Countryside
in Italy, c. 4001000, London 2003.
Fulford, M., Economic Hotspots and Provincial Backwaters: Modelling the Late
Roman Economy, in C.E. King/D.G. Wigg (eds.), Coin Finds and Coin Use in the
Roman World: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History,
25.27.3.1993, A NATO Advanced Research Workshop (Studien zu Fundmnzen der
Antike 10), Berlin 1996, pp. 15377.
292
Grey
Grey, C., Contextualizing colonatus: The origo of the Late Roman Empire, Journal of
Roman Studies 97 (2007), 15575.
, Revisiting the Problem of agri deserti in the Late Roman Empire, Journal of
Roman Archaeology 20 (2007), 36276.
, Two Young Lovers: An Abduction Marriage and Its Consequences in FifthCentury Gaul, Classical Quarterly 58.1 (2008), 286302.
, Constructing Communities in the Late Roman Countryside, Cambridge 2011.
, Slavery in the Late Roman World, in K. Bradley/P. Cartledge (eds.), The
Cambridge World History of Slavery: The Ancient Mediterranean World, Cambridge
2011, pp. 482509.
, Concerning Rural Matters, in S. Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late
Antiquity, Oxford 2012, pp. 62566.
Guidoboni, E. (ed.), Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to
the 10th Century, trans. Brian Phillips, Rome 1994.
Gunn, J.D. (ed.), The Years Without Summer; Tracing AD 536 and its Aftermath, London
2000.
Hodges, R., AD 536: The Year Merlin (Supposedly) Died, in A.B. Mainwaring/
R. Giegengack/C. Vita-Finzi (eds.), Climate Crises in Human History, Philadelphia
2010, pp. 7384.
Hodges, R. et al., Excavations at Vacchereccia (Rocchetta Nuova): A Later Roman
and Early Medieval Settlement in the Volturno Valley, Molise, Papers of the British
School at Rome 52 (1984), 14894.
Humfress, C., Cracking the Codex: Late Roman Legal Practice in Context, Bulletin of
the Institute of Classical Studies 49.1 (2006), 24154.
Juneja, M./Mauelshagen, F., Disasters and Pre-industrial Societies: Historiographic
Trends and Comparative Perspectives, The Medieval History Journal, 10 (2007), 131.
Kokowski, A., The Agriculture of the Goths between the First and Fifth Centuries
AD, in S.J. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the
Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 22148.
Koptev, A., The Colonate in the Theodosian Code and its Interpretation in the Breviary
of Alaric, in J-J. Aubert/P. Blanchard (eds.), Droit, religion et socit dans le Code
Thodosien (Troisimes Journes dEtude sur le Code Thodosien Neuchtel, 1517
fvrier 2007, Geneva 2007, pp. 26185.
Lafferty, S.D.W., Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: A Study of the Edictum
Lewit, T., Vanishing Villas: What Happened to lite Rural Habitations in the West in
the 5th6th C? Journal of Roman Archaeology 16 (2003) 26074.
Lindell, M.K., Disaster Studies, Sociopedia.isa (2011): (http://www.sagepub.net/isa/
resources/pdf/disaster%20studies.pdf).
293
Lizarralde, G./Valladares, A./Olivera, A./Bornstein, L./Gould, K./Duyne Barenstein, J.,

A Systems Approach to Resilience in the Built Environment: The Case of Cuba,
Disasters 39.s1 (2014), s76s95.
Loseby, S., The Mediterranean Economy, in P. Fouracre (ed.), The New Cambridge
Medieval History, vol. 1: 500700, Cambridge 2005, pp. 60538.
Luterbacher, J./et al., A Review of 2000 Years of Paleoclimatic Evidence in the
Mediterranean, in P. Lionello (ed.), The Climate of the Mediterranean Region from
the Past to the Future, Amsterdam 2012, pp. 87185.
McCormick, M., What Climate Science, Ausonius, Nile Floods, Rye, and Thatch Tell
Us about the Environmental History of the Roman Empire, in W.V. Harris (ed.),
The Ancient Mediterranean Environment between Science and History, Leiden 2013,
pp. 6188.
McCormick, M./et al., Climate Change during and after the Roman Empire:
Reconstructing the Past from Scientific and Historical Evidence, Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 43.2 (2012), 169220.
Marazzi, F., The Destinies of the Late Antique Italies: Politico-economic Developments
of the Sixth Century, in W. Bowden/R. Hodges (eds.), The Sixth Century: Production,
Distribution, and Demand, Leiden 1998, pp. 11960.
Mastrolorenzo, G./Palladino, D.M./Vecchio, G./Taddeucci, J., The 472 AD Pollena
Eruption of Somma-Vesuvius (Italy) and Its Environmental Impact at the End of
the Roman Empire, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 113 (2002),
1936.
Matthews, J., Interpreting the Interpretationes of the Breviarium, in R.W. Mathisen
(ed.), Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001, pp. 1132.
Motta, L., I paesaggi di Volterra nel tardoantico, Archeologia Medievale 24 (1997),
24568.
Neboit, R., Les basses terrasses alluviales, tmoins de loccupation des sols. Italie mridionale, Sicile in G. Noy (ed.), Structures de lhabitat et occupation du sol dans
les pays mditerranens: les mthodes et lapport de larchologie extensive, Rome/
Madrid 1988, pp. 4015.
Negrelli, C., Le strutture del popolamento rurale tra IV e IX secolo in Emilia Romagna
e nelle Venezie, Antiquit Tardive, 21 (2013), 5166.
Noy, G., Social Relations in Southern Italy, in S.J. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The
Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic
Reigniez, P., Histoire et techniques: loutil agricole dans la periode du haut Moyen-Age
(VeXe sicle), in M. Barcelo/F. Sigaut (eds.), The Making of Feudal Agricultures?,
Leiden 2004, pp. 12130.
294
Grey
Rommelaere, C./Raepsaet, G., Les techniques de traction animale: De lAntiquit au

Moyen Age, in M. Barcelo/F. Sigaut (eds.), The Making of Feudal Agricultures?,
Leiden 2004, pp. 33120.
Rottoli, M./Negri, S., I resti vegetale carbonizzati, in E. Giannichedda (ed.), FilatteriaSorano, Florence 1998, pp. 198212.
Ruggini, L., Economia e Societ nell Italia Annonaria: Rapporti fra agricoltura e commercio dal IV al VI secolo d.C., Milan 1961.
Saggioro, F., Late Antique Settlement on the Plain of Verona, in W. Bowden/
L. Lavan/C. Machado (eds.), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside, Leiden
2004, pp. 50534.
Sarris, P., The Justinianic Plague: Origins and Effects, Continuity and Change 17 (2002),
16982.
Schenk, G.J., Historical Disaster Research. State of Research, Concepts, Methods
and Case Studies, Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 32.3(121)
(2007), 931.
Schipp, O., Der westromische Kolonat von Konstantin bis zu den Karolingern (332 bis 861)
(Studien zur Geschichtsforschung des Altertums 21), Hamburg 2009.
Sirks, A.J.B.,The Colonate in Justinians Reign, Journal of Roman Studies 98 (2008),
12043.
Squatriti, P., The Floods of 589 and Climate Change at the Beginning of the Middle
Ages: An Italian Microhistory, Speculum 85 (2010), 799826.
, Riverains et rivaux dans lItalie du haut Moyen Age, in P. Fournier/S. Lavaud
(eds.), Eaux et conflits dans lEurope mdivale et modern: Actes des XXXIIe Journes
Internationales dHistoire de lAbbaye de Flaran 8 et 9 octobre 2010, Broch 2012,
pp. 13748.
, Landscape and Change in Early Medieval Italy: Chestnuts, Economy, and
Culture, Cambridge 2013.
Stathakopoulos, D.C., Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine
Empire: A Systematic Survey of Subsistence Crises and Epidemics, Aldershot 2004.
Vaccaro, E., An Overview of Rural Settlement in Four River Basins in the Province of
Grosseto on the Coast of Tuscany (200 BCAD 600), Journal of Roman Archaeology
21 (2008), 22547.
Valenti, M./Salvadori, F., Animal Bones: Synchronous and Diachronic Distribution
as Patterns of Socially Determined Meat Consumption in the Early and High
Middle Ages in Central and Northern Italy, in A. Pluskowski (ed.), Breaking and
Shaping Beastly Bodies: Animals as Material Culture in the Middle Ages, Oxford 2007,
pp. 17088.
van Dommelen, P., Roman Peasants and Rural Organization in Central Italy: An
Archaeological Perspective, in E. Scott (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology First
Conference Proceedings, Avebury 1993, pp. 16786.
295
Vera, D., Propriet terriera e societ rurale nellItalia gotica, in Teoderico il grande e i
Goti dItalia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullalto Medioevo, Milano,
26 novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993, pp. 13366.
2014.
Volpe, G., Paesaggi e insediamenti rurali dellApulia tardoantica e altomedievale,
in id./M. Turchiano (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti rurali in Italia meridionale
fra Tardoantico e Altomedioevo (Foggia 2004) (Atti del Seminario Tardoantico e
Altomedieovo in Italia Meridionale 1), Bari 2005, pp. 299314.
Vuolanto, V., Selling a Freeborn Child: Rhetoric and Social Realities in the Late Roman
World, Ancient Society 33 (2003), 169207.
Wickham, C.R., Production, Distribution, and Demand, in W. Bowden/R. Hodges
(eds.), The Sixth Century: Production, Distribution, and Demand, Leiden 1998,
pp. 27992.
, Conclusioni, in G.P. Brogiolo et al. (eds.), Dopo la fine delle ville: le campagne
dal VI al IX secolo, Mantova 2005, pp. 3514.
, The Development of Villages in the West, 300900, in J. Lefort/C. Morrisson/
J.-P. Sodini (eds.), Les Villages dans lEmpire byzantin (IVeXVe sicle), Paris 2005,
pp. 5569.
, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400800, Oxford
2005.
Wisner, B./Blaikie, P./Cannon, T./Davis, I., At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability,
and Disasters, 2nd ed., London 2003.
CHAPTER 12
The Heroine and the Historian: Procopius of

Caesarea on the Troubled Reign of Queen
Amalasuentha
Kate Cooper
Introduction
In the fifth book of his Wars, the Greek historian Procopius tells the sad story
of how Italy spun out of control after the death of Theoderic, king of the
Goths. His protagonist is a wise and beautiful queen, Amalasuentha, the late
kings only daughter. After her fathers death she is besieged by a parade of villains. One of them, her treacherous cousin, arranges for her to be murdered.
Naturally, her death must be avenged. As Procopius told it, the story offered a
perfect justification for the Roman emperor Justinians invasion of Italy shortly
afterward, in the autumn of 535. It is worth paying close attention to how he
shapes the tale of the Gothic queens downfall. It offers a stylized and at times
unreliable witness to the events he recounts, and we will see below that the
historians characterization of Amalasuenthas death as casus belli may be one
of the places where historical veracity is eclipsed by the narrative impulse. It
is a choice with no little significance: it was Justinians invasion and not the
comparatively tranquil Gothic kingdom that preceded it that destroyed the
economic and social infrastructure of Roman Italy.1
Yet the episode also has real interest as a starting point for considering how
gender coloured the problem of power in Ostrogothic Italy. Procopius account
of the troubled reign of Amalasuentha offers a vivid illustration of the principle that ancient writers were often far more interested in the narrative power
of a troubled heroine than in understanding the challenges faced by a historical woman. Elite women had significant opportunities to control political and
cultural capital in Ostrogothic society, in part because of the centrality of marriage alliances in diplomacy and dynastic legitimacy. It goes without saying
that these women faced distinctive challenges on account of their gender, but
to say more than this requires an exercise in source criticism.
1 Lee, Empire at War, pp. 11333, offers a useful assessment of the consequences of Justinians
Italian campaign at pp. 1258.
The Heroine and the Historian
297
Procopius suggests that war between Ravenna and Constantinople was not
inevitable. During his lifetime Theoderic had presided over a kingdom well
integrated, both culturally and politically, with the Roman state. Indeed it
had been at the emperor Zenos suggestion that Theoderic conquered Italy.2
Theoderic in turn had done everything in his power to ensure that Goths and
Romans lived peaceably together in a society whose outstanding characteristic
was civilitas: He preserved the laws on a sure basis, he protected the land and
kept it safe from the barbarians dwelling round about, and attained the highest possible degree of wisdom and manliness.3 Procopius wants to establish
a baseline of success against which the failure of Theoderics successors can
be measured. Although in name Theoderic was a usurper, yet in fact he was
as truly an emperor as any who have distinguished themselves in this office
from the beginning.4 Theoderic had also thought carefully about the future.
Looking ahead to old age and having no sons, he had educated his daughters
well and married them carefully. For Amalasuentha he chose Eutharic, about
whom little is known before his marriage. By 519 he had been accepted by
both Theoderic and the emperor Justin as a worthy successor to her fathers
crown. In the same year, Eutharic held the consulship jointly with Theoderic,
and Amalasuentha produced a healthy son, Athalaric. But Eutharic died in 522
or 523 while their son was still small (see Figure 12.1 for a genealogy of the
Amal family).
Procopius nods to this background by mentioning that Amalasuenthas
husband was already dead when Theoderic himself died in 526. Now the
well-being of the ten-year-old Athalaric, Amalasuenthas son and Theoderics
grandson, depended on his mothers ability to rule on his behalf in a way that
honoured her fathers legacy. She had already begun to raise the boy in a way
befitting a Roman man of letters. But, Procopius tells us, she quickly earned the
enmity of a powerful faction among the Gothic nobles, who wanted to steer
the boy-king away from the book learning of his chosen tutors and towards the
wholesome violence of the Gothic army. For letters, they said, are far removed
from manliness, and the teaching of old men results for the most part in a

3 Procopius, Wars 5.1.27:
, ,
.
4 Procopius, Wars 5.1.29: ,
,
, .
298
FIGURE 12.1
Cooper
Genealogical chart of the Ostrogothic Amal family

Chart by Kate Cooper
cowardly and submissive spirit.5 It was the queens attempt to accommodate

these critics that led to her allowing her control of her sons education to be
challenged. This, the historian suggests, was her first error.
After some time the young king died, and the queen now made her second
and fatal error. Instead of choosing a ranking Amal warrior to act as her protector and marrying him, she invited a classically educated male relative, her
elderly cousin Theodahad, to act as her fraternal consort, ignoring clear evidence of his despicable character. Up to this point she had managed to contain
the ambitions of the Gothic nobles and to invoke the prospect of the emperor
Justinians wrath as a credible threat to her challengers. But Theodahad was
able to outwit her and colluding with her enemies had her murdered. This in
turn gave an opening to Justinian. According to Procopius the emperor saw
it as no less than his duty to avenge the fallen queen. So he sent his general
Belisarius to invade first Sicily and then the Italian mainland.6
In telling the story, Procopius differs remarkably from the Gothic memory
of the same events. Jordanes made an abridgement of Cassiodorus lost Gothic
.
299
History in the early 550s,7 and in it he covers the whole period from the death
of Theoderic to that of Amalasuentha in a few lines. In this, conflict between
Amalasuentha and her Gothic subjects is not a theme; instead, Jordanes brief
treatment merely indicates that the queen co-opted her cousin out of feminine modesty and respect for their kinship.8
This is not to say that we should dismiss the Greek historians account as
pure invention. Procopius participated in Justinians Italian invasion as legal
advisor and secretary to the general Belisarius,9 so his access to information
was as good as anyones. But if Procopius is a well-informed witness, he is
not necessarily a reliable one. A number of scholars have commented on his
tendency to resort to recurrent ethnic and gender patterns10 to style his own
view of events as natural and even inevitable. There is every reason to suspect
that this is the case where the Gothic Wars are concerned. His account may
reflect historical reality in the sense of the propaganda broadcast at the time
of Justinians invasion, but it is certainly a stylized account of Amalasuenthas
situation, and of her eventual fate.

Amalasuenthas Position After the Death of Theoderic (52634)
At the time of her fathers death in 526, Amalasuenthas position was dangerous
but not without precedent. As in her fathers reign, the civil administration at
Ravenna faced the difficult task of balancing its own concerns with the claims
of the Senate in Rome and those of the allied government in Constantinople,
and Amalasuentha quickly reconsidered her fathers strategy. In 523 Theoderic
had imprisoned and executed his magister officiorum Boethius on a treason
charge and Boethius had been replaced by Cassiodorus, whose letter-book, the
Variae, survives. On her fathers death Amalasuentha seems to have restored
relations with the Senate.11
But why was Amalasuentha not more successful in cultivating her own
coalition of generals? Here Procopius is less helpful, since it is a question
7 On the date of and context of Jordanes, the classic studies are ODonnell, Aims of
Jordanes, pp. 22340, and Goffart, Narrators of Barbarian History; for discussion of more
recent contributions see Gillett, Mirror of Jordanes, pp. 392408.
9 Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century, p. 8.
10 Brubaker, Sex, Lies, and Textuality, pp. 83101, with Kaldellis, Secret History, pp. liilv,
and Ziche, Abusing Theodora, pp. 31123.
11 Moorhead, Culture and Power, pp. 11222, at pp. 11617.
300
Cooper
which pulls against his own reading of the episode. Although he praises the
queens administrative virtueswisdom and regard for justice12he frames
her interaction with her rivals in essentially domestic terms. The queens allies,
Procopius tells us, were three among the old men of the Goths whom she
knew to be prudent and refined above all the others13 whom she appointed to
live with her son. One imagines that these men were experienced civil officials,
but as Procopius tells the story there is a whiff of a boy being held back from
military training to keep company with women and old men.
Amalasuenthas position at the time of her fathers death was in principle
reasonably strong, since ruling as regent on behalf of a son was a comparatively well-established position. Meghan McEvoy has shown that across the
4th and 5th centuries royal mothers and sisters were able, by working closely
with trusted generals, to establish long and often stable regimes in the name
of child emperors.14 When his father Arcadius died in 408, for example, the
Roman emperor Theodosius II had only recently turned seven; he survived,
and reigned for forty-two years. In his Variae, Cassiodorus invoked another
exemplary regency, that of Galla Placidia for Valentinian III, who was six at
his accession in 425.15 Placidia faced circumstances at least as daunting as
Amalasuenthas, but she was able to play the rivalry between her generals,
Aetius and Bonifatius, to her sons advantage.16
So a great deal was at stake in the education of Athalaric. Procopius suggests
that a faction among the nobles tried to distance Amalasuentha from her son,
and this has the ring of truth to it. To male aristocrats who had the military
credentials she lacked this may well have seemed the ideal field in which to
challenge the queens authority. Yet Procopius chooses to see this struggle for
authority through a domestic rather than a political lens. This framing colours
the incident that he identifies as the trigger for Amalasuenthas loss of control
of Athalaric: On one occasion the mother, finding the boy doing some wrong in
his chamber, chastised him; and he in tears went off thence to the mens apartments. And some Goths who met him made a great to-do about this.17 Now
12 Procopius, Wars 5.2.3: .
.
16 On Cassiodorus comparison of Amalasuentha to Galla Placida, see Fauvinet-Ranson,
Portrait dune regent, pp. 267308, and Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial
: .
301
Amalasuenthas enemies found their opportunity. Procopius breezes past the

substance of the conflict, downplaying the evidence that an ongoing struggle
for control was in play. He suggests that they charged Amalasuentha of trying to
poison her son, to put the boy out of the world as quickly as possible, in order
that she might marry a second husband and with him rule over the Goths and
Italians.18 But the historian guides the reader away from the poisoning charge
and towards the problem of Athalarics upbringing. Rather than trying her for
treason, he suggests, the notable men among them gathered together, and
coming before Amalasuentha made the charge that their king was not being
educated correctly from their point of view nor to his own advantage.19 It is
here that Procopius offers a summary of their comments mentioned above on
the contrast between barbarian manliness and the cowardly and submissive
spirit conferred by literacy. Procopius concludes the passage with a speech in
which the Gothic nobles address Amalasuentha: Therefore, O Queen...give
to Athalaric some men of his own age to be his companions, who will pass
through the period of youth with him and thus give him an impulse toward
that excellence which is in keeping with the custom of barbarians.20
Considering the conflict from the point of view of Amalasuenthas critics,
it is not impossible that the young companions were intended to protect the
boy from attempts on his life. But this is not how Procopius tells the story. To
the contrary, he suggests, it was the wild behaviour of the young soldiers themselves that led Athalaric to his downfall: first to drunkenness, and then to illness and finally death.

Amalasuenthas Dilemna
By the time her son died in 534, Procopius tells us, Amalasuenthas conflict
with her challengers had escalated dramatically. The queen had arranged for
three of her most influential enemies to be murdered, and there was every
] ,
.
19 Procopius, Wars 5.2.11: , ,
.
20 Procopius, Wars 5.2.17: , ... ,
,
. On the rhetoric of Gothic manliness,
see Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 13341.
302
Cooper
reason to think that their allies would retaliate.21 What made her choose her
elderly cousin Theodahad as an ally in this situation? She was well aware of his
failings, since his neighbours in Tuscany had brought him to her for judgement
for violent and unlawful actions, including wrongfully seizing both private and
crown land.22 We come now to the central question: Why did Amalasuentha
choose Theodahad as her partner after the death of Athalaric in October 534?
Theodahad was known for his love of letters rather than his military prowess, and there was no shortage of noble Goths with strong military credentials
whom Amalasuentha could have married or otherwise cultivated as allies.23
It should be noted that marriage was not her only option. Ostrogothic
royal women were capable of acting as political and even military players in
their own right, though it was certainly a high-risk strategy. A case in point
is Amalafrida, sister of Theoderic and mother of Amalasuenthas future
consort Theodahad, who went to Africa in 500 to marry to the Vandal king
Thrasamund.24 Procopius tells us that Amalafrida received the strategic
Sicilian city of Lilybaeum as a wedding gift, and when she arrived in Africa for
her marriage she was accompanied by an entourage of 1000 Gothic nobles and
5000 Gothic soldiers in addition.25 On Thrasamunds death in 523, Amalafrida
may have tried to put her forces into play against Thrasamunds successor
Hilderic. According to Procopius himself, the queen was accused of plotting a
revolt against the new Vandal king.26 Whether the accusation was true or false,
it reflects a contemporary perception that it would have been plausible for her
to do so. In the end, however, she was captured and died in prison.27
Amalasuentha had inherited a number of allies as a result of the marriage
diplomacy of her father Theoderic, though by the time of his death many
of his alliances had lapsed or been overturned. During the early years of his
reign Theoderic had sought alliances with as many of the other post-Roman
kingdoms of the former western empire as possible. Through her mother
Audofleda, the sister of Clovis I, Amalasuentha could in theory hope to claim
support from the Franks, while the Visigothic king Amalaric was the son of
Theodegotha, one of Amalasuenthas two older half-sisters by an anonymous
21 Procopius, Wars 5.3.
22 Procopius, Wars 6.1.
23 On the options open to Amalasuentha at the death of her son, see Vitiello, Theodahad,
5965.
24 Conant, Staying Roman, pp. 3840.
303
Moesian concubine. Her cousin Amalaberga was queen of Thuringia, having

married its ruler Hermanfrid.28
The marriages of Audofleda to Theoderic and of Amalasuenthas half-
sister Ostrogotho to Sigismund of Burgundy had taken place around the time
of the Burgundian king Chilperics death in 493, as the emerging Frankish,
Ostrogothic, and Burgundian rulers sought to establish a stable balance of
power. (The Frankish Clovis also married the Burgundian princess Clothild
around this time.) Once established, these alliances only had value as long as
those who valued them were alive and in a position to exert influence. The
balance of power was unstable and the lifespans of the parties to agreements
were often short. All three of Theoderics sons-in-law predeceased him, and by
the time of his death in 526 a number of his alliances were no longer in force.
An alliance with the Vandals had been settled in 500 when King Thrasamund
married Theoderics sister Amalafrida, but after Thrasamunds death in 523
Amalafrida came into open conflict with his successor Hilderic. Similarly,
Ostrogotho had married Sigismund in the mid 490s, and up to the time of
Amalasuenthas marriage in 515 Theoderic was able to suggest to Sigismund
that he and Ostrogotho might produce an heir to the Ostrogothic kingdom.29
Yet in 522, after Ostrogothos death, Sigismund put their son Sigiric to death
as a threat to his own power;30 Sigismund himself was deposed and killed not
long afterward.31
Amalasuenthas own marriage to her fathers protg Eutharic was informed
by a different strategy, that of marrying a daughter to a powerful general or
potential heir.32 This was a practice in wide currency by the Roman emperors
in the years leading up to Theoderics reign. In 467 the Emperor Anthemius
married his daughter Alypia to the magister militum Ricimer, while in 479 the
Emperor Zeno offered the hand of Anicia Juliana, daughter of the short-lived
western emperor Probus and granddaughter of Valentinian III, to Theoderic
himself.33 At its most effective, kinship diplomacy allowed dynasties to survive
in the face of adverse circumstances. A son-in-law could step in as a potential
heir if a son was missing and a grandson had not yet come of age. Daughters
could serve to bind promising young men to ageing mentors, a strategy which
28 The centrality of marriage diplomacy in this period has often been noticed, e.g. by
Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, and more recently, Herrin, Unrivalled Influence.
29 Shanzer, Two Clocks and a Wedding, pp. 22558.
30 On this episode see Wood, Clermont and Burgundy, pp. 11925.
31 Gregory of Tours, Histories 3.5, ed. Krusch/Levinson.
32 On the examples that follow see MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, pp. 2359.
33 Malchus of Philadelphia, pp. 40162.
304
Cooper
Eleanor Searle dubbed predatory kinship.34 They could also serve as pledges
of loyalty in alliances between rulers.
Certainly, if she chose marriage, the queen held a powerful card in her
capacity as the principal unmarried woman of the royal household. But it was
a card one wanted to be very careful about using, since it would almost certainly displace the queen from her position as head of the royal family. The
5th-century empress Pulcheria offered an outstanding example of canny use
of the marriage option, first sidestepping the expectation of marriage and then
using it on her own terms.
By professing herself as a virgin of the church, Pulcheria had fended off suitors in the years following her fathers death in 408. Many years later, in 450
when she was fifty-one, her brother Theodosius II died. At this point she was
able to put her potential as a source of basileia to good use, on terms very different to those she might have commanded as a child bride. After extracting
a promise from the general Marcian for him to respect her virginity she married him, which allowed her to control the succession at her brothers death.35
Later sources claimed that Theodosius had chosen Marcian from his deathbed,
but modern scholarship tends to see the match as Pulcherias own choice, with
the story of her brothers deathbed instructions a cover story.36
Placing a daughter in a potentially hostile household was a gesture of calculated vulnerability. This is especially true in that the brides were sometimes
very young indeed. The brides position can helpfully be compared to that of
a male child hostage, since her presence could strengthen the relationship
between two houses, but she was at risk of harm if the parties to the alliance
broke faith.37
A particularly gruesome story about the vulnerability of diplomatic
brides can be found in the Getica composed by Jordanes some years after
Amalasuenthas death. It concerns an unnamed Visigothic princess, the
daughter of an earlier Theoderic (who reigned over the Visigoths from 418 to
451). This princess was sent to Carthage to marry Huneric, son of the Vandal
king Geiseric. Initially the match was successful and it produced more than
one child. But some years into the marriage Huneric began to mistreat his wife
and their children. He accused her of trying to poison him, maimed her by cut34 Searle, Predatory Kinship.
35 Holum, Theodosian Empresses, p. 208.
36 On Pulcheria see Cooper, Empress and Theotokos, pp. 3951.
37 On child hostages see Lee, Role of Hostages, pp. 36674. Kosto, Transformation of
Hostageship, pp. 26582 notes that this period sees the development of multi-directional
hostage exchange.
305
ting off her nose and ears, and sent her back to her father.38 A motive for this
treatment may be deduced from other sources: in 442 Hunerics father Geiseric
made a treaty with the western emperor Valentinian III and sent Huneric
as hostage to the Roman court. Shortly afterward Huneric was betrothed to
Eudocia, the emperors daughter.39 This was an alliance with far-reaching consequences: decades later in 523, when he as an old man, Eudocias son Hilderic
inherited the Vandal throne.
A striking case from an earlier period but known to Procopius is that
of the empress Justina (d. ca. 391). In her childhood, Justina was married to
the usurper Magnentius (r. 3503), and after his death she became the second wife of the emperor Valentinian (d. 375). She was the mother of the child
emperor Valentinian IIwho ruled from 375, when he came to power at age
four, to 392and of three daughters: Justa, Grata, and Galla. The Arian Justina
is famous for her conflict with the Catholic bishop Ambrose of Milan in the
380s, when her sons court was settled in that city.40 But a somewhat less wellknown episode sheds light on Justinas expertise as a deal-broker. In 387, when
the usurper Maximus invaded Italy, Valentinian fled to the protection of the
eastern emperor Theodosius, in Thessalonica.41 According to the early 6thcentury Greek historian Zosimus, Justina now saw her opportunity. Knowing
Theodosius amorous proclivities, she set before him her extremely goodlooking daughter Galla, grasped him by the knees, and besought him not to
let go unavenged the death of Gratian...(while saying this she pointed to the
maiden, who was tearfully bewailing her fate).42 Once Theodosius had taken
the bait and asked to marry Galla, Justina set her terms: She insisted that she
would give her to him only on condition that he make war on Maximus, avenge
Gratians death, and restore Valentinian to his fathers empire.43
38 Jordanes, Getica 36; 184.

39 The episode is discussed by Merrills/Miles, Vandals, p. 113.
40 The classic treatment of this conflict, written of course from Ambroses point of view, is
Persecution of Justina 11.
41 Oost, Count Gildo and Theodosius, pp. 2730.
42 Zosimus, New History 4.44: ,
,

...
.
43 Zosimus, New History 4.44: ,

.
306
Cooper
To be sure, this vision of Justina as a master manipulator is a character sketch

rather than a source of unbiased information. As Zosimus tells the story, the
episode is meant to highlight the moral weakness of Theodosius in contrast
to the cunning of Justina.44 And it is not clear how accurately the historian
reflects the account of his source, Justinas contemporary Eunapius. What is
certain is that the narrative reflects Greek attitudes in Amalasuenthas lifetime, since Zosimus was writing in Constantinople during the middle years of
Theoderics reign. Zosimus offers us an idea of what Amalasuenthas contemporaries thought was plausible, their sense of the kind of intervention a royal
woman might reasonably aim at under the right circumstances.
Justina probably had more than one reason for offering her daughter Galla
to Theodosius rather than seeking to marry him herself. Age may have played
a part. Zosimus mentions the mothers extraordinary beauty, but she seems
to have been older than Theodosius (b. 347). She was married to her first husband Magnentius in 350 or 351 so she must have been twelve (the legal age for
Roman marriage) by then, though the 7th-century chronicler John of Antioch
says that she was too young to bear children at the time of the marriage.45 In
the summer of 387 she was probably in her late forties, while Theodosius
turned forty in January of that year. Galla, by contrast, was born some time
between 360 and 375, so in the summer of 387 she was in her teens or twenties, at the peak of marriageability. But age was not necessarily a barrier: we
have already seen that the empress Pulcheria was fifty-one when she married
the general Marcian. Justinas proposal of Galla as a bride for Theodosius may
also have reflected a preference. The position of behind-the-scenes broker and
negotiator was in all likelihood more powerful than that of bride; it was certainly less exposed.
Like Justina, Amalasuentha had another valuable asset to work with in
her daughter Matasuentha. Her age is not known, but she must have been
born between 517 (her brother Athalaric having been born the year before)
and 523 (the year after her fathers death). So at her brothers death in 534 she
was between eleven and seventeen, the peak age of marriageability. In 537
Matasuentha married the powerful general Witigis, who was crowned king of
the Ostrogoths following the death in 536 of Amalasuenthas consort and murderer Theodahad. Witigis was a well-known figure in the royal entourage: he
44 On the motif of womanly influence see Cooper, Insinuations of Womanly Influence,
pp. 15064, with Joshel, Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire, pp. 5082.
45 J. Ant. Frag. 187.
307
had served as spatharius or sword-bearer to Athalaric and afterward as armiger

or commander of the bodyguard for Theodahad.46
One wants to know more about relations between Witigis and Amalasuentha.
We know that he was sword-bearer to Athalaric, but we do not know who
appointed him. What was his relationship to the military youths placed in the
household of Athalaric after Amalasuenthas face-off with her enemies? Was
he a protg of Amalasuentha, to whom Matasuentha had been promised to
seal his loyalty to the queen? This kind of promise was not unusual. But in this
case, his acceptance by Theodahad after the queens death would need to be
explained, since Theodahad was widely believed to have ordered her murder.
It is likely that Witigis was an ally of Amalasuenthas enemies, since Procopius
mentions that when Matasuentha married him she did so much against her
will.47 In this case his service to Amalasuenthas enemy Theodahad would
seem entirely natural, and his marriage to Matasuentha after her mothers
death would seem to represent the final triumph of Amalasuenthas enemies.
Still, we cannot exclude the possibility that here, too, Procopius is tailoring his
evidence to suit an imperial agenda, since by the time the Wars was written,
Witigis was dead and Matasuentha had remarried. This time the groom was
Justinians own cousin Germanus.

The Eye of Procopius
Cristina La Rocca has suggested that Amalasuenthas choice of a non-marital

partnership was an attempt to directly address the loss of standing that the
acquisition of a husband would imply, and that in doing so she was seeking to
create a rhetorical framework that pushed against the gender assumptions of
her society. The reasoning was that she and her cousin would rule together not
because they are married, with power descending from the man to the woman
through their sexual intimacy, but because the woman, already in power, has
chosen the man to become not her husband, but instead her political partner.48
In this, she had created an exception to the accepted pattern of sexual hierarchy. It was a high-risk strategy.
46 Jordanes, Getica 60, with discussion in Amory, People and Identity, pp. 1612.
, , ,
.
48 La Rocca, Consors Regni, pp. 1345.
308
Cooper
To Procopius, if Amalasuenthas respect for the classical tradition of learning made her a wise and just ruler, it was a weakness in a partner. The historian
characterizes Theodahads romanitas dismissively as a lack of barbarian manliness. According to La Rocca, For Amalasuentha, romanitas is connected to
her respect for the emperor and for Roman culture...whereas for Theodahad
it becomes, instead, a lack of masculinity: his ignorance of military virtues, his
preference for otium, and his greed show the dark side of romanitas as an incapacity for ruling.49 Ironically, it is largely by drawing on Procopius that modern scholars have evidenced the high literacy of Amal women by contrast to
the martial culture of the highly militarized Gothic men. Though there may be
some truth to the idea,50 Procopius has shaped how we perceive his material.
But among La Roccas most interesting suggestions is the point that unlike
Procopius both Amalasuentha and Cassiodorus saw value rather than weakness in her choice of a partner steeped in the Roman ideal of literacy. Four letters preserved in Cassiodorus Variaetwo each in the names of Amalasuentha
(10.1 and 10.3) and Theodahad (10.2 and 10.4), respectively51provide evidence
of a coordinated effort by (or on behalf of) the two cousins to announce their
new partnership after the death of Athalaric, both to the Roman Senate and to
the emperor Justinian himself.52 The formal statements made at the time of
the alliance present the wisdom and learning of Theodahad as anything but a
sign of weakness or effeminacy. Ostrogothic royal women were known for their
learning53 to be sure, but this did not mean that a man should be illiterate.
Rather, it was a claim to continuity with the classical tradition of the just ruler,
and an echo of the value placed on literacy by Theoderic himself.
Frankforter has warned that the historians view of the Gothic queen as
a pawn in a game played by men54 erases the historical actor in favour of a
literary heroine. We are encouraged to see her not as a protagonist in political
maneuvers but as the loser in a private struggle between women for a personal
prize, the love of a powerful man.55 If Procopius sees Amalasuentha as a wise
49 La Rocca, Consors Regni, p. 140; on the opposition between civilitas and manliness see
M.E. Stewart, Contests Of Andreia, pp. 2154, and Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman
50 Vitiello, Theodahad, pp. 467.
51 La Rocca, Consors Regni, pp. 12743.
52 Krautschick, Cassiodor gives Cassiodorus much credit for the policies (and rhetoric) of
Amalasuenthas regency and reign. Analysis along the lines opened by La Rocca may
prove valuable in shedding light on the problem of authorship.
53 Vitiello, Nourished at the Breast of Rome, pp. 398412.
54 Frankforter, Amalasuntha, pp. 4157, at p. 42.
55 Frankforter, Amalasuntha, p. 42.
309
and just ruler, he nonetheless takes every opportunity to present her as a helpless heroine.
The historian achieves this, Frankforter argues, by looking for love interest
and for rivalry among women wherever he can find it. He thus identifies the
empress Theodora as the culprit behind Amalasuenthas murder, suggesting
that the empress encouraged Theodahad to kill Amalasuentha by indicating
that her husband Justinian would turn a blind eye if he did so. Having indicated the method, the historian also offers a motive. Theodora, he suggests,
was made jealous by the possibility that the Gothic queen might replace her
as empress.56 The view of Theodora here is consistent with Procopius more
sustained treatment in the Secret History.57
Frankforter brings evidence from the contemporary letter-book of
Cassiodorus to show that the charge may have contained a distorted element
of truth. Theodora was indeed in correspondence with Theodahads wife
Gudelina around the time of Amalasuenthas murder.58 Theodahad seems to
have underestimated the danger that Justinian would seize on any harm done
to Amalasuentha as a pretext for invading Italy, and it is not impossible that
Theodora and Gudelina played a role in leading him to make this mistake.
But it is unlikely that their motive was one of romance or sexual jealousy. It is
more likely, Frankforter suggests, that the wives of Theodahad and Justinian
were serving as a back channel for their husbands efforts to second-guess one
anothers intentions.
In other words, the murder of Amalasuentha was the result of a cat-andmouse game in which tension between the Goths and Romans over territorial
control spun out of control thanks to rivarly within the Amal family over who
would rule the Goths. On this reading, the queen tried and failed to establish a
new coalition strong enough to fend off the eastern empires westward expansion. At the same time her cousin Theodehad in his ambition fell prey to a
trap laid by the emperor and his wife. If this reading is correct, then Procopius
is more than a little disingenuous in portraying Amalasuentha as a loyal ally
of Rome whose murder left Justinian no honourable alternative other than to
invade Italy. Indeed Procopius may be trying to draw a veil over the fact that
the queen in fact died trying to defend Italy from Justinians predatory interest
in the western territories.
56 Procopius, Secret History 16.5, with Frankforter, Amalasuntha, pp. 4950.

57 Kaldellis, Secret History, p. liii, suggests that Procopius Amalasuentha may even be
intended as an anti-Theodora.
58 Frankforter, Amalasuntha, p. 50.
310
Cooper
Toward the end of the 6th century, Gregory of Tours remembered a very
different version of Amalasuenthas downfall.59 In his version, the queen took
as her lover a slave called Traguila (the name is spelled variously in the manuscripts) after her fathers death. This led to conflict between Amalasuentha
and her widowed mother Audofleda, the sister of the late king Clovis of the
Franks.60 The mother rejected the union as unworthy of her daughters nobile genus, suggesting that she marry someone more appropriate to her own
rank. When Amalasuentha refused to listen, the widowed queen sent an army
against Traguila and carried her daughter back to the palace. But soon afterward Amalasuentha worked her revenge by poisoning the Eucharistic chalice
offered to her motherthe Arian Eucharist reserved a dedicated chalice to the
royal family. After Audofleda died, her loyal servants called on Theodahad who
arranged to have Amalasuentha killed in an overheated bath.
The story does not appear in Jordanes, but it has many elements in common
with the one told by Procopius.61 Shared elements include identification of
Theodahad as Amalasuenthas murderer, an accusation against Amalasuentha
as a poisoner, and a hovering sense that the queens most dangerous weapon
was her marriageability. In short, like Procopius, Gregory sees Amalasuentha
through the lens of family drama rather than considering her success or failure in building her own coalition of generals and ministers. What else can
we learn from the shared elements? To begin with, consider the poison. Both
writers remember Amalasuenthas enemies as accusing her of using or trying
to use it to dispense with an inconvenient family member, though Procopius
remembers the victim as her son, while for Gregory it is her mother. Because
of its association with intimacy, poisoning is the perfect crime to pin on a royal
womanwe have seen this above with the anonymous Gothic wife of the
Vandal prince Huneric.62 But the fact that poisoning involves secrecy means
that it is a crime that implies weakness.
Second, Procopius and Gregory both indicate that Amalasuentha was a target of sexual speculation. Is it possible that a kernel of truth is hidden in the
story of Traguila? John Moorhead has suggested that Gregorys story was in fact
59 Gregory of Tours, Histories 3.31.
60 The episode receives brief but illuminating treatment in Loseby, Gregory of Tours,
pp. 46297.
61 On the relationship between the two writers versions of the story see Joye/Knaepen,
Limage dAmalasonthe, pp. 22957.
62 See Jones, Social Mobility in Late Antique Gaul, pp. 3014, and Dailey, Queens, Consorts,
Concubines on charges of poisoning and enchantment against royal women in the writings of Gregory of Tours.
311
a garbled version of the episode of Procopius concerning the conflict between

Amalasuentha and her own son, and this is certainly not impossible.63
But there is another way of looking at the elements common to Gregory and
Procopius. Bruno Krusch, the 19-century editor of Gregorys Histories, noted
the unstable spelling in manuscripts of the name of Amalasuenthas lover, and
suggested that the story almost certainly refers to Triwila, a grand chamberlain (praepositus cubiculi) attested by other sources.64 A 6th-century chronicle
preserved in the Anonymus Valesianus mentions him as being in office during the consulate of Eutharic, Amalasuenthas husband, in 519,65 and it is possible that Triwila still held this role when Amalasuentha took charge of the
palace in 526. The role of chamberlain was characteristically that of a senior
and highly trusted slaveindeed, chamberlains were often eunuchs. It is possible that the queens close relationship with the senior officer of her household was scrambled in memory, and enhanced with the memorable detail of
an elopement. By contrast, it may have been a desire to foreclose speculation
of this kind that motivated Procopius to characterize the men into whose care
Amalasuentha gave her son as aged. In any case, the queens enemies were
probably right to watch for signs that she intended to co-opt a male ally to
serve as both husband and king.
Why did she not do so? One possibility is that her familys emphasis on Amal
blood was a constraintit is a qualification which Athalarics father Eutharic
seems to have possessed, though in all likelihood it was manufactured on his
behalf.66 But Amalasuentha herself could bring this qualification to any union.
It is also possible that, like the empress Justina, Amalasuentha saw more danger than value in the gambit of taking a husband.

Conclusion: The Heroine and the Historian
Assessing the silences within our sources is always frustrating, but it is also
valuable and it tends to be particularly important where story lines involving
female players are concerned. Writers like Procopius and Gregory knew that
borrowing literary motifs from ancient romance did much to enhance a narrative, and this kind of narrative styling could quite usefully serve to distract the
readers attention from inconvenient facts or other problems. And of course
65 Anon. Vales. 14, ed. Rolfe.
66 Heather, Cassiodorus and the Rise of the Amals, pp. 10328.
312
Cooper
the figure of the imperilled heroine as the casus belli behind a military invasion
was a literary conceit that reached back to Homer.
This was certainly what Procopius found interesting in the case of
Amalasuentha. She had reigned as a wise and fair queen for eight years he
acknowledged, but his real interest was in her downfall. As he tells the story
the eight-year struggle over who would control the young kings education is
collapsed into a single episode that leads directly into the fatal period between
Athalarics death in October of 534 and Amalasuenthas own in April of 535.
The historians reasons are not difficult to discern. The queens death by her
cousins treachery offers a narratively powerful turning point: the impetus for
Byzantine westward expansion and the downfall of the Amal kingdom.
Ironically, later historians have judged Justinians invasion of Italy as a
turning point of a different kind. Still in the 9th century Agnellus of Ravenna
remembered the resulting devastation of the Italian countryside.67 Indeed
modern historians have identified the Gothic Wars as an episode from which
the peninsula would not recover, and have argued that it is the invasion of
reconquest in 535, not the abdication of Romulus Augustulus in 476 or some
other date, that should be remembered as the event marking the end of the
Roman Empire in Italy.68
This renders the silences of Procopius all the more disturbing. As a participant in Justinians invasion, Procopius had seen the devastation of Italy at first
hand. But he offered no real assessment of the fate of the fallen kingdom, only
the quiet suggestion that neither Amal blood nor Roman learning could have
protected the kingdomor its queenfrom a regrettable but inevitable fate.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Ambrose of Milan, Persecution of Justina, in F. Homes Dudden, The Life and Times of
St. Ambrose, Oxford 1935, 27097.
Anonymus Valesianus, ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe, in Ammianus Marcellinus, vol. 3,
Cambridge, MA 1952.
67 Agnellus, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis 95.

68 Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, pp. 68.
313
Gregory of Tours, Histories, ed. B. Krusch/W. Levinson, Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis

Historiarum Libri X (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum
Merovingicarum 1.1), Hannover 1937.
Malchus of Philadelphia, ed. and trans. R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicizing
Historians of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, Liverpool 1981.
Procopius, Secret History, trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius: Secret History (Loeb Classical
Library), Cambridge 1935.
, Wars, trans. H.B. Dewing, History of the Wars, 5 vols. (Loeb Classical Library),
Cambridge 191428.
Zosimus, Nova Historia, trans. J.J. Buchanan/H.T. Davis, Zosimus, Historia Nova: The
Decline of Rome, San Antonio 1967.
Byzantine Italy AD 554800, Rome 1984.
Brubaker, L., Sex, Lies, and Textuality: The Secret History of Prokopios and the Rhetoric
of Gender in Sixth-Century Byzantium, in L. Brubaker and J. Smith (eds.), Gender in
the Early Medieval World: East and West, 300900, Cambridge 2004, pp. 83101.
Cameron, A., Procopius and the Sixth Century, London 1985.
Conant, J.P., Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean,
439700, Cambridge 2012.
Cooper, K., Insinuations of Womanly Influence: An Aspect of the Christianization of
the Roman Aristocracy, JRS 82 (1992), 15064.
, Empress and Theotokos: Gender and Patronage in the Christolological
Controversy, in R.N. Swanson (ed.), The Church and Mary, Woodbridge, 2004,
pp. 3951.
Daily, E.T., Queens, Consorts, Concubines: Gregory of Tours and the Women of the
Merovingian Elite, Leiden 2015.
Fauvinet-Ranson, V., Portrait dune regent: Une pangyrique dAmalsonthe
(Cassiodore, Variae 11, 1), Cassiodorus 4 (1998), 267308.
Frankforter, A.D., Amalasuntha, Procopius and a Womans Place, Journal of Womens
History 8 (1996), 4157.
Gillett, A., The Mirror of Jordanes: Concepts of the Barbarian, Then and Now, in
P. Rousseau (ed.), A Companion to Late Antiquity, Chichester 2009, 392408.
Goffart, W., The Narrators of Barbarian History (AD 550800), Princeton 1988.
314
Cooper
Greatrex, G., Roman Identity in the Sixth Century, in S. Mitchell and G. Greatrex
(eds.), Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity, London 2000, pp. 26792.
Herrin, J., In Search of Byzantine Women: Three Avenues of Approach, in A. Cameron
and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity, Detroit 1983, pp. 16789.
, Unrivalled Influence: Women and Empire in Byzantium, Princeton 2013.
Holum, K., Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity,
Berkeley 1982.
Homes Dudden, F., The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, Oxford 1935.
Jones, A.E., Social Mobility in Late Antique Gaul: Strategies and Opportunities for the
Non-Elite, Cambridge 2009.
Joshel, S., Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire, Signs 21 (1995), 5082.
Joye, S./Knaepen, M., Limage dAmalasonthe chez Procope de Csare et Grgoire de
Tours: portraits contrasts entre orient et occident, Moyen ge, 111 (2005), 22957.
Kaldellis, A., Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of
Antiquity, Philadelphia 2004.
, Procopius: The Secret History, Cambridge, MA 2010.
Kosto, A., The Transformation Of Hostageship In Late Antiquity, Antiquit Tardive 21
(2013), 265282.
La Rocca, C., Consors regni: a problem of gender? The consortium between
Amalasuntha and Theodahad in 534, in P. Stafford, J. Nelson, S. Reynolds and
S. Johns (eds.), Studies in the Earlier Middle Ages, London 2012, pp. 27143.
Lee, A.D., The Role of Hostages in Roman Diplomacy with Sasanian Persia, Historia
40 (1991), 36674.
, The Empire at War, in M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of
Justinian, Cambridge 2005, 11333.
Loseby, S.T., Gregory of Tours, Italy and the Empire, in A.C. Murray, A Companion to
Gregory of Tours, Leiden forthcoming, 46297.
McEvoy, M.A., Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367455, Oxford and New
York 2013.
MacGeorge, P., Late Roman Warlords, Oxford 2002.
Merrills, A./Miles, R., The Vandals, Oxford 2009.
Moorhead, J., Culture and Power among the Ostrogoths, Klio 68 (1986), 112122.
ODonnell, J.J., The Aims of Jordanes, Historia 31 (1982), 22340.
Oost, S.I., Count Gildo and Theodosius the Great, Classical Philology 57 (1962), 2730.
315
Searle, E., Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power, 8401066, Berkeley
& Los Angeles 1988.
Shanzer, D., Two Clocks and a Wedding: Theoderics Diplomatic Relations with the
Burgundians, Romanobarbarica 14 (1984), 22558.
Stewart, M.E., Contests Of Andreia In Procopius Gothic Wars, Parekbolai 4 (2014),
2154.
Vitiello, M., Nourished at the Breast of Rome: The Queens of Ostrogothic Italy and
the Education of the Roman Elite, Rheinisches Museum fr Philologie 149 (2006),
398412.
, Theodahad: A Platonic King at the Collapse of Ostrogothic Italy, Toronto 2014.
Wemple, S.F., Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500900,
Philadelphia 1981.
Whately, C., Militarization, or the Rise of a Distinct Military Culture? The East Roman
Elite in the 6th Century AD, in S. OBrien and D. Boatright (eds.), Warfare and
Society in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers arising from a colloquium held at the
University of Liverpool, 13th June 2008, Oxford 2013, pp. 4957.
Wolfram, H., History of the Goths, trans. Thomas Dunlap, Berkeley 1999.
Wood, I.N., Clermont and Burgundy, 51134, Nottingham Medieval Studies 32 (1989),
11925.
Ziche, H., Abusing Theodora: Sexual and Political Discourse in Procopius,
30 (201213), 311323.
CHAPTER 13
Intellectual Culture and Literary Practices

Natalia Lozovsky
Introduction
In a panegyric composed in 507, Ennodius, a learned Roman cleric of aristocratic descent, hailed Theoderic, the Gothic king of Italy, for restoring peace,
prosperity, and the traditional culture of eloquence.1 Although Ennodius
rhetoric should not be taken at face value, it reveals important things about
his intellectual world. For Ennodius and his peers, eloquentia signified Roman
civility and refinement, and an ability of their ruler to share their values gave
them hope that their social and cultural milieu would remain the same.
Literary sources of the time project an image of continuity, intentionally
cultivated by late 5th- and 6th-century writers but also grounded to a certain
degree in their experiences. While the economy and society of Italy continued to change under Ostrogothic rulers, the cultural hierarchies of the late
Roman Empire appear to have remained the same and intellectual pursuits
of the educated elite developed along the same lines as those of their earlier
counterparts. The senatorial aristocracy retained its position of influence, service to Ostrogothic kings continued to provide opportunities similar to those
open under late Roman emperors, and traditional education was still valued
as a necessary prerequisite for a career in the royal administration or in the
church.2
The peaceful decades of Ostrogothic rule in Italy, and especially the long
reign of Theoderic (493526), witnessed an intense literary activity. This chapter will focus on several aspects of the intellectual culture and literary practices
* I thank Shane Bjornlie, Kristina Sessa, and Emily Albu and her students for their helpful comments and suggestions.
1 Ennodius, Panegyricus, especially 746, with a detailed commentary by Rota on pp. 4005.
Compare Anonymus Valesianus, 12.5960; Procopius, History of the Wars, 5.1.269. On the
ideology of restoration see, most recently, Arnold, Theoderic and the Imperial Restoration;
also Heydemanns chapter in this volume.
2 On Ostrogothic Italy and its culture see Moorhead, Theoderic; Moorhead, Ostrogothic Italy;
Humphries, Italy, AD 425605; Rich, Education and Culture; Momigliano, Cassiodorus;
Polara, Letteratura; Hen, Roman Barbarians, pp. 2758; Everett, Literacy, pp. 1953.
Intellectual Culture And Literary Practices
317
of the Roman elite in Ostrogothic Italy. I will begin by discussing the traditional
education of this group and then turn to a survey of their intellectual interests
and literary pursuits. Next I will address the philosophical culture of the period,
and finally the ways in which the intellectuals of Ostrogothic Italy negotiated
the balance between antique literary culture and Christian learning.
Education
The traditional Roman system of the liberal arts continued to function in
Ostrogothic Italy. Ultimately going back to the ideals and practices of the classical Greek paideia adopted by the Roman world centuries earlier, late antique
education became increasingly focused on developing literary knowledge and
rhetorical skills. Available in its full extent only to members of the elite, secular
education continued to provide Christian aristocratic families with a shared
culture, sense of identity, and access to power.3
After learning the basics at home, children would usually begin their studies with a grammarian who taught them further reading and writing skills,
correct pronunciation, and the beginnings of rhetorical composition. When
students moved on to a rhetors school, they would continue reading and interpreting classical Latin texts. The auctores traditionally included Virgil (most
often cited by 6th-century writers), Silius Italicus, Terence, and Ovid. Students
also practised rhetorical exercises and gradually progressed to composing their
own orations.4
Two men, a secular statesman and a cleric, both schooled in rhetoric,
emphasized the importance of such studies for the next generation of young
Romans. Cassiodorus, who for several decades served in the Ostrogothic
administration, praised grammar in a letter he drafted on behalf of King
Athalaric. The letter, addressed to the Roman senate, argued for increasing
the salaries of the teachers of grammar and rhetoric. The school of grammar
has primacy, Cassiodorus wrote, it is the fairest foundation of learning, the
3 For broad surveys of classical and late antique education see Marrou, History of Education in
Antiquity; Rich, Education and Culture; and, most recently, Cameron Education and Literary
Culture; Browning, Education in the Roman Empire; Fontaine, Education and Learning,
and Watts, Education. On education and power see especially Brown, Power and Persuasion;
Heather, Literacy and Power; Everett, Literacy. On the adaptation of secular knowledge by
Christians see also Rappe, New Math; Chin, Grammar and Christianity.
4 Watts, Education, pp. 46970; Rich, Education and Culture, pp. 2331 and 40, n. 161.
318
Lozovsky
glorious mother of eloquence.5 Developing his argument further, he pointed

out that such instruction had a deeper moral and practical dimension because
it elevated the mind and imparted traditional wisdom: Grammar is the mistress of words, the embellisher of the human race; through the practice of the
noble reading of the ancient authors, she helps us, we know, by her counsels.6
Finally, according to Cassiodorus, this learning defined the Romans as a civilized nation. An exclusive mark of civility, which set the Romans apart from
barbarians, rhetoric is found in sole obedience to the lords of the Romans.7
Ennodius, another highly educated Roman who pursued a career in the
church, also spoke highly of grammar and rhetoric as the subjects that formed
the necessary foundation of liberal studies and fostered Roman morals and
Christian virtues. In a short tract known as Paraenesis didascalica, Ennodius
advised two young men, Ambrosius and Beatus, exhorting them to follow
the path of faith and virtue. At the beginning of this path Ennodius placed
Grammar and Rhetoric, calling the former the nursemaid and the latter the
mother of the liberal arts: their task was to nurture young souls, preparing
them for higher knowledge and directing them toward a virtuous life.8
Teachers of grammar and rhetoric enjoyed respect and social prestige.
Ennodius highly praised Deuterius who taught grammar and rhetoric in Milan
at the time when Ennodius was deacon there (ca. 496513). In one of his rhetorical compositions, Ennodius described the occupation of the venerabilis
magister as the sign of liberty, the testimony to good blood, sharpening the
minds, forging the senses. In another, he hailed the grammarian as the glory
of Italy and the guardian of empire.9
5 Cassiodorus, Variae 9.21.3, trans. Barnish, p. 122: Prima enim grammaticorum schola est fundamentum pulcherrimum litterarum, mater gloriosa facundiae...
6 Ibid., 9.21.4, trans. Barnish, p. 122: Grammatica magistra verborum, ornatrix humani
generis, quae per exercitationem pulcherrimae lectionis antiquorum nos cognoscitur iuuare
consiliis.
7 Ibid.: sola reperitur eloquentia, quae Romanorum dominis obsecundat.
8 Ennodius, Opusc. 6.11, p. 313 (Grammar): istae tamen prae foribus quasi nutricem ceterarum
anteponunt grammaticam. Rhetoric: ibid., 17, p. 314: poetica, iuris peritia, dialectica, arithmetica, cum me utantur quasi genetrice, me tamen adserente sunt pretio; Relihan, Ancient
Menippean Satire, pp. 16475 (trans. on pp. 21119); Kennell, Ennodius, pp. 1634; Everett,
Literacy, pp. 234; Marconi, Istruzione laica.
9 Ennodius, Opusc. 85 (Dict. 9), p. 113: venerabilis magister, libertatis index, boni testimonium
sanguinis, ingeniorum lima, fabricator sensuum; Opusc. 208 (Carm. 2.90), p. 168: imperii custos; Opusc. 213 (Carm. 1.2), p. 170: decus Italiae. On grammarians in late antiquity see Kaster,
Guardians of Language, especially pp. 30; 2679; Chin, Grammar and Christianity.
319
The fact that late antique education and culture were strongly oriented
towards rhetoric and literature, which has often been emphasized by modern
scholars, does not mean that other areas remained entirely neglected.10 Rather,
literary knowledge served as a framework and foundation for learning about
other subjects, both within and beyond the scope of the liberal arts. Thus
Ennodius listed not only poetry, but also law, dialectic, and arithmetic among
the disciplines nurtured by Rhetoric.11 In fact students would begin picking up
information about a variety of things in the course of their studies with a grammarian or rhetor while reading and interpreting the auctores of the school
curriculum. An understanding of Virgil, for instance, would require not only
proficiency in Latin grammar and appreciation of the texts literary qualities,
but also some knowledge of Roman history, geography, and natural sciences.
Virgilian commentaries, such as those attributed to Servius, contained explanations that went beyond purely literary properties of the text.12
Those who so wished could continue their education, pursuing studies
of philosophy, law, or medicine. Under Theoderic, teachers of the latter two
disciplines received salaries from the state, along with teachers of grammar
and rhetoric.13 Although no direct evidence about education in law and medicine survives from Ostrogothic Italy, sources testify to the traditional importance of those professions. For instance, compiling a document such as the
so-called Edictum Theoderici, which most modern scholars have attributed to
Ostrogothic Italy, would have required a participation of experienced jurists
trained in the Roman legal tradition. The same would be necessary for drawing up other edicts issued by Ostrogothic kings, which are mentioned by
Cassiodorus.14
Medicine and its practitioners must also have been in demand and commanded respect. In a formula letter for the appointment of the supervising
physician of the royal household (comes archiatrorum), Cassiodorus declared
10 Rich, Education and Culture, pp. 458 notes decline but also emphasizes the importance
of encyclopedic erudition, pp. 413.
11 Ennodius, Opusc. 6.17, p. 314.
12 Geography provides a good example, see Gautier Dalch, Lenseignement de la gographie dans lantiquit tardive.
13 As stated in Justinians Pragmatic Sanction of 554: Corpus iuris civilis, Novellae, Appendix
7.22; Rich, Education and Culture, p. 140; Vitiello, Nourished at the Breast of Rome,
p. 403.
14 The most recent treatment is Lafferty, Law and Society: for dating, see pp. 2246; for
Cassiodorus, pp. 301; also Laffertys chapter in this volume.
320
Lozovsky
medicine to be among the most useful arts.15 Although he did not describe the
course of medical training, he insisted that even after its completion doctors
should continue to study, turning to the comes archiatrorum as their magister,
reading books, and taking delight in ancient wisdom, for to no one is diligent reading more appropriate than to him who deals with human health.16 In
his Institutions, a work that was completed in the post-Ostrogothic period but
included earlier materials, Cassiodorus continued this line of thought, recommending that the monks of Vivarium study the Herbal of Dioscorides, as well
as Latin translations of Hippocrates and Galen and other medical works.17
A number of Greek and Latin medical texts, some now surviving in fragments in palimpsests and later manuscripts, appear to have been circulating
at Ravenna in the late 5th6th century. Among those texts were, for instance,
a Latin translation of Hippocrates Aphorisms, brief recommendations on
treatment of diseases and diet composed by the famous Greek physician who
lived in the 5th century BC, Latin commentaries to Galen and Hippocrates,
and other treatises on medicine and pharmacology.18 This evidence suggests
that Ostrogothic Ravenna was an important centre of medical studies, where
active copying and possibly translating and commenting of Greek texts
took place.19
15 Cassiodorus, Variae 6.19.1: Inter utillimas artes, quas ad sustentandam humanae fragilitatis indigentiam diuina tribuerunt, nulla praestare uidetur aliquid simile quam potest
auxiliatrix medicina conferre; Cracco Ruggini, Cassiodorus and the Practical Sciences.
16 Cassiodorus, Variae 6.19.4: habeant itaque medici pro incolumitate omnium et post
scholas magistrum, vacent libris, delectentur antiquis: nullus iustius assidue legit quam
qui de humana salute tractaverit.
17 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.31.2. On its date see Vessey, Introduction, in Cassiodorus,
Institutions, pp. 236. Courcelle, Late Latin Writers, pp. 4039, discussed the Latin translations and proposed identifications of the Vivarium manuscripts. For a more cautious
approach see Cavallo, La cultura scritta a Ravenna.
18 For a detailed discussion of manuscript evidence see Cavallo, La cultura scritta a
Ravenna, especially pp. 945 on medicine, and idem, La cultura a Ravenna; also Cracco
Ruggini, Cassiodorus and the Practical Sciences, p. 28.
19 The tradition continued in early medieval Ravenna, see Palmieri, Nouvelles remarques
sur les commentaires Galen; Mazzini and Palmieri, Lcole mdicale Ravenne;
Everett, The Alphabet of Galen, pp. 216.
321
Intellectual Life: Centres, Careers, Interests
Cities of Ostrogothic Italy such as Ravenna, Rome, and Milan remained important centres of education, culture, and intellectual life.20 It was there at the
royal court, in schools led by famous teachers, and in circles formed around
influential people that young men advanced their careers, further pursued
their intellectual interests, and made important connections.
Ravenna, Theoderics fast-growing capital, was a centre of royal administration and vibrant culture. Like the great emperors of the past, Theoderic pursued an extensive programme of building and renovation throughout Italy,
but Ravenna and Rome especially benefited from his attention.21 Theoderic
and his family appear to have shared the education and culture of their aristocratic Roman subjects. Theoderic could hardly have been an illiteratus, as the
Anonymus Valesianus claimed. During the decade that he spent as a young hostage at the imperial court in Constantinople (where he was sent when he was
eight) he must have received an appropriate education, even if Cassiodorus
and Ennodius exaggerated the depth of his learning and extent of his intellectual interests.22 According to Cassiodorus, Theoderics daughter Amalasuentha
could deliver skilful orations in Greek, Latin, and Gothic: she surpasses all in
their own languages, and is equally wonderful in each.23 Theoderics nephew
Theodahad was reportedly interested in philosophy.24 Amalasuentha also took
care of her sons classical literary education, provoking strong objections from
her Gothic advisors. As Procopius reported, the Gothic notables reproached
Amalasuentha for teaching Athalaric letters instead of training him in arms.
They reminded Amalasuentha that her father Theoderic would never allow
any Goths to send their children to school and that he had become a great
king even though he had never heard of letters. Thus they insisted that the
young prince be reared more in keeping with the customs of the barbarians.
20 The economic and social situation in late antique cities has been much debated, see
Marazzis chapter in this volume. On culture see Rich, Education and Culture, pp. 2431;
Liebeshuetz, Decline and Fall, pp. 31841; and Deliyannis in this volume.
21 Johnson, Toward a History; Cavallo, La cultura a Ravenna; Hen, Roman Barbarians,
pp. 357; Deliyannis, Ravenna, pp. 106200; also Deliyannis in this volume.
22 Anonymus Valesianus 12.61 and 14.79; Cassiodorus, Variae 9.24, p. 377; Ennodius,
Panegyricus 3; Rich, Education and Culture, pp. 578; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 1045;
Hen, Roman Barbarians, pp. 379; Vitiello, Il principe, especially pp. 2244; idem,
Nourished at the Breast of Rome.
23 Cassiodorus, Variae 11.1.6, trans. p. 146.
24 Vitiello, Theodahad, pp. 2431.
322
Lozovsky
Although Procopius depiction of Theoderic does not agree with what we know
about that kings upbringing and policies, this story reflects the different ideas
that Romans and Goths held about proper education and culture, as perceived
by the eastern Roman historian.25
In addition to stories about Theoderic and his family, other surviving bits
of evidence show that some Gothic scholars adopted Roman learning and
shared Roman intellectual interests. A man with a Gothic name was responsible for producing a number of Latin manuscripts. A subscription preserved
in a codex of Orosius History Against the Pagans states that the text had been
copied in the scriptorium of Viliaric. Paleographers have dated this codex, as
well as some others coming from the same scriptorium, to the first decades of
the 6th century.26 An anonymous 8th-century compiler of a geographical treatise, the so-called Ravenna Cosmographer, mentions among his sources three
philosophers of the Goths, Athanarid, Heldebald, and Marcomir, who had
written accounts of some lands and peoples in Europe. Modern studies locate
all three scholars at Theoderics court in Ravenna.27 Latin and Gothic sermons
and commentaries preserved in palimpsests and de luxe codices, which have
been attributed to Ostrogothic Italy, may have been sponsored by the royal
court. Theoderic, an Arian Christian who devoted special efforts to building
splendid Arian churches in Ravenna, would have supported copying texts that
promoted Arian Christianity and preserved the Gothic language.28
Theoderics Ravenna attracted educated and ambitious Romans like
Cassiodorus whose careers were tied to the Ostrogothic government. Flavius
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus (ca. 485ca. 585), a native of Calabria, belonged
to a distinguished, if not particularly old, provincial aristocratic family that
rose to prominence during the 5th century. His father, a provincial governor,
served as the praetorian prefect under Theoderic (ca. 50007), and Cassiodorus
began his career as a consiliarius to his father, continuing his education while
assisting his father with correspondence and legal cases. Cassiodorus rose
in Theoderics administration from quaestor to consul (514) to magister
25 Procopius, History of the Wars 5.2.620; Vitiello, Il Principe, 4044; idem, Nourished at the
Breast of Rome; idem, Theodahad, especially p. 22.
26 Florence, Bibliotheca Laurenziana 65.1, fol. 41v: Confectus codex in statione magistri
Viliaric antiquarii; Cavallo. La cultura scritta, pp. 845.
27
Anonymus of Ravenna, Cosmographia 4.13: ...Attanaridus et Eldevaldus <at>que
Marcomirus Gothorum phylosophi... The most detailed study of these Gothic sources,
including bibliography and critique of the opposing views, is still Staab, Ostrogothic
Geographers.
28 Hen, Roman Barbarians, pp. 557; also Cohen in this volume.
323
officiorum. After Theoderics death in 526, Cassiodorus remained loyal to the

Ostrogoths, serving Theoderics successors as praetorian prefect.
As a statesman Cassiodorus was one of those Romans who not only served
in the royal administration, but also effectively created and maintained the
imperial image of the ruling family. Employing such a traditional literary
vehicle for imperial ideology as panegyric, Cassiodorus delivered praises to
Eutharic, Theoderics heir, and to Witigis and Matasuentha on the occasion
of their marriage.29 He also composed two works of history, the Chronicle
and the Gothic History, of which only the former survived intact. In both
works Cassiodorus firmly placed the Goths within the Roman tradition. The
Chronicle listed the great world rulers from Assyrian kings to the Roman consuls to the Gothic kings. Cassiodorus carefully shaped his brief chronological
entries to include the special contributions of the Goths and assert the legitimacy of Theoderic and his successors.30 In the lost Gothic History Cassiodorus
made a Roman history from Gothic origins, as he had Athalaric pronounce
in the Variae.31
The Variae, a collection of letters and other official documents that
Cassiodorus put together and edited after he retired from service (in 5378 or
later, in the 540s) are a legacy of his administrative career. The Variae covered
almost three decades in the life of the Ostrogothic kingdom, and as our main
source for all sides of life from economics, politics, and ideology to the character of Theoderic and his family, Cassiodorus collection has received close
scholarly attention and many different interpretations.32 For the purpose of
this chapter, however, it is most important to point out that the Variae provide
us with an exceptionally rich picture of Cassiodorus intellectual preoccupations and literary style.
No longer a statesman at the time when he compiled the Variae, Cassiodorus
was still very intent on presenting the Amals as legitimate successors of the
Roman emperors of the past, which would also justify the activities of those
29 For surviving fragments see MGH AA 12, pp. 46572; ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 336.
30 ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 3743.
31 Cassiodorus, Variae 9.25.5, trans. p. 128 (modified by me): Originem Gothicam historiam fecit esse Romanam...Cassiodorus history of the Goths served as the main source
for Jordanes Getica, a work whose level of dependence on Cassiodorus has long been
debated, see, for instance, Momigliano, Cassiodorus; ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 4354;
Heather, Historical Culture of Ostrogothic Italy; and Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes
and the History of the Goths.
32 For recent re-evaluations of Cassiodorus and his Variae, with surveys of contrasting scholarly opinions, see Giardina, Cassiodoro politico and Bjornlie, Politics. For a classical treatment see Momigliano, Cassiodorus.
324
Lozovsky
Romans who like himself had loyally served Ostrogothic kings. In the context
of Justinians successful wars of conquest, those goals must have been directly
connected to practical questions of survival and access to power in a post-Ostrogothic Italy.33
Thus Cassiodorus carefully crafted the image of Theoderic, not only as a
wise imperial ruler who observed Roman laws and civilized customs, but
also as a philosopher-king who was interested in literature, natural philosophy, and practical sciences.34 These were subjects that apparently interested
Cassiodorus himself: in many digressions throughout the Variae Cassiodorus
showcased his erudition, discussing natural phenomena and animals, describing various locations in Italy, and talking about the origins of the liberal arts.35
This erudition as well as knowledge of classical literature, history, and mythology resulted from the education he had received. So did Cassiodorus style:
repetitive, rhythmic, full of classical quotations and rhetorical figures. Common
to late antique writings this ornate style responded to literary tastes and expectations of the contemporary learned audiences.36
Magnus Felix Ennodius (ca. 473521) pursued an ecclesiastical career, but
his intellectual and literary interests were similar to those of Cassiodorus.
Born in Provence and educated in Italy, he entered the clergy at Pavia; he then
became a deacon in Milan and was later consecrated as bishop of Pavia, the
city where he died in 521. According to the current scholarly consensus, most
of Ennodiuss works that survive (including an extensive collection of letters,
a panegyric to Theoderic, a vita of Ennodius patron, bishop Epiphanius, and
some verses of a very secular nature) were written during the period of his
deaconate at Milan.37
Unlike Cassiodorus, Ennodius never held secular office, but he also belonged
to the number of educated Catholic Romans who promoted the imperial
image of the Arian king. In 507, Ennodius produced a panegyric in honour of
Theoderic, composed according to the established conventions of the genre.
Scholars have not yet reached an agreement about the audience, aims, and
method of delivery of this long rhetorical composition. Full of verbal flourishes
and the usual topoi, the panegyric hailed Theoderic as an invincible general
33 On various interpretations of Cassiodorus goals, see Barnish, Introduction, p. xv;
ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 55102; Gillett, Purposes of Cassiodorus Variae; Bjornlie,
Politics.
34 Cassiodorus, Variae 9.24.8; Vitiello, Il Principe, pp. 2835.
35 Rich, Education and Culture, pp. 412; ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 8892.
36 Roberts, Jeweled Style; Kennell, Ennodius.
37 Kennell, Ennodius; Schrder, Bildung und Briefe; Marconi, Ennodio.
325
and enlightened ruler. According to Ennodius, Theoderic had triumphed not

only over barbarian hosts but over nature itself, and he restored the empire
to its former splendour, recalling the glorious traditions of the Roman past.
Quoting Virgil and Lucan, Ennodius compared Theoderic to Aeneas, Alexander
the Great, the victorious generals of the Punic Wars, and Cato the Younger.38
Ennodius letters show him busy establishing and maintaining an extensive
communication network, which included a vast number of correspondents
in Italy and in his native Provence. Acting as a patron for younger men, he
helped them with their rhetorical exercises, advised them on further studies,
and provided them with letters of recommendation when they left to pursue
their secular and clerical careers elsewhere. Ennodius correspondence with
Roman aristocrats and bishops shows that literary interests and intellectual
communications in Ostrogothic Italy continued to facilitate social networking
in the same way as in earlier centuries.39
While Ravenna and Milan were important centres of learning and intellectual life, Rome still appears to have been the ultimate destination for young
people who wished to continue their studies and to join the most refined social
and cultural circles. For Cassiodorus, Rome was the bountiful mother of eloquence...the largest temple of all virtues, and Ennodius praised Rome as
the original seat of learning and the city friendly to liberal studies.40 In his
Paraenesis didascalica, Ennodius advised his young protgs Ambrosius and
Beatus on how to pursue their studies and join the best society in Rome. As
examples for the young men, Ennodius named some acknowledged masters
of eloquence and learning, men and women who belonged to the most prominent aristocratic families. Included in this list were Symmachus (to whom the
tract was dedicated and whose patronage Ennodius himself wished to secure)
38 Ennodius, Panegyricus 7 (mastery of nature), 11 (education and civility), 17 (Punic Wars),

19 (victory over Bulgarians), 30 (Cato, restoration of Rome), 63 (Roman empire returned
to its old boundaries), 78 (Alexander). See also the introductions in Rohr, Der TheoderichPanegyricus and Rota, Panegirico; Kennell, Ennodius, p. 124; Hen, Roman Barbarians,
pp. 523. On late antique panegyrics see MacCormack, Latin Prose Panegyrics; eadem,
Art and Ceremony; Whitby, Propaganda of Power.
39 Kennell, Ennodius, pp. 12867; Schrder, Bildung und Briefe, pp. 11134; Marconi, Ennodio;
Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 1056.
40 Cassiodorus, Variae 4.6.3: illa eloquentiae fecunda mater, illa uirtutum omnium latissimum templum. Ennodius, Ep. 6.15, p. 222: natalem scientiae sedem id., Ep. 6.23,
p. 225: urbem amicam liberalibus studiis. For disussion and more examples see Rich,
Education and Culture, especially p. 26, n. 60; Arnold, Theoderic, especially p. 14.
326
Lozovsky
and his son-in-law Boethius, Faustus Niger and his son Avienus, and also
Barbara and Stephania, Faustus sisters.41
Symmachus, as well as Boethius, his son-in-law, appear to have been among
those aristocratic intellectuals who preferred not to associate too closely with
the Ostrogothic court.42 A member of an old senatorial family, Quintus Aurelius
Memmius Symmachus had a distinguished political career: son of a consul,
he himself held that position together with Odovacer in 485. Cassiodorus portrayed him as an ideal Roman aristocrat endowed with both traditional Roman
and Christian virtues: Symmachus, patricius and consul ordinarius, a man of
philosophy, was the newest imitator of the ancient Cato and surpassed the virtues of the ancients by the most holy piety.43
Most learned in both languages, that is in Latin and Greek,44 Symmachus
was involved in many intellectual enterprises, from rhetoric to philosophy.
Thus he was an authority and a valuable patron for Priscian, who dedicated
to him three works on Latin rhetoric. Boethius, who grew up in Symmachus
household and later married his daughter, turned to Symmachus for advice:
in his preface to De institutione arithmetica, Boethius asked Symmachus to
evaluate the quality of his translation and he dedicated one of his opuscula
sacra to Symmachus, again asking for his expert opinion. Ennodius also sent
Symmachus copies of his writings.45
Faustus Niger, whom Ennodius recommended as an example for the
young Ambrosius and Beatus, also belonged to a distinguished family. Son of
a consul and a former consul himself, Faustus occupied important positions
in Ostrogothic administration. He was related to Ennodius by marriage and
his son Avienus was a one-time student of Ennodius. Ennodius cultivated
this important connection in many letters addressed to Faustus, in which he
asked for advice and recommended some of his young protgs. According to
Ennodius, Faustus composed poetry and owned many Latin and Greek books
on various subjects.46
41 Ennodius, Opusc. 6.2025, pp. 31415.
42 Matthews, Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, pp. 2631; Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 516;
Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 15861.
43 Ordo generis Cassiodorum, p. 260: Symmachus patricius et consul ordinarius, vir philosophus, qui antiqui Catonis fuit novellus imitator, sed virtutes veterum sanctissima religione transcendit. Cf. Boethius, Consolatio Prosa 1.4.40.
44 Boethius, De institutione arithmetica, Praef., p. 4: utrarum peritissimus litterarum.
45 Boethius, De institutione arithmetica, Praef., p. 5; Boethius, De Trinitate, dedication;
Martindale, Prosopography, pp. 10456, Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 616.
46 Poetry: Ennodius, Opusc. 10 (Ep. 1.6), p. 1516; books: id., Opusc. 70 (Carm. 2.3), p. 80;
Martindale, Prosopography, pp. 4545; Everett, Literacy, p. 27.
327
Like their predecessors in earlier centuries, educated aristocrats such as

Faustus and Symmachus cultivated an interest in literature and history. The
Roman past and its traditions always held a great attraction for conservative
intellectuals, who interpreted Roman history according to their political and
cultural goals. According to Cassiodorus, Symmachus composed a Roman history (no longer extant) in seven books in imitation of his ancestors.47 A vir clarissimus, Rusticius Helpidius Domnulus (who may have been one of Ennodius
correspondents) edited a collection of historical exempla, probably based
on the 4th-century work of Valerius Maximus. He also emended the text of
Pomponius Melas 1st-century geographical treatise.48 A certain master Felix,
orator collaborated with Vettius Agorius Basilius Mavortius (consul 527) on
emending the text of Horaces Epodes.49
In the traditions of encyclopaedic learning, people of the time displayed
their broad interests by editing and correcting texts on various subjects.50 It
appears that the editor of Horace, named in another subscription as Securus
Melior Felix, a rhetor of the city of Rome, also emended the manuscript of
Martianus Capella. Martianus 5th-century treatise De nuptiis Philologiae et
Mercurii, written in a combination of prose and verse, discussed the liberal arts
in the framework of Neoplatonic philosophy, mythology, and allegory.51 One
more subscription states that Symmachus, working at Ravenna together with
a vir clarissimus Macrobius Plotinus Eudoxus, corrected the text of Macrobius
commentary on Ciceros Dream of Scipio, which discussed the nature of the
cosmos in the spirit of Neoplatonic and Stoic ideas.52 The copying of those
Neoplatonic texts indicates an existence of a certain learned audience interested in the complexities presented by the authors language and the matters
they discussed.53
47 Cassiodorus, Ordo generis Cassiodorum: parentesque suos imitatus historiam quoque
Romanam septem libris edidit. See also Heather, Historical Culture; Matthews, Anicius
Manlius Severinus Boethius, especially pp. 256.
48 Martindale, Prosopography, pp. 3745; Jahn, ber die Subscriptionen, pp. 3457;
Billanovich, Dall antica Ravenna, pp. 3212; idem, Ancora dall antica Ravenna, pp. 110
11; Kirkby, Scholar and His Public, p. 52; Heather, Historical Culture, p. 320.
49 Jahn, ber die Subscriptionen, p. 353.
50 See, however, Cameron, Last Pagans of Rome, pp. 42197, strongly objecting to overinterpretations of the evidence of subscriptions.
51 Jahn, ber die Subscriptionen, p. 351; Cameron, Martianus and His First Editor; Kaster,
Guardians of Language, p. 269.
52 Jahn, ber die Subscriptionen, pp. 3478; Chadwick, Boethius, p. 7; Hen, Roman
Barbarians, pp. 445.
53 The influence of Neoplatonic philosophy on the intellectual elite will be discussed below.
328
Lozovsky
Encyclopaedic interests of the learned circles included theology, canon law,

and calendric computation, the areas to which Dionysius Exiguus (ca. 470
544) made a lasting contribution. A monk who worked in Rome between ca.
500 and ca. 540, described by Cassiodorus as a Scythian by birth but thorougly
Roman in his manner of life, Dionysius probably came from Scythia Minor, a
region roughly corresponding to todays Dobruja. His fluency in both Latin and
Greek, especially noted by Cassiodorus, may have resulted from an education
acquired in one of the monasteries there.54
The meagre information that we have about Dionysius suggests that he
shared an educational background and intellectual interests with a number of
Scythian monks known at that time for their orthodoxy and learning as well as
for their involvement in Christological controversies. Dionysius also associated
with other influential and learned people in Italy, including Roman bishops
such as Hormisdas, at whose invitation he compiled his collection of canonistic materials; Eugippius to whom he dedicated his translation of Gregory of
Nyssas De opificio hominis; and the unnamed noble woman, the dedicatee of
his translation of the Vita Pachomii, identified by scholars as one of the daughters of Boethius father-in-law Symmachus, Galla or Proba.55
Mainly working as a translator, Dionysius left behind a large corpus of work
and two of his intellectual enterprises were to become particularly influential
in the following centuries. Dionysius produced the first comprehensive edition
of canonistic materials, translating the decrees of church councils and a selection of papal decrees. The Collectio Dionysiana, as it was known in the medieval
West, was included in all subsequent collections and became the foundation
of canon law.56 Dionysius also addressed the need for a Christian calendar, an
important area of knowledge explored by many scholars before and after him.
He compiled a table for calculating the date of Easter, choosing to number the
years at the Birth of Christ. Dionysius Incarnation Era was eventually adopted
in the West, although his computations were often challenged in the following
centuries.57
54 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.23.24, trans. pp. 1546, at 1.23.2: Dionisius monachus,
Scytha natione sed moribus omnino Romanus; Richter, Dionysius Exiguus; Dura,
Denys Exiguus; Amory, People and Identity, pp. 12731; Duta, Des prcisions; Gometz,
Eugippius, pp. 22531.
55 Dura, Denys Exiguus, pp. 2845; De Marini Avonzo, Secular and Clerical Culture;
Gometz, Eugippius, p. 227; Troncarelli, Afterword, p. 531, especially n. 15; Fiery, Collectio
Dionysiana.
56 For a comprehensive introduction to the subject see the website Carolingian Canon Law
at http://ccl.rch.uky.edu.
57 Moschammer, Easter Computus; Verbist, Duelling With the Past.
329
Cassiodorus praise of Dionysius highlights once again the intellectual and

aesthetic values of the time: profound learning was especially admired when
coupled with eloquent style fostered by classical education.58 Classical literature formed the very fabric of cultural life: it supplied models and sources of
inspiration, and it shaped literary tastes and intellectual preoccupations of
educated people, from copying classical texts to translating documents and
composing poetry in traditional forms such as love elegies and biting epigrams. Ennodius epigrams, for instance, many of them very irreverent, let us
appreciate the range of literary interests displayed by this learned cleric who
was in the habit of advising young men on Christian virtues. In one epigram
addressed to Boethius Ennodius wrote:
In your hands the substance of a rigid sword wilts,
Even steel dissolves like flowing water.
The unwarlike right hand of Boethius renders swords soft...59
Ennodius employed classical imagery and vocabulary rich with sexual overtones seemingly to make fun of the philosopher and his amorous pursuits.
It is difficult, however, to understand the meaning and purpose of this piece
without knowing about the context of its composition or the intended audience; modern scholars have interpreted it in very different ways: as a vicious
attack or a playful joke.60 Classical erotic themes and imagery also appeared in
Ennodius Epithalamium, in which the poet advised his friend Maximus to stop
resisting nature and get married.61
The elegies written by Maximian, a poet about whom we know very little
but who according to the prevalent scholarly opinion was a younger contemporary of Ennodius and Boethius, also treated themes traditional for this
classical genre: pursuit of love, abandonment of the poet by his beloved, the
indignities of old age. While paying tribute to classical poetic conventions,
Maximians work, with its baroque rhetorical style, reflected late antique
58 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.23.2.
59 Ennodius, Opusc. 339 (Carm. 2.132), p. 249, trans. in Shanzer, Ennodius, Boethius, p. 183:
Languescit rigidi tecum substantia ferri,
Solvitur atque chalybs more fluentis aquae.
Emollit gladios inbellis dextra Boeti...
60 An attack: Obertello, Severino Boezio, p. 36; Bartlett, Dating of Ennodius Writings,
pp. 612; joke: Shanzer, Ennodius, Boethius. On poets of Ostrogothic Italy see also Raby,
History of Secular Latin Poetry, pp. 11727.
61 Discussed and translated into French in Maximien, lgies, pp. 10718.
330
Lozovsky
aesthetic tastes.62 In the third elegy of Maximians corpus, the poet seeks to
gain the love of a young woman and turns to Boethius for advice. Maximians
elegy presented the philosopher as an acknowledged and rather cynical expert
in love affairs while making allusions to Boethius philosophical ideas.63
Ennodius epigrams and Maximians elegies, with their elements of parody
and play, reveal a lighter side of 6th-century intellectual culture, which still
had a taste for erotic motifs and obscenity. The case of Ennodius, who most
likely wrote his obscene epigrams while occupying an ecclesiastical office in
Milan, is particularly intriguing.64

The Love of Wisdom
The encyclopaedic variety of studies pursued by learned people in Ostrogothic

Italy fits under the umbrella of philosophy as it was understood in Neoplatonic
thought. The philosophical tradition called Neoplatonic by modern scholars went back to the teachings of Plato, but its founders such as Plotinus (ca.
20570) and his pupil Porphyry (ca. 232ca. 303) departed from Plato in many
respects, adding interpretations based on Aristotle. One of their main doctrines
taught that the One, an ineffable and unknowable first principle of reality, was
the source from which all classes of beings emanated and the ultimate destination to which they returned in the end. Philosophy, which started by considering material things and gradually progressed to contemplating things divine,
was a way for a human soul to return to the One. Many late antique intellectuals, including Christians, were fascinated by this school of thought. Augustine
experienced its attraction as a young man, and he devoted much attention to
discussing Neoplatonic teachings. Secular writers of the 5th century, such as
Macrobius and Martianus Capella, whose work was studied by Symmachus
and other intellectuals in 6th-century Italy, also popularized Neoplatonic ideas
about divinity, cosmic harmony, and ways leading to knowledge.65
62 Goldlust, Introduction, in Maximien, lgies, especially. pp. 2738; cf. Roberts, Jeweled
Style.
63
Shanzer, Ennodius, Boethius, especially p. 194; Barnish, Maximian, Cassiodorus,
Boethius, especially p. 27; Wasyl, Genres Rediscovered, pp. 13945; Goldlust, Introduction;
Vitiello, Theodahad, pp. 834.
64 Shanzer, Latin Literature, Christianity, and Obscenity (especially pp. 1823 on Ennodius
and 1845 on Maximian) has argued that while obscenity was gradually disappearing
from Latin high culture, it was still tolerated in 6th-century Italy.
65 For Augustines own account of his relationship with Neoplatonic philosophy see
books 7 and 9 of his Confessions; see also Brown, Augustine of Hippo. Numerous s tudies
331
Boethius, who focused on philosophy to a stronger degree than his contemporaries in the Latin West, followed the Neoplatonic tradition in defining
philosophy as the love and zealous study of and a kind of friendship with wisdom, the highest wisdom which is the living mind and the only primaeval
reason of all things. Thus, he continued, the study of wisdom is the study
of divinity and friendship with that pure mind.66 Boethius also discussed the
division of philosophy into two branches, theoretical and practical, which ultimately went back to Aristotle and had long been adopted in classical thought.
The theoretical, or speculative, branch was in its turn divided into naturalis
(which considered the forms of bodies, their motion, and their constituent
matter), mathematica (which investigated forms apart from matter), and theologica (which discussed the divine substance that lacked matter or motion).67
Practical philosophy, also divided into three parts, considered moral issues,
from personal to political to domestic. Thus philosophy was to provide guidance not only in the intellectual but also in the practical sphere; a vir philosophicus such as Symmachus in Cassiodorus portrayal possessed wisdom and
moral perfection, while also actively participating in the affairs of the state.68
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (ca. 475/7ca. 525/6) shared moral,
political, and intellectual ideas of his circle.69 Born into a distinguished senatorial family, Boethius lost his father at a young age and was raised in the
household of Symmachus, whose daughter he later married. Like Symmachus,
he seems to have kept his distance from the king and from serious involvement in political life until 522, the year in which his sons became consuls.
During the celebration of that occasion, Boethius delivered a panegyric in
honour of Theoderic (the text has not survived) and soon after that assumed
the senior administrative post of the magister officiorum. Boethius fall from
have addressed the role of Neoplatonism in late antiquity; for recent surveys see Cameron,
Education and Literary Culture, pp. 6802; Sheppard, Philosophy.
66 Boethius, Commentary on Porphyrys Isagoge 1.3, p. 7: Est enim philosophia amor et
studium et amicitia quodammodo sapientiae, sapientiae vero non huius, quae in artibus
quibusdam et in aliqua fabrili scientia notitiaquae versatur, sed illius sapientiae, quae
nullius indigens, vivax mens et sola rerum primaeva ratio est. Est autem hic amor sapientiae intelligentis animi ab illa pura sapientia inluminatio et quodammodo ad se ipsam
retractio atque advocatio, ut videatur studium sapientiae studium divinitatis et purae
mentis illius amicitia.
67 Boethius, De trinitate 2, p. 8.
68 On the influence of Neoplatonic ideas on sixth-century bureaucratic culture see Bjornlie,
Politics, pp. 539.
69 Chadwick, Boethius, especially pp. 156; Kirkby, Scholar and His Public, pp. 579;
Moorhead, Boethius Life, especially p. 31.
332
Lozovsky
power quickly followed that brief period in office: he was arrested for the crime
of treason (the exact nature of which scholars still dispute), imprisoned, and
executed; shortly afterwards, Symmachus was executed as well.70
Although we lack direct evidence about the education of the young
Boethius, he would have received an excellent traditional schooling. Literary
allusions in his work testify to his knowledge of classical authors, and contemporaries noted his mastery of rhetoric. Ennodius listed Boethius name among
those learned men whose example his young protgs were to imitate, and
Cassiodorus considered him the most skilled orator in both languages, Latin
and Greek.71 This level of proficiency in Greek was noted: Boethius praised
Symmachus fluency in both languages, Ennodius mentioned the Greek books
owned by Faustus Niger, and Cassiodorus admired Dionysius Exiguus bilingual
fluency. At the same time, a working knowledge of Greek must not have been
unusual, as evidenced by official and personal contacts with Constantinople.72
Although it is uncertain whether Boethius had ever studied in one of the
Neoplatonic schools, his understanding of philosophy corresponded to the way
in which it was taught in Athens and Alexandria, the main centres of the time.73
In the Platonic and Pythagorean tradition practised there, mathematical disciplines were central: they led to understanding the structure of the universe
and guided the mind toward higher truths.74 In his early work De institutione
arithmetica, Boethius expressed the same view: hardly anyone has been able
to reach the highest perfection of the disciplines of philosophy unless the
nobility of such wisdom was investigated by him in a certain four-part study,
the quadrivium, that is the four arts of mathematics. Arithmetic, the first of
these disciplines to be learned, Boethius continued, holds the principal place
and position of a mother to the rest.75 Boethius treatise on arithmetic was
an expanded translation of the Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus of
Gerasa, a standard textbook in Neoplatonic schools. Boethius De institutione
musica, written ca. 510, was also based on Nicomachus and other Neoplatonic
sources. Both tracts focused on theoretical rather than practical questions:
Boethian arithmetic treated relationships between numbers while his music
70 For Boethius last years see Obertello, Severino Boezio, pp. 85138; Chadwick, Boethius,
pp. 4656; Moorhead, Boethius Life.
71 Ordo generis Cassiodorum, p. 260: Boethius....utraque lingua peritissimus orator fuit;
Chadwick, Boethius, p. 16.
72 On contacts between Ostrogothic Italy and Constantinople see, most recently, Bjornlie,
Politics.
73 Courcelle, Late Latin Writers, pp. 2737, 31617, n. 129; Obertello, Severino Boezio, pp. 269;
Chadwick, Boethius, p. 20; Marenbon, Boethius, p. 13; Moorhead, Boethius Life, p. 29.
74 Chadwick, Boethius, especially pp 201 and 6970; Moorhead, Boethius Life, pp. 228.
75 Boethius, De institutione arithmetica 1.1, trans. pp. 71 and 74.
333
studied musical tones and their relationships.76 Although Boethius may have
translated introductory texts on all four disciplines of the quadrivium, his treatises on geometry and astronomy have not survived.77
The thought of Plato and Aristotle occupied an important place in the
Neoplatonic system, and explicating their often contradictory views was a
major task for philosophers.78 Students learned from commentaries on earlier
works: thus Porphyry wrote his Isagoge, or introduction, as a beginners guide
to Aristotles Categories. Boethius approach was similar: he invested most of
his intellectual energy into traditional work with texts. Initially, he intended to
translate and comment on all the works of Plato and Aristotle in order to show
that their opinions are not contrary in just about everything, but are in agreement in many matters of the greatest importance in philosophy.79 This ambitious programme was never completed, but Boethius translated almost the
entire corpus of Aristotles logical works and wrote commentaries on the main
Aristotelian logical texts. He also wrote a series of logical treatises of his own.80
As a commentator, Boethius worked within the established tradition: rather
than voicing their own ideas, commentators were expected to explicate the
text and report various views on the work in question. What made a difference was their choices of issues to focus on and authorities to follow. Boethius
focused on logic and made Porphyry his main source. That led him, among
other things, to adopting Porphyrys approach to logic and metaphysics, the
essentially Aristotelian way of thinking in which metaphysical questions were
linked to issues of language and cognition. Boethius translations and commentaries provided the scholars of the Latin West with the vocabulary and
conceptual framework, which they used to discuss not only logic but other
areas of philosophy as well.81
76 Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 71101.

77 Cassiodorus list of authors translated by Boethius included Euclid (on geometry) and
Ptolemy (on astronomy): Variae 1.45.4. See also Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 1037. For the
geometrical treatises that circulated in the Middle Ages under the name of Boethius see
Folkerts, Importance of the Pseudo-Boethian Geometria.
78 Cf. Wildberg, Philosophy in the Age of Justinian.
79 Boethius, 2nd commentary on Aristotles On Interpretation 2.3, p. 80: contempserim
Aristotelis Platonisque sententias, in unam quodammodo revocare concordiam eosque
non ut plerique dissentire in omnibus, sed in plerisque et his in philosophia maximis
consentire demonstrem. Boethius statement is translated in full in Moorhead, Boethius
Life, pp. 256.
80 Marenbon, Boethius, p. 18.
81 Marenbon, Introduction, pp. 34; essays on logic in Marenbon, Cambridge Companion to
Boethius; Kaylor, Companion to Boethius.
334
Lozovsky
Boethius himself demonstrated the many uses of Aristotelian logic when he

applied it to theology. Of his five opuscula sacra, four were written in response
to the contemporary controversies within the church and discussed the most
complex theological issues that had been dividing Christian communities
from the 4th century on. Thus Boethius tract Against Eutyches and Nestorius,
probably the earliest of the five, was occasioned by an episode in the ongoing
Acacian schism.82 As Boethius explained, he wrote it because he was dissatisfied with the level of contemporary debate about the nature of Christ. In 512,
Boethius was present at the meeting of high clergy and Roman senators when
a letter from eastern bishops to pope Symmachus was read. Since no one could
provide a good explanation of the Christological issues involved, Boethius
addressed them himself. Relying on Augustine as his theological authority, he
demonstrated consistently that the heretical views of the eastern bishops contained contradictions in logic.83
This rigorous logical approach to theology, similar to that practised by Greek
theologians from the 5th century on, differed from the usual patristic methods.
Explaining his procedure to John the Deacon, Boethius wrote: If these things
are right and in accordance with the Faith, I pray you confirm me; or if you are
in any point of another opinion, examine carefully what has been said, and if
possible, reconcile faith and reason.84 This formula captured the essence of a
method later adopted by medieval philosophers and theologians. It also indicated potential problems associated with this method, anticipating medieval
controversies about the roles of faith and reason in philosophical and theological inquiry.85
In his most famous and influential work, Consolation of Philosophy, which
he wrote during his imprisonment ca. 524, Boethius treated some of the same
themes that he had raised in his earlier work (philosophical knowledge, divinity, virtuous life, self-investigation), but unlike his translations and scholarly
tracts, Consolation is a work of literature as well as philosophy. It begins as
the first-person narrator, imprisoned, bemoans his fate. At that moment a
82 For the religious controversies of the late 5th and early 6th centuries and their influence
on Boethius work, see Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 2946. See also the chapters of Cohen and
Sessa in this volume. For a recent summary of the chronology of the opuscula sacra, see
Bradshaw, Opuscula sacra, pp. 1056.
83 Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 1805; Bradshaw, Opuscula sacra, especially pp. 109 and 120.
84 Boethius, Utrum pater, pp. 367, trans. p. 37: Haec si se recte et ex fide habent, ut me
instruas peto; aut si aliqua re forte diversus es, diligentius intuere quae dicta sunt et fidem
si poterit rationemque coniunge.
85 Bradshaw, Opuscula sacra, p. 125.
335
ajestic woman appears to him and he recognizes her as Philosophy, his onem
time teacher. Philosophy reproaches him for his state of despair, which to her
indicates that he had forgotten who he truly is. Having diagnosed his spiritual
illness, Philosophy offers her cure: like a patient teacher, she gradually leads
the prisoner to a deeper understanding of his own mind. She helps him return
to the realm of philosophical pursuits, discussing the nature of fortune and
happiness, the love that binds the universe together, the paths leading to God,
good and evil, divine prescience, and free will.
Drawing on various literary and philosophical traditions, Boethius created
a unique and complex text that invites multiple critical approaches, from
defining its genre to identifying its sources and understanding the nature and
purpose of its argumentation.86 Written in alternating segments of prose and
verse in the manner of a Menippean satire, Consolation is also a philosophical
dialogue, and its title, if not its contents, goes back to the classical genre of
consolatory literature.87 Reflecting literary tastes of his time, Boethius wrote
Consolation in an elaborate Latin, rich with allusions to classical poets such
as Virgil and Ovid. He also followed rhetorical principles of composition, evident in the structure of the entire work and in its constituent parts. The philosophical themes that Boethius developed in Consolation can be traced back to
multiple sources and schools of thought, including Stoic and Aristotelian, but
the Platonic worldview forms the main core. Following Neoplatonic ideas and
images, Boethius described the universe, the central place of the One or the
Good in it, and the way in which the human mind can ascend to the divine. In
the poem that occupies a central position in the ordered structure of the work,
reminiscent of Neoplatonic hymns on cosmic theology, Boethius addressed
the supreme being who had created all things, from the earth and the heavens
to the human soul, and to whom all things eventually returned: Grant to the
mind, Father, that it may rise to your holy foundations; Grant it may ring round
the source of the Good, may discover the true light.88
The Neoplatonic language and imagery of the Consolation contained nothing that would be incompatible with late antique Christian thought. Boethius
last work, however, lacks specifically Christian references or discussions, apart
86
Compare interpretations in Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 22347; Marenbon, Boethius,
pp. 96163; Relihan, Prisoners Philosophy.
87 For the sources and genre see discussion in Gruber, Kommentar zu Boethius; also
Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 2234.
88 Boethius, Consolatio 3, metre 9, trans. p. 72: Da, pater, augustam menti conscendere
sedem/ da fontem lustrare boni, da luce reperta/ in te conspicuos animi defigere uisus.
See also Gruber, Kommentar zu Boethius, pp. 2756; Chadwick, Boethius, pp. 2345.
336
Lozovsky
from several allusions to the Bible. This absence of openly Christian content
in Boethius last work appears consistent with his approach to theology in the
opuscula sacra. Four of them discussed Christian theology in the language of
logic, with very few allusions to the Bible, and only one, De fide catholica, was a
straightforward profession of faith. In the Consolation, Boethius also discussed
theological questions as a philosopher, but using poetic rather than technical
language.89 The beautiful Latin and elaborate structure of the Consolation, no
less than its intricate argumentation, have made Boethius last work very influential, especially during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.90
Neoplatonic thought also influenced Cassiodorus treatise On the Soul,
which as he noted later was to form the thirteenth book of his Variae.91 Linked
to the collection that presented the legacy of his public career, the tract
added a deeper philosophical and theological dimension to the lessons that
Cassiodorus wished to impart to his audience. As he wrote in the preface, he
composed the treatise in response to the entreaties of his friends, addressing
twelve questions they had posed about the nature of the soul.92 In his work,
Cassiodorus methodically presented the issues that had long been discussed
by Greek and Latin philosophers, from the main definitions of the soul to its
substance to the nature of human knowledge. Following the established scholarly tradition, Cassiodorus did not offer his own interpretations but turned to
Christian and secular authorities. He made a particular effort to explain their
different opinions and demonstrate the inferiority of secular teachers. While
the Neoplatonic views that Cassiodorus discussed could be found in many
authors, such as Macrobius and Calcidius, he largely relied on the interpretations of Augustine, the only author Cassiodorus mentioned by name.93
89 For recent discussions of Boethius Christianity see Chadwick, Boethius, especially

pp. 24753; Shanzer, Haec quibus uteris verbis (with a summary of earlier interpretations on p. 59); eadem, Interpreting the Consolation; Relihan, Prisoners Philosophy;
Moreschini, A Christian in Toga.
90 Marenbon, Boethius, pp. 17282; essays in Gibson, Boethius; Marenbon, Cambridge
Companion to Boethius; Kaylor, Companion to Boethius.
91 Cassiodorus, Variae, 11, Praefatio 7; Expositio psalmorum, 145.2.
92 Cassiodorus, De anima 1. On this treatise, its purpose, and links to the Variae, see Halporn,
Magni Aurelii Cassiodori senaroris Liber de anima; Vessey, Introduction, pp. 1922;
Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 194, 293305.
93 Halporn, De Anima, pp. 489; Di Marco, Scelta e utilizzazione delle fonti; DElia,
Lantropologia di Cassiodoro.
337
Classical and Christian Learning
Like their predecessors, lay and clerical aristocrats of Ostrogothic Italy continued to receive classical education, a mark of their status and power. They were
also brought up as Christians, and some learned people such as Boethius and
Cassiodorus combined their secular literary interests with a deep engagement
in theology and exegesis. Individual private libraries included works written
by fathers of the church. Thus Proba (commonly identified as a daughter of
Symmachus and sister-in-law of Boethius) had in her library the complete
writings of Augustine. When Eugippius, later abbot of Castellum Lucullanum,
compiled a collection of excerpts from 40 works of Augustine, he dedicated it
to Proba and specifically mentioned her extensive library in his preface.94
As with their predecessors, some classically educated people in 6th-century
Italy felt the tension between secular literary culture and Christian teachings,
especially when they were clerics or monks. Some radically resolved this tension, rejecting most of secular learning. Thus according to Gregory the Great,
Benedict of Nursia, who started his literary education in Rome as a young man,
abandoned the studies that in his view led to loose morals and dissolution. Later
in life, Benedict founded monastic communities guided by his Rule, which
emphasized Christian devotion, discipline, and reading of Christian texts.95
Some recognized the usefulness of secular learning and, following earlier authorities such as Augustine, sought to establish the proper place of
such studies in Christian education and scholarship.96 Eugippius turned to
Augustine for guidance and compiled, in the late 5th or early 6th century,
what appears to be the first Augustinian florilegium. Eugippius probably did
not limit his intended audience to monks but rather envisioned a broader
circle of Christian scholars.97 As in other florilegia and commentaries, which
were becoming the most popular genre of philosophical and exegetical works,
Eugippius choice of excerpts was significant. Thus when excerpting the
94 Eugippius, Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini, Epistula ad Probam virginem, p. 1. Cf.
Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.23.1. On Proba see Martindale, Prosopography, p. 907; Gometz,
Eugippius, with the letter translated and discussed on pp. 8699.
95 Gregory the Great, Dialogues 2, Prologue; for this, and for monastic education and readings see Rich, Education and Culture, pp. 50, 10922; Everett, Literacy, pp. 459; Bertelli,
Production and Distribution of Books, pp. 456.
96 For recent discussions of Augustines views on Christian education see essays in Pollmann/
Vessey, Augustine and the Disciplines.
97 The compilation has been dated to the years beetween 488 and 495 or 506 and 511, see
Gometz, Eugippius, pp. 89 and 95. For the intended audience see ibid. pp. 956 and Rich,
Education and Culture, pp. 1301.
338
Lozovsky
De doctrina christiana, in which Augustine had discussed the nature and purposes of Christian learning, Eugippius focused on passages from Book 1 (on the
truths of Scriptures) and omitted Book 4 (on Christian eloquence). Although
he retained Augustines statement about the usefulnesss of secular knowledge,
Eugippius omitted Augustines subsequent discussion of history, natural sciences, and astronomy.98 While useful for learning about exegesis, Eugippius
excerpts downplayed the role of secular disciplines, which was noted by
Cassiodorus. In his Institutions Cassiodorus recommended Eugippius works as
indispensable and described him as a man indeed not well educated in secular letters, but well read in Divine Scripture.99 Eugippius monastic foundation
in the south of Italy, Castellum Lucullanum, became an important centre of
Christian learning and diffusion of texts.100
Following the models of Augustine and Jerome, who were struggling to reconcile the rhetorical flourishes and pagan imagery emphasized by classical
learning with the humble speech (sermo humilis) of Christs teachings, 6thcentury intellectuals expressed similar misgivings, sometimes occasioned by
external circumstances. Ennodius ecclesiastical office did not prevent him
from praising literary studies, composing elaborate rhetorical periods, and producing obscene verses. Yet he, too, pondered the appropriateness of such occupations for a cleric.101 Thus Ennodius described his life-threatening illness and
subsequent recovery that led to a spiritual awakening in a short confessional
work inspired by Augustine. Recalling his earlier life, Ennodius singled out his
superfluous preoccupation with rhetoric and poetry that led him away from
true wisdom. In his sickness, as it turned out, secular learning was of no use; no
remedies prescribed by Hippocrates and Galen could help and he was healed
only through prayer before the relics of St Victor.102 That work was probably
written in 51011, but because of the uncertain chronology of Ennodius life it is
hard to tell how the experience he described influenced his subsequent years.103
Arator, who joined the clergy after a successful career in the Ostrogothic
administration, expressed similar thoughts in his letter to Parthenius when
he recalled his youthful love for secular poetry and myths, the pursuits that
98 Rich, Education and Culture, p. 130.
99 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.23.1, trans. p. 154: virum quidem non usque adeo saecularibus
litteris eruditum, sed scripturarum divinarum lectione plenissimum.
100 Rich, Education and Culture, p. 160; Barnish, Work of Cassiodorus; Gorman, Eugippius
and the Origins of the MS Traditition, especially pp. 1112.
101 For a detailed analysis of Ennodius views see Marconi, Istruzione laica.
102 Ennodius, Opusc. 438, pp. 3012; Everett, Literacy, pp. 423; Kennell, Ennodius, pp. 2330.
103 For chronology see Kennell, Ennodius, pp. 442.
339
c arried him off in the power of shallowness through an empty channel. While
admiring Parthenius eloquence and knowledge of pagan poets, Arator praised
his preference for the true bards (veros vates) such as Ambrose and Sidonius
Apollinaris and recalled his advice to turn the path of this voice toward praises
of the Lord.104 Like Christian poets of the previous century such as Sedulius
and Dracontius, who paraphrased the Scriptures in classical metre, Arator put
the Acts of the Apostles into hexameters. Describing his project in a letter to
Pope Vigilius, his patron who had suggested a public recitation of the poem,
Arator declared his intention to sing in verses the Acts which Luke related
and to disclose alternately what the letter makes known and whatever mystical sense is revealed in my heart.105 In his long poem, influenced by both the
classical and the Christian epic tradition, Arator followed the order of events
described in Acts, choosing episodes that were important to the narrative and
paying particular attention to the speeches of the main characters.106 The narrative sections, rich with digressions and classical allusions, were written in the
ornamental rhetorical style that late antique poets and their audiences found
appealing. The exegetical sections, largely devoid of literary embellishments,
focused on mystical or allegorical interpretation of episodes, names, and concepts that occurred in the text.107
Whereas Arator used classical literary techniques to develop Christian
poetic language and adapted the classical epic form to the goals of Christian
exegesis, Cassiodorus worked on placing classical learning within the framework of Christianity. This work came to fruition in the post-Ostrogothic period,
but as Cassiodorus wrote in the beginning of his Institutions, his own doubts
104 Arator, Acts of the Apostles, Epistula ad Parthenium, p. 405, trans. p. 102:
Cura mihi dudum fuerat puerilibus annis.
Versibus assiduum concelebrare melos,
Scribere quas etiam simulauit fabula partes
Et per inane fretum sub levitate rapi.

Ibid.:
...O utinam malles dixisti rectius huius
Ad Domini laudes flectere vocis iter...
105 Arator, Acts of the Apostles, Epistula ad Vigilium, p. 214, trans. p. 22:
Versibus ergo canam quos Lucas rettulit Actus,
Historiam que sequens carmina uera loquar.
Alternis reserabo modis, quod littera pandit
Et res si qua mihi mystica corde datur.
106 Green, Latin Epics, with the synopsis of Arators poem and analysis of its contents on
pp. 2746.
107 Roberts, Biblical Epic, pp. 8792; Green, Latin Epics, pp. 298321.
340
Lozovsky
about zealous and eager pursuit of secular learning went back to the years
when he still was a government official. Concerned that secular disciplines
flourished while Christian instruction was neglected, Cassiodorus wanted to
found Christian schools in Rome after the model of Alexandria and Nisibis,
which would employ learned teachers...from whom the faithful might gain
eternal salvation for their souls and the adornment of sober and pure eloquence for their speech. Together with Pope Agapetus (5356), Cassiodorus
made an effort to collect money, but the war and political instability impeded
the project.108
Cassiodorus also considered the place of secular learning in his De anima,
written after his public career came to an end. There he weighed the opinions
of secular teachers about the nature of the soul against explanations provided
by Christians, mainly by Augustine.109 In the Expositio Psalmorum, probably
written while he lived in Constantinople after 540, Cassiodorus provided comprehensive explanations of the entire Book of Psalms, which he considered
fundamental for Christian education. In this exegetical work he asserted that
all wisdom, including secular learning, had its origins in the Scriptures and
consistently pointed out the uses of liberal arts within the Psalter. Particularly
focusing on rhetorical techniques employed in the Psalms, Cassiodorus proposed a hierarchy of knowledge and a method of teaching in which secular
learning supported exegesis.110
Thus the educational programme for the monks of Vivarium that Cassiodorus
offered in his Institutions was building on his earlier ideas, especially inspired
by Augustines De doctrina Christiana.111 Book 2, on secular learning, may have
gone through earlier redactions as a separate text, but in what appears to be
its final form the two books of the Institutions were designed as an introduction to both the Scriptures and the secular letters.112 Book 1 discussed Christian
108 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1, Preface 1, p. 3, trans. p. 105: in urbe Romana professos doctores scholae potius acciperent Christianae, unde et anima susciperet aeternam salutem
et casto atque purissimo eloquio fidelium lingua comeretur. See also ODonnell,
Cassiodorus, pp. 17980; Vessey, Introduction, pp. 2227.
109 ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 11830, for the sources, p. 118; Vessey, Introduction, p. 20; also
above, p. 336.
110 ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 13176; Astell, Cassiodoruss Commentary on the Psalms as
an Ars rhetorica; Weissengruber, Leducazione profana ncllExpositio psalmorum di
Cassiodoro; Halporn, After the Schools; Vessey, Introduction, pp. 2835, 41; more bibliography in Heydemann, Biblical Israel, p. 152, n. 29. I have not been able to consult
Heydemanns doctoral dissertation on the Expositio Psalmorum.
111 Vessey, Introduction, pp. 2737.
112 Ibid., pp. 3942.
341
learning: focusing on the study of Holy Scripture, the course began with the
Psalms and progressed to patristic commentaries such as those by Ambrose,
Jerome, and Augustine. Cassiodorus wrote: For commentary on Scripture is,
as it were, Jacobs ladder, by which the angels ascend and descend [Gen. 28:12];
on which the Lord leans, stretching out his hand to those who are weary, and
supports the tired steps of those ascending by granting them contemplation
of Him.113 He also summarized the decisions of the four church councils and
discussed different divisions of Scripture and provided concrete instructions
for correcting and emending the biblical text (from orthography and grammar
to punctuation marks and Hebrew names).114 By the end of book 1 Cassiodorus
listed additional texts that he considered useful for Christian studies. Among
these were historians such as Josephus, Eusebius, and Orosius; geographers and
cosmographers such as Julius Honorius, Dionysius Periegetes, and Ptolemy;
and medical writers such as Dioscorides and Galen.
In book 2 Cassiodorus addressed secular learning, arranging his material
in the order of the seven liberal arts. Drawing on a variety of sources from
Ammonius to Augustine and Boethius, Cassiodorus briefly described the contents and goals of each discipline from grammar to astronomy and gave recommendations for readings. By the end of the section on astronomy, he thus
summarized his current position on the role of secular learning: Now that we
have completed the discussion of secular teaching, it is clear that these disciplines bring considerable usefulness to our understanding of divine law, as
some of the holy Fathers also point out.115
The hierarchy of Christian learning that Cassiodorus proposed in his
Institutions, with secular disciplines understood as the necessary steps leading to a better understanding of Scripture, largely relied on the authority of
Augustine. We do not know if the rather ambitious programme of studies that
Cassiodorus compiled for the monks of Vivarium ever became reality in his
lifetime, but Cassiodorus book 2, with its straightforward scheme of the liberal arts and concise summaries of the contents of each discipline, became a
113 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1, Preface 2, p. 4, trans. p. 106: ista est enim fortasse scala Iacob,
per quam angeli ascendunt atque descendunt; cui Dominus innititur, lassis porrigens
manum et fessos ascendentium gressus sui contemplatione sustentans.
114 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 1.15; Vessey, Introduction, pp. 534.
115 Cassiodorus, Institutiones 2.7.4, trans. p. 229: His igitur breviter de doctrinis saecularibus comprehensis, ostenditur quia non parvam utilitatem ad intellegentiam divinae legis
afferre noscuntur, sicut etiam a quibusdam sanctis Patribus indicatur.
342
Lozovsky
popular text in medieval schools. The library of Vivarium also became a major
centre of diffusion of Christian and secular texts.116
Conclusion
The peaceful years of Ostrogothic rule were beneficial for cultural life in Italy.
Theoderic and his family supported schools, employed classically educated
people in their administration, and patronized culture. Roman cultural values
continued to shape aesthetic tastes and intellectual pursuits of the educated
elite, whose members interests ranged from philosophy to theology to erotic
poetry. At the same time classically educated Christian scholars studied the
Bible and fathers of the church, composing their own exegetical works and
pondering a proper way of balancing classical and Christian learning.
The death of Theoderic ended the years of stability, and the events that followed (the succession crisis, Justinians wars, and the Lombard conquest)
brought devastation to Italy. By the late 6th century, the intellectual world of this
region was transformed, but important links connected it to the earlier period.
Manuscripts produced at Vivarium and Castellum Lucullanum were copied in
medieval scriptoria all over western Europe. The works of Boethius, Cassiodorus,
and Dionysius Exiguus provided medieval scholars with philosophical ideas,
educational techniques, and fundamentals of canon law and calendric computation. Medical texts translated in Ostrogothic Italy were studied in 7th-century
Ravenna. In the period of social, political, and cultural transformation in western
Europe, the work of Ostrogothic intellectuals continued to matter.117
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Anonymus of Ravenna, Cosmographia, ed. J. Schnetz, Itineraria Romana, vol. 1,

Stuttgart 1990.
Anonymus Valesianus, ed. and trans. J.C. Rolfe, in Ammianus Marcellinus: Res gestae,
vol. 3 (Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, MA 1939, pp. 53069.
116 Rich, Education and Culture, pp. 1619; ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 21920; Barnish,
Work of Cassiodorus; Troncarelli, Vivarium.
117 Numerous studies have addressed the intellectual legacy of that period and its reception
in later centuries, from earlier classical treatments, such as Rand, Founders of the Middle
Ages to the recent Companion to Boethius in the Middle Ages.
343
Arator, De actibus apostolorum, ed. A.P. McKinlay (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum

Latinorum 72), Vienna 1951; trans. R.J. Schrader/J.L. Roberts III and J.F. Makowski,
Arators On the Acts of the Apostles, Atlanta 1987.
Boethius, Commentary on Porphyrys Isagoge, ed. S. Brandt, Anicii Manlii Severini
Boethii In Isagogen Porphyrii Commenta (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
Latinorum 48), Vienna 1906.
, De consolatione philosophiae; Opuscula theologica, ed. C. Moreschini, Munich
2005; trans. J.C. Relihan, Consolation of Philosophy, Indianapolis 2001.
, De institutione arithmetica, ed. G. Friedlein, Leipzig 1867; trans. M. Masi, Boethian
Number Theory: A Translation of the De Institutione Arithmetica, Amsterdam 1983.
, 2nd Commentary on Aristotles On Interpretation, ed. C. Meiser, Anicii Manlii
Severini Boetii Commentarii in Librum Aristotelis Peri Hermneias, vol. 2, Leipzig 1880.
, The Theological Tractates, trans. H.F. Stewart/E.K. Rand and/S.J. Tester (Loeb
Cassiodorus, Institutiones, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, Oxford 1937; trans. J.W. Halporn,
Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning and On the Soul, Liverpool 2004.
, Ordo generis Cassiodorum, ed. J.J. ODonnell, in id., Cassiodorus, Berkeley 1979,
pp. 25966.
, Variae, ed. A. Fridh, Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Senatoris Opera, vol. 1 (Corpus
Christianorum, Series Latina 96), Turnhout 1973; trans. S.J.B. Barnish, The Variae of
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, Liverpool 1992.
Ennodius, Opera, ed. F. Vogel (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Anti
quissimi 7), Berlin 1885.
, Panegyricus, ed. and trans. C. Rohr, Der Theoderich-Panegyricus des Ennodius
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Studien und Texte 12), Hannover 1995; ed. and
trans. S. Rota, Panegirico del clementissimo re Teodorico, Rome 2002.
Maximianus, Elegies, trans. B. Goldlust, Maximien: lgies: suivies de lAppendix
Maximiani et de lpithalame pour Maximus dEnnode de Pavie, Paris 2013.
Procopius, History of the Wars, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, 5 vols. (Loeb Classical
Library), Cambridge, MA 191428.
Arnold, J.J., Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, New York 2014.
Astell, A.W., Cassiodoruss Commentary on the Psalms as an Ars rhetorica, Rhetorica:
A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 17 (1999), 3775.
Barnish, S.J.B., The Work of Cassiodorus after His Conversion, Latomus 48 (1989),
15787.
, Maximian, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Theodahad: Literature, Philosophy and
Politics in Ostrogothic Italy, Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 34 (1990), 1632.
344
Lozovsky
Bartlett, R., The Dating of Ennodius Writings, in E. DAngelo (ed.), Atti della Seconda
Giornata Ennodiana, Naples 2003, pp. 5374.
Bertelli, C., The Production and Distribution of Books in Late Antiquity, in R. Hodges/
W. Bowden (eds.), The Sixth Century: Production, Distribution and Demand, Leiden
1998, pp. 4160.
Billanovich, G., Dallantica Ravenna alle biblioteche umanistiche, Aevum 30 (1956),
31953.
, Ancora dall antica Ravenna alle biblioteche umanistiche, Italia Medioevale e
Umanistica 36 (1993), 10774.
Bjornlie, M.S., Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople: A
Study of Cassiodorus and the Variae 527554, Cambridge 2013.
Bradshaw, D., The Opuscula Sacra: Boethius and Theology, in J. Marenbon (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge 2009, pp. 10528.
Brown, P., Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire, Madison,
WI 1992.
, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography, New ed., Berkeley 2000.
Browning, R., Education in the Roman Empire, in Av. Cameron/et al. (eds.), The
Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425
600, Cambridge 2000, pp. 85583.
Cameron, Al., Martianus and His First Editor, Classical Philology 81 (1986), 3208.
, The Last Pagans of Rome, New York 2011.
Cameron, Av., Education and Literary Culture, in ead./P. Garnsey (eds.), Cambridge
Ancient History, vol. 13: The Late Empire, AD 337425, Cambridge 1998, pp. 665707.
Cameron, Av./Ward-Perkins, B./Whitby, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History,
vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425600, New York 2000.
Cavallo, G., La cultura a Ravenna tra corte e chiesa, in O. Capitani (ed.), Le sedi della
cultura nellEmilia Romagna: Lalto medioevo, Milan 1983, pp. 2951.
, La cultura scritta a Ravenna tra antichit tarda e alto medioevo, in A. Carile
(ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.2: Dallet bizantina allet ottoniana: Ecclesiologia,
cultura e arte, Venice 1992, pp. 79125.
Chadwick, H., Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philosophy,
Oxford 1981.
Chin, C., Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World, Philadelphia 2008.
Christensen, A.S., Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a
Migration Myth, Copenhagen 2002.
Courcelle, P., Late Latin writers and their Greek sources, trans. H.E. Wedeck, Cambridge,
MA 1969.
Cracco Ruggini, L., Cassiodorus and the Practical Sciences, in S. Barnish/et al. (eds.),
Vivarium in Context, Vicenza 2008, pp. 2353.
345
De Marini Avonzo, F., Secular and Clerical Culture in Dionysius Exiguus Rome, in
S. Kuttner and K. Pennington (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress
of Medieval Canon Law, Berkeley, California, 28 July2 August 1980 (Monumenta
Iuris Canonici, Series C: Subsidia, Vol. 7), Vatican 1985, pp. 8392.
DElia, F., LAntropologia di Cassiodoro tra ispirazione agostiniana e suggestioni del
mondo classico: note teoretiche e filologiche sul De anima, Roma 1987.
Di Marco, M., Scelta e utilizzazione delle fonti nel De anima di Cassiodoro, Studi e
materiali di storia delle religioni 9 (1985), 93117.
Dura, N., Denys Exiguus (465550): prcisions et correctifs concernant sa vie et son
oeuvre, Revista Espaola de Derecho Cannico 50 (1993), pp. 27990.
Duta, F., Des prcisions sur la biographie de Denys le Petit, Revue de droit canonique
49 (1999), pp. 27996.
Everett, N., Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. 568774, Cambridge 2003.
, The Alphabet of Galen. Pharmacy from Antiquity to the Middle Ages: A Critical
Edition of the Latin Text with English Translation and Commentary, Toronto 2012.
Fiery, A., The Collectio Dionysiana, online at http://ccl.rch.uky.edu/dionysiana-article.
Folkerts, M., The Importance of the Pseudo-Boethian Geometria during the Middle
Ages, in M. Masi (ed.), Boethius and The Liberal Arts: A Collection of Essays, Bern
1981, pp. 187210.
Fontaine, J., Education and Learning, in P. Fouracre (ed.), The New Cambridge
Medieval History, vol. 1: c.500c.700, Cambridge 1995, pp. 73559.
Fouracre, P. (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1: c.500c.700, Cambridge
1995.
Gautier Dalch, P. Lenseignement de la gographie dans lantiquit tardive, Klio 96
(2014), 14482.
Giardina, A., Cassiodoro politico, Rome 2006.
Gibson, M. (ed.), Boethius: His Life, Thought and Influence, Oxford 1981.
Gillett, A., The Purposes of Cassiodorus Variae, in A.C. Murray (ed.), After Romes Fall:
Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History: Essays Presented to Walter Goffart,
Toronto 1998, pp. 3750.
Gometz, A.K., Eugippius of Lucullanum: A Biography, PhD diss., University of Leeds,
2008.
Gorman, M., Eugippius and the Origins of the Manuscript Traditition of Saint
Augustines De Genesi ad Litteram, Revue Bndictine 93 (1983), 730.
Green, R.P.H., Latin Epics of the New Testament: Juvencus, Sedulius, Arator, Oxford
2006.
Gruber, J., Kommentar zu Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae, 2nd ed., Berlin
2006.
346
Lozovsky
Guillaumin, J.-Y., Boethiuss De institutione arithmetica and Its Influence on Posterity,

in N.H. Kaylor, Jr./P.E. Phillips (eds.), A Companion to Boethius in the Middle Ages,
Leiden 2012, pp. 13561.
Halporn, J.W., Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Senaroris Liber de anima: Introduction and
Critical Text, Traditio 16 (1960), 39109.
, After the Schools: Grammar and Rhetoric in Cassiodorus, in C.D. Lanham
(ed.), Latin Grammar and Rhetoric: From Classical Theory to Medieval Practice,
London 2003, pp. 4862.
Heather, P., The Historical Culture of Ostrogothic Italy, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti
dItalia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullalto Medioevo, Milano,
26 novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993, pp. 31753.
, Literacy and Power in the Migration Period, in A.K. Bowman/G. Woolf (eds.),
Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, Cambridge 1994, pp. 17797.
Hen, Y., Roman Barbarians: The Royal Court and Culture in the Early Medieval West,
Basingstoke, NY 2007.
Heydemann, G., Biblical Israel and the Christian Gentes: Social Metaphors and
the Language of Identity in Cassiodoruss Expositio Psalmorum, in W. Pohl/
G. Heydemann (eds.), Strategies of Identification: Ethnicity and Religion in Early
Medieval Europe, Turnhout 2013, pp. 143208.
Humphries, M., Italy, AD 425605, in Av. Cameron/et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient
History, vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425600, Cambridge 2000,
pp. 52551.
Jahn, O., ber die subscriptionen in den Handschriften rmischer Classiker, Berichte
ber die Verhandlungen der Kniglich Schsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Classe 3 (1851), 32772.
Papers 42 (1988), 7396.
Kaster, R.A., Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity,
Berkeley 1988.
Kaylor, N.H./Phillips, P.E. (eds.), A Companion to Boethius in the Middle Ages, Leiden
2012.
Kennell, S.A.H., Magnus Felix Ennodius: A Gentleman of the Church, Ann Arbor 2000.
Kirkby, H., The Scholar and His Public, in M. Gibson (ed.), Boethius: His Life, Thought
and Influence, Oxford 1981, pp. 4469.
Lafferty, S.D.W., Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: A Study of the Edictum
MacCormack, S.G., Latin Prose Panegyrics, in T. Dorey (ed.), Empire and Aftermath,
London 1975, pp. 73177.
, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 1981.
347
Marconi, G., Istruzione laica ed educazione religiosa nellItalia del VI secolo.

Considerazioni su Ennodio e Cassiodoro, Annali dellIstituto italiano per gli studi
storici 27 (201213), 348.
, Ennodio e la nobilit gallo-romana nellItalia ostrogota, Spoleto 2013.
Marenbon, J., Boethius, New York 2003.
, Introduction: Reading Boethius Whole, in id. (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to Boethius, Cambridge 2009, pp. 110.
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge 2009.
Marrou, H.I., A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. G. Lamb, Madison, WI 1956.
Cambridge 1980.
Masi, M. (ed.), Boethius and The Liberal Arts: A Collection of Essays, Bern 1981.
Matthews, J., Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, in M. Gibson (ed.), Boethius: His
Life, Thought and Influence, Oxford 1981, pp. 1543.
Mazzini, I. and N. Palmieri, Lcole mdicale Ravenne: Programmes et methodes
denseignement, langue, hommes, in P. Mudry/J. Pigeaud (eds.), Les coles mdicales Rome: Actes du 2me Colloque international sur les textes mdicaux latins
antiques, Lausanne, septembre 1986, Geneva 1991, pp. 285310.
Momigliano, A., Cassiodorus and the Italian Culture of his Time, Proceedings of the
British Academy 41 (1955), 20745.
, Boethius Life and the World of Late Antique Philosophy, in J. Marenbon
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge 2009, pp. 1333.
, Ostrogothic Italy and the Lombard Invasions, in P. Fouracre (ed.), The New
Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1: c.500c.700, Cambridge 1995, pp. 14061.
Moreschini, C., A Christian in Toga. Boethius: Interpreter of Antiquity and Christian
Theologian, Gttingen 2014.
Mosshammer, A.A., The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era, Oxford
2008.
Obertello, L., Severino Boezio, 2 vols., Genoa 1974.
Palmieri, N., Nouvelles remarques sur les commentaires Galen, in A. Debru/
N. Palmieri (eds.), Docente natura: mlanges de mdecine ancienne et mdivale
offerts Guy Sabbah, Saint-Etienne 2001, pp. 20946.
Pecere, O., La cultura greco-romana in et gota tra adattamento e transformazione,
in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi
sullalto Medioevo, Milano, 26 novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993, pp. 35594.
Polara, G., La letteratura in Italia nel VI secolo, in M.L. Silvestre/M. Squillante (eds.),
Mutatio rerum: letteratura, filosofia, scienza tra tardo antico e altomedioevo: atti del
convegno di studi (Napoli, 2526 novembre 1996), Naples 1997, pp. 1136.
348
Lozovsky
Pollmann, K./Vessey, M. (eds.), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to

Confessions, Oxford 2005.
Raby, F.J.E., A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, Oxford 1967.
Rappe, S., The New Math: How to Add and to Subtract Pagan Elements in Christian
Education, in Y.L. Too (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden 2001,
pp. 40532.
Relihan, J.C., Ancient Menippean Satire, Baltimore 1993.
, The Prisoners Philosophy: Life and Death in Boethiuss Consolation, Notre
Dame, IN 2007.
Rich, P., Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, Sixth through Eighth Centuries,
trans. J.J. Contreni, Columbia, SC 1976.
Richter, M. Dionysius Exiguus, in Theologische Realenzyklopdie 9 (1982), pp. 14.
Roberts, M., Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity, Liverpool 1985.
, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity, Ithaca, NY 1989.
Schrder, B.-J., Bildung und Briefe im 6. Jahrhundert: Studien zum Mailnder Diakon
Magnus Felix Ennodius, Berlin 2007.
Sessa, K., The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy: Roman Bishops and the
Domestic Sphere, Cambridge 2012.
Shanzer, D., Ennodius, Boethius, and the Date and Interpretation of Maximianuss
Elegia III, Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 111 (1983), 18395.
, Latin Literature, Christianity, and Obscenity in the Later Roman West, in
MacDonald, N. (ed.), Medieval Obscenities, Woodbridge 2006, pp. 179202.
, Haec quibus uteris verba: The Bible and Boethius Christianity, in Cain, A./
Lenski, N. (eds.), The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, Farnham 2009, pp. 5773.
, Interpreting the Consolation, in J. Marenbon (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Boethius, Cambridge 2009, pp. 22854.
Sheppard, A., Philosophy and Philosophical Schools, in Av. Cameron/et al. (eds.), The
Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425
600, New York 2000, pp. 83554.
Staab, F., Ostrogothic Geographers at the Court of Theodoric the Great: A Study of
Some Sources of the Anonymous Cosmographer of Ravenna, Viator 7 (1976), 2764.
Teoderico il Grande e i Goti dItalia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullalto
Medioevo, Milano, 26 novembre 1992, Spoleto 1993.
Troncarelli, F., Vivarium: I libri, il destino, Turnhout 1998.
Verbist, P., Duelling With the Past: Medieval Authors and the Problem of the Christian
Era, c. 9901135, Turhnout 2010.
Vessey, M., Introduction, in Cassiodorus, Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning
and On the Soul, Liverpool 2004, pp. 1101.
Vitiello, M., Nourished at the Breast of Rome: The Queens of Ostrogothic Italy and
the Education of the Roman Elite, Rheinisches Museum fr Philologie 149 (2006),
398412.
349
, Il principe, il filosofo, il guerriero: lineamenti di pensiero politico nellItalia ostrogota, Stuttgart 2006.
, Theodahad: A Platonic King at the Collapse of Ostrogothic Italy, Toronto 2014.
Wasyl, A.M., Genres Rediscovered: Studies in Latin Miniature Epic, Love Elegy, and
Epigram of the Romano-Barbaric Age, Krakw 2011.
Watts, E., Education: Speaking, Thinking, and Socializing, in S.F. Johnson (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Oxford 2012, pp. 46786.
Weissengruber, F., Leducazione profana ncllExpositio psalmorum di Cassiodoro, in
S. Leanza (ed.), Cassiodoro: dalla corte di Ravenna al Vivarium di Squillace,
Rubbettino 1993, pp. 6172.
Whitby, M. (ed.), The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity,
Leiden 1998.
Wildberg, C., Philosophy in the Age of Justinian, in M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005, pp. 31640.
CHAPTER 14
Art and Architecture

Mark J. Johnson
Introduction
The history of art and architecture in Italy during the Ostrogothic period is
largely the history of the artistic patronage of Theoderic and his successors.1
Little is otherwise known of artistic patronage of Ostrogoths beyond the production and consumption of traditional migration period items of jewellery
and ornaments. Theoderic, however, was an active and engaged patron who
harnessed art and architecture as political tools, using buildings and their
decoration as a means of supporting his people in their Arian faith and especially as a projection of his belief in his own political position in the contemporary world. The evidence suggests that he was extraordinarily interested in
works on an intellectual level that went beyond propaganda. His models were
not his Ostrogothic ancestors nor other barbarian rulers who had established
themselves in the former Roman Empire, but the Romans themselves, and in
particular the art and architecture of Roman emperors. It is Theoderic, in fact,
who introduces the idea of antiquarianism and revivalism into the history of
artistic patronage.
Very little is known about Ostrogothic art prior to the Ostrogoths settlement in Italy. Indeed it is difficult to say that a distinctive style of Ostrogothic
art was ever developed. Their art, as was the case for other migrating tribes,
consisted of decorated utilitarian objects and jewellery, which continued
to be produced after their arrival in Italy. Good examples of this type of art
were discovered in a tomb at Domagnano in San Marino, some 70 km south of
Ravenna, which yielded a treasure of various ornaments belonging to a woman
(Figure 14.1).2 These are made of cloisonn gold metalwork with garnets of a
kind found throughout Europe. Ornamental patterns and animal forms fill the
surfaces of these objects that include fibulae, buckles, and earrings datable to
the 5th or early 6th century.
1 In general see my Theoderics Building Program. The present chapter will focus on scholarship published since that article appeared in 1988.
2 Kidd, Tesoro, pp. 4959.
Art And Architecture
FIGURE 14.1
351
Jewellery from a female burial at Domagnano in San Marino, ca. late 5th or early
6th century
British Museum, London The Trustees of the British Museum
352
Johnson
Though these types of objects continued to be produced, two important factors led to a major shift in the focus of Ostrogothic art. First was the Ostogoths
settlement in Italy, where numerous ancient and early Christian monuments,
churches, and works of art could be seen and emulated. Second, their leader
Theoderic, who lived as a guest/hostage in the Great Palace of Constantinople
while growing up, had a lively interest in artistic patronage that led him not to
maintain artistic traditions of the migratory period of his own people, but to
adopt prototypes from Romanincluding early Christianart and architecture and make them his own.
Portraiture
The change is evident in many ways and may initially be illustrated by beginning with the idea of portraiture. This is a type of art that had not existed in
the barbarian world prior to their arrival in the West. It is first manifested in
the Roman-inspired portrait on the signet ring of Childeric, found in his tomb,
from the 5th century.3 Among the migrant tribes that settled in the West, however, the Ostrogoths were the only group to adopt the idea of life-sized portraits in stone and bronze.
Sources speak of several portraits of Theoderic in Italy. Most notable was
the bronze equestrian statue of Theoderic that stood in front of his palace
in Ravenna.4 According to Jordanes, the emperor Zeno had ordered such a
statue of Theoderic to be placed in the Augustaion square in Constantinople,
and it may be that this statue was transferred to Ravenna afterwards, before
later being taken by Charlemagne to stand in front of his palace in Aachen.5
Procopius noted that there were several statues of Theoderic in Rome and
Isidore of Seville notes that the king was honoured with a gilt bronze statue
there for his work in restoring the citys walls.6 A base for such a statue was
found in the Colosseum.7 Images of Theoderic in mosaic decorated his palaces
at Pavia and Ravenna and Procopius discusses another in the forum of Naples.8
3 MacGregor, Childerics Ring.
4 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis, 94, ed. Deliyannis, pp. 2589; Johnson, Theoderics Building
Program, p. 87 and note 143.
5 Jordanes, Getica, 289.
6 Procopius, De bello gothico, 3.20.29; Isidore, Historia gothorum wandalorum sveborum, 1.39.
7 C IL 6.32094.
8 For those at the palaces, see below. For the one at Naples see Procopius, De bello gothico,
1.24.2227.
353
The use of stone portraiture perhaps continued with Theoderics successors, his daughter Amalasuentha and Athalaric, her son, for whom she acted
as regent. A heavily damaged portrait head of a young man with a crown in
marble was found at Forli and probably represents him.9 Three marble portrait
heads of a woman with a round face wearing a crown and usually dated to the
6th century, two in Rome and the third now in the Louvre, apparently all came
from Rome (Figure 14.2). Although usually identified as the empress Ariadne
(d. 515), some scholars believe that they actually represent Amalasuentha, citing the fact that these are the only diademed female portraits of the period
to be found in Rome, which was then ruled by the Ostrogothic queen, raising questions as to why so many portraits of Ariadne should be found in
Rome and none in Constantinople.10 It is unclear whether or not any statues
of Theodahad were actually erected, but his list of proposed concessions to
Justinian included a commitment not to erect any statues of himself unless
they were placed next to statues of the emperor.11
Portraits of Athalaric and Amalasuentha are also found on the ivory diptych of Orestes, consul in 530, now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London
(Figure 14.3).12 These are located in the upper part of each leaf, in the place
where the imperial couple is portrayed on other diptychs. This particular diptych seems to be one of Clementius, consul in 513, on which the inscriptions
and portraits have been recarved. The portrait of Athalaric shows a young man
without diadem and an unusual costume; that of his mother shows the same
round-faced woman of the marble portraits wearing a crown. The original diptych would have shown Ariadne and so the question is whether or not the portraits now seen were left unchanged as some suppose or reworked to represent
Amalasuentha. Given the fact that the portraits of the consul and Athalaric are
unquestionably recarved, it seems that an effort to make the female portrait
look like the queen would also have been undertaken.
It is also noteworthy that such works of art were commissioned and produced at this time. Elsewhere in the eastern empire and other territories formerly in the Roman Empire, portraiture in the round was a dying art form.
Already declining in the 5th century, very few portraits in stone datable to the
6th century remain and of these extremely few are imperial. Yet Theoderic and
his successors felt that such portraits should be made and placed on display, a
telling clue as to their perception of ruler art and its place in society.
9 Fuchs, Bildnisse, pp. 1459.
10 Bertelli, Ritratti; Schade, Frauen in der Sptantike, pp. 21924.
11 Procopius, De bello gothico, 1. 6.
12 McClanan, Representations, pp. 7887.
354
FIGURE 14.2
Johnson
Marble female portrait, possibly the eastern Empress Ariadne or Amalasuentha

CAPITOLINE MUSEUMS, ROME. Photo by Mark Johnson
FIGURE 14.3
355
Ivory portraits of Athalaric and Amalasuentha, upper leafs of the Diptych of

Orestes (consul 530)
Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Photo by Mark Johnson
Related to these monumental images is the appearance of royal portraits on

coins issued by the Ostrogoths. Theoderic did not put his own likeness on the
coins he issued in the name of the emperors under whom he ruled, but does
appear on the singular gold Senigallia Medallion (Figure 14.4).13 The obverse
depicts a frontal bust portrait of the king depicted with long hair and a moustache, wearing a breastplate and raising his right hand in salutation while
holding a Victoriola in his left. It was apparently struck early in his reign. It
was Theodahad who first issued coins with his image, showing him in profile
wearing a helmet and sometimes a pectoral cross (Figure 14.5). The introduction of his image on his coins is noted in a letter of Cassiodorus, in which it is
noted that the practice ensures that our age is remembered in future centuries and suggests to the populace that their sovereign is concerned about their
13 Metlach, Coinage, pp. 1516; Arnold, Mustache.
356
Johnson
FIGURE 14.4
Senigallia Medallion, portrait of Theoderic

Museo Nazionale, Rome. Photo by
Mark Johnson
FIGURE 14.5
Bronze nummus of Theodahad, ca. 534

Photo by PHGCOM, WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
357
well-being.14 Coins of Witigis also featured his image, some in profile and others following Justinians lead depicting the ruler with a frontal pose.15

A Culture of Patronage and Building
Another role filled by Roman emperors had an even greater influence on

Theodericthat of builder. He was responsible not only for his own palace or
palaces but also for constructing new public buildings, maintaining old ones,
guarding the artistic heritage of the country, and supporting religion, in this
case Arian Christianity, with the construction and decoration of churches.
In this, Theoderic stands out as one of the great patrons of building in Late
Antiquity.
The sources talk of palaces in Pavia, Verona, and Monza, though nothing
remains of those buildings. Small palaces or villas were built at Palazzolo, a few
miles north of Ravenna and at Galeata.16 Various projects were undertaken in
Rome, including renovations to the imperial palace on the Palatine and repairs
to the city walls for which the Senate honored him with a gilded statue.17 This
was possibly connected with a base bearing an inscription that once held a
statue of Theoderic found on the Via Sacra near the Forum.18 Repairs were
made to the Theatre of Pompey, the aqueducts, the sewers, and a granary in the
city.19 Roof tiles bearing Theoderican brick stamps have been found in fifteen
different churches as well as several public buildings in Rome.20 A bath complex and palace were repaired at Abano, near Padua and city walls strengthened in several cities.21
Many reports of these projects are found in Cassiodorus Variae, possibly
published in 537, and what emerges from them is an important insight into
14 Cassiodorus, Variae, 6.7; Metlach, Coinage, p. 52; plate X, no. 89, and plates AF.
15 Metlach, Coinage, p. 54 and plate XI.
16 Johnson, Theoderics Building Program, pp. 778; De Maria, ed., Villa di Teodorico a
Galeata.
17 Isidorus, Historia gothorum wandalorum sueborum, 1.59, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta
Germaniae Historica Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 11, p. 283.
18 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 6, no. 1795.
19 For Theoderics work at Rome, see Gatto, Teoderico a Roma.
20 Examples collected and discussed by Westall, Theoderic; it is not clear if these demonstrate direct patronage on the part of Theoderic or are simply evidence of his revival of
tile production noted in Cassiodorus, Variae, 1.25.2.
21 Lists of projects and comments in Bjornlie, Politics and Tradition, pp. 2402; FauvinetRanson, Decor civitatis, pp. 199202.
358
Johnson
how Theoderic saw his role as patron. A letter from his grandson Athalaric
to Cassiodorus states that Theoderic sought to make himself equal to the
ancients22 and another reveals his desire to bring back all things to their former state.23
There is a distinct awareness of the concept of antiquity versus modernity
in the culture of the Theoderican court. First, the antiquarianism expressed in
the apparent cognizance of the ancient world speaks of the self-awareness of
living in a different epoch. Interestingly, it is at the end of the 5th century that
the word modernus first appears; Cassiodorus then uses it seven times in the
Variae, often to differentiate the contemporary from the ancient.24 The ancient
is not only recognized, but held in esteem with the admiration of the ancient
being expressed in two ways. First is in the restoration of the old, when there
was a reason to restore and when the ability to do so was present. One of the
roles of a Roman emperor was to construct new public buildings and take care
of older ones, a role that, as mentioned, Theoderic also embraced. In one letter it is pointed out that most worthy of royal attention is the rebuilding of
ancient cities and another expresses the kings desire to preserve the monuments of antiquity.25 Similarly, the king states, Indeed it is our intention to
build new things, but even more to protect ancient things.26 The form letter
composed by Cassiodorus orders the cura palatii to study Euclidian geometry
and to see that the new work harmonizes with the old, especially relevant in
this situation in which an older palace at Ravenna was being remodelled and
expanded under Theoderic.27
Another way this antiquarianism was expressed is found in the interpretation of how the ancient might benefit the modern. So the architectus publicorum of Rome was instructed to study the extant monuments of ancient Rome
for inspiration.28 At times it was no longer possible to renew ruined Roman
buildings, but their materials could be salvaged and reused in profitable
ways. Several letters in the Variae contain instructions for sending materials
to Ravenna. The people of Astuna were ordered to send columns and lapides
22 Variae 9.24; ed. Mommsen 290; ed. Fridh, 377.

23 Variae 3.51, ed. Mommsen 95; ed. Fridh, 119.
24 Kiilerich, Antiquus et modernus.
25 Variae 1.28, ed. Mommsen, p. 29; ed. Fridh, p. 35; and Variae 4.51 ed. Mommsen, p. 139 ed.
Fridh, p. 179.
26 Variae 3.9.1; Bjornlie, Politics, p. 244.
27 Variae 7.5; ed. Mommsen p. 204; ed. Fridh, p. 264.
28 Variae 7.15 ed. Mommsen, p. 211. ed. Fridh, p. 274.
359
vetustatisstone components from old buildings no longer in use;29 the prefect of Rome was instructed to remove marble from the Domus Pinciana,
much of which apparently ended up in the palace complex.30 Cassiodorus
summed up Theoderics patronage by stating that, under his well-disposed
rule very many cities were renovated, the most fortified castles were built, palaces worthy of admiration arose, and the ancient wonders were excelled by his
great works.31

Churches and Palaces at Ravenna
Theoderics most important building projects were in his capital city of

Ravenna (Figure 14.6).32 When he and his people settled in the former capital
of the western empire they apparently occupied the eastern side of the city,
home to the imperial palace complex. Perhaps there was more room in this
area, removed from the ancient core and forum of the city and closer to the
sea. The Ostrogoths were Arians and set about building churches to accommodate their worship; Agnellus mentions seven Arian churches in Ravenna
and nearby Caesarea and Classe.33 Of the known churches they built, all of the
urban churches were located in this part of the city with the exception of one
possibly built by Amalasuentha, S. Pietro in Orphanotrophio, located somewhere in the older part of the city.34 Amalasuentha wrote a letter written to
Justinian regarding the acquisition of building materials from Constantinople,
perhaps for a church.35 Capitals from another building, the destroyed Ecclesia
Gothorum that had stood in the north-east corner of the city, were reused in
an arcade near the civic palace and bear the monogram of Theoderic, showing that he was the patron of the building (Figure 14.7). Those built outside of
the walls were to the north-east and south-east of the city, with at least one in
the suburb known as Caesarea. Of these, the patron is specified only once by
29 Variae 3.9.
30 Variae 3.10.
31 Chronica, s. 500, ed. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Auctores Antiquissimi,
vol. 11, p. 160.
32 Now see in general Deliyannis, Ravenna; Cirelli, Ravenna; Davide, Eternal Ravenna;
Verhoeven, Early Christian Monuments of Ravenna; and Wood, Theoderics Monuments.
Deichmann, Ravenna, remains fundamental for the study of any of Ravennas monuments.
33 Liber Pontificalis 86, ed. Delyiannis, p. 253; see Cirelli, Ravenna, pp. 989 and 236;
Deichmann, Ravenna, vol. 2.2, pp. 3257.
34 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis 62, ed. Deliyannis, p. 232; Cirelli, Ravenna, p. 256.
360
FIGURE 14.6
Johnson
Map of eastern half of Ravenna, early 6th century

Map by Mark Johnson
FIGURE 14.7
361
Marble column capital with monogram of Theoderic

Formerly located in the Ecclesia Gothorum, Ravenna.
Photo by Mark Johnson
Agnellus who noted that S. Eusebio was built by the Arian bishop Unimundus
in 513.36 It is possible that the excavated remains of a large basilica known as
the CaBianca church, found some 2 km south of SantApollinare in Classe, may
be one of these churches. It is datable to the end of the 5th or beginning of the
6th century and had an octagonal baptistery on its north flank.37
Perhaps the first church to be built by the Ostrogoths was their cathedral,
part of an episcopal complex that included a baptistery and episcopal palace
(Figure 14.8).38 The church, known today as Santo Spirito and perhaps originally
36 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis 70, ed. Deliyannis, p. 239; Cirelli, Ravenna, pp. 989.
37 Deliyannis, Ravenna, pp. 1978.
38 Verhoeven, Early Christian Churches of Ravenna, pp. 1436; Deliyannis, Ravenna,
pp. 17487.
362
FIGURE 14.8
Johnson
Santo Spirito, basilica and baptistery, Ravenna

dedicated to the Anastasis like the cathedral of the Orthodox on the other side
of the city, is a small building measuring 18.5 m by 28.3 m (Figure 14.9). These
are the short and wide proportions of basilicas in the eastern Mediterranean
such as those of St John Studios and St Mary Chalkoprateia in Constantinople
from ca. 460, but without the galleries often present in those.39 The apse is
polygonal externally and semicircular on the inside; the walls are constructed
of reused bricks of various sizes and colours set in thin mortar beds, a technique found in most of Theoderics buildings.40 The nave is separated from the
side aisles by arches resting on seven columns per side, topped by capitals and
impost blocks. No decoration is found in the apse or on the interior walls and
it is uncertain if any ever existed.
A portico, perhaps part of a lost atrium, extended westwards from the
south-west corner of the church to the baptistery. The baptistery constructed
of varied reused bricks in the same fashion as the cathedral is an octagonal structure as are many early Christian baptisteries, including that of the
39 See T. Mathews, Early Churches of Constantinople, pp. 1141.

40 Righini, Materiali, pp. 21013.
FIGURE 14.9
363
Plan of Santo Spirito, Ravenna

Plan by Mark Johnson
Orthodox Baptistery in Ravenna.41 A new feature in baptistery design appears

here for the first time: an exterior ambulatory that wraps around the inner core
and provided a space for moving people through the phases of the baptismal
ceremony.42 The octagonal core rose above the ambulatory, allowing a window
on each side to illuminate the interior. The dome, like the vault of the cathedrals apse, was built of brick rather than the tubi fittili used in other domes in
the city.43 The interior of the baptistery has a floor level much higher than its
original one. Excavations under it demonstrated the presence of a font near
the centre of the space and uncovered numerous fragments of stucco sculpture as well as mosaic tesserae that formed the decoration of the walls.
Only the mosaics in the dome remain therefore intact and its programme
was obviously based on that of the Orthodox Baptistery, modified because of
its smaller size (Figure 14.10). The Baptism of Christ is depicted in the central
medallion: a nude and beardless Christ stands in the water flanked by John
the Baptist and the river god of the Jordan, personifying the place in which
41 Fabbi, Tipologie.
42 Pellini, Complesso episcopale, pp. 11617.
43 Deliayannis, Ravenna, p. 180.
364
Johnson
FIGURE 14.10 Mosaic, baptistery of Santo Spirito, Ravenna

the event occurred. Above Christs head is the dove of the Holy Spirit. Below
is a band with a throne, on which is placed a cross placed on an axis directly
above Christ. This is what is known as the Hetoimasia or Prepared Throne
awaiting the second coming of Christ. From either side, the twelve apostles
approach the throne. To the right is Peter holding the keys and to the left is Paul
holding a scroll. The other apostles all carry crowns of martyrdom. Dressed
in white tunics and cloaks, they stand on a thin patch of green grass, separated from each other by small palm trees, all against a background of gold.
Peter, Paul, and the apostle next to Paul all have halos that differ from those
crowning the heads of the other apostles and the palms between them have
a different appearance than the others. This may indicate that the mosaic
was done in two different periods as some have suggested, or perhaps by two
365
different workshops.44 Whatever the case, the programme of the mosaics was
unchanged and remains unified.
Given its close affinity to the mosaics in the Orthodox Baptistery, two observations may be made. First, there was no prior Arian tradition in baptistery decoration and indeed no other Arian baptistery has been identified.45 Therefore,
it is not surprising that the earlier baptistery should provide the inspiration for
the latter one. Second, nothing in the mosaics suggests a uniquely Arian message and therefore nothing was changed after the building later came under
Orthodox control.
To the south was the destroyed Arian bishops palace, known in later
sources as the Domus Drocdonis. Agnellus reports that it had a small oratory
on its second floor dedicated to St Apollinaris.46 This would of course have
echoed the palace of the Orthodox bishop, which also has a small oratory on
its second floor.

The Palace Complex at Ravenna
A palace complex had existed in Ravenna from the early 5th century, when
Honorius had made the city the western capital of the Roman Empire. Sources
talk about two palaces, both in the eastern part of the city. The earliest was the
palace in Laureto, which has not been excavated except in bits and pieces,
but was located in the south-east quarter of the city. It may have been begun by
Honorius, though Agnellus reports that Valentinian III built a royal hall there
and he also seems to have been responsible for building a circus west of the
palacean arrangement of palace and circus that echoed that of circus and
palace found in Rome and copied in other capitals including Constantinople.47
Odovacer seems to have resided in this palace, which was the place of his death.
The other palace is known as that of Theoderic, located to the north of the
Laureto complex, but in all likelihood together they formed one large palace
complex. Excavations in the early 20th century uncovered a building believed
to be this palace in the area east of the church of SantApollinare Nuovo, which
44 Rizzardi, Mosaico, pp. 834 sees two phases separated by at least fifteen years.
45 The baptistery found at Ca Bianca may have been Arian but it survives only to just barely
above the foundation level.
46 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis 86, ed. Deliyannis, p. 253.
47 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis 40, ed. Deliyannis, p. 198; Deichmann, Ravenna, vol. 2.3, p. 50.
For an overview of the history of the palaces in Ravenna see Herrin, Palace.
366
Johnson
was itself a part of the palace complex (Figure 14.11).48 These revealed a large
building with numerous rooms organized around a central peristyle courtyard
measuring 53 m from east to west and 32.5 m from north to south. Various
smaller rooms extended to the south of the courtyard, but no rooms were discovered on its east side and the excavations did not reach to the west portico
and whatever rooms may have been there. The principal rooms of this building
were found on the north side, with their doors facing south. In the centre of
the north portico was the entry, through three arches, to a large audience hall
(room L). The excavations revealed that it had originally been constructed at
half its size with a much smaller apse and 48 cm lower, but then expanded with
a floor raised 48 cm into a room measuring 11 m 27 m with a much larger apse
at its north end. This room was paved with opus sectile. The other significant
FIGURE 14.11
Plan of Theoderics palace, Ravenna

48 The account for the excavations published by Ghirardini, Scavi, was meant as a preliminary report, but no further publication followed. Recent studies of the palace and its finds
include Augenti, Archeologia; Palace of Theoderic; Baldini Lippolis, Articolazione e
decorazione; Cirelli, Ravenna, pp. 7889; and Savini, Scavi del palazzo di Teoderico.
367
room in this wing is the triconch triclinium (room S) in the north-east corner,
entered through a square vestibule. Its floor was covered with figural mosaics,
with the central panel depicting the mythological hero Bellerophon slaying
the Chimera.
Literary sources suggest that the palace complex extend northward to the
church of San Giovanni Evangelista, with an excubitorium or guardhouse near
the church. On the west, just to the south of SantApollinare Nuovo, was the
main entrance into the complex, known as the Chalke after the entrance into
the Great Palace complex in Constantinople. Indeed much about the layout
of the complex and the names of its components evoked the palace where
Theoderic had lived for a decade.49 The Chalke faced an open square in which
was installed the equestrian statue of Theoderic mentioned earlier, echoing
the square called the Augusteion in front of the palace in Constantinople
and its function as a place for the display of imperial statuary. The complex
extended to the south to link with the Palace in Lauretum, though proximity to
the city wall and the sea meant that there were probably no buildings east of
those found in the excavations.
Somewhere in this complex was the as-yet-undiscovered Basilica Herculis,
mentioned in a letter written in 508/509 by Cassiodorus to Agapitus, the prefect of Rome, in which he asked for the most accomplished marble workers
to be sent to Ravenna to work on it.50 Its particular function is unknown, but
a relief depicting one of the labours of Hercules now in the National Museum
in Ravenna may have come from this building whose name demonstrates the
interest in antiquity that was a strong part of Theoderics patronage.51
The excavations revealed that the peristyle building had at least five phases
of construction, beginning in the 1st century AD, followed by some additions
in the 4th century. Further changes seem to have been made in the 5th century, perhaps with the arrival of Honorius and the establishment of the city
as his capital. Given the limited publication of the findings there has been
some debate as to which parts of the building were remodelled or added
under Theoderic. Most scholars agree that the triclinium is Theoderican, as
is the apse of room T attached to the audience hall (room L). The date of the
doubling in size of this hall is disputed, with some scholars believing that it
49 Johnson, Theoderics Building Program, pp. 824; followed by Verhoeven, Early Christian
Churches, pp. 1412.
50 Variae 1.6, ed. Mommsen, pp. 1617; ed. Fridh, p. 17; Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 2447, who
notes the evocation of Tetrarchic political symbolism in this dedication, as does Kennel,
Hercules Invisible Basilica.
51 Deliyannis, Ravenna, p. 123.
368
Johnson
appened under Honorius.52 This dating is largely based on the date of its opus
h
sectile floor, though the remains of the floor have not been systematically studied. Others believe the enlargement of the hall took place under Theoderic.53
The proposed earlier dating ignores the possible evidence of the masonry of
the addition, which in a photograph from the excavations seems composed
of various-sized bricks as found in Theoderican buildings.54 In addition, the
excavator reported that the curving walls of the halls apse rested on palafitte,
or wood poles, that were pounded into the muddy terrain to create a platform
for the walls. The only other part of the complex with a similar preparation for
its walls is the triclinium, which all ascribe to Theoderic.55
In a similar vein, there is a debate about the figural floor mosaics found in
the porticos of the courtyard and some rooms. These mosaics are fragmentary
but include hunting and mythological scenes as well as views of the circus and
charioteers (Figure 14.12). One theory argues for a 5th-century date for these
mosaics and a Theoderican date for the geometrical designs in the mosaics
that covered them.56 The figural mosaics, with their bright colours and high
level of execution, have a close affinity to the mosaic of the triclinium built
and decorated under Theoderic. The geometric patterned mosaics that covered them, however, are actually very similar to the floor mosaics discovered in
the basilica of San Severo in Classe, datable to the late 6th century.57 Therefore,
the figural mosaics, with their bright colours and high level of execution are
better dated to the period of Theoderic.58 These mosaics are the ideological fit
to the antiquarian interests and imperial imitation of Theoderic. Such scenes
were no longer suitable when the Byzantine governor took up residence here
after 540 and so were replaced with the simpler geometric designs.
Work on the palace continued even after the eastern imperial army arrived
in Italy. An oration of Cassiodorus, given in 536 to Matasuentha and Witigis in
celebration of a remodelling of some part of the palace or of an addition to it,
speaks of marble surfaces shining with the same colour as gems, mosaics and
a place where the waxen pictures are displayed.59 The waxen pictures were
52 Augenti, Archeologia, p. 13; Cirelli, Ravenna, p. 83; Russo, Nuova proposta, p. 174.
53 Baldini Lippolis, Articolazione e decorazione, p. 26.
54 Augenti, Archeologia, p. 15, fig. 7.
55 Ghirardini, Scavi, p. 785.
56 This is the dating proposed by Berti, Mosaici, pp. 1086, who emphasized the relative levels in the five strata of floors to arrive at her conclusions.
57 Farioli Campanati, Mosaici, 71; Deliyannis, Ravenna, 2745.
58 Rizzardi and Vernia, Scene circensi, pp. 1245; Baldini Lippolis, Palazzo, 1997, pp. 225.
59 Cassiodorus, Orationum Reliquiae 2, ed. L. Taube, Monumenta Germaniae Historica
Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 12, p. 483; Deliyannis, Ravenna, p. 120.
FIGURE 14.12 Mosaic fragment, possible paving from

Theoderics palace, Ravenna
369
370
Johnson
probably paintings done on wood panels using the encaustic technique of the
type that survive from the Faiyum region in Egypt, but which are mentioned in
other late antique accounts.
The church of SantApollinare Nuovo, located to the west of (but close by)
the excavated palace was the palace chapel of the complex. Agnellus reported
seeing this inscription in the base of the apse: King Theoderic made this
church from its foundations in the name our Lord Jesus Christ.60 Its dedication to Christ recalls that of the palace chapel built by Constantine in the Great
Palace at Constantinople.61 Agnellus also mentions a baptistery associated
with the church, though its remains have not been identified.62
The church is a basilica that seems to have been largely modelled on the
nearby church of San Giovanni Evangelista. Originally preceded by an atrium,
its nave is 21 m wide and twice as long at 42 m, with twelve columns on either
side separating it from the side aisles. The original apse, destroyed in the 17th
century in order to enlarge the sanctuary, was semicircular on the inside and
polygonal externally. Like the buildings of the Arian cathedral complex, the
walls of the church are constructed of reused brick in various sizes and colours
ranging from yellow to red. One unusual detail is a raised course of brick that
frames the windows on the exterior wall in the guise of moulding. The only
parallel to this detail is found in the carved mouldings found in the stone
churches of the 5th and 6th centuries in Syria.63 Inside, the columns, capitals,
and impost blocks are of imported Proconnesian marble (Figure 14.13).64
The nave walls are decorated with colourful mosaics: some from the period
of Theoderic; some from the reconciliation of the church to the Orthodox tradition following the Byzantine conquest of the city. Each wall is now divided
into three zones, having lost a zone about 1.251.50 m high just above the
arcade when the level of the floor of the church was raised without shortening the columns. At the top, alternating with the clerestory windows, is a
Christological cycle set in small rectangular panels. The middle zone contains
a series of saints, apostles, and prophets depicted individually dressed in white
tunics with red clavi. Some of the figures hold books, others hold scrolls, and all
have a halo, but none is identified with inscriptions. Both of these zones were
completed in the time of Theoderic. On the north side the lowest zone depicts
60 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis 86, ed. Delyiannis, p. 254; for this and other Theoderican
inscriptions see Guerrini, Theodericus.
61 Johnson, Theoderics Building Program, p. 85.
62 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis 89, ed. Deliyannis, p. 256.
63 As noted by Russo, Architettura, 45.
64 See Harper, Provisioning of Marble.
FIGURE 14.13 SantApollinare Nuovo, basilica interior, Ravenna

371
372
Johnson
the city of Classe on the west end, a procession of female saints moving toward
the east, the Three Magi, and at the east end Mary dressed in purple tunic and
maphorion, or mantle, enthroned with the Christ Child, with angels acting as
bodyguards. On the south wall facing the depiction of Classe is a building identified by an inscription as the Palatium A procession of male saints heading
east fills most of the zone; they approach an enthroned Christ also dressed in
purple with gold clavi and who also has a group of four angels acting as bodyguards. The processions of saints were done after 540, replacing the original
mosaics; a few changes were made in the Classe and Palatium scenes involving
the removal of figures.
The panels of the top zone on the north side contain scenes of the ministry
of Christ set against gold backgrounds and depicting, starting from the west, the
Healing of the Paralytic of Bethesda
Casting out of Demons into Swine
Healing of Paralytic of Capernaum
Parable of Sheep and Goats
Parable of the Widows Mite
Parable of Pharisee and Publican
Raising of Lazarus
Samaritan Woman at Well
Woman with Haemorrhage
Healing of two Blind Men
Calling of Peter and Andrew
Multiplication of Fish and Bread
Wedding at Cana
The scenes are not arranged in chronological order and the reason behind
this particular order is unclear, but it may be observed that the last scene, the
Wedding at Cana in which Christ is shown changing water into wine, is closest
to the apse and the sanctuary and can be read as an allusion to the wine of the
Eucharist. In all scenes Christ is shown beardless and dressed in a purple tunic
with gold clavi.
The corresponding panels of the south wall depict the scenes of the Passion
and are arranged in chronological order. Nearest the apse is another scene connected to the Eucharist, the Last Supper, in which Christ introduced the concept
of the Eucharistic ritual. Moving from east to west the scenes are the:
Last Supper
Garden of Gethsemane
373
Betrayal by Judas
Arrest of Jesus
Jesus before Caiaphas
Denial of Peter
Repentance of Judas
Jesus before Pilate
Jesus on the Road to Calvary
Two Martyrs and Angel at Tomb
Road to Emmaus
Jesus appears to Thomas and Apostles
Missing in the sequence is the crucifixion, though depictions of that event are
rare in early Christian art and do not become common until centuries later.
Christ is again wearing the purple tunic in these scenes, but is now bearded.
The usual explanation for this difference is that the divinity of Christ and
his ability to perform miracles is the focus of the north wall panels, while his
human nature and mortality are on exhibit in the south wall panels, with the
beard somehow alluding to that.65
What is most interesting about the mosaics of the lowest band is the mixing of the sacred with the secular. Classe is paired with Mary on the north, and
the Palatium, symbol of earthly rulership, is paired with the Heavenly ruler in
his throne on the south side. It is impossible to say what existed in the original
decoration in place of the two saintly processions, though it is often suggested
that perhaps processions of Theoderic and his court or possibly of Arian saints
may have been there.66
No part of the decoration has evoked more analysis than the Palatium
mosaic (Figure 14.14).67 It depicts a central pavilion with three arches on piers
supporting a triangular pediment, flanked by porticos on either side, above
which is a second storey with windows placed above each arch. Behind the
palace are represented other buildings, a church, and baptisteries with a city
wall and to the right is a city gate. There are two basic interpretations of what
is represented here: the first is that the faade is one side of an interior courtyard, perhaps that of the north side of the excavated palace with the pediment
representing the entrance into the audience hall;68 the second is that it is the
65 Deliyannis, Ravenna, pp. 1567.

66 Wood, Theoderics Monuments, p. 257; Deliyannis, Ravenna, pp. 1567.
67 Carile, Vision, pp. 12955, provides an excellent review of the various theories.
68 Rizzardi, Mosaico, p. 98.
FIGURE 14.14 Mosaic of the Palatium and the city scape of Ravenna, basilica interior, SantApollinare Nuovo, Ravenna
374
Johnson
375
faade of the main entrance into the palace, the Chalke.69 This is more likely
the correct reading of the mosaic; as Cassiodorus wrote, the entrance faade of
the palace was key to understanding the importance and prestige of the ruler:
these things are shown to ambassadors who are impressed and astonished,
and from the facade which is seen first, the master is believed to be what is
attested by his dwelling place.70
The interpretation of this building as the Chalke may also be supported by a
passage in which Agnellus mentions this building in the context of describing
images of Theoderic that he had seen:
Pavia, where Theodoric built a palace, and I have seen an image of him
sitting on a horse well executed in mosaic in the vault of the apse.
There was a similar image of him in the palace that he built in this city
[Ravenna], in the apse of the dining hall that is called By the Sea, above
the gate and at the front of the main door that is called Ad Calchi, where
the main gate of the palace was, in the place which is called Sicrestum,
where the church of the Savior is seen to be. In the pinnacle of this place
was an image of Theodoric, wonderfully executed in mosaic, holding a
lance in his right hand, a shield in his left, wearing a breastplate. Facing
the shield stood Rome, executed in mosaic with spear and helmet;
and there holding a spear was Ravenna, figured in mosaic, with right foot
on the sea, left on land hastening toward the king.71
Many have seen the passage as referring to two images of Theoderic at Ravenna:
one similar to that seen by Agnellus in Pavia depicting Theoderic on horseback, which would have been in the apse of the triclinium called By the Sea;
the other would have been on the gable or pediment of the main gate of the
palace called the Chalke, in which Theoderic was shown between personifications of Rome and Ravenna. Deliyannis argues that only one image was shown,
Theoderic on horseback, between the personifications, with the mosaic being
located on the pinnacle of the apse of the Triclinium By the Sea, which the
text indicates was located on a second floor above the Chalke entrance gate.72
The passage seems to be confused and may be corruptthe location of the
69 Piccinini, Immagini, p. 44; Longhi, Regalit, p. 29; idem, Statua, p. 189; Wood,
Theoderics Buildings, p. 254.
70 Variae 7.5, ed. Mommsen, p. 204; ed. Fridh, p. 264. Procopius makes a similar remark
about the Chalke in Constantinople: De aedificiis 1.10.11, tr. H.B. Dewing, vol. 7, p. 84.
71 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis 94, ed. Deliyannis, pp. 2589; tr. Deliyannis, pp. 2056.
72 Agnellus, Book of Pontiffs, tr. Deliyannis, commentary on pp. 734.
376
Johnson
Chalke and any possible dining hall above it was not By the Sea but on the
side of the palace opposite from the sea. The location of a mosaic on a pinnacle, usually translated as gable also suggests that it was on the exterior of
the building, where a gable or pediment would normally be found. If one can
accept the description as referring to two images, then one of them was in the
gable of the Chalke and it was the representation of this image that was obliterated during the Orthodox sanitizing of the Palatium mosaic.
Whichever interpretation, the passage remains important for its description
of yet another evocation of Roman imperial imagery on the part of Theoderic.
Images of the emperor with personifications were common, and if there were
an image above the Chalke entrance it would have imitated the practice begun
by Constantine of placing images of himself above the entrances to his palace.73
Modifications to the palace mosaic carried out after the Orthodox reconciliation, identifiable due to the use of a mortar different from the original,
may be noted. Several figures that stood in the arches were obliterated except
for portions of their right arms that extended over the columns.74 The centre
of the pediment was also reworked; it perhaps contained a representation of
Theoderic, either the one described by Agnellus or another. The entrance is
filled with gold mosaic, and though some have suggested that there were also
changes in this part of the mosaic that view is not supported by a technical
analysis of the mosaic itself.75 A figure standing in the gate of the city wall on
the right of the mosaic was also filled in.
Mosaics also decorated the west wall of the nave interior, but all that remains
is a fragment showing a middle-aged man from the waist up who wears a
crown and a mantle pinned with an elaborately jewelled fibula (Figure 14.15).
The name above his head is Justinian, but that is a 19th-century addition. An
investigation of the underlying mortar revealed that the face was set during
the period of Theoderic, but the crown and fibula were set in the Byzantine
period. Speculation is that this was a portrait of Theoderic later modified into
one of Justinian, but there is really no basis for assuming the original mosaic
represented Theoderic as opposed to another man.76
Did the mosaics have an Arian message? When the church was reconciled
to the Orthodox tradition, only limited changes were made and those changes
73 Sources collected in Johnson, Theoderics Building Program, p. 87.
74 Urbano, Donation, p. 96 suggests that the arms were deliberately left to remind viewers
of the damnatio memoriae of images of Theoderic and his court.
75 Longhi, Statua, p. 191, argues the mosaic here was changed; Carile, Vision, p. 143 says no
changes have been made in this area.
76 Bernardi, Ritratto; Baldini Lippolis, Ritratto.
FIGURE 14.15 Fragmentary mosaic, possibly of Theoderic, basilica interior, SantApollinare

Nuovo, Ravenna
377
378
Johnson
could be ascribed to a desire to eliminate secular elementsTheoderic and

his courtrather than to eliminate any content whose doctrine may have
been objectionable to the Orthodox. For this reason many have argued that
there was no specific Arian content in the programme.77 A thorough analysis
published by Penni Iacco demonstrates that the mosaics did relate to Arian
doctrine, as expressed in two of the few Arian sources to survive: the Sermo
Arianorum and the Dispute of Maximinus with Augustine over the Trinity,
which took place in 427.78 In particular the link between scenes depicted in
the Christological scenes of the north wall, as well as to some of the Passion
scenes on the south wall, and references to those very scenes in surviving Arian
sources are very strong.79 For the most part these are episodes in which Christ
demonstrated a dependence upon the Father, prayed to the Father, or acted in
the name of the Father, which to the Arians all supported their view of Father
and Son being separate and distinct, with the Son having been created by the
Father. Although the reason behind the precise order of those scenes in the
programme is still a mystery, the choice of these particular scenes while omitting other events of Christs ministry demonstrates that an Arian message was
intended in the programme. Therefore, one may ask why these mosaics were
not changed or eliminated in the reconciliation? The answer is simply that just
as the Arian and Orthodox reader could interpret the biblical text in differing
fashions so, too, could the Arian and Orthodox viewer see the same scenes but
understand them differently.

The Mausoleum of Theoderic
Near the end of his life Theoderic set about preparing his final resting place,
an extraordinary building that is unique in 6th-century architecture as well
as very revealing about Theoderics influences and his perception of his own
place in history (Figure 14.16). The site chosen for the monument was northeast of the city walls, near a lighthouse, and in the area of a cemetery.
A bronze fence with carved stone pillars encircled the mausoleum, giving
it a measure of protection and setting it off from the rest of the cemetery. The
building has two levels: the lower one set at ground level is decagonal in plan,
with exterior niches on each of its sides, except for that on the west c ontaining
77 Wood, Theoderics Buildings, p. 253.
78 Sermo Arianorum, in Patrologia Latina vol. 42, pp. 67784; the Collatio Augustini cum
Maximino arianorum episcopi, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 42, pp. 70942.
79 Penni Iacco, Arianesimo, pp. 5162.
379
FIGURE 14.16 Mausoleum of Theoderic, exterior, Ravenna

an entrance (Figure 14.17). Inside the plan is cruciform creating rectangular

niches on the north, east, and south. The second level is set back from the
lower one, creating a ledge. Its plan is dodecagonal externally and internally
circular with a door directly above that of the lower level on the west and a
small niche that protrudes on the east. The interior is also circular.
380
Johnson
FIGURE 14.17 Plan of the Mausoleum of Theoderic, Ravenna

Unlike every other building erected in Ravenna during the reign of Theoderic,
the mausoleum is constructed of stone, a white limestone cut in fine ashlar
blocks. The niches of the lower level give depth to the wall and heighten the stark
geometric qualities of its design. Arches covering the niches are constructed
using what are known as joggled voussoirs, in which the blocks interlocka
technique found elsewhere in the 6th century only in Syria, suggesting that the
builders came from there, a place where stone was the common building material. The upper level appears unfinished, with a series of small arches carved
into the stone, awaiting the placement of a roof that would have extended out
over the ledge, presumably to be supported by columns as suggested by De
Angelis dOssat in his reconstruction (Figure 14.18).80 At the top of the wall is
a narrow band of carved decoration, with a tong design repeated numerous
times in each section that has parallels in Ostrogothic metalwork.81
The Anonymus Valesianus reports that to cover the building Theoderic
sought out a large stone.82 He found it in the Vinkuran quarry south of Pula,
across the Adriatic Sea in Istria, where it was quarried, loaded onto a ship, and
80 De Angelis dOssat, Studi ravennati, pp. 93111; also, Deichmann, Ravenna, 2.1, pp. 2239.
81 Rupertsberger, Zangenmotiv.
82 Anonymous Valesiana, pars posterior, c. 96, ed. Mommsen, p. 328.
381
FIGURE 14.18 Mausoleum of Theoderic, reconstruction of De Angelis dOssat

Drawing reproduced from De Angelis dOssat,
Studi ravennati: problemi di architettura
paleocristiana (1962)
brought to Ravenna.83 The monolith, 10.76 m in diameter, 3.09 m thick, and

weighing around 300 tons, was carved into the shape of a dome, curved both on
its top and underside. Twelve spurs are arranged around the edge, each carved
with the name of an apostle. Their original purpose is debated. Some scholars
have seen the openings carved into them as possible mooring for ropes that
would have manoeuvred the great stone into place atop the monument. In this
case the names would have been added later as an afterthought. The fact that
83 Tabarroni, Scienze, pp. 12934.
382
Johnson
there are twelve spurs may, however, reveal an intentional symbolism that will
be discussed below.
A large porphyry tub now displayed in the upper room of the monument
is thought to have been the kings sarcophagus, as Agnellus states that he was
so buried.84 Though it has been suggested that the labrum in the mausoleum
was not the sarcophagus of Theoderic, similar porphyry tubs had been used
as sarcophagi for 4th-century emperors in Milan.85 In addition, various 4thand 5th-century emperors had been buried in porphyry sarcophagi in both
Constantinople and Rome. In choosing a similar mode of burial for himself
Theoderic was clearly following that imperial model.
Given the seemingly unique nature of its design, the mausoleum has been
subject to a variety of interpretations. The monument has been seen as a tribute to the Germanic origins of the Ostrogoths, with the dome representing
either a burial mound or a tent, but it is any case completely foreign to the
otherwise Roman tradition found in the other buildings of Theoderic and their
decoration.86 Deichmann claimed that its uniqueness in and of itself made
the building barbarian, implying that the Ostrogothic king had returned to his
roots in his choice of a final resting place.87 The truth is in fact that the models
for Theoderics mausoleum were the mausolea of the Roman emperors.
The use of stone in the monument at Ravenna is significant as it copies the
similar use of stoneor facing of stonefound in the mausolea of Augustus,
Hadrian, and Maxentius in Rome.88 That of Helena in Rome was built of brick
and then covered with a thick layer of plaster drafted to look like stone ashlars.
In a similar vein, the inclusion of a dome in the structure is also found in the
design of all late Roman imperial mausolea from those of Helena, Constantina,
and Honorius in Rome and that of Constantine in Constantinople, all buildings that Theoderic could have seen.
Key to understanding the design of Theoderics mausoleum are the imperial mausolea discovered at Gamzigrad in Serbia, attributed to Galerius and
his mother, Romula.89 The Ravenna monument is close to them in design,
construction, and scale. Each has a two-storey design, with a burial chamber
in the podium. Mausoleum I, probably of Romula, has a square base and an
84 Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis, 39, ed. Deliyannis, p. 195.
85 David, Eternal Ravenna, p. 137; for a similar labrum used as an imperial sarcophagus for
Maximian see Johnson, Roman Imperial Mausoleum, p. 214.
86 e.g. Coroneo, Tenda.
87 Deichmann, Ravenna, vol. 1, pp. 21619.
88 On these buildings see Johnson, Roman Imperial Mausoleum, pp. 20, 31, 89.
89 Johnson, Roman Imperial Mausoleum, pp. 7482.
383
o ctagonal upper structure with a circular interior room, but no exterior colonnade. Mausoleum II, likely that of Galerius, is dodecagonal on the lower level,
which provides the floor for the upper level, but its upper structure is circular both externally and internally and was encircled by a freestanding portico.
Both were probably domed. They represent the type of mausoleum Theoderic
had in mind in the design of his own and demonstrate once again that his
models were Roman and his intent was to associate himself with the Roman
imperial tradition. The fact that his building was freestanding and not attached
to a church as were many mausolea of Christian emperors is an expression of
his desire to make himself equal to the ancients.90
On the other hand, the original mausoleum of Constantine had been built as
a freestanding monument, only to have a cruciform church attached to it later.
Theoderics building might have had an intended association with Constantines
monument in the appearance of the names of the twelve apostles on the spurs
above a twelve-sided exterior wall. Constantines own sarcophagus was originally set up in Constantinople in his mausoleum-church of the Holy Apostles
surrounded by stelai or cenotaphs of the twelve apostles, an arrangement of
which Theoderic could have known from his time in Constantinople.91 At the
very least Theoderic would have been aware that emperors in the East were
buried in a church dedicated to the Apostles and some emperors in the West
had found their final resting space in the Mausoleum of Honorius, attached to
Old St Peters in Rome.
The link to Constantines tomb was but one symbol employed here. The
choice of a decagonal structural to surround the burial chamber is unique and
may be related to the symbolism of the number ten, which represented perfection, an idea found in both the writings of Boethius and Cassiodorus.92
The related buildings in Gamzigrad also provide a clue as to the original
location of the sarcophagus of Theoderic within his mausoleum. Both had
burial chambers in the lower level, as did another imperial monument found
at Sarkamen, perhaps that of the mother of Maximin Daia, the Mausoleum
of Diocletian at Split, as well as the so-called Tor de Schiavi in Rome and its
close relative the Mausoleum of Maxentius.93 The cruciform arrangement of
the interior space in the Mausoleum of Theoderic has many parallels in Roman
90 For other associations of the building with antiquity see Deliyannis, Mausoleum.
91 Johnson, Roman Imperial Mausoleum, pp. 11920.
92 Boethius, De institutione arithmetica, 2.41, Patrologia Latina, vol. 63, p. 1146; Cassiodorus,
Variae 1.10, ed. Mommsen, p. 19; ed. Fridh, p. 201. Johnson, Theoderics Building Program,
p. 94.
93 Johnson Roman Imperial Mausoleum, pp. 59109.
384
Johnson
funerary architecture, and in all cases the arms are used for holding sarcophagi or earlier urns. In the two-storeyed funerary monuments the lower level
is always the burial chamber; the upper level functions as a memorial temple
or chapel.

Other Art in the Mediterranean During Ostrogothic Rule
Theoderic and his successors were not alone in promoting the building and
decoration of churches in Italy during their rule. The bishops of Rome remained
active patrons during this time. Symmachus (498514) was particularly active,
building several new churches, repairing old ones, and adding oratoria, or
chapels, to important churches such as St Peters and St Pauls.94 One of the
most important works of art from this period is found in the apse decoration
of the church of SS Cosmas and Damian, a church made by converting part of
the Templum Pacis. The decoration of the apse is the earliest surviving example of a type found in several early medieval apse programmes in Rome: Christ
is depicted in the centre, descending from heaven in the Second Coming,
flanked by Peter and Paul who present the two titular saints (Figure 14.19). The
patron, Felix IV (52630) is shown on the far left, holding a model of the church
and St Theodore is depicted on the far right to balance the composition. The
similarity in style and technique of these mosaics to those of the Theoderican
monuments in Ravenna suggests strong artistic ties between the two cities.
Other bishops in Italy carried out their own patronage of similar projects.
To cite one example, Sabinus, bishop of Canosa in Apulia from 514 until his
death in 566, built a new baptistery next to the old cathedral, a new cathedral
complex, and the tetraconch church of San Leucio, originally dedicated to SS
Cosmas and Damian.95
During this period Justinian was engaged in his great building programme,
with additions to the Great Palace and the churches of SS Sergius and Bacchus
and the jewel of 6th-century architecture, Hagia Sophia in Constantinople,
completed in in 537. In Ravenna, Justinian and his wife Theodora were depicted
in mosaics in the church of San Vitale, founded in 526 but largely constructed
after Belisarius had taken the city in 540.
94 Liber Pontificalis, c. 53.610.

95 Volpe, Architecture, pp. 13454.
FIGURE 14.19 Apse mosaic, church of SS Cosmos and Damian, Rome: Christ at centre, flanked by Peter and Paul, Cosmos and Damian,
Felix IV (52630) to far left and St Theodore to far right
385
386
Johnson
Conclusion
In summary, the artistic patronage of Theoderic and his successors demonstrates that they saw themselves as the heirs to the Roman emperors who had
preceded them in ruling Italy. The only non-Roman artistic detail found anywhere in their patronage is the small carved frieze at the top of the wall on
Theoderics mausoleum. The influences that are expressed in their patronage
are strongly identifiable with Rome and Constantinople. The art and architecture of the Ostrogothic rulers are not crude adaptations of these traditions, but
sophisticated works in their own right and in line with contemporary architecture and decoration in Italy and the Mediterranean area. In their emulation
of earlier prototypesthe archictecture of early Christian baptisteries and
churches, mosaics in Roman churches, and the architecture of the late Roman
palaces and the imperial mausoleathese works express a continuity in artistic tradition that is nearly seamless as Theoderic and his architects and artists
created the new in imitation of the ancient.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. D.M. Deliyannis (Corpus

Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 199), Turhout 2006; trans. D.M. Deliyannis,
The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna, Washington, D.C. 2004.
Anonymus Valesianus, ed. T. Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII.,
vol. 1 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 9), Berlin 1892,
pp. 30629.
Cassiodorus, Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodori Senatoris Variae (Monumneta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1895; ed. A. Fridh, Magni
Aurelii Cassiodori: Variae Libri XII (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 96),
Turnhout 1973.
Arnold, J.J., Theoderics Invincible Mustache, Journal of Late Antiquity 6 (2013), 15283.
Augenti, A., Archeologia e topografia a Ravenna: Il Palazzo di Teoderico e la Moneta
Aurea, Archeologia medievale 32 (2005), 733.
, The Palace of Theoderic at Ravenna: A New Analysis of the Complex, in
L. Lavan/L. zgenel/A. Sarantis (eds.), Housing in Late Antiquity, From Palaces to
Shops, Leiden 2007, pp. 42553.
387
Baldini Lippolis, I., Articolazione e decorazione del palazzo imperiale di Ravenna,

Corso di cultura sullarte ravennate e bizantina 43 (1997), 131.
, Il ritratto musivo nella facciata interna di S. Apollinare Nuovo a Ravenna, in
F. Guidobaldi/A. Paribeni (eds.), Atti del VI colloquio dellassociazione italiana per
lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico...(Venezia, 2023 gennaio 1999), Ravenna
2000, pp. 46378.
Bernardi, G., Il ritratto musivo di SantApollinare Nuovo: Teoderico o Giustiniano,
in C. Barsanti/A. Paribeni/S. Pedone (eds.), Rex Theodericvs. Il medaglione doro di
Morro dAlba (Espera archeologia 2), Rome 2008, pp. 1414.
Bertelli, C., Ritratti in avorio, in marmo e in mosaic, in A. Augenti/C. Bertelli (eds.),
Santi Banchieri Re. Ravenna e Classe nel VI secolo San Severo il tempio ritrovato,
Milano 2006, pp. 1007.
Bjornlie, M.S., Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople. A
Study of Cassiodorus and the Variae, 527554, Cambridge 2013.
Cirelli, E., Ravenna: archeologia di una citt, Florence 2008.
Coroneo, R., La tenda di pietra: storia di unidea, in A.C. Quintavalle (ed.), Medioevo:
immagini e ideologie, Milano 2005, pp. 16577.
Davide, M., Eternal Ravenna from the Etruscans to Venice, Milano 2013.
De Angelis dOssat, G., Studi ravennati: problemi di architettura paleocristiana, Ravenna
1962.
Deichmann, F.W., Ravenna: Haupstadt des sptantiken Abendlandes, 5 vols., Wiesbaden,
196995.
, The Mausoleum of Theoderic and the Seven Wonders of the World, Journal
of Late Antiquity 3 (2010), 36585.
De Maria, S. (ed.), Nuove ricerche e scavi nellarea della Villa di Teodorico a Galeata: atti
della Giornata di studi, Ravenna 26 marzo 2002, Bologna 2004.
Fabbi, F., Tipologie battisteriali nel litorale adriatico: il Battistero degli Ariani e il
Battistero degli Ortodossi di Ravenna, tra premesse simboliche, archetipi architettonici e geometria, in M. Tagliaferri (ed.), Architetture del sacro nel bacino Adriatico,
Bologna 2011, pp. 16598.
Farioli Campanati, R., I mosaici di San Severo e i mosaici di Ravenna nel VI secolo, in
A. Augenti/C. Bertelli (eds.), Santi Banchieri Re. Ravenna e Classe nel VI secolo San
Severo il tempio ritrovato, Milano 2006, pp. 716.
Fauvinet-Ranson, V., Decor civitatis, decor Italiae. Monuments, travaux publics et spectacles au VIe sicle daprs les Variae de Cassiodore, Bari 2006.
Fuchs, S., Bildnisse und Denkmler aus der Ostgotenzeit, Die Antike 19 (1943), 10953.
Gatto, L., Ancora sulledilizia e lurbanistica nella Roma di Teodorico, Romanobarbarica
12 (199293), 31180.
388
Johnson
Ghirardini, G., Gli scavi del palazzo di Teodorico a Ravenna, Monumenti antichi 24
(1918), 737838.
Guerrini, P. Theoderius rex nelle testimonianze epigrafiche, Temporis signa.
Archeologia della tarda antichit e del medioevo, 6 (2011), 13374.
Harper, J.G., The Provisioning of Marble for the Sixth-Century Churches of Ravenna:
A Reconstructive Analysis, in R. Colella/et al. (eds.), Pratum Romanum. Richard
Krautheimer zum 100. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 1997, pp. 13147.
Herrin, J., The Imperial Palace of Ravenna, in The Emperors House. Palaces from
Augustus to the Age of Absolutism, ed. M. Featherstone, et al (Berlin, 2015), 5362.
Johnson, M.J., Towards a History of Theoderics Building Program, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 42 (1988), 7396.
, The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 2009.
Kidd, D., Il tesoro di Domagnano, in I Goti a San Marino. Il tesoro di Domagnano,
Milano 1995, pp. 4959.
Kiilerich, B., Antiquus et modernus. Spolia in Medieval ArtWestern, Byzantine,
Islamic, in A. Qunitavalle (ed.), Medioevo: il tempo degli antichi. Atti del convegno
internazionale di studi, Parma, 2428 settembre 2003, Milano 2006, pp. 13545.
Longhi, D., La statua equestre di Teodorico e la raffigurazione del Palatium in
SantApollinare Nuovo, Felix Ravenna, 4th series, 15770 (20012004), 189200.
, La cronaca di Agnello come fonte per la ricostruzione dellimmagine epurata dal timpano del Palatium in S. Apollinare Nuovo, Atti del VII Colloquio AISCOM
(Venezia, 2225 marzo 2000), Ravenna 2001, pp. 99108.
, Regalit di Cristo e regalit di Teodorico nei mosiaci di SantApollinare Nuovo
a Ravenna, Ikon 5 (2012), 2945.
McClanan, A., Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses. Image and Empire, New
York, 2002.
MacGregor, A., The Afterlife of Childerics Ring, in M. Henig/D. Plantzos (eds.),
Classicism to Neo-Classicism: Essays Dedicated to Gertrud Seidmann, Oxford 1999.
Metlich, M.A., The Coinage of Ostrogothic Italy, London 2004.
Pellini, G., Il complesso episcopale ariano, in C. Barsanti/A. Paribeni/S. Pedone (eds.),
Rex Theodericvs. Il medaglione doro di Morro dAlba (Espera archeologia 2), Rome
2008, pp. 10519.
Penni Iacco, E., Larianesimo nei mosaici di Ravenna, Ravenna 2011.
Piccinini, P., Immagini dautorit a Ravenna, in A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol.
2.2: Dallet bizantina allet ottoniana. Ecclesiologia, cultura e arte, Ravenna 1992,
pp. 3178.
Righini, V., Materiali e tecniche da costruzione in et tardoantica e altomedievale,
Ledilizia abitativa, in A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dallet bizantina
allet ottoniana. Territorio, economia e societ, Ravenna 1991, pp. 193221.
389
Rizzardi, C., Il mosaico a Ravenna ideologia e arte (Studi e scavi nuova serie 32), Bologna
2011.
Rizzardi, C./Vernia, B., Scene circensi nei mosaici pavimentali provenienti dal Palazzo
di Teoderico a Ravenna: ipotesi ricostruttive e significati, in C. Angelelli/A. Paribeni
(eds.), Atti del XII colloquio dellassociazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico (Padova, 1415 e 17 febbraioBrescia, 16 febbraio 2006), Tivoli 2007,
pp. 11930.
Rupertsberger, E., Zum Zangenmotiv auf dem Mausoleum Theoderichs zu Ravenna,
in D. Ahrens (ed.), Thiasos ton mouson: Studien zu Antike und Christentum: Festschrift
fr Josef Fink zum 70. Geburtstag (Beihefte zum Archiv fr Kulturgeschichte 20),
Cologne 1984, pp. 13945.
Russo, E., Larchitettura di Ravenna paleocristiana, Venezia 2003.
, Una nuova proposta per la sequenza cronologica de palazzo imperiale di
Ravenna, in Ravenna da capitale imperiale a capitale esarcale. Atti del XVII congresso
internazionale di studi sullalto medioevo, Ravenna, 612 giugno 2004, Spoleto 2005,
pp. 15590.
Savini, G., Gli scavi del palazzo di Teoderico. Avanzi scoperti negli anni 190812, Ravenna,
1998.
Schade, K., Frauen in der SptantikeStatus und Reprsentation. Eine Untersuchung
zur rmischen und frhbyzantinischen Bildniskunst, Mainz 2003.
Tabarroni, G., Scienza e tecnica nel mausoleo di Teoderico, Ravenna. Studi e Ricerche
6.2 (1999), 12534.
Urbano, A., Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae: The Catholic
Reconciliation of Ravenna and the Church of SantApollinare Nuovo, Journal of
Early Christian Studies 13 (2005), 71110.
Verhoeven, M., The Early Christian Monuments of Ravenna. Transformations and
Meaning, Turnholt 2011.
Volpe, G., Architecture and Church Power in Late Antiquity: Canosa and San Giusto
(Apulia), in L. Lavan/L. zgenel/A. Sarantis (eds.), Housing in Late Antiquity, From
Palaces to Shops, Leiden 2007, pp. 13168.
Westall, R., Theoderic Patron of the Churches of Rome? Acta ad archaeologiam et
artium historiam pertinentia, 27 (2014), 11938.
Wood, I., Theoderics Monuments in Ravenna, in S. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.),
The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century. An Ethnographic
CHAPTER 15
Barbarizing the Bel Paese: Environmental History

in Ostrogothic Italy
Paolo Squatriti
Introduction
Is an environmental history of Ostrogothic Italy possible? The question is
worth posing, for both Ostrogothicists and environmental historians have
chosen to avoid this field of inquiry. Pre-modern environmental history, and
not just of those Mediterranean provinces that concern us here, has had particular difficulty inserting itself into the dominant paradigms of more traditional historiography. This holds true for both the chronological and the spatial
parameters that other styles of history accept as a matter of course. Thus any
environmental history of Ostrogothic Italy must grapple with problems of
scale that derive from the accepted ways historians have for dividing up time
and space in the peninsula.1
The chronological scale of the specialist in barbarian invasions is not
perfectly congruent with the rather long durations and comparatively slow
processes of change that tend to occupy environmental historians. Gothic
authority in Italy was concentrated in three human generations between the
years 487 and 554, but phenomena like climate and pedological change are
measured over far longer spans, so a specifically Ostrogothic ecology in Italy is
hard to discern. Since trends of environmental change do not move in lockstep
with post-classicists accepted chronologies, concepts like Late Antiquity lose a
lot of their sharpness when applied to environmental discourse. Moreover, the
great events in an environmental narrative might include a meteorite strike or
the spread of a contagious pathogen, neither of which has a logical position in
the usual narratives based on fluctuations of political power, theological orientation, or commercial connectivity, all focused on human agency.2
1 On scale: Delort/Walter, Histoire, p. 12; Hoffmann, Medieval Christendom, p. 45.

2 A large meteorite did fall on mount Sirente in Abruzzo about 400, but no contemporaries
seem to have noticed: Santilli et al., A Catastrophe, pp. 31320.
Environmental History in Ostrogothic Italy
391
Quite like the asymmetries between the time of the Environment and the
time of History are the asymmetries created by the different geographies used
in ecologically informed and politically informed recreations of the past.
Restricting ones purview to those parts of a territory or ecosystem found on
one side of a political frontier (itself liable to have moved a lot in late antique
Italy) can produce distortion. The attempt to take the ecological particularities of places as co-evolving with people necessarily bases itself on particular
topographical features such as hydrological catchment basins, mountains and
valleys, coastlines and lagoons, and marshes and forested areas, marginalizing
the delimitations that humans lay over them. Furthermore, the environmental history of Ostrogothic Italy, like any other environmental history, is bound
to emphasize micro-topographical difference and to qualify and localize any
broader claims. This is especially true for a territory as various as that of the
Italian peninsula, long celebrated for the contrasts that made the beautiful
country (il bel paese in Italian).
Perhaps it is exactly this inability to say much that is generally true and universally applicable to the whole peninsula or the resuscitated Roman Empire
of Theoderic (extending from the Balkans to Galicia) that brings environmental history closer to other historical perspectives. Nowadays the best synthesizers of post-classical history in Italy resort to regional diversity as the only viable
master narrative, the best way to make sense of a period about which we know
too much to create tidy narratives.3 Because post-classical social, cultural,
and economic histories hesitate to reconstruct distinctive patterns for the
period following the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, they tend to resemble
environmental history. Thus an environmental history of Ostrogothic Italy is
possible as long as we are flexible about what we mean by environmental history and Ostrogothic Italy. If we consider the latter to have been an integral
part of the western Mediterranean, within which took place various ecological processes that transcended political, linguistic, and religious boundaries,
then an environmental history becomes feasible. And if we accept that environmental knowledge about pre-modern places is patchy and based on scattered sources that do not complement each other, then an Italian-Gothic story
might emerge, though one in close connection to Lombard, Byzantine, and
wider Mediterranean stories.
3 This is the strategy of such overviews as Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne; Arthur, Italian
Landscapes; Zanini, Le Italie.
392

Squatriti
The Population Problem
Essential to such a history is demography. As the foremost practitioner of

medieval environmental history, Richard Hoffmann, succinctly put it in his
contribution to a general history of European environments, Europes medieval demographic experience...is central to its environmental history.4 Thus,
understanding what happened to a landscape or seascape in the past, or how
environmental relationships evolved in any slice of the long Middle Ages,
requires understanding the numbers and the distribution of people on the
land. As the very recent past has shown us, in shaping economic and ecological patterns the sheer size of a territorys population is at least as relevant as
the technologies available and the cultural outlook. Equally powerful are the
other behaviours of a population, its average life expectancy and death rates,
its fertility levels, and shifts in these. In the first millennium, demographic constraints worked differently than they do in the modern world, after the demographic transition to low birth and death rates; but, as Hoffmann argued, the
importance of demographic facts in shaping environmental relations remains.5
The problem of course is that for the Italian peninsula, and even more for
the 5th and 6th centuries, demographic data are scarce and unreliable. Few
and intractable sources have understandably discouraged scholarly engagement in post-classical demographic history: the decline of the ancient epigraphic habit, the paucity of administrative documents, and the indifference
of late antique authors to issues of population mean historians usual sources
are of little avail.6 Yet it is demography that in the current efflorescence of
post-classical scholarship remains the key unresolved question, the one that
would unlock the most Dark Age doors, not just the environmental ones. As
the issue is significant, but studies few, the fragile data can be forced into the
service of paradigms, and indeed there is a tendency for the theoretical models
of medievalists to prop themselves up on thin demographic foundations: thus
numerous significant moments in medieval history, like the end of the Roman
4 Hoffmann, Medieval Christendom, p. 47. See also Delort/Walter, Histoire, p. 189.

5 For an orthodox environmental history of the modern weight of numbers see Ponting,
A New Green History, pp. 23164, 40911. Aside from the radically higher growth rates of the
past 200 years, relevant differences between modern and pre-modern demography include
medical remedies to natural checks on population, and the contemporary ability to keep
population size out of balance with agricultural productivity by using fossil fuels (pp. 879).
6 Cassiodorus (Variae 11.39) is a partial exception: he noted that Romes urban fabric arose
when there were more Romans around than in 533.
393
Empire, have been connected to demographic trends despite our rather limited understanding of these trends.7
Naturally, even before the recent surge in post-classical research there
already existed an orthodoxy about the periods population, for Italy and
elsewhere.8 The studies of Beloch and Russell, based on written sources
and limited funerary archaeology, mirrored in demographic terms the negative, indeed catastrophist evaluation of civilization as a whole in the wake
of Romes fall that held sway before the increase in post-classical research of
the late 20th century.9 Whether they allowed some demographic recovery
in the 4th century or not, the classic studies represented Italian populations
shrinking from the 2nd century onward, dramatically after 476, catastrophically during the Gothic War, and confidently postulated that no more than four
million people lived in early medieval Italy. Both the willingness to offer hard
numerical estimates of regional populations despite the weak evidence and
the equally confident use of Gibbonian rhetoric (decline, depression, dissolution) to classify trends in Italian population after 400 are characteristics of
this scholarship.
A major role in creating this image was played by the demography of
Rome itself. Thanks to the Roman states involvement in supplying free food
to the citizens of the imperial capital (the annona), some precise figures can
be advanced for the citys inhabitants. Records of the states efforts to supply
grain and, increasingly in Late Antiquity, other foods for the Romans allowed
reconstructions that confirmed and authorized the minimalist demographic
narrative for Italy as a whole. The city famous for its bloated one million inhabitants in the 1st century seemed half as full in 400, had maybe 100,000 around
500 when Cassiodorus publicized Theoderics annona distributions, but barely
50,000 after 554. Thus, in 200 years (350550), a reduction of 95 per cent took
place, a catastrophe if ever there was one.10
7 Boureau, Une histoire, 2334; LoCascio, La dissoluzione, argued for connections
between Romes fall and decline in population.
8 See Bardet/Dupquier (eds.), Histoire des populations, especially pp. 32, 13367, 485508;
McCormick, Origins, p. 782 summarizes: the overall picture...represents decline:
dwindling populations, a mutating disease pool, lessening metal production, contracting
diffusion and product range of ceramics [that] followed different chronologies in different regions. The picture looks different viewed from the eastern Mediterranean: Banaji,
Agrarian Change, pp. 201, 213.
9 Beloch, Die Bevlkerung Europas, pp. 4067, 414, 4212; Russell, Ecclesiastical Age,
pp. 99111; Russell, Late Ancient, pp. 367, 60, 934, 12536, 1726.
10 Durliat, De la ville, pp. 91121; Paroli, Le strutture, pp. 328; Meneghini/Santangeli
Valenziani, Roma, pp. 214.
394
Squatriti
By the late 500s most other Italian cities had also shrunk and were inhabited by many fewer people than earlier. Yet the situation of Rome was unique
and must not colour interpretations of what transpired elsewhere in the peninsula (or Roman Empire). Romes size during the empire was ecologically
unsustainabledependent on ramified and delicate systems of long-distance
conveyances of biomass that the citys immediate hinterland could not produce in the amounts required to support a million mouths.11 For some centuries the ideological value of keeping Rome huge justified the emperors
appropriation of resources in the provinces and their transfer to the city on
the Tiber. But in Late Antiquity, when new Romes arose and few emperors
spent much time in the old one, the ideological benefit of Romes gigantism
was no longer apparent. Theoderic seems to have been the last ruler willing
to organize the biomass transfers the annona required, and the last ruler who
thought like an emperor about Rome and its ecological situation.12 Without
the commitment of the state to its unnatural size, Rome returned rapidly to its
commensurate dimension: 40,000 is about the right size for the agro Romano
to sustain in pre-industrial production and transportation conditions.13 Hence
Romes population parabola, often turned into a parable of post-classical civilization, is not indicative of fluctuations in peninsular population at all. Instead
it tells us about post-Constantinian politics and how the 5th-century city failed
to generate the ideological returns that made emperors investments in accumulation and logistics worthwhile.
The singularity of Rome, and the more moderate reductions archaeologists
trace in other Italian cities (and the contrary trends in places like Venice or
Naples, both with signs of 5th- and 6th-century economic vitality, hence likely
of population stability), reminds us that the demography of Italys cityscape
varied vastly during the Ostrogoths ascendancy.14 It is possible that towns
11 For stimulating discussion see Van Dam, Rome, pp. 210, 439. For a different perspective: LoCascio/Malanima, Cycles and Stability, pp. 214, 223. On the annona see Jaidi,
Lannone, pp. 83102. A fine study of how the late antique annona affected a minor province like Calabria is Noy, Economia e societ, pp. 57984, with corrections in Le citt
calabresi, pp. 477517.
12 Brown, Through the Eye, pp. 45963, argues that from the 6th-century papal charitable
distributions perpetuated earlier emoluments.
13 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 424, connects decline in Etrurian settlement
to Romes reduced demand for produce: the citys size shaped Italian, not just provincial, demography. Hemphill, Deforestation, pp. 1567, depicted fluctuations in forest at
Civitella Cesi as the result of Romes demand for agricultural surplus. Thus both see cities
as far more environmentally significant than Horden/Purcell, Corrupting Sea, pp. 89122.
14 Gelichi et al., Isole fortunate?, pp. 4750; Arthur, Naples; Savino, Campania tardoantica.
395
on the coast or in well-watered plains proved more susceptible to population

losses than inland places and hill settlements, which for once benefited from
their relative isolation and more sluggish communications and may have been
healthier.15 Similarly, an exception should be made for cities through which
Eastern Roman government functioned, such as Ravenna (never a crowded
place) or Otranto, whose importance to AegeanAdriatic connectivity raised
its late antique profile.16
But if diversity is this periods leitmotif, Italian cities share some common
demographic elements. Even though other cities were not, like Rome, dependent on an artificially enhanced hinterland (virtually the entire Mediterranean,
not just the Italia Suburbicaria Constantine assigned to supplying Rome),
archaeologists find that during Late Antiquity Italian urban communities built
much less, occupied less space, and created consumption centres that were
reduced by comparison to the earlier centuries of the millennium.17 Deducing
from this, the shrinkage of urban populations is one general story we can tell
about late antique Italy.
For rural populations, the extraordinary results of decades of field surveys
provide a less unanimous verdict. Post-classical pottery shards, the usual indicator of settlement (and hence of population) can be difficult to identify or
date. In addition, even without ceasing to exist people can resort to more
perishable containers (e.g. of wood) that elude archaeological surveyors.
Moreover, south Italy and particularly Sicily seem to have enjoyed more stability than the rest of Italy.18 But 5th-century shards and more substantial proxies
suggest lessened number, size, and economic complexity of rural sites in much
of Italy, and this is generally thought to be a sign that fewer people inhabited
the countryside than when Roman villas had structured that space.19 All told,
archaeology reveals a rural Italy as depopulated in the 5th and 6th centuries
15 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, p. 426. Much depends on the significance assigned
to plague and malaria: for example, Harrison, Plague, pp. 302 provocatively argued that
cultural and economic choices, not demographic change, lay behind landscape and settlement change. Meanwhile, Staffa, I centri urbani, pp. 44951 gives examples of coastal
towns in Abbruzzo doing far better than isolated inland communities.
16 On late antique Otranto see Wilkinson, Summary and Discussion, pp. 4158; Zanini, Le
Italie bizantine, pp. 11617.
17 With late 20th-century Hong Kong as an example, it is perfectly possible for numerous
vacant lots to coexist with burgeoning urban life and population: Boyden et al., Ecology,
p. 113.
18 Volpe, Villaggi, pp. 42635; Cacciaguerra, Dinamiche, pp. 4416.
19 Lewit, Pigs, p. 79, warns against reading too much into archaeological invisibility. See
Chapter 10 in this volume for a more cautious evaluation of Ostrogothic demography.
396
Squatriti
as urban Italy was. It is still impossible to measure the extent of this emptiness precisely (particularly for small farms) or its chronological patterns in any
detail, yet the trend looks robust.
Thus, whether one accepts as canonical the numbers of Beloch, Russell,
or McEvedy, or the newer figures of Lo Cascio, scholars largely agree that
from a high point around 150, Italys population curve sagged during the
first millennium.20 The downward trend across Late Antiquity locates
the most severe reduction in the 6th century, leading towards a 7th-century
demographic nadir.21 Such orthodoxies might be nuanced, for example with
regional chronologies, and divergences among demographers reveal that consensus is far from complete, but compared with either the classical period or
the central Middle Ages, late antique Italy was underpopulated.22
More productive than debates about the precise extent of this depopulation are some recent demographic studies based on skeletal evidence. In 2001
Giovannini published a bold analysis of the birth and death rates prevalent
in several medieval communities between the Alps and Aspromonte, whose
cemeteries archaeologists had uncovered in the preceding decades.23 Since
a half dozen of Giovanninis case studies date to the 5th and 6th centuries,
his findings are relevant here. Giovannini eschewed absolute numbers and
avoided the urge to fit demographic findings into received chronologies and
historiographic models. In tune with contemporary historical demography,
Giovannini sought above all to establish micro-demographic patterns that
age-at-death, treated statistically for both genders, might reveal.24 Among
the surprises that looking at small population samples intensively effects
is the possibility, championed by Giovannini, that the low population levels in
Italy after the 4th century were a desired outcome, a deliberate strategy to balance mouths, arms, and natural resources so as to keep living standards high
over the long run.
20 See note 9 above; McEvedy/Jones, Atlas, pp. 1067, where 3.5 million is the figure for
AD 600. Mordant reflections on scholars tendency to imagine pre-modern patterns as
graphs are in Stiner et al., Scale, pp. 2426.
21 LoCascio/Malanima, Cycles, p. 207 calculate that pre-industrial Italy had a long-term
average population of about 10 million, and a carrying capacity of about 15 (pp. 21314).
22 Even LoCascio/ Malanima, Cycles, pp. 2057, who argue basic stability 1000 BCAD 1900
with soft fluctuations coming in cycles of about 300 years, accept a reduction from ca. 16
to 8 million between AD 100 and 600.
23 Giovannini, Natalit.
24 For reviews of traditional and contemporary trends in historical demography, Livi-Bacci,
Macro versus Micro, pp. 1517, 213; Del Panta/Sonnino, Introduzione, pp. xxiiixxvi,
focuses on Italy.
397
According to Giovannini the cemeteries of post-Roman Italy reveal healthy

populations whose bones show little wear and tear of the kind associated with
gruelling agrarian labour, and few signs of endemic disease and malnutrition.
Quite unlike the teeth and bones that tend to come from similar rural sites
of imperial date, the post-classical skeletons from several sites belonged to
women and men who ate food sufficient in quantity, quality, and variety, and
who worked less and suffered fewer illnesses than their Roman ancestors. Only
a cemetery near Piana degli Albanesi in Sicily surrendered 5th-century human
remains with classical levels of pathology and malnutrition, which Giovannini
attributed to the islands more solid political and social structureto Romes
failure to fall fast enough there.25 As became clear from the enamel on teeth,
the porousness of crania, and body size, other late antique people at Castro dei
Volsci, Savona, and Aosta had established measurably better ecological relations with the places they inhabited than one might expect from measuring
human societies success purely by total numbers of individuals on the ground.
Moreover, low incidences of child mortality and the sex ratios of the mature
dead suggested to Giovannini that in early medieval rural communities birth
rates were kept artificially low by delaying marriage, by prolonged breastfeeding and other means, so as to challenge the stereotyped assumption of
miserable post-classical populations crushed by high death rates and natural rates of reproduction, governed only by physiological fecundity. Instead,
late Roman people in the rural and small-town locales investigated by
Giovannini were few because cultural choices kept them that way, and also
perhaps kept them happy.
A 2007 critique of Giovanninis rose-tinted demography by Barbiero and
Dalla Zuanna confirmed some of his analysis but also refined his assertions
by considerably expanding the database.26 Though the information is by definition statistically inconclusive because it was based on limited case studies,
one can explain the few child burials that Giovannini thought to be a sign
of low child mortality rates by cultural customs (funerary age segregation),
and the life expectancy of early medieval Italians may not have improved by
20 per cent as Giovannini argued.27 In fact the growth of rural population,
particularly in the Po Valley in the two centuries after 800 that Barbiero and
Della Zuanna emphasize, coincided with a lowering of mortality, a consequent
25 Giovannini, Natalit, pp. 745.
26 Barbiera/Dalla Zuanna, Le dinamiche, pp. 1942.
27 Spina/Canci, Ferento (VT), p. 330, found high numbers of infant bodies in a Latial 67thcentury cemetery (42.6 per cent of the total), and were rightly puzzled by the unusual
finding (n.20).
398
Squatriti
lengthening of average life spans, and hence an increase in average fertility.

This Carolingian-era rise in population seems to have come at the same time
as landlords began what Wickham calls the caging of the peasantry, or the
reduction of rural autonomy and living standards associated with the development of villages and incastellamento.28 Peasant self-regulation and agency is
clearly not the whole story in Italys post-Roman demography.
Regardless, these new, sophisticated demographic analyses complicate our
picture of a tiny and impoverished late- and post-Roman population caught
in a high pressure demographic regime (high birth and death rates that
erase each other, keeping overall numbers low), and basically at the mercy of
every environmental force, from disease to weather. The low pressure demographic regime (low fertility and mortality rates) postulated by Giovannini
may not modify the sense most scholars have that Italian population shrank
after 300, and remained low until at least the 10th century, but it does have
interesting implications for our understanding of environmental conditions in
Ostrogothic times.

Secret Environmental Agents
Population collapse in 6th-century Italy can appear necessary to make sense

of the wobbly states and ruling classes of that time.29 Beyond the dislocations
of the Gothic War, it has been the epidemic formerly known as Justinianic
Plague that has enjoyed most favour to explain 6th-century demographic and
social change. Whatever it was, the Early Medieval Pandemic that erupted
5414 and recurred in 558 deeply alarmed some contemporaries, most of
them Constantinople-based.30 For Italy we lack contemporary descriptions,
although pope Gregory I mentioned lethal diseases in his lists of cataclysms
during the last decade of the 6th century and Paul the Deacon also described
such ravages in Italy 250 years later.31
For an epidemic assigned the role of historical protagonist, the early
medieval pandemic also left few direct archaeological traces of itself.32 The
mass burials at Castro dei Volsci are the best evidence available. Their date
is uncertain, but the skeletons were in 6th-century contexts. The dead
28 Wickham, The Inheritance, ch. 22.
29 Martin, Lvolution, p. 354.
30 Hoffmann, Environmental History, p. 55, advocates the new name.
31 Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 4612, on under documentation.
32 Stathakopoulos, Invisible Protagonists; Stathakopoulos, Death, pp. 10812.
399
were also strangely uniform in gender and age, whereas the disease is thought
to have been egalitarian.33 Thus it is the various signs of depopulation discussed above that provide the best data on the impact of the pandemic in Italy.
The circularity of the logic here is evident. Italy in the 6th century does not furnish much fodder for debates on the plague and its impact in Mediterranean
Late Antiquity.
As for the second most famous environmental agent in the history of
the periodclimatethe difficulties are opposite. The evidence is superabundant, and growing fast thanks to contemporary concern for climate
change. The evidence is also contradictory, enough to discourage building
causal bridges between the fairly clear fact that European and Mediterranean
climates got colder and wetter (on average) in the 5th and 6th centuries and
the social or economic repercussions from this.34 Moreover, the increasingly
refined micro-regional knowledge palaeo-climatologists produce suggest that
in a geographically varied peninsula like Italy there could be major differences in how a given landscape experienced and responded to fluctuations
in climate.
Such fluctuations were normal. Climate changes, always. It usually does so
at a pace incommensurate with human perception, though that never discouraged people from noting weather events as unprecedented or meaningful.
Since the meaning of meteorological phenomena was contested, weather rhetoric in Late Antiquity (like today) was political. Thus Cassiodorus celebrated
letters, so full of the natural history that everyone mines to prove it rained or
flooded a lot or was really cold in the early 6th century, are actually polemical
texts whose inclusion of environmental detail legitimated Amal policies and
justified the activities of Amal agents who, decades after the fact and exiled
in Constantinople, had a lot of explaining to do.35 And, far from being naturalistic observations of what transpired, Ostrogothic meteorological sources
constructed reality following late antique philosophical principles. The Variae
were a tool of mid 6th-century political debates among aristocrats, and so were
Cassiodorus accounts of nature. To take them as straightforward evidence of
facts on the ground, or in the skies (like the dust veil event), is unwise.
33 Giovannini, Natalit, pp. 1011.
34 Luterbacher et al., A Review, p. 148. Mediterranean dendro-archaeological data is
scanty, making more meaningful the lack of any trace of the dust veil event Cassiodorus
described around 537 (Variae 12.29) on the wood used to fix Constantinoples harbours:
Pearson et al., Dendroarchaeology, p. 3411.
35 Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 26979. Chapters 3 and 10 in this volume follow Cassiodorus more
closely.
400
Squatriti
Of course, some Italian landscape change seems congruent with the average image of 5th- and 6th-century coldness and dampness. Grains like rye,
whose popularity grew in the period, can tolerate colder, wetter (but also
drier) conditions than wheat. The swamps that Theoderics administration
claimed to dry are not attested in earlier times. Some alluviation seems to date
from the late Roman period (on which, see below). Still, such signs of barbarization or worsening also exist for earlier periods considered florid.36 At
the mouth of the Arno, for instance, stratigraphic excavation shows the river
was just as turbulent, liable to flood, and erosive in the 2nd century as it was
in the 5th.37 North of the Arno, unlucky Luni flooded in the latter 300s, after
an earthquake, but was rebuilt and revived during the 6th century, despite
a clogged port.38 Further south, two Campanian streams were most active
in the 3rd century, not the 6th.39 At Reggio on the Ionian coast, 5th-century
reconstruction of the artificial outlet of the S. Lucia torrent after a flood suggests builders expected less volume and flow than had the original Hadrianic
channel-makers.40 And on the Adriatic coast, centuries before Venice proper,
several small settlements arose on islets in the lagoon precisely at the time
(400600) when the sea invaded and streams flooded the area: the synergies between late antique climate, flooding and population were not always
negative.41 Especially in the Po delta, one communitys flood was anothers opportunity, and this story of resilience successively raised up different
places throughout the first millennium, before Venice emerged.42
The climatic conditions of the 5th and 6th centuries were at most one of
several catalysts of change in the period. Together with demographic trends
and other ecological forces they affected, but did not cause, socio-economic
change, producing an array of outcomes dissimilar in the Lombard or Apulian
plains, the Po estuary, the Tuscan hills, or the east coast of Sicily.

Barbarians and Hippies: The Gothic Ecological Footprint
Despite the venerable tradition of environmental determinism in post-classical

studies, demographic determinisms do not suit Ostrogothic Italy. Still, fewer
36 See Luterbacher et al., A Review, pp. 10811.
37 Mariotti Lippi et al., Pollen Analysis, pp. 4623.
38 Christie, The Fall, p. 198; Murialdo et al., La Liguria, p. 29.
39 Russo Ermoli et al., Human-Environment Interactions, pp. 224, 22830.
40 Raimondo, Le citt, p. 522.
41 Gelichi, Venezia, pp. 1648; Hoffmann, Environmental History, pp. 758.
42 Squatriti, I pericoli, pp. 61617.
401
people active in the Italian landscape after 400 and especially after 534 and the
Gothic War, meant each person had at her or his disposal a greater abundance
and range of resources than more people might have had. That, after all, is
what the relative health of skeletons recovered from Giovanninis burial sites
imply. The abundance of available energy relative to the number of humans
meant that the post-classical appropriation of land, wood, and water resources
could be less intrusive and transformative than human interventions in the
high pressure demographic regime of Roman or high medieval times. In sum,
the ecological footprint of populations (the impact a communitys demand
for energy has on natural ecosystems) was slight and in some cases almost
undetectable in Ostrogothic, Eastern Roman, or Lombard Italy.43 Low human
densities in most Italian landscapes shaped a new dialectic between people
and natural resources in which extensive, as opposed to intensive, exploitation was sufficient to support many rural communities. These extensive forms
of resource use, carried out by few people, left thinner traces when compared
with the more specialized and agriculturally oriented Roman or high medieval
systems of production.44
The economic imprint on the ecology was extensive only metaphorically,
and the resource catchment of post-classical sites actually quite slight: the
total amount of energy each late antique individual used was likely smaller by
about a third than the energy exploited by their classical forebears, according
to one calculation.45 This can help to explain the acute difficulty archaeologists still have in discerning and analysing post-classical rural settlements and
their material culture, despite increasingly refined survey techniques. But one
consequence of the new ways humans fit into Italian landscapes is unmistakable. Like Lombard and eastern Roman Italy, Ostrogothic Italy on the whole
was a more sustainable Italy. Post-classical Italy was a distinctive ecological phase in a long history of mutual influences and co-adaptation between
human, animal, and vegetable communities that began with Neolithic farming
in the 7th millennium BC. In the late antique peninsula, agricultural activities
were intermingled with pastoral and gathering activities in an exceptionally
43 On the concept of footprint and its application to pre-modern societies see Hoffmann,
Footprint Metaphor, pp. 2916.
44 As Cam Grey notes (Chapter 10 in this volume), social inequalities continued to modulate
access to resources during the 5th and 6th centuries.
45 Durand, Les paysages, p. 380, proposed that site catchment analysis applies to medieval
circumstances, and that woodland resources had to originate within 6.5 km of their place
of consumption, which is another way to think about late Roman ecological footprinting.
See Morris, Why the West Rules, for an estimate of postclassical peoples energy consumption (=20,000 kcal/day) compared to Roman (=30,000) or high medieval people (=27,000).
402
Squatriti
heterogeneous landscape that was humanized (subordinated to current economic needs and regulated by current demographic trends) but not human in
the sense of utterly transformed by economic processes.46
Thus, fewer people resulted in economic systems that interfered with natural systems relatively little and permitted the formation of ecologies with
low relative productivity (in terms of the amount of useful things humans
extract from them in proportion to their area), but high biomass, high biodiversity, and containing many long-lived organisms. Nevertheless, the low
pressure demographic regime that emerged in the 5th century had other
consequences.47 The people settled in the Italian peninsula were better able
to choose how to live in the spaces at their disposal. Their land use, in other
words, could be selective and attuned to the unique ecological possibilities
of each locale. Compatibly with their cultural assumptions, they could opt
to neglect types of land and styles of cultivation that generated too little
energy in comparison with their demands for labour: thus both viticulture
and olive cultivation lost ground from the 6th century, and wheat made room
for less fastidious grains, including in southern areas where wheat had predominated during the Roman hegemony.48 Similarly, those naturally favoured
pockets of land where making a living was somewhat easier attracted inhabitants to whom, we should recall, the upheavals of the 6th century offered
new choices, and who could align their productive strategies with local
ecological potential.49
46 Leveau, Larchologie, pp. 757, theorized natural/human/humanized landscapes. From

a different point of view so did Peterken, Natural Woodland, pp. 1115, who sees the natural deriving from Latin nascere and containing in its initial state all the potential for
its subsequent development, equally natural. He proposes a scale of naturalness (p. 15)
along which Ostrogothic Italy would, I think, find itself at quite a remove from primordial
conditions.
47 For this vocabulary see Simmons, Environmental History, pp. 4852. Hoffmann, Medieval
Christendom, pp. 634 outlines changes that occur when a natural system becomes an
agro-ecosystem.
48 Arthur, Italian Landscapes, p. 109; Castiglioni/Rottoli, Il sorgo, pp. 48691. Curiously, at
the edge of an unusual wood in the Salento, a new 7th-century village practised viticulture: Arthur et al., Linsediamento, p. 373. However, the villagers were almost autarchic
(pp. 3767) and drew resources from within a walkable range.
49 In post-classical Boeotia the smaller population clustered in pockets of slightly more
favourable land, where it was relatively easier to carry out economic activities (so-called
Siedlungskammern: see Bintliff, Reconstructing, pp. 414). Similar demographically
modulated relocations of rural settlement might explain villa-village fluctuations in Italy.
403
An example of this sort of insertion of people into landscape might be the

7th-century dwellings excavated in the 1990s at Supersano in Lecces hinterland
that were occupied into the 9th century. These were simple Grubenhuser,
huts with flooring below ground level and thatch roofs supported by wood
posts. The residents probably farmed a bit, exploited the local groves of oaks
(Quercus robur and Quercus erica, large trees at the southernmost tip of
their range in Apulia), and hunted deer in the winter, a sensible adaptation
to the forested landscape in an area where woods were actually rare (nearby
at Scorpo an open, savannah-type landscape with fewer trees prevailed).50
Another example is the tiny settlement at S. Filitica, near Sassari, where 7thcentury inhabitants combined a diet of the extremely large molluscs that
flourished along the shore with domestic animals, deer, and mouflon (Ovis
musimon).51 Such self-reliance and rejection of those luxuries hard to grow in
local contexts (in Italy the variety of cultivated fruits definitely shrank in Late
Antiquity) had begun earlier. A mid 5th-century house near Allumiere in the
Tolfa hills north of Rome contained charred traces of its inhabitants autarchy: carbonized acorns, grass peas (Lathyrus sativus), broad beans (Vicia faba),
some barley, and a small amount of wheat.52
Scholars who observe this process of site selection and adaptation to
environmental conditions sometimes refer to marginal lands and their late
antique abandonment. Marginality, however, is not an absolute description,
but a relative situation dependent on an array of local conditions: ecological, social, and demographic. Marginality is therefore dynamic, and different
land becomes marginal or central in different conditions. In the post-classical
demographic slump, hillsides that had been de-marginalized by terracing and
other investments in the high demographic pressure regime of Roman Empire
became marginal again to communities in need of land that did not require
artificial levelling and heavy maintenance for productive purposes (communities with less muscle power to apply over a wider selection of productive
spaces).53
50 Arthur/Melissano, Supersano; Arthur, Grubenhauser, pp. 1717; Arthur et al.,
Linsediamento, p. 372, where overgrazing seems to have affected the landscape. For
the autochthonous/foreign origins of Grubenhuser in Italy see Brogiolo/Chavarra,
Aristocrazia, pp. 1036. A 6th-century Grubenhaus in downtown Siena: Francovich et al.,
Scavi, p. 285.
51 Rovina et al., Linsediamento, pp. 2023.
52 Sadori/Susanna, Hints, pp. 3902.
53 On terracing: LoCascio/Malanima, Cycles, p. 211; Grove/Rackham, The Nature, pp. 10717.
See also McNeill/Winiwarter, Breaking the Sod, p. 1628.
404
Squatriti
One much-discussed development in the late antique landscapeerosion

of topsoilis obviously related to this fluctuating marginality.54 In some river
estuaries on the Italian coast late antique strata of deposits seem anomalous,
and Vita-Finzi famously postulated that this Younger Fill was part of a general (climatically induced) trend. Other scholars indict the collapse of Roman
authority and infrastructure, but agree with Vita-Finzi that late Roman alluvium is a sign of the times, of specific late antique conditions. As it turns out,
thick alluvial deposits in river valleys and deltas have built up (and eroded)
throughout Italys history, and there are several rivers and deltas that seem
to have been unaffected by any late antique paroxysm.55 It seems that the
re-marginalization of some landscapes caused by the abandonment of
erosion-controlling techniques (a labour-saving strategy in the novel demographic conditions) was only partial. Some terraced hillsides continued to
make a certain sense, while others needed more work than they were worth.
Similar heterogeneity prevailed in low-lying zones in river valleys, where
the daily grind of fixing and dredging drainage canals might seem too burdensome in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, when nearby alternative sites offered usable land that stayed dry of its own accord. The view from
the top was different of course. Sidonius in the 5th century and Cassiodorus
in the 6th wondered at the tremendous swamps of the Po valley, and their
descriptions have become emblematic of a land in disarray.56 The Amal regime
in fact displayed its Roman credentials by intervening in swamp control, a traditional arena of imperial activity.57 By presenting the mixture of land and water
at Ravenna and near Spoleto as dire, and the governments solicitude as active,
Cassiodorus gave Theoderic an aura useful in the political negotiations of the
time. Theoderics claims to tame nature or re-create (economically profitable)
order stimulated late Roman elite compliance with his state. Marshes with
deep symbolic pedigree, like the Pontine marshes south of Rome, became the
targets of joint ventures between central and local potentates. The hydraulic
success of these drainage schemes was a fraction of their ideological returns.58
54 Hoffmann, Environmental History, pp. 356, 55, 172.
55 Lucid summary of the debate in Horden/Purcell, Corrupting Sea, pp. 31428.
56 See Squatriti, Marshes, pp. 116.
57 Ruggini, Graduatorie, pp. 7783 explains the intellectual history behind Mediterranean
rulers drainage projects.
58 Giardina, Pubblico e privato, pp. 3550, nicely discusses the evidence (mostly epigraphic
and literary: he argues Cassiodorus composed the famous inscription recording the drainage project) on Theoderics Pontine scheme, but exaggerates the projects early medieval
afterlife. See Variae 2.21, 2.323, with Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 10.1, 6850 and
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 8956.
405
With a smaller bureaucratic state to support, and with a relatively unpretentious ruling class to demand rents, in the 5th and especially in the 6th century
economic systems could arise that demanded less work, because in fact fewer
hands were available to do it.59 The emergent economic system was more efficient in producing usable calories than were specialized agrarian regimes. The
intensifications needed in agro-ecosystems were based on the willingness to
spend energy (human and animal labour) to capture more usable energy in the
form of low biomass, short-lived pioneer plants. While humans took a much
higher percentage of available energy from such ecosystems than from the
more natural ones of post-classical times, such intensifications seldom make
sense to peasants and when they do, as Ester Boserup explained in a classic
essay of 1965, it is only in high-pressure demographic conditions.60
If 21st-century demographic reconstructions are right, or mostly right, this
situation was less an outcome of structural forces than of human agency, of
choices people made in how they inserted themselves into their environments.
In effect, what used to be called the barbarization of Italian societies corresponded not to a regression or decline into natural demographic patterns
(disastrously high fertility and mortality), but to a transformation that resuscitated conditions like those enjoyed by hunter-gatherers throughout Eurasia
during prehistoric centuries. Following an insight of Marshall Sahlins, some
anthropologists recognize in such human communities the original affluent
societies, endowed with better health, more leisure, and greater social equality
than most agrarian civilizations.61 In such analyses, the ancient hierarchies of
agriculture, pastoralism, and hunting/gathering no longer hold sway. Unlike
Procopius, who identified agriculture with civilization and as a barrier between
man and nature, or Hobbes for whom it was axiomatic that primitive lifestyles
were unhealthy, contemporary critics eschew developmental teleologies and
instead idealize the ecological relationships established by people (like late
antique Italians) who did not rely exclusively on farmland.62 Although there
is an element of wishful thinking in such reconstructions, which have been
satirized as the Hippie Economy of the Dark Ages, environmentally informed
59 Bjornlie, Law, pp. 14858, surveys Ostrogothic taxation.

60 Boserup, The Conditions. On peasant production priorities see Chayanov, Theory.
61 Cohen, Health, pp. 23 explains how 1960s anthropologists undermined the progressive
narratives of economic development. Sahlins, Stone Age Economics was classic enough by
1982 to inform Hodges, Dark Age Economics, p. vii.
62 Squatriti, Landscape, ch. 1. Simmons, Environmental History, pp. 68 belittles optimistic
views of Green hunter-gatherers.
406
Squatriti
analyses tend to rehabilitate post-classical Italian societies and landscapes.63

The barbarized economies and ecologies of the 5th and 6th centuries seem
Edenic in the 21st.

People, Plants, and Animals
Of course the people of late antique Italy practised agriculture, raised domestic animals, produced and exchanged surplus, and never became exclusively
reliant on wilderness resources. After all, wild animal bones seldom make
up more than 2 per cent of skeletal remains in post-classical middens.64 Still,
late ancient modes of production and reproduction created distinctive ecological relations and landscape forms. From the 5th century a new balance
slowly developed between humans and aqueous as well as terrestrial resources
because fewer humans, subjected to weaker extractive systems, could afford to
exploit the land and seas in a different way than had the Romans. This balance
no doubt shifted between 400 and 600 as human numbers fluctuated, but the
deeper changes to extremely localized environmental relationships created in
Late Antiquity came later, after 1000.
One sign of the new way people sought out the resources they needed is the
precipitous decline of marine animal remains in domestic waste: whereas sea
creatures had often enough occupied tables, even quite far from the coast, at
the beginning of Late Antiquity, by the 7th century beyond the shore almost no
one ate marine creatures.65 The commercial networks that had made possible
the movement of biomass from the seas to the hills evaporated. The result was
more localized food procurement and consumption, with the emergence of
100-mile diets deriving from the weakening of the Roman state and aristocracy rather than from gastronomic fashion, as today.
Post-classical locavores also seem to have eaten less beef than their Roman
ancestors. The shrinkage in average bovine height began in the 3rd century
and has been correlated with the retreat of cereal agriculture: most bovines
in Roman Italy were draught animals, used to plough fields to be sown with
wheat or to haul cartloads to market, whose stature and muscle mass mattered
to their productivity. Only at the end of their working life were these oxen
butchered and eaten. Post-classical bone assemblages contain fewer bovine
bones, and of smaller cattle, than earlier assemblages, presumably because big
63 Maier, A Farewell, p. 289.
64 Salvadori, Zooarcheologia, p. 203.
65 Salvadori, Zooarcheologia, pp. 21922. See also Squatriti, Water, ch. 4.
407
oxen were not as necessary. Gender ratios also suggest that post-classical cattle
were more likely to be involved in dairy farming. Pigs, meantime, remained a
steady presence in Italian agro-ecosystems, while sheep and goats made some
advances (these animals sizes changed little).66 All such data are averages and
do not reflect the immense heterogeneity that prevailed on the ground, where
even within a modest city like Milan there could be considerable discrepancies
between the animals butchered in different neighbourhoods.67 But the averages do give a sense of the broad transformations underway in the 5th and
6th centuries. Domestic animals moved short distances, mirroring localized
systems of supply: they did not need to range far for forage and pasture. They
were raised for protein, as meat or milk, or fibre, not for muscle power, as their
bodies and gender distributions suggest. And they were one of many different
ways people used the land.
Part of the new environmental equilibrium of the Ostrogothic period were
the considerably shrunken cities. Rome, as mentioned, was an exception, even
at 40,000 inhabitants a metropolis far outstripping other urban communities in the peninsula. It exercised an unparalleled economic and ecological
pull on a hinterland that the Gothic War had limited without eliminating.
While Theoderic may have brought the last lions from North Africa into the
Colosseum, Rome no longer could outsource ecological exploitation to remote
corners of an empire. Instead, its secular and clerical elites operated estatecentred regional systems of supply.68 A 6th-century dump in the Forum was
full of the bones of young plump pigs and sheep, raised for meat and unusual
enough to suggest some of the privileges Rome might continue to enjoy.69
Ravenna also sustained a stable hinterland in Romagna well into the 7th century, by which time other Emilian farms had changed utterly.70 But the very
substantial reduction of occupation visible in most other Italian cities from
400 onwards, and the new forms of habitation (wood and wattle, mud bricks,
extensive recycling of ancient materials and spaces) had environmental
dimensions.
66 Salvadori, Zooarcheologia, pp. 2029. Hoffmann, Environmental History, p. 66, proposes
a different explanation for dwindling domesticated animal sizes.
67 Biasotti, Giovinazzo, Reperti faunistici, pp. 178, 181, 182.
68 Marazzi, Da suburbium, pp. 73346. On exotic animals for the games see FauvinetRanson, Decor civitatis, pp. 3667, 3809. The Crypta Balbi excavations prove that Romes
elites in the latter 600s still had luxuries imported across the sea.
69 Delussu, I reperti faunistici, pp. 1778. Some meat reached Crypta Balbi from quite far
away: wood grouse (Tetrao urogallus) and camel are not local animals.
70 Augenti, LItalia, p. 29.
408
Squatriti
The process sometimes called ruralization meant that smaller cities

throughout Italy forged tighter bonds with their immediate hinterlands
whence arrived an ever increasing share of the food, fuel, and fibre that supported the urban population. If firewood, the fuel of life, had never been
a trans-regional commodity and tended to reach urban hearths from within a
restricted catchment area, the fibres, legumes, and grains that had circulated
more widely in Roman times tended to limit their movements and to flow
towards consumers in short circuits during the 5th and 6th centuries.71 This
can be envisioned best for pottery, which requires clay and water and wood to
make, but was transferred very far from its original place of fabrication in the
classical Mediterranean, and did so much less by 500. By 600, with few exceptions in the eastern Roman-controlled territories of the peninsula, Italian
urban populations had greatly reduced their connection to Mediterranean
supply networks of all kinds.72 Between 400 and 600 or so, when urban sizes
had to be congruent with local productive possibilities, the ecological footprint
of urban demographic clusters therefore shrank in size.
In the process, despite the reduction in absolute numbers of consumers,
as in Rome, the regional impact of urban demand may have intensified. Poor
communication infrastructure and limited state investment in the movement
of resources forced urban communities to exploit what was locally available
to the hilt. Unlike Roman towns, which could obtain surpluses from hinterlands and amass them for redistribution (not just for local consumption), postclassical towns did not usually export the products of their environs, at least
not on a large scale. Unmaintained, sewers conveyed less waste, limiting the
metabolic transfer of rich organic material beyond city walls. In this way cities
became ecological sinks in their more localized hinterlands. Yet post-classical
towns exercised an appropriative magnetism on the area immediately around
them that modified ecologies. Thus, while rural Italy was lightly inhabited
by tiny settlements that affected natural processes relatively little, closer to
urban centres like Naples, Pavia, Perugia, Siponto, or Verona, pockets of more
intensive footprinting, biomass removal, and landscape modification persisted. Reduced and transformed as post-classical urban communities were,
they still created islands of more humanized space because, like all clusters of
71 On firewood see Galetti, Alimentare il fuoco, pp. 81920.

72 How the Eastern Roman state maintained more complex circuits of supply for its Italian
centres is a theme in Zanini, Le Italie, pp. 1678, 2028. A finely studied example is Pescara:
Staffa, Quindici anni, pp. 15966.
409
consumers, they affected the flow of energy and concentration of materials in

the ecosystem.73
A nice example is Otranto, whose location at the southern opening of the
Adriatic lent it special strategic prominence for the eastern Roman Empire.
The town however shrivelled after mid 500s and was virtually abandoned by
700, as it had been once before in the 2nd to 3rd centuries. If Otranto before the
7th century seems to confirm Zaninis observation that Italys coastal communities were more cosmopolitan than inland cities, the towns immediate needs
for food and fibre nonetheless were satisfied locally. The towns extraction
of energy from its hinterland was selective: foxes, quail, crane, and roe deer
became food sources in late antique Otranto, while sheep and pigs moved the
hinterlands biomass into town by grazing around it and offering their flesh,
milk, and skins to people who lived inside the walls. Late antique Otrantines
ate more cattle than their earlier and later fellow citizens. They also consumed
local marine resources, in the form of sea bass, drumfish, and cockles, which
they seem to have preferred to the sea snails more common in ancient and
high medieval strata. Though there is virtually no evidence for the Murex shells
Cassiodorus described as the backbone of Otrantos economic life, the aggregate impact of this extraction was not insignificant.74
At Otranto and elsewhere, this was not just a matter of exploiting agricultural production and the gathering activities on its margins, for with very
limited access to outside sources of manufactured goods, iron smelting and
especially pottery production were forcibly regionalized, making an imperative
of firewood extraction, even in places with little easily accessible hardwood
fuel. Deposits in Swiss peat and Greenland ice suggest that airborne pollution
from smelting was at its millennial low point between 650 and 950, yet the end
of the empires fluid distribution networks intensified cities exploitation of
nearby resources, relocating and fragmenting the (reduced) impact of urban
demand to immediate hinterlands.75
Whereas underpopulated cities could exercise surprisingly strong transformative influences on their surroundings, post-classical rural settlements
73 Broich, Wasting of Wolin, pp. 18799 is an eco-moral parable of unsustainability, but is

also a reminder that post-classical towns could waste their hinterlands.
74 Zanini, Le Italie, pp. 1467, 1558; DAndria/Whitehouse (eds.), Excavations at Otranto 2,
pp. 3356, 3402, 3456, 34952. Otrantine Murex: Giardina, Cassiodoro, pp. 5461.
75 McCormick, The Origins, p. 53, on smelting pollution. See also his review of ceramic production, pp. 5360.
410
Squatriti
created a less humanized landscape and impressed a lighter footprint.76

Admittedly, rural sites in Italy varied in size and complexity (unlike northwestern Europe), thus modulating their footprint: for instance, castra along
the Adige attracted local surplus without producing much. But in rural
areas removed from cities, natural ecological processes grew more evident,
biomass removal attenuated, and although hunting, gathering, and fishing practices fashioned human-influenced biological communities, still the
human ecological footprint formed by agrarian pursuits was shallower than
near cities. Even in the more prominent rural sites linked to military interests, archaeologists find in trash heaps the carbonized traces of an astounding
variety of foods, for polyculture and flexibility were prudent strategies when
recourse to outside resources was sporadic.77
Rural dwellings, often simply made of wood and wattle as at Supersano, or
mud brick as at Colle S. Giovanni di Atri (Teramo), are so slight that they are
hard to detect, and the use of pottery seems to have been optional.78 The metabolic processes of such communities did change the surrounding land, as waste
was disposed of in the most immediate vicinity of habitation and enriched the
soil in archaeologically detectable ways.79 Overall, however, a simplified material culture and reduced number of cultivators meant not just more resources
for each household but also less modification of the ecosystem, even when
a movement toward village formation and therefore more concentrated footprinting began in some places (Tuscany) in the late-6th century. In the late
antique countryside, a robust and biodiverse environment mirrored a smaller
and more scattered human population that supplied itself locally.

The World of Wood
Because of the enormous cultural significance that forests and trees have in
European culture, and in narratives of post-classical history, some comments
76 Wickham, Framing, p. 517, also argued for the AD 400800 relevance of local constraints
on peasantries.
77 Castiglioni et al., I resti, pp. 2334: at Monte Barro there were five kinds of grains, six
of legumes, four of nuts, olives, and several fruits. Likely other foods with soft seeds and
flesh went unrecorded. Other examples might be S. Antonino in Liguria (Murialdo et al.,
La Liguria, pp. 602) or S. Maria del Mare in Calabria (Raimondo, Le citt, pp. 54653).
78 Arthur, Italian Landscapes, p. 117.
79 Dark earth was once the stuff of debates on urban continuity, but terreno carbonioso
is now found in rural sites: Gelichi et al., La transizione, p. 65. Both reflect new garbage
disposal practices.
411
on woodland use in the anaemic demographic conditions (and weak state

control) of late antique Italy are warranted. It stands to reason that in a temperate place where few people lived, and where no state attempted to build
fleets or vast public works necessitating lumber, trees would do well.80 Indeed
one of the central building blocks of both scholarly and popular reconstructions of early medieval landscapes is the relentless, menacing, rapid, and
basically barbaric advance of the forest.81 Yet palaeo-botanical evidence,
increasingly available even for Italy, does not consistently confirm the story
of the general, uncontrolled re-forestation of Italian countryside. Although a
post-imperial wilderness of trees covering hillsides, valley bottoms, and mountains would match our preconceptions of uncivilized and disorderly times,
pollen diagrams tend to offer a more variegated and less bosky image of Italian
landscapes. The notorious landscapes of fear, dark with the ominous shadow
of impenetrable woods and pullulating with dangerous woodland creatures,
seem to be literary creations, mostly restricted to the pages of chroniclers and
hagiographers.82 Certainly there was much woodland in a sparsely populated
peninsula (as there were many swamps, ample heath, grasslands, and other
types of uncultivated spaces with fewer romantic associations for modern
historians, who therefore neglect them), and certainly forests are dynamic,
quickly adapting to climate conditions or biological invasion.83 But Italys forest was no awe-inspiring wilderness. Rather it was largely a managed, productive spaceone form of the humanized landscape, or semi-natural landscape,
that characterized Late Antiquity.84 In environmental terms, human deflection, or tampering with natural succession processes in the woodland, altered
80 Shipping is a good example of how state policies affected woodlands and their exploitation: see McCormick, The Origins, pp. 87, 956, 1035, 113 and Giardina, Allevamento,
pp. 1015. Late antique ships were faster, more manoeuvrable, and more capable of carrying cargo than imperial-era ships; they were also cheaper and easier to build, consuming
lumber more efficiently. How such improvements square with a declining commercial
economy (and better lumber supply) is unclear: Gertwagen, Nautical Technology,
pp. 15860. Public baths, whose firewood supply Roman authorities managed, are
another example: a modest bath complex required some 200 tons of hardwood per year:
McCormick, The Origins, p. 97.
81 e.g. Thirgood, Man and the Mediterranean Forest, pp. 427. The return of nature image
remains vigorous: see Squatriti, Landscape, pp. 123.
82 e.g. Di Cocco, Viabilit, pp. 219, based on a literal reading of Vita S. Hilari.
83 Delort/Walter, Histoire, pp. 1579.
84 Wickham, European Forests, pp. 5001, 53342 is still an excellent guide. He stressed
property regimes as the key to the growth and contraction of woodland, pp. 48697.
412
Squatriti
density and composition.85 For in the post-classical peninsula, the major catalyst of change in the woods were people.
The Apulian Salento, for instance, whose evergreen forests had been slowly
reduced from the beginning of the first millennium, seems to have become
a vast olive grove in Late Antiquity, with exponential increase of Olea suggested by pollens found in Lago Aliminis deposits.86 The Tavoliere, meanwhile,
was a very sparsely wooded territory in Late Antiquity, with a few oaks, hazels,
and elms clustering along the banks of watercourses and atop hills in a region
cleared for pasture and arable use.87 Nearby in the Murge, where grain production for export mattered less, and where transhumance and pastoralism
may have suffered from the contraction in the Roman states demand for wool,
the situation was different. Woodland here was abundant, but roads, streams,
and accessibility created a heterogeneous environment, exploited less or more
according to the ease of passage for resource removal, and nowhere so dense
as to become impenetrable.88 Contributing to this situation was the fact that
in temperate climates, the growth of dense woods requires the exclusion of all
browsers, usually by fencing, a challenge so great that several historical ecologists think the dominant type of Mediterranean woodland has almost always
been open, with grasslands among the sparse trees.89 The Apulian evidence
is symptomatic of the surprising variations between quite nearby landscapes,
but also of the trend for inland and coastal areas to develop different kinds of
woods. Grain flowed through Siponto from the post-classical Tavoliere, while
the upper Murgia was marginal land, too difficult for late antique investors
to exploit agriculturally and hence colonized by trees, no doubt to the benefit
of the local peasantry and transhumant shepherds. Indeed Theoderic had to
chastise Apulias shepherds in a famous (but lost) inscription for wandering
among the trees too far off the beaten drove tracks.90 His concern implies the
presence of trees did not completely impede local land use. That is why in
Apulia and elsewhere in the peninsula, tree cover was so diverse.
85 Simmons, Environmental History, pp. 567.
86 Di Rita/Magri, Holocene Drought, p. 301.
87 Volpe, Contadini, pp. 48, 301.
88 Volpe, Contadini, pp. 285, 295, 300.
89 See Rackham, Savanna, pp. 124; Grove/Rackham, The Nature, pp. 68, 2134, 225; Vera,
Grazing Ecology, pp. 3718.
90 The inscription from Termoli, recorded in the 1800s, seems to describe south-central
Apennine situations: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 9.2826. Ostrogothic kings dealt
with shepherd mobility more rigidly than classical Roman predecessors: Totten, Thinking
Regionally, pp. 14458. Theoderic did not approve of shepherds in woods apparently
because his government was invested in spatial control (ibid., p. 171).
413
It is worth illustrating some of this peninsular diversity. From the mid 6th
century, high up the Enza valley in the Ligurian sector of the Apennines selective deforestation reconfigured what had been a mixed woodland. The result
was a wooded meadow system in which beech trees prevailed. This new
woodland was maintained for over a century in the interests of herding and
pasture.91 By contrast, on the Tyrrhenian coast of Tuscany, Scarlinos human
population diminished between the 5th and the 6th century, and the nearby
deforested hills (which had furnished fuel for Roman mining operations on
Elba, visible from Scarlino) filled again with trees, although not before erosion
choked the local lagoons with silt.92 At Filattiera in the 5th and 6th centuries
people drove oaks and walnuts into insignificance, fostered the chestnuts and
firs they found more useful, and burned for fuel the alder wood cleared from
low-lying plots they farmed.93 Just north, also in Liguria, the woods around the
eastern Roman centre of S. Antonino evolved in Late Antiquity according to
human strategies, to the detriment of deciduous oak but to the advantage of
hornbeam.94 Across the watershed, in Piedmont, Torre S. Stefano Belbos pollens suggest a retreat of agriculture. Beech, fir, and pine advanced, diversifying
the mixed oak woods from the 4th to the 6th century.95 Further east, around
the Ostrogothic fort at Monte Barro that guarded one of the main thoroughfares from Alpine passes, people practised planned forestry before abandoning
the settlement around 580. They selected wood used for heating and building according to species and age, and evidently made charcoal from coppiced
beech trees cut on ten-year cycles, but always during the dormant season when
such activities are least likely to damage the tree and when the wood contains
the least water, and from north-facing woods whose growth was slowest and
wood densest.96 Finally, the woods around S. Michele di Trino just west of
Milan underwent the most dramatic anthropogene changes between the 5th
and 7th centuries, with strong overall reductions of woodland, especially of
oak, in favour of fields, meadows, and groves of chestnut and elm trees.97
In spite of the differences in density, species composition, and chronology of
growth one salient characteristic throughout the post-classical peninsula was
the full integration of woodland into economic and social systems. Whether
91 Davite/Moreno, Des saltus aux alpes, pp. 13941.
92 Cucini, Topografia, pp. 1623.
93 Rottolo/Negri, I resti, pp. 2012, 208.
94 Castiglioni, I carboni, pp. 6205: fire gave hornbeam its advantage over oak.
95 Caramiello/Zena, Analisi polliniche, p. 43.
96 Castelletti, Leconomia, p. 220; Castiglioni et al., I resti, pp. 227, 239.
97 Caramiello et al., Analisi paleobotaniche, pp. 592, 5967.
414
Squatriti
as places to graze cattle or pigs, to trap game, to gather fruits, as reservoirs of

fodder, or most especially as suppliers of fuel, late antique woodlands were
meticulously exploited. Although harvesting for timber was rarer, both the
Liber Pontificalis and Gregory Is letters show that the roofs of basilicas needed
frequent repairs in the 5th and 6th centuries and therefore required long wood
beams.98 Overall, the heavy human traffic among the trees significantly modified the forests, determining which kinds of trees flourished and which instead
floundered. The strikingly unnatural composition of tree cover implied by the
pollen cores and carbonized remains demonstrates that the woods we know
about were anything but a fearsome and unregulated natural forest. They were
instead a managed resource, the result of precise selection processes.
The most impressive case of woodland management in post-classical Italy,
and the clearest proof that the return of nature in that period was actually
unnatural, is the chestnut.99 From the 8th century Castanea sativa was a regular feature in charters and by the 700s chestnut prevailed in Italian landscapes
from the foothills of the Alps to Etna. Palynological studies have conclusively
shown that the species existed in Roman Italy, although its diffusion was limited. This is ecologically understandable, for Castanea sativa is a tree that
requires very specific conditions (warmth, humidity, acidic soil) to do well.
Without some human assistance, the range of the tree is restricted to a few
niches in the northern Apennines. It also competes ineffectively with other
species, like beech or oak, in primis because its seeds do not scatter easily and
need much sunlight to germinate and survive as seedlings.
The pollen of Castanea sativa increased its presence at numerous sites along
the peninsula in Late Antiquity; so, too, the frequency of use (or archaeological detection) of chestnut wood. In 6th-century Naples, for example, large
beams of chestnut were used to build a raised walkway near the tomb of
St Januarius. In the 600s, at Trezzo on the Adda River in Lombardy, three
affluent gentlemen were buried enclosed in solid, well-joined coffins made
of chestnut planks, the size of which reveals old trees growing at least from
the early 6th century.100 The nuts themselves, rare in classical sites, are relatively numerous in excavated late antique sites like Brescia or Monte Barro. In
sum, the palaeo-botanical evidence suggests that chestnut greatly expanded
its presence in Late Antiquity both in northern and southern Italy. Yet the tree
would not have succeeded if left to its own devices, and in fact the colonization
98
Liverani Camerae e coperture, pp. 1328; Camerlenghi, Interpreting Medieval
Architecture, pp. 25976.
99 On chestnuts see Squatriti, Landscape.
100 On the Trezzo burial see Castelletti et al., Legni e tessuti, pp. 2645.
415
of so many hillsides by chestnut woods is not a product of neglect or abandonment. On the contrary, it is a result of the careful management of woods and
trees, an aspect of that humanized but still not human landscape so typical of
post-imperial Italy.
The contraction of the late Roman state and of the agricultural land use
it fostered and the retrenchment of populations that made labour-intensive
cultivation unsustainable, created an opportunity for this kind of woodland.
Chestnut woods generated abundant useful things (food, forage, fuel) without demanding intensive work in return. This kind of woodland was perfectly
attuned to the demographic and social conditions of the time. In Campania
as in Lombardy forests of Castanea represented the early medieval humanized, but not fully anthropomorphized, landscape of a lightly settled Italy.
Thus, the peculiarities of late antique Italians ecological footprinting released
the potential of Castanea sativa and launched the peninsular success of
this species.
Conclusion
In a remarkable New York Times bestseller, Alan Wiesman attempted to calculate the impact of radical depopulation on humanized landscapes, urban
and rural.101 His results were appropriately sensational and explain the books
sales (so does the fluent writing). To figure out what Manhattan might look like
half a century after its inhabitants had abandoned it, Wiesman visited some
unnaturally de-humanized corners of the 21st-century world: the area around
Chernobyl, the no-mans land between Turkish and Greek portions of Cyprus,
and the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Koreas. Wiesman found
natures astonishing resilience and the shockingly short resistance of human
artifacts left to their own devices. A human generation is enough to reduce to
overgrown rubble a 1970s hotel or to return rare birds to river estuaries once
rendered toxic by people. For students of late antique Italy, Wiesmans book is
a nice reminder that however re-natured or decolonized post-classical landscapes were, and despite the rhetoric of 5th- and 6th-century authors, they
were not abandoned like some Ukrainian, Cypriot, or Korean spaces have been
lately: so the post-classical archaeological remains suggest.102 To maintain
the landscape of fields, ditches, riverbanks, roads, roofed buildings, terraces,
101 Wiesman, The World Without Us.
102 Hoffmann, Environmental History, p. 61 applies the concepts re-naturalization and decolonization to Late Antiquity.
416
Squatriti
and even woods that archaeologists can still detect, late antique people
had to work assiduously. Only tenacious expenditure of energy prevented
Ostrogothic-era towns and countrysides from being swallowed into less
humanized metabolisms: Cassiodorus himself knew that the ruin of buildings
is easy once the care of inhabitants has been removed and swift decomposition awaited that which the presence of men does not protect.103 Whatever
else happened in the 5th and 6th centuries, human productive and symbolic
systems continued to function well enough to justify an ongoing engagement
with the humanized landscapes inherited from classical times.
Bibliography

Arthur, P., Grubenhauser nella Puglia bizantina, Archeologia medievale 26 (1999),

1717.
, Naples, from Roman Town to City-state, London 2002.
, Italian Landscapes, AD 4001000, in N. Christie (ed.), Landscapes of Change,
Aldershot 2003, pp. 10333.
Arthur, P./Melissano, V., (eds.), Supersano, un paesaggio antico del basso Salento,
Galatina 2004.
Arthur, P./et al., Linsediamento in Loc. Scorpo (Supersano, LE) nel VIIVIII secolo,
Archeologia medievale 35 (2008), 36580.
Augenti, A., LItalia senza corti? Linsediamento rurale in Romagna tra VI e X secolo,
in G. Brogiolo/et al. (eds.), Dopo la fine delle ville, Mantua 2005, pp. 1752.
Banaji, J., Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2001.
Barbiera, I./Dalla Zuanna, G., Le dinamiche della popolazione nellItalia medievale,
Archeologia medievale 34 (2007), 1942.
Bardet, J./Dupquier, J. (eds.), Histoire des populations de lEurope, Paris 1997.
Beloch, K., Die Bevlkerung Europas im Mittelalter, Zeitschrift fr Sozialwissenschaft
3 (1900), 40523.
Bjornlie, S., Politics and Tradition Between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople
(Cambridge 2013).
, Law, Ethnicity and Taxes in Ostrogothic Italy, Early Medieval Europe 22
(2014), 13870.
103 Cassiodorus, Variae 4.30, ed. T. Mommsen (MGH, AA 12): quia facilis est aedificiorum
ruina incolarum subtracta custodia et cito vetustatis decoctione resolvitur, quod hominum praesentia non tuetur.
417
Biasotti, M./Giovinazzo, R., Reperti faunistici, in D. Caporusso (ed.), Scavi MM3.

Ricerche di archeologia urbana a Milano, Milan 1991, 16784.
Bintliff, J., Reconstructing the Byzantine Countryside, in K. Belke/et al., (eds.), Byzanz
als Raum, Vienna 2000, pp. 3763.
Boserup, E., The Conditions of Agricultural Growth, Chicago 1965.
Boureau, A., Une histoire intellectuelle des populations mdivales, Annales 61
(2006), 23344.
Boyden, S./et al., The Ecology of a City and Its People (London 1981).
Brogiolo, G./Chavarra, A., Aristocrazia e campagne nellOccidente, Florence 2005.
Broich, J., The Wasting of Wolin, Environment and History 7 (2001), 18799.
Brown, P., Through the Eye of a Needle, Princeton 2012.
Cacciaguida, G., Dinamiche insediative, cultura materiale e scambi in Sicilia tra tardoantico e altomedioevo, Archeologia medievale 35 (2008), 42752.
Camerlenghi, N., Interpreting Medieval Architecture Through Renovations: The Roof
of the Old Basilica of San Paolo fuori le mura in Rome, in M. Johnson/et al. (eds.),
Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and Its Decoration, Farnham 2012, pp. 25976.
Caramiello, R./Zena, A., Analisi polliniche, Alba Pompeia 13 (1992), 93.
Caramiello, R./et al., Analisi paleobotaniche e sedimentologiche: storia forestale,
clima, ed agricoltura a Trino dallet romana al medioevo, in M. Negro Ponzi
Mancini (ed.), San Michele di Trino (VC), vol. 2, Florence 1999, pp. 57799.
Castelletti, L., Leconomia e lambiente, in G. Brogiolo/L. Castelletti (eds.), Archeologia
a Monte Barro, vol. 2, Lecco 2001, pp. 21922.
Castelletti, L./et al., Legni e tessuti, in A. Roffia (ed.), La necropoli longobarda di Trezzo
sullAdda, Florence 1986, pp. 25474.
Castiglioni, E., I carboni, in T. Mannoni/G. Murialdo (eds.), S. Antonino, un insediamento fortificato nella Liguria bizantina, Bordighera 2001, pp. 61726.
Castiglioni, E./Rottoli, M., Il sorgo (Sorghum bicolor) nel medioevo in Italia settentrionale, Archeologia medievale 27 (2010), 48595.
Castiglioni, E./et al., I resti archeobotanici, in G. Brogiolo/L. Castelletti (eds.),
Archeologia a Monte Barro, vol. 2, Lecco 2001, pp. 22347.
Chayanov, A., Theory of the Peasant Economy, Madison 1986.
Christie, N., From Constantine to Charlemagne, Aldershot 2006.
, The Fall of the Western Roman Empire, London 2010.
Cohen, M., Health and the Rise of Civilization, New Haven 1989.
Cucini, C., Topografia del territorio delle valli del Pecora e dellAlma, in R. Francovich
(ed.), Scarlino, vol. 1, Florence 1985, pp. 14764.
DAndria, F./Whitehouse, D. (eds.), Excavations at Otranto, vol. 2, Galatina 1992.
Davite, C./Moreno, D., Des saltus aux alpes dans les Apennins du nord, in
M. Colardelle (ed.), Lhomme et la nature au moyen ge, Paris 1996, pp. 13842.
Delort, R./Walter, H., Histoire de lenvironnement europen, Paris 2001.
418
Squatriti
Del Panta, L./Sonnino, E., Introduzione, in K. Beloch, Storia della popolazione dItalia,
Florence 1994, pp. viixxxii.
Delussu, F., I reperti faunistici. La casa delle Vestali, in L. Paroli/L. Vendittelli (eds.),
Roma dallantichit al medioevo, vol. 2, Milan 2004, pp. 1768.
Devroey, J., Economie rurale et socit dans lEurope franque, Paris 2003.
Di Cocco, I., Viabilit e insediamenti sullAppennino emiliano-romagnolo, in
M. Destro/E. Giorgi (eds.), LAppennino in et romana e nel primo medioevo, Bologna
2004, pp. 219.
Di Rita, F./Magri, D., Holocene Drought, Deforestation and Evergreen Vegetation
Development in the Central Mediterranean, The Holocene 19.2 (2009), 295306.
Durand, A., Les paysages mdivaux du Languedoc, Toulouse 1998.
Durliat, J., De la ville antique la ville byzantine, Rome 1990.
Fauvinet-Ranson, V., Decor civitatis, decor Italiae, Bari 2006.
Francovich, R./et al., Scavi nella citt di Siena, in A. Augenti (ed.), Le citt italiane tra
la tarda antichit e lalto medioevo, Florence 2006, pp. 27398.
Galetti, P., Alimentare il fuoco: produzione, trasporto, uso di combustibili, in Il
fuoco nellalto Medioevo (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sullalto
Medioevo 60), Spoleto 2013, pp. 80735.
Gelichi, S./et al., La transizione dallantichit al medioevo nel territorio dellantica
Regio VIII, in G. Brogiolo/et al. (eds.), Dopo la fine delle ville, Mantua 2005, pp. 5380.
, Isole fortunate? La storia della laguna nord di Venezia attraverso lo scavo di
S. Lorenzo Ammiana, Archeologia medievale 39 (2012), 956.
Gertwagen, R., Nautical Technology, in P. Horden/S. Kinoshita (eds.), A Companion to
Mediterranean History, Oxford 2014, pp. 15469.
Giardina, A., Allevamento ed economia della selva in Italia meridionale, in id./
A. Schiavone (eds.), Societ romana e produzione schiavistica, vol. 1, Bari 1981,
pp. 87113.
, Pubblico e privato nella bonifica teodoricana delle paludi pontine, in
J. Martin (ed.), Zones ctires littorales dans le monde mditerranen au Moyen ge,
Rome 2001, pp. 3550.
, Cassiodoro, Teodorico, e la porpora, in A. de Vincentiis (ed.), Roma e il papato
nel medioevo, vol. 1, Rome 2012, pp. 4362.
Giovannini, F., Natalit, mortalit e demografia dellItalia medievale sulla base dei dati
archeologici, Oxford 2001.
Grove, A./Rackham, O., The Nature of Mediterranean Europe, New Haven 2001.
Harrison, D., Plague, Settlement and Cultural Change at the Dawn of the Middle Ages,
Scandia 59 (1993), 1548.
Hemphill, P., Deforestation and Reforestation in a Central Italian Hinterland, in
R. Jones/et al. (eds.), First Millennium Papers, Oxford 1984, pp. 14759.
Hodges, R., Dark Age Economics. A New Audit, London 2012.
419
Hoffmann, R., Medieval Christendom in Gods Creation, in T. Whited (ed.), Northern

Europe, an Environmental History, Santa Barbara 2005, pp. 4572.
, Footprint Metaphor and Metabolic Realities, in P. Squatriti (ed.), Natures
Past, Ann Arbor 2007, pp. 288325.
, An Environmental History of Medieval Europe, Cambridge 2014.
Horden, P./Purcell, N., The Corrupting Sea, Oxford 2000.
Jaidi, H., Lannone de Rome au Bas-Empire, in B. Marin/C. Virlouvet (eds.), Nourrir les
cits de Mediterrane, Paris 2003, pp. 83102.
Leveau, P., Larchologie des paysages et les poques historiques, in E. Mornet/
F. Morenzoni (eds.), Milieux naturels, espaces sociaux, Paris 1997, pp. 7183.
Lewit, T., Pigs, Presses and Pastoralism, Early Medieval Europe 17 (2009), 7791.
Liverani P., Camerae e coperture delle basiliche paleocristiane, Mededelingen van het
Nederlands Instituut te Rome, 6061 (2004), 1328.
Livi-Bacci, M., Macro versus Micro, in J. Adams/et al. (eds.), Convergent Issues in
Genetics and Demography, New York 1990, pp. 1525.
LoCascio, E., La dissoluzione dellimpero romano doccidente, in G. Cacciatore/et al.
(eds.), Filosofia e storia della cultura, Morano 1997, pp. 15782.
LoCascio, E./Malanima, P., Cycles and Stability, Rivista di storia economica 21.3 (2005),
540.
Luterbacher, J./et al., A Review of 2000 Years of Palaeoclimatic Evidence in the
Mediterranean, in P. Lionello (ed.) The Climate of the Mediterranean Region,
Amsterdam 2012, pp. 87185.
McCormick, M., Origins of the European Economy, Cambridge 2003.
McEvedy, C./Jones, R., Atlas of World Population History, Harmondsworth 1978.
McNeill, J./Winiwarter, V., Breaking the Sod, Science 304 (2004), 162729.
Maier, T., A Farewell to the Market!, in J. Klpst/P. Sommer (eds.), Processing Storage
Distribution of Food, Turnhout 2011, 280300.
Marazzi, F., Da suburbium a territorium: il rapporto tra Roma e il suo hinterland nel
passaggio dallantichit al medioevo, in Roma nellalto Medioveo (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sullalto Medioevo 48), Spoleto 2001, pp. 71352.
Mariotti Lippi, M./et al., Pollen Analysis of the Ship Site of Pisa San Rossore, Tuscany,
Italy, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 16 (2007), 45365.
Martin, J., Lvolution dmographique de lItalie mridionale du VIe au XIVe sicle,
in R. Comba/I. Naso (eds.), Demografia e societ nellItalia medievale, Cuneo 1994,
pp.35162.
Meneghini, R./Santangeli Valenziani, R., Roma nellalto medioevo, Rome 2004.
Morris, I., Why the West Rules, For Now, New York 2010.
Murialdo, G./et al., La Liguria bizantina dopo un settantennio di ricerche, in
C. Varaldo (ed.), Ai confini dellimpero, Bordighera 2011, pp. 2588.
420
Squatriti
Noy, G., Economia e societ nella Calabria bizantina, in A. Placanica (ed.), Storia
della Calabria medievale, vol. 2, Reggio 2001, pp. 57984.
, Le citt calabresi dal IV al VII secolo, in A. Augenti (ed.), Le citt italiane tra
la tarda antichit e lalto medioevo, Florence 2006, pp. 477517.
Panella, C./Sagu, L., Consumo e produzione a Roma tra tardoantico e altomedioevo,
in Roma nellalto Medioevo (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sullalto
Medioevo 48), Spoleto 2001, 757815.
Paroli, L., Le strutture della popolazione romana dal tardo antico allalto medioevo, in
E. Sonnino (ed.), Popolazione e societ a Roma dal medioevo allet contemporanea,
Rome 1998, 328.
Pearson, C./et al., Dendroarchaeology of the Mid-first Millennium AD in
Constantinople, Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012), 340214.
Peterken, G., Natural Woodland, Cambridge 1996.
Ponting, C., A New Green History of the World, New York 2007.
Rackham, O., Savanna in Europe, in C. Watkins/K. Kirby (eds.), The Ecological History
of European Forests, Wallingford 1998, pp. 124.
Raimondo, C., Le citt dei Brutii tra tarda antichit e altomedioevo, in A. Augenti (ed.),
Le citt italiane tra la tarda antichit e lalto medioevo, Florence 2006, pp. 51958.
Rottolo, M./Negri, S., I resti vegetali carbonizzati, in E. Giannichedda (ed.), FilattieraSorano, Florence 1998, pp. 198212.
Rovina, D./et al., Linsediamento altomedievale di S. Filitica (Sorso, SS), Archeologia
medievale 26 (1999), 179216.
Ruggini, L., Graduatorie fra utillimae artes e saperi scientifici aristocratici nellItalia di
Cassiodoro, Cassiodorus 67 (20001), 7394.
Russell, J., Late Ancient and Medieval Population Control, Philadelphia 1985.
, The Ecclesiastical Age, in id., Medieval Demography, New York 1987,
pp. 99111.
Russo Ermoli, E./et al., Human-environment Interactions in the Southern Tyrrhenian
Coastal Area, in H. Harris (ed.), The Ancient Mediterranean Environment Between
Science and History, Leiden 2013, pp. 21331.
Sadori, L./Susanna, F., Hints of Economic Change During the Late Roman Empire
Period in Central Italy, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14 (2005), 38693.
Sahlins, M., Stone Age Economics, Chicago 1972.
Salvadori, F., Zooarcheologia e controllo delle risorse locali nel medioevo, Postclassical archaeologies 1 (2011), 195244.
Santilli, R./et al., A Catastrophe Remembered, Antiquity 77 (2003), 31320.
Savino, E., Campania tardoantica (284604 d.C.), Bari 2005.
Simmons, I., Environmental History. A Concise Introduction, Oxford 1993.
Spina, A./Canci, A., Ferento (VT), Archeologia medievale 34 (2007), 32936.
421
Squatriti, P., Marshes and Mentalities in Early Medieval Ravenna, Viator 23 (1992),
116.
Squatriti, P., Water and Society in Early Medieval Italy, Cambridge 1998.
, I pericoli dellacqua, in Lacqua nei altomedievali (Settimane di studio del
Centro italiano di studi sullalto Medioevo 55), Spoleto 2008, pp. 583618.
, Landscape and Change in Early Medieval Italy, Cambridge 2013.
Staffa, A., I centri urbani dellAbruzzo adriatico fra tarda antichit ed altomedioevo,
in A. Augenti (ed.), Le citt italiane tra la tarda antichit e lalto medioevo, Florence
2006, pp. 345476.
, Quindici anni di ricerche archeologiche a Pescara (19902005), in
R. Ranchovich/ A. Valenti (eds.), IV congresso nazionale di archeologia medievale,
Florence 2006, pp. 159166.
Stathakopoulos, D., Invisible Protagonists, in I. Anagnostaki/et al. (eds.), Animals and
the Environment in Byzantium (7th12th c.), Athens 2011, pp. 8795.
, Death in the Countryside, Antiquit tardive 20 (2012), 10514.
Stiner, M./et al., Scale, in A. Shryock/D. Smail (eds.), Deep History, Berkeley 2011,
pp. 24272.
Thirgood, J., Man and the Mediterranean Forest, London 1981.
Totten, D., Thinking Regionally: Rural Landscapes and Economic Connections in Roman
Southern Italy, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 2011.
Van Dam, R., Rome and Constantinople, Waco 2010.
Vera, F., Grazing Ecology and Forest History, Wallingford 2000.
Volpe, G., Contadini pastori e mercanti nella Puglia tardoantica, Bari 1996.
, Villaggi e insediamento sparso in Italia meridionale tra tardoantico e altomedieovo, in A. Augenti (ed.), Le citt italiane tra la tarda antichit e lalto medioevo,
Florence 2006, pp. 22149.
Wickham, C., European Forests in the early Middle Ages in Lambiente vegetale
nellAlto Medioevo (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sullalto
Medioevo 37), Spoleto 1990, pp. 479545.
, Framing the Early Middle Ages, Oxford 2005.
, The Inheritance of Rome, London 2009.
Wiesman, A., The World Without Us, New York 2007.
Wilkinson, D., Summary and Discussion, in D. Michaelides/D. Wilkinson (eds.),
Excavations at Otranto, vol. 1, Galatina 1992, pp. 4158.
Zanini, E., Le Italie bizantine, Bari 1998.
part 3
Religion
CHAPTER 16
The Roman Church and its Bishops

Kristina Sessa

Introduction: Narratives of Rise and Fall
Traditional narratives of the late ancient Roman church and its bishops underline the Ostrogothic period as a benchmark in its institutional and ideological
development. The political trajectory of Ostrogothic Italy, its rise and fall as a
state, has long provided scholars with both a historical and a heuristic framework for interpreting the development of Roman episcopal authority and practices. The new political landscape, characterized by a tolerant Arian king and
a distant Catholic emperor, is thought to have created the conditions for the
emergence of an independent papacy, through which popes more efficiently
and assertively governed the church.1 However, when the Ostrogothic regime
fell to Justinians armies and the empire in Italy was reborn, so the Roman
church is said to have suffered precipitous decline. In the words of Trevor
Jalland, the end of the Ostrogoths marked the gathering gloom of Byzantine
tyranny over the Church.2 Simply put, the history of the Roman church from
ca. 476 to 554 has long been written as a narrative embedded within the
political and military history of the Ostrogothic government.3 Consequently,
it has thematically revolved around issues of church-state relations, interecclesiastical doctrinal debate, and the mercurial relationship between the
East and the West during an epoch marked by schism and ideological conflict pitting papal authority against imperial power in the determination of
Christian truths.4
1 Jalland, The Church and the Papacy; Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums; Ullmann, Growth
of Papal Government and Short History of the Papacy; Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages;
Schimmelpfenig, The Papacy; Amory, People and Identity; and Sotinel, Emperors and Popes.
2 Jalland, The Church and the Papacy, p. 342; see also p. 353.
3 Bury, Later Roman Empire, 1, pp. 4646 and 2, pp. 151290 and Stein, LHistoire du Bas-Empire,
2, pp. 40115.
4 See, for example, Moorhead, Theoderic; Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy; Amory, People
and Identity; Sardella, Societ, chiesa, e stata; Sotinel, Emperors and Popes; and
Demacopoulos, Invention of Peter.
426
Sessa
There is no questioning the significance of past scholarship or the continuing interest of scholars in high political approaches to late Roman church
history. However, assumptions underlying some of these studies should
give us pause. The idea that the Roman church rose during the Ostrogothic
period only to fall during the Justinianic era smacks not only of overschematization but also of a teleological perspective, which sees the late
ancient Roman church as the breeding ground of the later medieval papacy.
Walter Ullmanns scholarship is the most infamous in this regard (and has
been duly critiqued precisely for this flaw), but there is a lingering exceptionalism in late ancient papal studies, which uncritically posits the Roman church
as different from other major sees in light of its claims to Petrine authority and
which perceives Romes bishops as especially efficient engineers of a more unified, centralized church.5
Moreover, approaches that emphasize a rising papal authority, high politics, and/or diplomatic engagement between East and West and Rome and
Ravenna can uncritically reproduce the discursive biases of the sources.
During the Ostrogothic era, two important documents were produced to this
precise effect: the Liber Pontificalis (ca. 535 and later) and the Collectio Avellana
(ca. 55660). Both project complementary visions of the Roman church and
its bishops. While the Liber Pontificalis, a series of papal biographies beginning
with Peter, presents a narrative of the papacys steady institutional progress,
the Collectio Avellana, an epistolary corpus containing 244 letters and treatises
from Damasus (36684) to Vigilius (through 553), singularly highlights highlevel exchanges between Roman bishops, emperors, kings, and prominent
clerics.6 Fortunately, more quotidian papal documents have survived, but their
underrepresentation contributes to the privileging of high political approaches
to the Roman church. Indeed such approaches can skew the main preoccupations and interests of Romes bishops during this time. As Noble stressed, the
routine business of papal government, and the duties of the pope as an Italian
metropolitan, always took preference over everything else.7
Consequently, this chapter will emphasize newer approaches and interests
in the social, cultural, and discursive matrices of the Roman church and its
bishops during the long Ostrogothic period from 476 to 554. Beginning with
the groundbreaking studies of Charles Pietri and P.A.B. Llewellyn on the aristocracy and its social and economic relations with Roman clergy, scholars have
5 Critiques include Richards, Popes and the Papacy, pp. 15; Costambeys, Property, Ideology;
and Delogu, Il passagio.
6 See especially McKitterick, Roman Texts and Blair-Dixon, Memory and Authority.
7 Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy, p. 398.
The Roman Church And Its Bishops
427
looked beyond the binaries of East/West and church/state for new insights
into the development of Roman episcopal and ecclesiastical authority.8 Very
recent work incorporates lessons of the linguistic turn, and studies such as
George Demacopoulos book on Petrine discourse and Claire Sotinels essay
on the representation of Vigilius masterfully deconstruct the rhetorical programmes embedded in the sources.9 Most significantly, this chapter will continue in the path forged by scholars behind the recent minimalist revolution
in late ancient papal studies. These historians describe the Roman church during our period as a significantly less sophisticated institution than previously
believed, and many view Romes bishops less as Popes than as struggling civic
and spiritual leaders working within a highly competitive and radically changing socio-political landscape.10

The Roman Church and its Bishops: Jurisdiction
The bishop of Rome did not directly govern the whole of Italy, let alone Western
Christendom. Rather, his ecclesiastical jurisdiction was geographically circumscribed to Italia Suburbicaria, the imperial administrative diocese comprising
Italys central and southern territories, along with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia,
and Corsica.11 Theoretically, the Roman bishop was not a metropolitan because
Italy was never divided into provinces, but in practice he exercised a metropolitans authority over the churches and clerics in suburbicarian Italy.12 He was
responsible for consecrating all bishops in the region; for convening regular
councils in Rome to be attended by the suburbicarian clergy; for governing the
churches according to the canons; and for casting final judgement on appeals
from regional ecclesiastical courts. According to Rome, its bishop could also
8 See Pietri, Evergtisme et richesses ecclsiastique, Donateurs et pieux tablissments,
and Aristocracie e socit clricale; and Llewellyn Roman Church. More recently, see
the collected essays in Cooper/Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage; Sessa, Formation
of Papal Authority; and Sotinel, Les vques italiens dans la socit de lAntiquit tardive.
9 Sotinel, Vigilius in the Liber Pontificalis, and Demacopoulos, Invention of Peter.
10 See, for example, Sotinel, Le personnel episcopal; Delogu, Il passagio; Lizzi Testa,
Senatori, popolo, papi; Bowes, Private Worship, Public Values; and Demacopoulos, Invention
of Peter.
11 The peninsular territories under Romes direct ecclesiastical supervision were Tuscany,
Umbria, Campania, Samnium, Lucania, Bruttium, Apulia, Calabria, and Valeria.
Gaudemet, Leglise dans lempire romain, pp. 4456.
12 By 450, there were approximately 200 bishoprics in Italia Suburbicaria. See G. Otranto, Per
una storia dellItalia, pp. 956.
428
Sessa
issue final judgement on appeals from churches and clerics throughout the
empire. However, this particularly expansive claim to appellate authority was
grounded in a canon from the Council of Serdica (343), which was not recognized by most eastern churches and was erroneously conflated with those
of Nicaea in Romes Latin translation of the Nicene canons.13 As studies have
shown, clerics welcomed Romes claims to supra-appellate authority when it
served their needs, but ignored or even contested it when it did not.14

Romes Urban and Suburban Churches
Unlike most late ancient sees, Rome was not a cathedral city but a city of
cathedrals. Within the city and its environs, the late 5th-century bishop
oversaw some 130 churches, oratories, and monasteries, including numerous major basilicas constructed in the 4th and 5th centuries by the emperors
and their families.15 Generally speaking, the Ostrogothic period did not witness any new major ecclesiastical foundations in Rome, which previously had
been the result of imperial patronage. This is expected given the largely nonNicene Christian orientation of the Amal dynasty, though Theoderic made a
small offering to S. Peters during the episcopate of Hormisdas. A few of the
citys bishops were involved in smaller-scale projects.16 Symmachus (498514)
built an extensive new chapel for S. Peters dedicated to the apostles brother
Andrew, and undertook other renovations and decorative work both there and
at S. Pauls.17 Felix IV (52630) is responsible for the only ex-novo church built
in Rome during the Ostrogothic period, the diminutive but elegant basilica of
SS Cosmas and Damian on the Via Sacra inside the Roman Forum. Dedicated
in 527, the church was constructed by linking two formerly separate buildings,
the so-called Library of Peace (Bibliotheca Pacis) and sections of the presumably long defunct Temple of Romulus. The basilica also features a spectacular
apsidal mosaic depicting the parousia (i.e. the second coming of Christ) as well
13 Serdica, c. 3.
14 Mathisen, Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law.
15 Late 5th-century Romes major basilicas include: Basilica S. Petri, Basilica S. Pauli, Basilica
Constantiniana (S. Giovanni Laterano), S. Maria Maior (S. Maria Maggiore), Basilica
Apostolorum (S. Sebastiano), and the Basilica Sessoriana (S. Croce in Gerusalemne).
16 To what follows, we might add the church of S. Stefano in Rotondo on the Caelian Hill,
which was begun during the tenure of Leo I (44161) to house the relics of S. Stephen protomartyr, but not completed and consecrated until the episcopate of Simplicius (46883).
17 Alchermes, Petrine Politics.
429
as portraits of Cosmas, Damian, and Peter along with bishop Felix (see Figure
14.9 in Chapter 14). The circumstances under which Felix gained control of the
buildings inside the forum where he constructed the basilica are unclear. They
were ostensibly imperial properties, hence in the kings charge, and it is possible that a court member handed them over to Felix simply because they were
derelict.18
Romes bishops also oversaw a special category of urban ecclesiastical
foundation, the titular church or titulus. The tituli were post-Constantinian
churches founded in the late 4th and 5th centuries ministered by two or three
presbyters (known as titular presbyters). By 499, Rome had as many as twentynine tituli and they were haphazardly scattered all over the city.19 The uneven
topographical distribution reflects the titulis origins as private ecclesiastical
foundations built on donated land and/or with gifted funds from clerical and
lay patrons.20 Indeed the term titulus likely refers to the churchs legal status,
as a property that was privately founded but then legitimately transferred
(with all current and subsequent endowments) to the Roman church and the
bishops control.21 As we shall see, the tituli remained problematic institutions
from the bishops perspective, in large part because the presbyters assigned
to serve them had traditionally exercised de facto control over their rites and
finances.

Administration and Personnel
Once commonly characterized as the early papal chancellery, the Roman

churchs 5th- and 6th-century administration has been radically reappraised.
Recent studies describe an ecclesiastical administration that was relatively
small and unsophisticated, and which operated on an ad hoc basis. Moreover,
it was largely directed by the pope himself along with non-specialist, (mostly)
clerical personnel, rather than by corps of professionalized officials.22 It is
18 Felix IV was Theoderics appointee (see below), making the transference of these buildings to the Roman Churchs control more understandable.
19 The figure of twenty-nine is based on the signature list from the Roman Synod of 499,
ed. Mommsen, pp. 41015, but the Liber Pontificalis mentions only twenty-five tituli. See
Guidobaldi, Spazio ed organizzazione ecclesiastica , pp. 1239 and Saxer, La chiesa di
Roma, pp. 5535.
20 Hillner, Clerics, Property, and Patronage.
21 Hillner, Families, Patronage.
22 See Sotinel, Le personnel episcopal and Toubert, Scrinium e Palatium.
430
Sessa
thus anachronistic to identify a priestly and administrative branch of the

Roman church during the 5th and 6th centuries; the two were intertwined and
there were no systematic attempts in this period to create separate divisions.23
Scholars have rightly emphasized the significance of the imperial administration (especially its scrinia) as a model for the Roman churchs bureaucratic
development. Romes papal correspondence clearly reflects this influence,
for it mimics imperial rescripts in both style and form.24 But further similarities are far weaker. To be sure, Roman bishops employed notarii and exceptores to assist them in writing, archiving, and delivering letters from the late
4th century (if not earlier).25 By the late 5th century, the notarii were organized
into a basic hierarchy, with both a primicerius and secundicarius notariorum
attested.26 Whether the notarii were men drawn from all ranks of the clergy
or came to constitute a new lower clerical order remains unclear.27 However,
beyond the notaries, there is no evidence for the systematic development or
organization of bureaucratic officials in the Ostrogothic-era Roman church.
Although the apocrisarius (Roman papal representative in Constantinople)
and the vicedominus (overseer of the daily needs of the church and episcopal household) are first attested during the Ostrogothic period, these positions
seem to have been temporary arrangements and not permanent, professionalized offices within the church until much later in the 6th century.28 Rather,
in conducting the churchs business the Roman bishop relied on various nonspecialized Roman clerics, local aristocrats as well as visiting clergy and
laymen from other regions. This can be seen most clearly in accounts describing the composition of small councils (conventicula), which Roman bishops
called to assist them in making administrative decisions. Both Simplicius and
23 Pace Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, p. 289.

24 McShane, La romanitas.
25 Teitler, Notarii and Exceptores, pp. 879.
26 Teitler, Notarii and Exceptores, pp. 889 for references. In a letter preserved in the Liber
Pontificalis Ravennatis, Felix IV recommended that Ravenna organize its notaries into
seven administrative levels, but as B. Neil notes (The Papacy, p. 9), it is unclear whether
Felix prescribed this arrangement because it was the norm at Rome.
27 See Teitler, Notarii and Exceptores, pp. 889 for references. Gelasius, Ep. 14.2, ed. Thiel,
p. 363 identifies the notarii in his cursus as a clerical order, but there is no other evidence
from Late Antiquity to corroborate this as a normative denomination in Rome.
28 The Roman apocrisarius was established after the Acacian schism: Richards, The Popes
and the Papacy, p. 293. The first vicedominus was appointed by Vigilius as an emergency
measure during his absence from Rome between 545 and 555, and thereafter the position
is unattested until Gregory Is tenure. Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 1078.
431
FelixIV, for instance, convened councils of clerics and senators to help them
choose successors (see below).
Very little is known about the location and physical buildings of Romes
episcopal administration during the Ostrogothic period. The first reference to
the Lateran basilica as the site of the bishops household and headquarters
appears in ca. 500 in a document issued by Theoderic, wherein he refers to the
de arca vero vel domo Lateranensi (the treasury or rather Lateran household).29
It is obviously significant that Theoderic believed that the Roman bishops
household and treasury were located in the Lateran neighbourhood at the
Caelian, and that his domus was connected to the arca. However, this is all
that we know. Archaeologists have not discovered remains of what can be
positively identified as Romes episcopium. The absence of material evidence
impairs our ability to do more than speculate about where and how the Roman
bishop lived. Interestingly, 5th- or 6th-century Roman martyr narratives (the
gesta martyrum) depict two pre-Constantinian bishops living in different parts
of the city, suggesting alternative traditions about episcopal residential space.30
Moreover, the embattled bishop Symmachus developed the area around
S. Peters basilica to serve as his residence during the Laurentian schism (see
below). The setting and status of Romes ecclesiastical archives are also unclear.
The Ostrogothic-era church certainly had archives, which held the writings of
present and past bishops along with other documents. Moreover, the Liber
Pontificalis suggests that the early 6th-century church wished to create (or had
created) a personal ecclesiastical archive for clergy, in which clerics could store
important private documents (e.g. wills, contracts, etc.).31 Some popes seem to
have had personal archives (e.g. Agapitus). But there is no conclusive evidence
that the church had centralized its archives at the Lateran basilica at this time.32
In many respects, the administration of the Roman church during the
Ostrogothic period more closely resembled a private institution, such as a
household. As Egyptian papyrological evidence shows, large landowning
householders typically employed notaries and kept extensive archives to manage their estates and labourjust as the bishop of Rome.33 In fact some of our
29 Anagnosticum Regis, ed. Mommsen, p. 426.
30 Passio S. Pancratii 2 (Cornelius living on the Caelian Hill) and Passio S. Susannae 2 (Gaius
living on the Esquiline).
31 The Liber Pontificalis claims that Pope Julius (33752) had established such an archive
(Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, p. 205), but this is surely a retrojection of 6th-century
realities or aspirations.
32 Pace Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, p. 289.
33 Sarris, Economy and Society.
432
Sessa
best evidence for the administrative activities of Romes bishops pertains to

property management. Since at least the early 4th century the Roman church
was a legally recognized corporate property owner, possessing both moveable and immovable wealth, including slaves.34 During the Ostrogothic era, it
owned estates throughout much of Italy, in southern Gaul, North Africa, and
Dalmatia.35 These properties were valuable to the church because of the rents
they generated, which had to be systematically collected and recorded. While
Roman bishops had long managed properties beyond the city, the Ostrogothic
period saw important developments in this particular area of ecclesiastical
administration.36 Romes bishops now drew more regularly on established
domestic terminology and administrative principles to manage the churchs
land. For instance, the letters of Gelasius and his successors refer to the
churchs properties as patrimonia, a term used in private households and in
the imperial and royal courts to denote estates grouped together on the basis of
geography and managed as a unit.37 And since the tenure of Simplicius (if not
earlier), the Roman church dispersed its income according to the principles
of the quadripartitum, a fourfold division of ecclesiastical revenues into funds
for the bishop, the clergy, building maintenance, and charity.38 Gelasius correspondence also contains numerous copies of tax and income receipts, though
it is unclear from later 6th-century sources whether the Roman church had
already adopted a single main accounting book called the polypticha.
To assist them with the legal and financial issues that large-scale estate ownership entailed, popes relied primarily on pre-existing networks of clerics and
lay officials. Gelasius, for instance, looked to a layman named Agilulphus for
protecting Romes properties in Dalmatia and to a local deacon in Picenum to
make an inventory of his churchs properties in that region, while his successor
Vigilius sent a Roman deacon to oversee the churchs patrimonia in Dalmatia.39
Roman bishops also increasingly relied on legal counsellors, known as defensores ecclesiae, for assistance in estate management.40 A letter from Agapitus to
Caesarius of Arles presents the first reference to a defensor serving as interme34 Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 11316.
35 Marazzi, I Patrimonia, pp. 11147.
36 However, Richards claim (The Popes and the Papacy, p. 315) that Ostrogothic-era popes
developed a fully operational rectorial system goes beyond the limits of the evidence.
37 Moreau, Les patrimonies; Jones, Later Roman Empire, pp. 41127. Scholars debate
whether Gelasius or Vigilius first used the term patrimonium in this manner.
38 Marazzi, I Patrimonia, pp. 659.
39 Gelasius, Frag. 2, ed. Thiel 1868, p. 484 and Ep. 4, ed. Ewald 1880, p. 10; Vigilius, Ep. 14.8, ed.
Schwartz, ACO 4:1, pp. 1901.
40 Sotinel, Le personnel episcopal, pp. 11014.
433
diary between the Roman bishop and those who rented and laboured on the
churchs estates.41 However, the defensores were not necessarily clerics (many
were laymen) and they did not comprise a professionalized college within the
church. Indeed this was not an era when Romes domestic duties were simply
delegated to administrators. As their letters vividly demonstrate, Romes bishops were engaged in the smallest matters of estate management, from issuing receipts for collected rents and taxes to adjudicating disputes between the
churchs tenants and overseeing the capture and return of fugitive slaves.42

Social and Cultural Background of Romes Bishops
One of the most important developments within the Roman church during
the Ostrogothic period was social: the entry of aristocrats into the ranks of
the church. Until the last decades of the 5th century Roman prelates hailed
from either non-aristocratic clerical families or households of curial status.43
However, beginning with Felix III (48392), who was Romes first bishop
related directly to a senatorial family, an increasing number of men from aristocratic backgrounds (both senatorial and provincial) became popes.44 To
be clear, this is not an unbroken pattern. Felixs three successors, Anastasius
II, Gelasius, and Symmachus, likely did not come from aristocratic families.
Nevertheless, with the accession of Hormisdas, whom Ennodius described as
pious, well-born, and rich, high-born Roman bishops led the church until the
end of our period.45 The increase in the numbers of aristocratic bishops may
reflect a larger trend within the Roman church, as more early 6th-century clerics came from prosperous, influential families than before.46
Precisely why the Roman church experienced these demographic shifts
remains an open question. Richards suggested that the Amals and Justinian
preferred to appoint aristocrats, but this explanation only accounts for three
bishops (Felix IV, John II, and Vigilius).47 The clergy certainly offered aristocrats
41 Agapitus, Ep. 7 = Caesarius of Arles, Ep. 16, dated to 535.

42 Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 11626.
43 Sotinel, Le recruitment des vques en Italie, pp. 193204.
44 Pietri, Aristocratie et socit clricale.
45 Hormisdas, Felix IV, Boniface II, Agapitus, Silverius, and Vigilius all had aristocratic backgrounds. See Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, pp. 23544.
46 Pietri, Aristocratie et socit clricale, pp. 4346.
47 Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, pp. 2413.
434
Sessa
another political system to exploit, such as when Vigilius promoted his nephew
Rusticus to the deaconate. However, there were no Roman papal dynasties in
Late Antiquity, and there is no evidence that senatorial families were independently orchestrating ordinations from behind the scenes. Indeed the notion
of a senatorial takeover of the Roman church grossly exaggerates the degree
to which senators, let alone the Senate as a political body, came to influence
church affairs. Even during moments of grave ecclesiastical conflict, such as
one of Romes many contested episcopal elections, the loyalties of Roman senators were divided, and they were never unified behind rapprochement with
the East during the Acacian schism (see below).48 Pietris emphasis on increasing cultural contact between aristocratic and clerical circles, therefore, may
be closer to the mark.49 For example, Boethius sent several works on theology
to the Roman deacon John, who was the author of a letter to the vir illustris
Senarius that explained the baptismal ritual.
However, this osmose culturelle seems to have been largely unidirectional,
since relatively few Ostrogothic-era Roman bishops are remembered for intellectual pursuits. Gelasius, who was not from an Italian aristocratic family, is
the only bishop whom the Liber Pontificalis claims authored treatises against
heretics and a book of hymns.50 He also had a reputation among monks in
Rome for an ascetic lifestyle. Agapitus (53536), son of a titular priest and from
a noble background, is said to been especially learned in church law and to
have founded a library near the titulus Pammachi, where he had served before
becoming bishop.51 He was also involved with Cassiodorus in an endeavour to
found a Christian school in Rome.52 Finally, Pelagius I while still a deacon serving under Vigilius helped translate several books of the Greek monastic corpus
known as the Apopthegmata Patrum into Latin. Yet beyond a few translation
projects and the construction/decoration of churches, we know little about
the cultural pursuits of Romes bishops during the Ostrogothic period.

Episcopal Elections in Rome
Choosing a new bishop was among the most potentially divisive tasks in
any see, but Romes elections were especially fractious, particularly during the Ostrogothic era. During this time there were three double elections
48 Sardella, Societ, chiesa, e stata, pp. 528.
49 Pietri, Aristocratie et socit clricale.
50 Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, p. 255.
51 Liberatus, Breviarum 21. Guiliano and Pavolini, La biblioteca di Agapito.
52 Cassiodorus, Inst. I, praef. 1.
435
(Symmachus and Laurentius in 498; Felix IV and an unnamed rival in 526; and
Boniface II and Dioscorus in 530); at least one case where the favoured candidate (Vigilius) of the living bishop (Boniface II) was flatly rejected by so many
clerics that the pope withdrew his support; and numerous incidents of interference via bribery and canvassing. Perhaps unlike other churches, Romes
later 5th- and 6th-century bishops were not elected via a process whereby
the citys clergy and laity publicly acclaimed a particular candidate, who upon
receiving something like a majority (if not universal) support acceded to
the episcopate.53 Rather, Romes tradition for selecting a new pope appears
to have been far more autocratic: the living bishop chose his successor while
still alive and upon his death the appointed man became bishop. Simplicius,
Symmachus, Hormisdas, Felix IV, and John II seem to have nominated their
successors (though sometimes with resistance) and on at least three occasions
the ruling secular authority made the appointment: Theoderic chose Felix IV,
Athalaric named John II, and Justinian selected Vigilius. Clerics and laypeople
could influence the nomination process through bribery, etc., but these sorts of
interventions were typically met with suspicion and disapproval, at least from
the authorities.
Needless to say, Romes electoral system was not the most stable, and the
Ostrogothic period witnessed both violent conflicts over elections and numerous attempts from various leaders, including the popes, to set limits on the
process. In 483, Simplicius issued a scriptura or testamentary statement
demanding that a small council of clergy and at least one senator, Basilius,
select his successor upon his death.54 Assuming that this council met, they
chose Felix III, Romes first aristocratic bishop. However, Simplicius recommended process was not received policy, for when Anastasius II died in 498
without nominating a successor, two men were independently selected and
consecrated, the archdeacon Symmachus and titular presbyter Laurentius.
Thus commenced the Laurentian schism (498506/7), Ostrogothic Romes
most infamous ecclesiastical conflict.55 Symmachus was initially selected by
Theoderic as the legitimate bishop in 498, and in 499 he passed sweeping
53 Such a process may well have existed in Rome during earlier periods and in other sees. See
Norton, Episcopal Elections.
54 This is Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius (PLRE 2: 217, Basilius 12), praetorian prefect of
Italy and member of Odovacers court. Contra Pietri, Aristocratie et socit clricale,
pp. 4545, I see no basis in the evidence for interpreting Basilius participation in this
council as an indication of the Senates collective (or Odovacers personal) intervention
in the election.
55 Recent studies include Moorhead, Theoderic; Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rom; and
Sardella, Societ, chiesa, e stato.
436
Sessa
electoral reforms, which attempted to eradicate the interference of clergy

through canvassing and bribes, and to place control of succession squarely in
the hands of the living bishop.56 However, Laurentius supporters did not relent
and pursued Symmachus to Ravenna in 501 with serious charges that included
the observance of Easter on the wrong date; financial malfeasance concerning
Roman ecclesiastical property; and unnamed sex crimes.57 After Symmachus
refused to answer charges before Theoderic, he retreated to St Peters, where he
remained until 506/7. During that time Laurentius controlled Romes churches
and an outside bishop (Peter of Altinum) was dispatched to oversee the liturgical services. At Theoderics command a synod of Italian bishops at Rome
heard the charges against Symmachus in 501 and 502, but declared that they
could not judge the Roman bishop in absentia and exonerated him. However,
Symmachus retook control of Romes churches only after Theoderic issued a
fiat in late 506 or 507. The entire episode was a massive public relations disaster for Symmachus, whose legitimacy to govern the church remained in question for years. In the attempt to counter the charges against him (ritual and
financial misconduct; sexual activity with a woman) and sway public opinion,
Symmachus proponents crafted documents known to modern scholars as the
Symmachan Forgeries.58 Among other things, these documents present both
historical and fictional 4th- and 5th-century bishops accused of similar crimes
to Symmachus, who are uniformly declared innocent by a jury of clergy, monks,
and senators on the grounds that it is unlawful to pass judgment against the
pontifex (non licet enim adversus pontificum dare sententiam).59
While the Laurentian schism is perhaps an extreme example of a botched
episcopal election, and likely escalated due to unrelated issues, it was hardly
the last time that Romans disagreed over who should lead their church.
Moreover, Symmachus own regulations, decreed at the Council of 499, did
little to end clerical interference or to shore up the living bishops control over
succession. Thus in 530, Felix IV, Theoderics appointee in what had also been
a contested election, issued a praeceptum announcing that he had handed over
56 Acta syn. a. CCCCICVIIII, ed. Mommsen, pp. 4035.

57 Our knowledge of the charges against Symmachus derive from the so-called Laurentian
Fragment, an alternative life of Symmachus that closely resembles the form of the vitae
in the Liber Pontificalis, but presents a hostile assessment of his tenure. For the text, see
Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, pp. 446.
58 On the Symmachan documenta, see Townsend, So-called Symmachan Forgeries, and
Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rom, which includes new editions of the texts.
59 Gesta de Xysti purgatione, ed. Wirbelauer, p. 268.
437
his pallium to Boniface II at a deathbed council with clergy and lay nobles.60
In the same year, the Senate issued a written address to the clergy of Rome
(which they directed to be posted in all tituli) forbidding any discussion of succession and threatening with exile anyone who accepted a nomination for the
episcopate before the death of the pope. At the very least the Senates act
the first of its kindsuggests that it favoured a more regular process for
episcopal succession.61
Unsurprisingly, Boniface did not smoothly ascend to the see. Many Roman
clerics supported the elderly Alexandrian Dioscorus, a popular deacon in Rome,
who died a month later thereby ending the schism. Boniface then attempted to
formalize the living bishops nomination of a successor by convening a synod
at St Peters, where the attending clerics signed the popes decree to this effect.
However, when Boniface appointed the aristocratic deacon Vigilius so many
clerics objected that Boniface rescinded the decree, which he ceremoniously
burned before the confessio at St Peters basilica.62 Precisely what had ensued
during Bonifaces tenure regarding succession is hard to reconstruct, but it was
problematic enough for the Senate to issue its first senatus consultum regulating ecclesiastical affairs. In a letter from Athalaric to John II, the king refers to
a senatorial measure passed during Bonifaces episcopate that once again forbade bribery and other financial incentives for procuring the bishopric.63 Not
incidentally, the letter outlines several regulations added by Athalaric, which
limited the fees (sportulae) that royal officials could charge parties during a
disputed Roman election (presumably for presenting their case to magistrates
or the king) as well as the sums that could be paid out to the people for support
of a particular candidate. It would seem that John IIs election, too, was business as usual at Rome.

Governing the Roman Church in Italy
Governing the Roman church during the Ostrogothic period was by all
accounts enormously challenging. For one, it is an era bookended by warfare.
60 Cassiodorus, Variae 8.15, from Athalaric to the Senate. For the praeceptum of Felix IV, see
Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, p. 282.
61 Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, p. 282 for the text of the senatorial statement. Scholars
disagree on whether the statement was meant to support or censure Felix IVs praeceptum.
63 Cassiodorus, Variae 9.15. Pietri, Aristocratie et socit clricale, p. 465 and Barnish,
Cassiodorus, p. 113, n. 5.
438
Sessa
When Gelasius became pope in 492, Italy had just emerged from a damaging
conflict between the armies of Odovacer and Theoderic (48991), which ravaged parts of the north and put demographic strains on much of Italy. From
535 to 554, Justinians armies fought to regain the region from Ostrogothic control. The Gothic War had a devastating impact on certain cities such as Rome,
which was besieged three times, had its aqueducts cut, cemeteries violated,
and population starved. Even without the exigencies of war, Roman popes
struggled continuously with leading the church within Italy. Their challenges
were partially rooted in the unusually dense and dispersed nature of Romes
ecclesiastical organization. There was the episcopal city with 130 churches,
chapels, monasteries, and some 200 clerics; an ecclesiastical jurisdiction (Italia
Suburbicaria) containing between 140 and 200 bishoprics, and hundreds (if not
thousands) of suffragan clergy; and the churchs far-flung patrimonia, which
involved the oversight of thousands of peasant labourers and slaves. While the
size of the Roman church undoubtedly brought it considerable honour and
prestige, it also led to serious problems and tensions, which prevented Rome
from governing even its undisputed jurisdictional territory without crisis
and contention.64

Managing the Suffragan Clergy
During Late Antiquity, clergy at Rome and elsewhere were not neatly organized
into hierarchical grades, with clearly defined roles and spheres of authority. It
is simply inaccurate to talk of a college of priests and a college of deacons,
much less of a suffragan clergy, without considerable qualification. Clerics in
Rome and beyond had multiple identities and allegiances: they were members
of natal and marital households; friends, patrons, and clients; and spiritual
experts whose primary loyalty was to those with whom they routinely interacted, namely their local bishop, parishioners, landlords, and tenants.
During Gelasius tenure, approximately 20 per cent of Romes presbyters and
deacons broke with him after Gelasius reinstated a bishop whom the Roman
church had excommunicated in 484.65 Beyond Rome, Gelasius dealt with
perennial violations of his own regulations governing ordination, with clergy
who inappropriately performed certain liturgical rituals (including the case of
one priest who seems to have mixed Christian rites with magical rituals), stole
64 Allen/Neil, Crisis Management and Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority.
65 Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, pp. 66 and Demacopoulos, Invention of Peter,
pp.804.
439
church property, and committed sex crimes.66 Significantly, in 494 the pope
issued the most comprehensive set of ecclesiastical regulations to date: a letter
listing some twenty-eight canons governing virtually every aspect of clerical
discipline and church order, from the proper ordination process for laymen
and monks and a ban against female liturgical celebrants to procedures for
consecrating private estate chapels.67 However, as subsequent letters show, his
strictures were not always followed. Nevertheless, Gelasius involved himself
directly in even the smallest matters of clerical discipline, suggesting that the
pope viewed these infractions as serious challenges to his authority.
Symmachus conflict with Romes clergy over ecclesiastical property during
the Laurentian schism was equally if not more troublesome. A considerable
clerical population had sided with Laurentius, and had accused the bishop
before Theoderic of several crimes, including the alienation (sale, trade, or
transfer) of church lands. Generally speaking, bishops were permitted to alienate ecclesiastical property under certain conditions, but in 483 the council
convened at Simplicius directive (as mentioned above) had banned alienation outright, suggesting that some Roman clergy (and at least one Roman
senator) wished to tighten the bishops financial reins.68 While we do not know
which lands Symmachus allegedly alienated, the acts from the Roman synod
of 501 suggest that they formed part of the endowments funding Romes titular churches. As noted, the tituli were legally part of the bishops church, but
they were locally administered both ritually and financially. For many Roman
Christians, they were the centre of their ecclesiastical experience, the place
where they baptized their children and offered their alms. While it is unlikely
that lay donors were behind the anti-Symmachan charges (as Llewellyn suggested), it is possible that certain titular priests formed the heart of the opposition against Symmachus (Laurentius, after all, was a titular presbyter) and
that their continual partisanship was rooted in Symmachus more aggressive
approach to estate administration.69 Symmachus clearly had the tituli in mind
at the 501 synod, when he moved to regulate the alienation of church property
and expressly forbade titular priests from using this or other financial tools to
manage their churchs wealth.70 Moreover, several of the Symmachan Forgeries
66 Allen/Neil, Crisis Management, pp. 16370 and Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority,
pp. 174211 for a broader discussion of these issues.
67 Gelasius, Ep. 14, ed. Thiel, pp. 36279 issued in March 494 to the churches of Lucania,
Bruttium, and Sicily.
68 Acta syn. a DII [SIC], ed. Mommsen, pp. 4445.
69 Llewellyn, Roman Church, with important revisions in Hillner, Families, Patronage.
70 Acta syn. a DII [SIC], ed. Mommsen, p. 450.
440
Sessa
depict bishops as exemplary estate managers, and these narratives may have
been created to counter mistrust among Romans regarding the popes oversight of ecclesiastical wealth.71

Popes and lay Households
Despite aristocratic entry into the Roman church during the Ostrogothic
period, there was continual tension between Romes bishops and Italys
aristocrats.72 Perhaps the most infamous conflict occurred during Gelasius
episcopate, when the bishop found himself opposing the traditions and
answering the criticisms of a group of Roman senatorial aristocrats.73 A local
cleric had committed adultery with a Roman woman (presumably the wife
of a senator, though our sources never reveal her identity), and the senators
felt that Gelasius had failed to discipline him severely enough. To make matters worse, they were planning on making this wayward clergyman the butt of
public mockery during that years Lupercalia festival, a pagan holdover that
remained part of local Christian aristocratic tradition. If nothing else, Gelasius
letter against the Lupercalia and the senators who funded it is a remarkable
record of one popes anger, indignation, and frustration at elite laymen over
whom Gelasius had relatively little control and whose respect for him was neither absolute nor unconditional. In their view, Gelasius was clearly an untrustworthy prelate who failed to govern his clergy in an authoritative manner.
Gelasius relations with Italian aristocrats were not always adversarial.
His letters reveal moments of cooperation, wherein he bent his own rules in
order to assist a vir or femina illustris on matters that pertained to the church.74
However, scholars have also argued that Gelasius inaugurated an invasive form
of papal oversight over the domestic sphere. Gelasius appears to be the first
Roman bishop to prescribe a regulatory regime for the building, dedication,
and use of private estate chapels.75 These small churches and oratories were
constructed on the estates of Italian aristocrats, in some cases dedicated to
local saints, and were used by the household (including tenants and slaves) for
71 Cf. Gesta de Xysti purgatione and Gesta Polychronii in Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rom.
72 Pietri, Aristocratie et socit clricale, pp. 4667 and Bowes, Private Religion, Public
Values and Religious Change, especially pp. 6691.
73 Gelasius, Ep. 100, ed. Gnther, pp. 45365.
74 Cf. Gelasius, Ep. 21 and 33, ed. Thiel, p. 388, 448.
75 Pietri, vergetisme chrtien et foundatins prives and Bowes, Private Worship, Public
Values, and Religious Change, pp.12588.
441
a variety of ritual purposes, from baptisms to burials. Previously the landowners built without papal oversight, had turned to local bishops to dedicate the
buildings, and had personally selected clergy to minister them from among
those living on their estates.76 Beginning with Gelasius, however, landowners who wished to have a private chapel on their properties were required to
petition the Roman bishop for permission. Local bishops, meanwhile, could
not provide the householders religious services without the popes direction.77
While Gelasius (and his successors) correspondence shows that this new
process was both followed and resisted, it also suggests that receiving papal
permission amounted to little more than a rubber-stamping.78 In fact there
is no evidence that Rome ever denied a lay householders request to build,
dedicate, or use a villa chapel. The popes interests in governing private estate
chapels, therefore, were focused not merely on controlling the landowners
religious life but also on limiting the authority of suffragan Italian bishops,
who had previously been responsible for undertaking these ritual tasks, but
who now could intervene only upon Romes directive. Indeed the regulation of
villa churches is an illustrative example of how locally based networks of clerics and landowners routinely challenged the Roman bishops attempt to assert
hierarchical control even within his own jurisdiction.

Kings, Emperors, and Bishops
As noted in the introduction, scholars have long studied the relationship

between the Roman bishop and other titular figures of authority in Late
Antiquity, namely the Ostrogothic kings, the emperors in Constantinople,
members of the Roman Senate, and rival prelates of major sees. Extensive
attention has been paid to Theoderics interactions with the Roman church,
and to his so-called policy of impartiality or neutrality, typically explained by
the kings non-Nicene Christian faith, which seemingly made him an inappropriate interventionist.79 However, in truth, it is very difficult to say much about
Theoderics attitude toward the Roman church, let alone whether he forged
76 Late 4th-century imperial law required landowners to appoint clerics from their estates:
CT 16.2.22 (398).
77 Pietri, vergetisme chrrtien et foundations prives outlines the Gelasian and later
strictures on private chapel foundation and consecration.
79 Pfeilschifter, Theoderich und die katholiche Kirche; Richards, The Popes and the Papacy;
Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy; and Moorhead, Theoderic.
442
Sessa
and followed an ecclesiastical policy. Cassiodorus did not preserve a single

letter from the king to the Roman church or its bishops, thereby raising the
question of how critical Theoderics relationship to the pope actually was.80 In
fact the most accurate characterization of Theoderics relationship to Rome
is that he remained uninvolved in its church affairs until there was a pressing political reason to intervene. For example, during the Laurentian schism
Theoderic repeatedly took action: just after the initial double election in 498,
when he selected Symmachus as the legitimate pope, and in 500, when he met
Symmachus at St Peters to conclude his adventus; in 501, when he investigated
charges levelled against Symmachus and called the pope to Ravenna for questioning; and on multiple occasions from 502 to 506/7, when he installed a visiting bishop (Peter of Altinum) to conduct Romes liturgical services, convened a
synod in Rome of Italian clerics to adjudicate the charges against Symmachus,
and ordered Laurentius and his supporters to return all of Romes churches to
Symmachus control after Symmachus exoneration. These interventions were
instigated by a number of factors. In initially weighing in on the double ordination of Symmachus and Laurentius in 498, Theoderic followed imperial precedent, wherein western emperors customarily cast the final vote in disputed
Roman elections.81 His continual involvement in the synod of 502, wherein he
convened the council and repeatedly hounded the bishops to make a decision,
was probably prompted by a spate of violence in the city related to the schism
the year before. Theoderic, like any good leader, was looking to settle a major
conflict that created disorder in his realms largest city.
Theoderics involvement with Romes bishops did not end with the
Laurentian schism. He routinely called upon Romes clerics to serve on state
embassies to Constantinople, typically on missions oriented around gaining imperial recognition of his regime, though in one celebrated casethe
embassy of John I to the emperor Justins court in 526 for a religious cause,
a request to Justinian to suspend recent policies that forced the conversion of
Arians (and Arian churches) to Nicene Christianity.82 Although John was honourably received in Constantinople, the pope had not secured the response
Theoderic wanted. Shortly after returning to Ravenna, John I died. It is highly
unlikely that Theoderic directly caused Johns death, as the Liber Pontificalis
strongly implies (John is remembered there as a martyr).83 But the pope was
80 Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy, p. 399.
81 Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy, p. 405. Valentinian I directly intervened in the disputed election between Damasus and Ursinus in 366.
82 Discussed by Cohen in this volume.
443
clearly no longer in the kings favour. Moreover, the incident immediately followed Boethius trial and execution, at a time when Theoderic was increasingly questioning the loyalty of his most powerful Roman subjects.84 It is likely
no coincidence that Theoderics most invasive act within the Roman church
occurred just after John Is death, when he forced the ordination of his candidate, Felix IV, over a cleric preferred by members of the Senate. In sum,
Theoderics relations to the Roman church and its bishops follow no pattern
other than political contingency.
The relationship between pope and emperor has often been studied as the
clash between two irreconcilable conceptualizations of the church: an imperial vision, which recognized the emperors expansive arm in religious affairs;
and a papal vision, which touted the papacys claims to Petrine authority as
the basis for its leadership of an ecumenical church, with limited imperial
participation.85 Many scholars have viewed the Ostrogothic period as an epoch
of weak imperial presence in Italy, when the papal vision was on the rise. At
the centre of this questionable narrative are the Acacian schism (484519) and
the rhetorical actions of Gelasius. The Acacian schism was rooted in theological differences, which divided late 5th-century Christians over the nature of
Christ and the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (451).86 While Rome
and many Christians, especially in the West, upheld Chalcedons authority
and its definition of Christ as having two natures in one person, many other
churches and Christians, especially in the East, rejected the Chalcedonian
formulation and insisted upon a Christology that defined Christ as having a single divine nature. When tensions between Chalcedonians and antiChalcedonians became extreme in the East during the 480s, Acacius, the
bishop of Constantinople, helped the emperor Zeno publish a compromise
document called the Henotikon, which the emperor demanded Rome accept.
Simplicius and then Felix III balked (among other problems, the Henotikon did
not acknowledge the authority of Leos Tome, which had been influential in
the Chalcedonian formulation), and in 484 Felix III excommunicated Acacius,
removing his name from the Roman diptychs. Acacius responded in like, and
so the Acacian schism began.
Until 518 Rome was not in communion with Constantinople (among
other anti-Chalcedonian sees), and its relations with the imperial court were
84 Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy, pp. 41923 handles this issue well.
85 See Meyendorff, Imperial Unity; Sotinel, Emperors and Popes; and Amory, People and
Identity, pp. 1967.
86 The literature on the Acacian schism is vast. See Gray, Legacy of Chalcedon for an introduction to the theological issues.
444
Sessa
strained. Rome never broke communion with the emperor, but its bishops
could not accept Acacius justification for his more irenic stance toward the
anti-Chalcedonians, that as bishop of Constantinople he needed to cooperate
with the court.87 The idea of cooperation with imperial forces on this particular religious matter was especially intolerable to Gelasius, who responded by
authoring what later medieval thinkers knew as the theory of the two swords.88
In a letter addressed to the emperor Anastasius and dated to 493, Gelasius
declared that, there are two primary means by which the world is governed:
the sacred authority (auctoritas) of the pontiff and the power (potestas) of
kings.89 In Gelasius view, the auctoritas of bishops is necessarily weightier,
because they ultimately render an account before God of the actions of all
men, including kings. Consequently, he reasoned, even Christian emperors
should bow to bishops on matters of religious doctrine.
Needless to say, Gelasius letter to Anastasius did not end the schism
(Anastasius simply ignored it), and while some of his successors took equally
hardline positions (e.g. Symmachus), others were more conciliatory (e.g.
Anastasius II). Roman Christians and clerics were also divided, and some
scholars believe that the Acacian schism was behind the Laurentian schism.90
It was not until the emergence of a Chalcedonian emperor, Justin I (and his
nephew Justinian), that the rift was officially healed. In 519, Hormisdas sent
legates to Constantinople along with a document (the libellus Hormisdae),
which presented the Roman churchs conditions for reconciliation (e.g. the
condemnation of bishops who had accepted the Henotikon) and unambiguously underlined Romes total authority in matters of doctrine and faith.
Bishop John of Constantinople signed the document (undoubtedly under
considerable imperial pressure) and the schism ended, seemingly as a victory
for Rome. However, as Sotinel has observed, the reunion between Rome and
Constantinople was ultimately based on a misunderstanding of intentions,
for neither emperor nor eastern bishop was going to accept Romes claims
to primacy without equivocation.91 One bishop, Dorotheus of Thessalonica,
87 Sotinel, Emperors and Popes.
88 Meyendorff, Imperial Unity, pp. 1612 and Demacopoulos, Invention of Peter, pp. 8995.
89 Gelasius, Ep. 12.2, ed. Thiel, pp. 3501 with an English translation in Demacopoulos,
Invention of Peter, pp. 17380.
90 Caspar, Geschichte des Papstuums, pp. 8491; Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, pp.926;
Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 1256; Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy. However, the only late
ancient author to link the Laurentian with the Acacian schism is the Constantinopolitan
author Theodore the Lector, and not all scholars accept the connection: see Amory, People
and Identity, pp. 2045 and Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 2123.
91 Sotinel, Emperors and Popes, p. 271.
445
stridently refused to sign the libellus Hormisdae, and Justin in turn refused to
force Dorotheus to stand trial at Rome, as Hormisdas demanded. All of this
makes the notion of a rising papacy during the Ostrogothic era rather difficult
to accept.
Justinians reign is the subject of numerous studies on church-state relations, largely because of the emperors consistently interventionist stance
on religious matters, though his interests were focused primarily on the
Constantinopolitan and eastern churches.92 Rome is not named in most of his
laws regulating Christian practices and doctrine.93 Indeed Justinians courting
of Romes bishops was often opportunistic: he used John II to endorse a new
attempt at rapprochement between Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian
churches (the so-called Theopaschite formula), and he leveraged Agapitus visit
to Constantinople in 5356 to depose Anthimus, the bishop of Constantinople.
Justinian also turned to Rome for its support during the final major politicodoctrinal crisis of the Ostrogothic period, the Three Chapters controversy.
Like the Acacian schism, the Three Chapters controversy has roots in the
Council of Chalcedon.94 Justinian, in the hopes of preventing further misinterpretation and debate, moved to condemn certain writings of Theodoret of
Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa in addition to the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia
in an edict published in 543 or 544. However, two of the bishops had been
officially cleared at Chalcedon, thereby putting all Chalcedonian churches
and especially Rome in a difficult situation. In 545, imperial soldiers abducted
Vigilius from a Roman church, and he spent a year in Sicily before moving to
Constantinople. Western sources from the period read this act as a blatant
attempt by Justinian to force Vigilius to condemn the Three Chapters, but the
Goths were about to besiege Rome and Vigilius may have been removed for his
own safety.95 Initially, Vigilius refused to bow to imperial pressure, and many
eminent western bishops and theologians, including Datius of Milan and the
African deacon Ferrandus, supported him. However, once in Constantinople,
the situation became increasingly confused and tense, and over a period of
several years Vigilius changed positions many times on whether to comply
with Justinian and condemn the Three Chapters or to remain in communion
with the western bishops. At least twice Vigilius tried to escape, first by fleeing to a church in Constantinople (where he was attacked by imperial soldiers) and then by taking refuge in a basilica at Chalcedon. Ultimately in 554
92 Meyendorff, Imperial Unity, pp. 20750.
93 Demacopoulos, Invention of Peter, p. 120.
94 Price, Three Chapters and the Council of Chalcedon.
95 Sotinel, Emperors and Popes, p. 281.
446
Sessa
Vigilius succumbed to imperial pressure and publicly condemned both the

Three Chapters and all its defenders, including his own deacon (and future
pope) Pelagius. In 555, Justinian permitted Vigilius to return to Rome, sending
him back with a bundle of documents regarding Italys economic and political
reconstruction known as the Pragmatic Sanction. Vigilius died in Syracuse and
was the first Roman bishop since Leo not to be buried at St Peters.
Vigilius erratic behaviour when faced with the inimitable Justinian has
long been interpreted as marking the beginning of the Roman churchs political decline. Indeed many African and northern Italian churches consequently
broke communion with Rome over the Three Chapters controversy, and the
so-called Istrian schism lasted until the mid 7th century.96 Moreover, western
sources depicting Vigilius actions during the controversy, including the Liber
Pontificalis, are almost universally negative and are steeped in accusations of
lying, secret letters, and unchecked ambition. However, as Sotinel has recently
shown, our late ancient documents are not only contradictory but also in some
cases reflective of later interests and concerns. The account of Vigilius in the
Liber Pontificalis, Sotinel shows, refracts late 6th-century preoccupations with
the Istrian schism.97 Sotinel also reminds us that Vigilius actions and reactions
to Justinians commands to condemn the Three Chapters must be read within
the context of the Gothic War, which directly overlaps with this religious conflict, when many Italian senatorial aristocrats, like Vigilius, had pinned their
hopes for the future on a reunified empire.98
Conclusion
As this chapter has shown, the rise and fall of the papacy as an Ostrogothic
religious institution is an old scholarly narrative that demands rethinking.
Even within the parameters of high politics, it is difficult to accept a linear
trajectory, as studies more attuned to the rhetorical nature of papal discourse
and the broader historical context (such as war) have shown. By paying attention to the quotidian concerns of the Roman church and its bishops, we have
also complicated the notion of papal authority as a form of limitless ecclesiastical influence within the popes Italian jurisdiction. The steady flow of resistance Roman bishops experienced over clerical discipline and the continued
pushback the popes received from Roman clergy and laymen over episcopal
96 Sotinel, Three Chapters.
97 Sotinel, Pontifical Authority and Imperial Power and Vigilius in the Liber Ponfiticalis.
98 Sotinel, Pontifical Authority and Imperial Power, pp. 245.
447
selection challenges a papal history oriented around the dynamics of ascent

and descent. Moreover, the Roman church may have indirectly benefited
from Italys gradual economic contraction during the later 6th century: with
fewer large-scale property owners around, the Roman churchby attrition
became among the richest and most powerful institutions in the region.99 In
other words, the Roman church may have been on the rise, at least in relative
economic terms, precisely when scholars tell us it was declining. Future studies of the Roman church and its bishops will need to engage more fully with
these and other material changes and explain how they do (and do not) intersect with the complex political history of the period.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Acta synhodorum habitarum Romae a. CCCCXCVIIII, ed. T. Mommsen, in Cassiodori

Berlin 1894, pp. 393415.
Collectio Avellana, ed. O. Gnther (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
35), 2 vols., Vienna 18958.
Collectio Britannica, ed. P. Ewald,Die Papstebriefe der britischen Sammlung, Neues
Archive (1880), 275414.
Epistolae romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilaro usque ad
Pelagium II, ed. A. Thiel, Brunsberg 1868.
Gesta de Xysti purgatione, ed. E. Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rom, Munich 1993,
pp. 26270.
Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis: Introduction, texte, et commentaire, 3 vols., Paris 18861957.
Vigilius, Ep. 14, ed. E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 4/1, Berlin 1933
1937, 1901.
Alchermes, J., Petrine Politics: Pope Symmachus and the Rotunda of Andrew at Old
Saint Peters, Catholic Historical Review 81 (1995), 140.
Allen, P./Neil, B., Crisis Management in Late Antiquity, 410590 CE: A Survey of the
Evidence from Episcopal Letters, Leiden 2013.
Amory, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, Cambridge 1997.
99 Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 2756 and Lizzi Testa in this volume.
448
Sessa
Blair-Dixon, K., Memory and Authority in Sixth-Century Rome, in K. Cooper/

J. Hillner (eds.), Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300900
(Cambridge 2007), pp. 5976.
Bowes, K., Private Religion, Public Values, and Religious Change in Late Antiquity,
Cambridge 2007.
Bury, J.B., History of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols., New York 1958.
Caspar, E., Geschichte des Papsttums, 2 vols., Tbingen 193033.
Cooper, K./Hillner, J. (eds.), Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome
300900, Cambridge 2007.
Costambeys, M., Property, Ideology and the Territorial Power of the Papacy in the
early Middle Ages, Early Medieval Europe 9 (2000), 36790.
Demacopoulos, G., The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in
Late Antiquity, Philadelphia 2013.
Delogu, P., Il passagio dallantichit al medioevo, in A. Vauchez (ed.), Roma Medievale,
Rome 1995, pp. 340.
Gaudemet, J., Lglise dans lempire romain (IVeVe sicles), Paris 1958.
Gray, P., The Legacy of Chalcedon: Christological Problems and Their Significance, in
M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005,
pp. 21539.
Guidobaldi, F., Spazio urbano ed organizzazione ecclesiastica a Roma nel VI e VII
secolo, in Atti del XIII congresso internazionale di archeologia cristiana 54, vol. 2,
Vatican City 1998, pp. 2954.
Guiliano, E./Pavolini, C., La bibliotheca di Agapito e la basilica di S. Agnese, in
W. Harris (ed.), Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity (JRA Supplementary
Series 33), Portsmouth, RI 1999, pp. 85107.
Hess, H., The Early Development of Canon Law and the Canons of Serdica, Oxford 2002.
Hillner, J., Families, Patronage, and the Titular Churches of Rome, in K. Cooper/
J. Hillner (eds.), Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome 300900,
, Clerics, Property, and Patronage: the Case of the Roman Titular Church,
Antiquit Tardive 14 (2006), 190224.
Jalland, T., The Church and the Papacy, New York 1944.
Lizzi Testa, R., Senatori, popolo, papi: il governo di Roma al tempo dei Valentiniani, Bari
2004.
Llewellyn, P.A.B., Rome in the Dark Ages, New York 1971.
, The Roman Church during the Laurentian Schism: Priests and Senators,
Church History 45 (1976), 41727.
McKitterick, R., Roman Texts and Roman History in the Early Middle Ages, in
C. Bolgia/R. McKitterick/J. Osborne (eds.), Rome Across Time and Space: Cultural
Transmission and Exchange if Ideas c. 5001000, Cambridge 2011, pp. 1934.
449
McShane, P., La romanitas et le Pape Lon le Grand, Tournai 1979.

Mathisen, R., Ecclesiastical Factionalism and Religious Controversy in Fifth-Century
Gaul, Washington, D.C. 1989.
Marazzi, F., I Patrimonia Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae nel Lazio, Rome 1989.
Meyendorff, J., Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450680 A.D., New
York 1989.
Moreau, D., Les patrimonies de lglise romain, Antiquit Tardive 14 (2006), 7993.
Neil, B., The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great, in B. Neil/M. Dal Santo (eds.),
A Companion to Gregory the Great, Leiden 2013, pp. 127.
Noble, T.F.X., Theodoric the Great and the Papacy, in Teoderico il Grande e i Goti
dItalia, Atti del XIII congress internazionale di studi sullalto medioevo Milan 1990,
Spoleto 1993, pp. 395429.
Norton, P., Episcopal Elections, 250600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity,
Oxford 2007.
Otranto, G., Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica cristiana, Bari 2009.
Pfeilschifter, G., Der ostgotenknig Theoderich und die katholiche Kirche, Munster 1896.
Pietri, C., Evergtisme et richesses ecclsiastique dans lItalie du IVe la fin du Ve s.:
lexemple romain, Ktema 3 (1978), 31737.
, Aristocratie e socit clricale dans lItalie chrtienne au temps dOdoacre et
de Thodoric, Mlanges dcole de Franaise de Rome 93 (1981), 41767.
, Donateurs et pieux tablissments daprs le lgendier romain (VeVIIe s.),
in Hagiographie, cultures, et socits, IVeXIIe sicles, Actes du colloque organis
Nanterre et Paris (25 Mai 1979), Paris 1981, pp. 43553.
Pietri, L., vergetisme chrtien et foundations prives dans lItalie de lantiquit tardive, in J.-M. Carri/R. Lizzi Testa (eds.), Humana Sapit, Turnhout 2002, pp. 25363.
Price, R., The Three Chapters and the Council of Chalcedon, in C. Chazelle/K. Kubitt
(eds.), The Crisis of the Oikoumene: the Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity
in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean, Turnhout 2007, pp. 1739.
Richards, J., The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476752, London 1979.
Sardella, T., Societ, chiesa, e stata nellet di Teodorico, Messina 1996.
Sarris, P., Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2006.
Saxer, V., La chiesa di Roma dal V al XI secolo, in Roma nellalto medioevo (Settimane di
studio del Centro italiano di studi sullalto medioevo 48), Spoleto 2001, pp. 493637.
Schimmelpfenig, B., The Papacy, trans. J. Sievert, New York 1992.
Sessa, K., The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy: Roman Bishops and the
Domestic Sphere, New York 2012.
Sotinel, C., Pontifical Authority and Imperial Power in the Reign of Justinian: Pope
Vigilius, in id., Church and Society in Late Antique Italy and Beyond, Farnham, UK
2010, pp. I.125; First published as Autorit pontificale et pouvoir imprial sous le
450
Sessa
rgne de Justinien: le pape Vigile, Mlanges de lcole franaise de Rome Antiquit

104 (1992), 43963.
, Le recrutement des vques en Italie aux IVe et Ve sicles: Pour une enqute
prosopographique, in Vescovi e pastori in epoca teodosiana. XXV Incontro di studiosi
dellantichit cristiana Roma, 811 maggio 1996, vol. 1, Rome 1997, pp. 193204.
, Le personnel episcopal: Enqute sur la puissance de lvque dans la cit, in
. Rebillard/C. Sotinel (eds.), Lvque dans la cit du IVe au Ve sicle (Collection de
lcole franaise de Rome 248), Rome 1998, pp. 10526.
, Emperors and Popes in the Sixth Century: The Western View, in M. Maas
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005, pp. 26790.
, Les vques italiens dans la socit de lAntiquit tardive: lmergence dune
nouvelle lite?, in R. Lizzi (ed.), Le trasformazioni delle elite nel tardoantico, Rome
2006, pp. 377404.
, The Three Chapters and the Transformations of Italy, in C. Chazelles/
K. Kubitt (eds.), The Crisis of the Oikoumene: the Three Chapters and the Failed Quest
for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean, Turnhout 2007, pp. 82120.
, Vigilius in the Liber Pontificalis: a Memory Lost or Manipulated?, in id.,
Church and Society in Late Antique Italy and Beyond, Farnham, UK 2010, pp III.121;
First published as Mmoire perdue ou mmoire manipule: le Liber Pontificalis et
la controverse des Trois Chapitres, in C. Sotniel/M. Sartre, Lusage du pass entre
Antiquit tardive et Haut Moyen Age, Rennes 2008, pp. 5976.
, Church and Society in Late Antique Italy and Beyond, Farnham, UK 2010.
Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2 vols., Paris 194959.
Teitler, H., Notarii and Exceptores, Amsterdam 1985.
Townsend, W., The so-called Symmachan Forgeries, Journal of Religion 13 (1933),
16574.
Toubert, P., Scrinium e Palatium: la formation de la bureaucratie romanopontificale aux VIIIIX sicles, in Roma nellalto medioevo (Settimane di studio del
Centro italiano di studi sullalto medioevo 48), Spoleto 2001, pp. 57119.
Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, New York 1955.
, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, New York 1974.
Wirbelauer, E., Zwei Ppste in Rom: Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus
(498514), Studien und Texte, Munich 1993.
CHAPTER 17
Bishops, Ecclesiastical Institutions, and

theOstrogothic Regime
Rita Lizzi Testa*

Introduction: Politics and Western Ecclesiastical Development
In a period characterized by instability and rapid change, the complexity

of Ostrogothic Italy is reflected in the ambivalence with which our sources
describe Theoderic. Late Roman authors represent him both as a man from a
tough military tradition, at the head of a polyethnic amalgamation dominated
by rival leaders, and as an eastern consul, who had spent his entire youth at
the court of Constantinople;1 also as a good and just king at the beginning of
his reign, but as tyrannical and cruel in his final years.2 Tyrannos by reputation but imperator in reality, Theoderic was legitimated as king of the Goths in
Constantinople.3 Criticized as an inlitteratus, he was still capable of appreciating the beauty of literary form and preferred to use the Daedalian rhetoric of
Cassiodorus in his official correspondence.4 To these ambivalences we must
add his religious policy. Arian in faith, he enriched his residential city Ravenna
with splendid sacred buildings for that cult, but was also a powerful patron
* This chapter could not have been published without the attentive revisions of my colleagues
and friends Kristina Sessa and Jonathan Arnold. I would like to thank them both for their
invaluable assistance.
1 From 459 and 469: Jordanes, Getica 52, ed. Mommsen, p. 128. Cf. Collins, Western Kingdoms,
pp. 1267.
2 Excerpta Valesiana, Pars Posterior 8594, ed. Moreau, pp. 247: iubente non rege, sed
tyranno. Traditional opinion about the change of Theoderic at the end of his reign can
be found in Pietri, Aristocratie, p. 461, and more recently in Sardella, Giovanni I, santo,
p. 485; but see contra, Moorhead, The Last Years of Theoderic, and Moorhead, Theoderic,
pp. 21245.
3 Procopius, Wars 5.1.2630, ed. Dewing, pp 1013.
4 Procopius, Wars 5.2.16, ed. Dewing, p. 18; cf. Excerpta Valesiana 61, ed. Moreau, p. 17: dum
inlitteratus esset, tantae sapientiae fuit... and 79, p. 23: Igitur rex Theodericus erat inlitteratus. Ennslin, Rex Theodericus inlitteratus, pp. 3916 and Grundmann, Litteratus
illitteratus.
452
Lizzi Testa
of the Nicene church during the Acacian schism.5 While the personality of
Theoderic was marked by contradictions and ambiguities, his religious policy, not unlike other areas of his administration, was characterized by a firm
determination to preserve the tradition of the Roman Empire, from which
Cassiodorus often declared he drew inspiration.
According to a noted social theorist, however, declarations of loyalty
to tradition intensify precisely when a community is faced with collapse.
Nevertheless, innovations rarely appear in programmatic statements; rather,
they are concealed in the interstices, under an ideology of the mos that forms
part of a recognized system of customs, making them less jarring to the collective consciousness.6 The network of ecclesiastical dioceses and monasteries, which can be reconstructed with some certainty in Ostrogothic Italy
(see the following chapter), is a good example of consistent stability in the face
of change.
Theoderics correspondence with select members of the Nicene clergy
(e.g. the bishop of Rome, bishops of Italian towns, presbyters, and members
of monastic communities) similarly reveals a strong mixture of tradition and
innovation. His letters contain references to imperial traditions, which were
part of a complex weave that sought to combine familiar images with the
bright threads of a new policy. Because the 4th and 5th centuries did not produce evidence analogous to Cassiodorus Variae, the political relations that the
Ostrogothic king forged with Nicene bishops might seem to be a new practice.
In fact privileges granted to bishops and the church from Constantine onwards
through the constitutions now collected in the Theodosian and Justinianic
Codes were also the result of political relations. Not unlike his imperial predecessors, therefore, Theoderic secured the growth of a privileged church, the
Nicene church, and the development of some monasteries, male and female,
almost always dependent or related to that church. He realized this through
the protection of ecclesiastical and monastic property, the granting of special
tax exemptions, and the recognition of judicial powers to the bishops. There
is much discussion among scholars about the nature of the bishops authority, and on the hypothetical increase of the bishops judicial powers in relation to the diminished authority of government. In point of fact, however, the
Ostrogothic kings judicial authority remained strong.
Ancient texts can be misleading in this regard because the act of granting power and privileges to bishops celebrates the sacredness of churchmen.
No longer just monks and nuns, who were considered holy by virtue of their
5 On Arianism in the Ostrogothic Kingdom, see Cohen in this volume.
6 Hobsbawn, Social Function, p. 3.
Bishops, Ecclesiastical Institutions, and theOstrogothic Regime 453
asceticism, priests, too, in Ostrogothic Italy received fiscal privileges and judicial powers as holy men by definition, while their virtues naturally made them
eligible to pursue justice. Additionally, during the 5th century clerical identity was clearly defined through an emphasis on sexual continence and the
delineation of external characteristics (e.g. distinctive clothing, tonsure, and
specific ritual access to the sacred orders), which made the clerical ordo recognizable as a class, distinct from the laity.
In the ancient world, tax exemptions usually conferred wealth. For this reason, holiness, power, and wealth were often connected during the Ostrogothic
period. The combination of these three components was a novelty at the time.
The result of a long process, this combination quickly changed in the age of
Gregory the Great (late 6th century), when Italy was socially and economically
devastated. During the Ostrogothic period, however, as a result of the royal
attitude towards granting privilege to the Nicene church, the kingdoms Nicene
bishops were in turn a source of power and a kind of protection for Theoderic
and his successors.7

Bishops, Power, and Protection in the Communities of the

Ostrogothic Frontier
To the venerable Eustorgius, bishop of Milan, King Theoderic...The
bishop of Aosta has been falsely accused of betraying the homeland...We
therefore wish to strike his attackers with legitimate punishment: but
because they themselves were members of the clergy, we have entrusted
each decision to the judgment of Your Holiness, whose responsibility is
both to bring honesty to such behaviour, and to exercise ecclesiastical
coercion.8
The letter Theoderic wrote to the bishop of Milan, which the metropolitan
doubtlessly received with satisfaction, raises the curtain on a sombre atmosphere of suspicion, accusations, and betrayals. The bishop of Aosta had been
accused of treason, subjected to investigation by the king, and found innocent.
7 Lizzi Testa, Rome during the Ostrogoth Kingdom.
8 Cassiodorus, Variae (hereafter cited as Cass., Var.) 1.9, ed. Fridh, pp. 1920, lines 820: [...]
Augustanae civitatis episcopum proditionis patriae falsis criminationibus accusatum [...]
Volumus enim impugnatores eius legitima poena percellere: sed quoniam et ipsi clericatus
nomine fungebantur, ad sanctitatis vestrae iudicium cuncta transmisimus ordinanda, cuius
est et probitatem moribus talibus imponere et districtionem ecclesiasticam custodire.
454
Lizzi Testa
Indeed this accusation had been motivated by the envy and resentment harboured 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.9
Since 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 Romanbarbarian kingdoms.11 Given the chronology of the letter (Mommsen places it
between 507 and 511, approximately during the years of Cassiodorus quaestorship) and the area of northern Italy mentioned (Aosta), the story of the falsely
accused bishop sheds light on similar events involving other bishops in neighbouring regions during that turbulent age. In the years preceding the outbreak
of military operations, two prominent individuals had been suspected of conspiring with the Franks and exiled by the Visigothic king AlaricII: Volusianus
of Tours (in 495/96) and his successor Verus (in 506).12 At the end of 504
Caesarius, bishop of Visigothic Arles (50342), 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 Vouill, 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., Var. 1.9, ed. Fridh, p. 19, lines 1115: [...] Nihil enim in tale honore temeraria cogitatione 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. 122130; Santalucia, Diritto e processo penale, pp. 20 and 156.
11 Lear 1965, infra.
12 Gregory of Tours, Libri decem historiarum 10.31, 78, ed. Oldoni, p. 598.
13 Vita S. Caesarii 1.2122, ed. Bona, pp. 879.
group of Jews, and imprisoned at the royal palace.14 The bishop was finally
released when an intercepted letter thrown to the besiegers by a Jew revealed
plans to betray the city in exchange for the protection of property and the personal safety of members of the local Jewish community.15
One can imagine that, like the Jews of Arles, the clergy of Aosta had accused
their bishop of collusion with the Burgundians in order to dissociate themselves from the careless posturing of the prelate, and to prevent the victorious troops of the general Ibba upon return from Provence from dispossessing
the church of its possessiones.16 Such episodes are variously described in the
letters that Theoderic sent to churches and private individuals during the
months of war in Provence. The sum of 1,500 solidi was sent to Severus, bishop
of a region through which the Ostrogothic army passed on the way to Gaul,
to be distributed to landowners who had suffered damage. The compensation
was paid in 508, the same year in which the looting had occurred.17 Not long
afterwards Theoderic ordered Gemellus, the vicarius praefectorum in Gaul,
to reinstate the lands and possessions of the spectabilis Magnus who, having
sided with the Franks during the war, decided to return to Ostrogothic rule.18
Around 509, Ibba was also commissioned to return to the church of Narbonne
properties that Alaric II had acknowledged as pertaining to it, and to protect
these properties from misappropriation.19
As Narbonne was also fought over by the Visigoths, Burgundians, and the
Ostrogoths the appropriation of a Nicene churchs possessions may have been
a retaliatory measure against a bishop who was too quick to side (or was so
accused) with the Burgundians. In this situation, the clergy sought the patronage of Ibba, the same Gothic (and Arian) general to whom Theoderic had sent
the letter. This is confirmed by the commendation for an act of religious piety
which, according to the king, would have earned his army the helpful support
of the divinity and, as an expression of civilitas, would have added to the distinction he already enjoyed for his military virtue: Therefore, be extremely
14 Vita S. Caesarii 1.2930, ed. Bona, pp. 946; Klingshirn, Cesarius of Arles, pp. 10810.
15 Vita S. Caesarii 1.31, ed. Bona, p. 96.
16 For Ibba and the Gallic campaign, see Delaplace, La Guerre de Provence (50711), p. 84
and Arnold in this volume.
17 Cass., Var. 2.8, ed. Fridh, p. 61: praesenti anno exercitu nostro transeunte; cf. Sirago, Gli
Ostrogoti in Gallia, pp. 679.
18 Cass., Var. 3.18, ed. Fridh, p. 110, line 8: ad Romanum repatriavit imperium.
19 Cass., Var. 4.17, ed. Fridh, p. 154, lines 613.
456
Lizzi Testa
attentive against such actions, so that you, who are famous in war, will also be
made eminent for compliance with legality.20
Presenting the protection of church property as an act of civilitas was
one of the bright new threads of Ostrogothic policy that appears in the old fabric of Italy. In the few short years between the wars in Sirmium and Provence,
the term civilitas was employed with a remarkable range of meanings but in
essence the propaganda that hinged on this ideology was intended to enhance
Theoderic as the guarantor of the legality that he, alone among the barbarian
kings of the West, was able to impose and enforce.21 The church of Narbonne
was expected to be an example of civilitas because it had property (possessiones) to protect. These were safeguarded from potential usurpers because they
were sufficiently numerous and productive as to place the town church among
the great local landowners. The phenomenon, which grew during the 5th
century, became particularly evident in Ostrogothic Italy. Among the various
innovations in urban Christianity of the time is that which the archaeological data of the peninsula best demonstrates:22 the revenue of churches of the
major cities, which served as imperial residences and provincial urban centres
of government, such as Milan, Ravenna, Aquileia, and Rome came to match
the revenue of wealthy local landowners.23 In many cases, this happened not
only because those churches were able to attract larger donations (above all
from emperors, officials, members of the court, and various pious people) and
thus become wealthier, but also because the urban aristocracy and provincials
became proportionally poorer, suffering from military incursions, political
upheavals, expropriations, and the general decline of favourable living conditions, which quickly effected the lifestyles of those accustomed to living
comfortably.
The wealth of certain churches, therefore, came to be on par with the nobility. Ostrogothic power depended upon the support of those churches, just as it
depended upon other landowners, who were willingly redeemed (such as the
spectabilis Magnus) from a momentary lapse of loyalty to Theoderics regime.24
20 Cass., Var. 4.17, ed. Fridh, p. 154, lines 1113: [...]Esto contra talia omnino sollicitus, ut qui
es bello clarus, civilitate quoque reddaris eximius.
21 On the ideology of civilitas see Delaplace, La Guerre de Provence (507511), pp. 889;
also Heydemann in this volume.
22 Cantino Wataghin, La citt nellOccidente tardoantico, pp. 714.
23 Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, pp. 460 and 46370.
24 As Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, pp. 4926 recently made clear, as far as wealth was
concerned, there was no such thing as the Church with a capital C...Most small cities
shrunk: some collapsed entirely.
Economic power was intertwined with political influence, in the sense that
the one might increase the other, which in turn ensured greater enrichment.
Some episcopal sees such as Arles and Narbonne in Gaul and Milan, Aquileia,
and Ravenna in northern Italy, saw their importance grow thanks to the new
dynamics of emerging Roman-barbarian kingdoms. In a world where both
the players and the games were changing quickly, these bishops assumed a
decisive role in consolidating the new balance of power that the Ostrogothic
administration aimed to establish. Their deeds stand out in the letters, hagiographical accounts, and legislative texts of the period, in which they often
appear as holy bishops.

Powerful Bishops, Holy Bishops: Christianity in Italian Towns
Caesarius Life does not explain why Caesarius was called to the court at
Ravenna a few years after the end of the war in Provence.25 Nevertheless, the
wording of the letter with which Theoderic exculpated the bishop of Aosta from
proditio patriae gives the impression that the number of Nicene bishops under
investigation was larger than suggested by the case recorded by Cassiodorus in
the Variae. To explain Caesarius summons to Ravenna, scholars have considered various possible criminal charges: the accusation of betrayal by the Jewish
community during the siege of Arles;26 the sale of sacred ecclesiastical furnishings to ransom captives;27 and the excessive use of resources to rebuild the
female monastery (intended for the stewardship of his sister Caesaria) whose
buildings were destroyed during the siege.28 The latter two activities provoked
the clergy who noted the ruthlessness with which the bishop managed ecclesiastical resources. Previously, Pope Simplicius (46883) had regulated their
use, removing Gaudentius, the bishop of LAquila (Aufinum) from his seat after
he had performed non-canonical ordinations and for three years appropriated
all the revenues of his diocese.29 As early as 475, therefore, it was established
that ecclesiastical income and the offerings of the faithful were to be allocated
equally to the bishop, the clergy, the construction of buildings for worship,
and the welfare of the poor and pilgrims. What was known as the quadripartite (fourfold) division of church revenues was also strongly advocated by
26 Delage,Le sjour de Csaire dArles en Italie, p. 104.
27 Fvrier, Csaire et la Gaule mridionale au VIe sicle, pp. 60.
28 Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles, pp. 124.
29 Simplicius, Ep. 1.1, ed. A. Thiel, pp. 1757.
458
Lizzi Testa
Pope Gelasius (4926).30 It was the bishops holding the most important sees,
however, who were more likely to transgress Romes strictures. Ecclesius of
Ravenna, for example, defrauded his clericssixty of whom formed a delegation that appealed to Pope Felix IV (52630) for justiceof 3,000 solidi a year
in order to fund his building ambitions.31
Some episodes in the Life of S. Caesarius suggest possible accusations. One
recounts how Caesarius had striven to bring all prisoners captured by Ibbas
soldiers into the city and to welcome them at the bishops palace.32 As most
were Burgundians, the kings Gundobad and Sigismund sent three large ships
full of grain.33 However, when that aid proved insufficient, the bishop used the
treasure that his relative and predecessor Eonius had accumulated, selling the
valuable objects of the church, even the sacred vessels.34 Ambrose, bishop of
Milan from 374 to 97, had done the same to pay the ransom for prisoners in the
aftermath of the imperial defeat at Adrianople.35 There is a difference between
the actions of Ambrose and those of Caesarius, however, and this demonstrates the developments that a bishop of the 5th and 6th centuries had to
negotiate, and turn to his favour when possible. Ambrose had broken and sold
sacred vessels to ransom Roman citizens who were faithful Nicene Christians.
Caesarius, by contrast, made no distinction between Nicene prisoners, Arians,
and apparently even pagans.36 Such a charitable deed, even discounting the
gratitude it would earn from the Burgundian king, was not the disinterested
gesture it may seem. Caesarius imposed baptism in exchange for the release of
the captivi infideles brought into the city in the autumn of 508, resulting in a
considerable increase in the faithful and future clientes of the church in Arles.37
If the Burgundian rulers were grateful, then Theoderic was no less pleased and
he immediately recognized the signs of holiness in the bishop:
30 Gelasius, Ep. 15.2, ed. Thiel, p. 380.

31 Agnellus, Liber Pont. 60, ed. C. Nauerth, pp. 26880; Pietri, Aristocratie, pp. 46165;
Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, p. 488.
35 Ambrose, De officiis 2.70 and 136, PL 16, col. 140. McLynn, Ambrose, pp. 556 seems to question the historical setting of the episode.
36 Vita S. Caesarii 1.3233, ed. Bona, pp. 98100. Klingshirn, Charity and Power identified
the captivi with the Franks who were still pagan.
37 From the text it would seem that the bishop only rescued those prisoners who agreed to
be baptized. See De Giorgio, Cesario di Arles e la redemptio dei captivi infedele.
God has no mercy for those who have made a man of such innocence and
holiness endure such a long journey...I see, he said, a face of an angel, I
see a man worthy of the Apostles: I judge it a crime to think anything bad
about such a venerable man.38
While Caesarius Life is a hagiographic account,39 the words attributed to
Theoderic are not so different from those with which the Gothic king addressed
Eustorgius in praise of the bishop of Aosta, who was found innocent by judicial inquiry. The same confidence in the sanctity of sacred office applies to
the man: a holiness before which even manifest evidence is scarcely credible
(manifesta proinde crimina in talibus vix capiunt fidem).40
This is not in fact an isolated situation. The letters of Theoderic to the bishops of Italy are studded with references to the sanctity of the Christian ministerial office. Addressing Ianuarius, bishop of Salona, who did not want to pay
sixty large jars of oil to a landowner in the area, the king stated that we order
that all practice and respect the law, but to the greatest degree are required to
do so...those who are elevated by divine office, so as to find themselves close
to heavenly grace, so long as they are kept away from greed.41 Similarly, writing
to the bishop Aurigenes, whose men had invaded the property and kidnapped
the wife of a layman named Julian, Theoderic affirmed: We have confidence
that, while every crime is unbearable, the most abhorrent for you is that which
attacks the affection of a legitimate marriage. In that spirit, in fact, does a religious man learn that which causes hatred, even among common people?42
And years later, probably in December 533, the Prefect Cassiodorus echoed
this theme when he wrote that the fasting of priests has removed the risk of
38 Vita S. Caesarii 1.36, ed. Bona, p. 104: Non parcat illis Deus, qui huius innocentiae virum
atque sanctitatis frustra fecerunt itinere tam longo vexari.... Videoinquitangelicum
vultum, video apostolicum virum: nefas arbitror mali quippiam de tam venerando viro
censere.
39 And not alone in its portrayal of Theoderic; cf. Ennodius, Vita Epifani 10910, 116, 13641,
and 1849, ed. Vogel, pp. 979, 1012, 1078, where the king not only recognizes the bishops holiness but is intimately involved in his ransoming of captives.
40 Supra, n. 7.
41 Cass., Var. 3.7, ed. Fridh, p. 103, lines 36: Omnes quidam iustitiam colere et observare
praecipimus, sed eos maxime qui divinis honoribus eriguntur, ut supernae gratiae fiant
proximi, dum a terrena fuerint cupiditate longique.
42 Cass., Var. 3.14, ed. Fridh, p. 108, lines 36: Quamvis iudicio vestro credamus omnia
facinora displicere, maxime a vobis confidimus exsecrandum quod matrimonii genialis
impugnat affectum. Quibus enim animis a continentibus accipitur, quod etiam laicorum
detestatione damnatur?
460
Lizzi Testa
famine; worthy tears have warded off foul melancholy and holy men have
ensured that the weight that afflicted us will not last long.43

Defining Clerical Authority
The priests who populate the pages of the Variae and lived in Ostrogothic
Italy were holy men, the undisputed heirs to the democratization of Christian
sanctity. Members of a sacral class, holy men obtained superhuman intercessions to aid those who supported them with gifts and increased the wealth of
churches. This was by virtue of sacral rites: they touched sacred vessels containing divine substance (the Eucharist, the privileged vehicle of intercession)
thereby making them, as men, sacred. But, as Augustine had taught, the quality
of the officiant and origin of the offering to God were not unknown. In order
to touch those sacred vessels, the clergy had to be different from the common
man: Quibus enim animis a continentibus accipitur, quod etiam laicorum detestatione damnatur?44 They had to be continentes.
That Cassiodorus separated continentes and laici in a binary division of society is evidence that in Theoderics time the imposition of clerical celibacy was
not complete. The continence of the Catholic clergy continued to rest on the
honoured institution of post-matrimonial celibacy, as Pope Siricius (38499)
established. By 385, he had created order from among the many, and until then
disparate, matrimonial requirements. Correlating sexual behaviour with an
ecclesiastical career, he determined that among married men only those who
had (or previously had) one wife and married as a virgin could become a priest,
and those who while already part of the clergy married a second time, even
with a widow, would be removed from the order without the opportunity of
returning to the clergy.45
While already in progress, the distinction between continentes and laici
became more pronounced during the 5th century, when the need to create
the sacerdotal ordo and render it recognizable in society became a priority.
At the time it was designated with a specific ritual, characterized by distinctive clothing, the tonsure, and sexual behaviour different from that of ordinary
43 Cass., Var. 9.2, ed. Fridh, pp. 4267, lines 710: Ecclesiasticis siquidem ieiuniis famis est
exclusa popularis: decoris lacrimis tristitia foeda discessit et per sanctos viros acceleratum est, ne traheret diutius quod gravabat.
44 Augustine, De Trinitate 4.14.19, eds. Trap, Sciacca, and Beschin, p. 209.
45 Siricius, Ep. 1, PL 13, coll. 11425.
Bishops, Ecclesiastical Institutions, and theOstrogothic Regime
461
men.46 In this sense, independent of influence from monastic orders, it was

the need of the laity (and their desire that gifts to churches would free them
of their sins) that necessitated the constitution of the clergy as a separate and
different sacral class.47 In terms of excellence measured in degrees of chastity,
however, the problem of clerical continence could not but mature in the direction of celibacy tout court, especially since it became the only real distinction
between the secular and ecclesiastical hierarchies, which by now were extensively involved in political affairs and secular administrative duties. Although
the imposition of clerical celibacy became canonical only in the Decree of
Gratian, previously Gregory the Great (590604) had drawn upon the distinction of the tria genera hominum that Origen and Augustine had based on the
models of Noah, Daniel, and Job. Gregory conceived of a society no longer
divided into continentes and laici, but rather into pastores, continentes, and
coniugati.48 The latter were the laity, qualified for the vocation of marriage,
while the sacerdotes were distinguished from continentes (potentially married
only once) by being fully celibate. But in the age of Theoderic this process was
still incomplete.

The Ostrogothic Regime and Ecclesiastical Networks
Tangible factors contributed to the sanctity of the clerical group. Sanctity grew
and developed through the concrete power that certain bishops were able to
accumulate in the troubled early decades of the 6th century. The clergy were
able to move unscathed through an international arena populated by individuals from different backgrounds, divided more than united by language,
religion, and political ambitions. It is no coincidence that the most notable
hagiographic accounts of the day celebrated bishops who were capable of
mediating the active life and the contemplative life, according to the best recommendations of Ambrose and the Cappadocian Fathers.49 Such roles were
acquired through the patronage of the faithful of their city and the sanctity
obtained by means of a distinctive contemplative life. A number of these
46 On the combination of these elements see Lizzi Testa, Tributa sunt purpurae, non
lacernae.
47 Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, pp. 51722.
48 Gregory, Moralia 1.14, eds. Gillet/de Gaudemaris, pp. 1624; In Ezechielem 1, hom. 8. 10, ed.
Morel, pp. 28991 and In Ezechielem 2, hom. 4. 5 and hom. 7. 3, ed. Morel, pp. 1924 and
32830. See also Pizzolato, Laicit e laici, pp. 7680.
49 Lizzi Testa, The Late Antique Bishop, pp. 5336.
462
Lizzi Testa
bishops in fact managed to sustain a certain equilibrium on both sides of the

Alps, which Theoderic had hoped to achieve through a sophisticated network
of marriage alliances, but which failed miserably at Vouill.50
The new equilibrium was realized by means of highly intense diplomatic
activity, effectively managed for the most part by deacons. While mention is
hardly ever made of them in sources, these lower figures were very often the
real agents of lateral mediation between the various churches and vertical
mediation between the centre and the periphery. In the case of Caesarius trial,
it is not difficult to believe that reconciliation with Theoderic was achieved
thanks to Ennodius, then a deacon but later a bishop,51 whose activities in
those years are especially well evidenced by his correspondence, including
an epistle directed to Caesarius himself shortly after his exoneration.52 Nor is
it unlikely that Ennodius likewise had intervened in support of the bishop of
Aosta, as he was then deacon at the church in Milan governed by Eustorgius,
to whom Theoderics letter was sent. It may be assumed that the Ostrogothic
king, assisted by his quaestor Cassiodorus, adopted the same criteria used by
Roman emperors (as is now clear from the study of recipients of constitutions in the Theodosian Code) in addressing their decisions to those who had
actually solicited them. The intervention of Ennodius and Theoderic, which
absolved the bishop of Aosta from proditio patriae, is all the more credible
as the bishop can be identified with the episcopus ecclesiae Augustinae (var.
Augustanae) named Iucundus (var. Iocundus). This Iocundus signed the synod
of 23 October 502 at the end of the habita Romae Palmaris session of the Roman
council, which had been convened by an edict of Theoderic to adjudicate the
Laurentian schism (498506/7).53 He can also be identified in connection with
the council that met under the chairmanship of Bishop Symmachus in basilica
Petri on 6 November 502.54
50 Perhaps the best example is bishop Epiphanius of Pavia who had served earlier as emperor
Nepos envoy to the Visigothic king Euric and who later helped to broker Theoderics
failed marriage alliance with the Burgundian king Gundobad. See Ennodius, Vita Epifani
8291 and 13676, pp. 945 and 1016.
51 Ennodius was a member of the Milanese clergy from 495; after 502 he became a deacon
serving the bishop Laurentius until he was elected bishop in Pavia ca. 513. See Magnus
Felix Ennodius, in Prosopographie chrtienne du Bas-Empire (cited as PCBE hereafter) II,
pp. 6212.
52 Ennodius, no. 169 (Ep. 9.33), p. 321, ll. 3 and 24.
53 For the Laurentian Schism see Sessas contribution to this volume.
54 In both the first and the second signature lists from the council Iucundus appears next
to Tigridius of Turin respectively at the fifty-fifth place (with Tigridius at fifty-sixth); and
The bishop of Aosta, therefore, was a pro-Symmachan bishop, just as his metropolitan Eustorgius of Milan and other bishops of north-west Italy (Tigridius
of Turin, Emilianus of Vercelli, Maximus of Pavia, Cassian and then Bassus of
Modena, Eustathius of Cremona, Laurentius of Bergamo, and Servusdei of
Verona). He opposed Laurentius supporters, namely Marcellianus of Aquileia,
who had urged Eustorgius predecessor to renounce a nefarious error to no
effect.55 The accusation of proditio directed at the bishop of Aosta, therefore,
may have been a strategy of the clergy in the wake of the Gallic military crisis
to replace their prelate with a follower of Laurentius at a time when the papal
schism had not yet been fully decided in favour of Symmachus.56 The action
of the clergy evidently succeeded in obstructing, if not necessarily replacing,
the accused bishop, as Theoderic ordered Eustorgius to reinstate him with
all rights.57
The letter of Theoderic to Eustorgius implicitly confirms that modifications
to the metropolitan structure of the West, which began during the 5th century, had already obtained some semblance of stability in northern Italy.58 The
text also proves that Milans metropolitan privileges were confirmed in years of
military conflict, when the geographic scope of the metropolis may have been
the subject of discussion and redefinition. In fact this was what happened
in Gaul, where the long-standing dispute between the bishop of Vienne (the
administrative capital of Viennoise and the metropolitan see) and the bishop
of Arles (the new seat of the Gallic prefecture) was resolved by the Roman
bishop Symmachus in favour of Caesarius. Leaving from Ravenna after his
summons, Caesarius unsurprisingly set off for Rome, where he obtained confirmation of metropolitan rights and the symbols of power (such as the right to
wear the pallium). These acts made him the privileged intermediary with the
pope and the representative of Rome in Gaul and Spain, once again restored
in eighth place (with Tigridius in ninth): Acta Syn. Rom. 2, 6, 25 and 3, 19, ed. Mommsen,
pp. 435 and 452.
55 Ennodius, no. 117 (Ep. 4.1), p. 129, lines 912. Eustorgius predecessor was Laurentius of
Milan.
56 The onset of the military crisis in southern Gaul between 507 and 508 may have slowed
communications between Rome and Aosta (Augusta Praetoria).
57 Cass., Var. 1.9, ed. Fridh, p. 19, lines 1011: qui a vobis honori pristino restitutus ius habeat
episcopatus omne quod habuit.
58 On the metropolitan organization of the church see Hall, Organization of the Church,
pp. 731. This was implemented very slowly in the West: Bleckmann, Arelate metropolis.
On the situation in northern Italy see Humphries, Communities of the Blessed, pp. 13786;
Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardo antica cristiana, and Lizzi Testas other contribution in this volume.
464
Lizzi Testa
to the empire.59 In turn Eustorgius, who had succeeded bishop Laurentius

around 508 (not 511, as others would have it),60 also received recognition of
his metropolitan prerogatives from Theoderic, who confirmed his authority to
coerce the clergy of Aosta with respect to reinstating their bishop. Far from
being a matter of prestige, these prerogatives for the Milanese see allowed it to
control the election of provincial bishops and the presidency of local councils.
Ultimately, urban Christianity in the early decades of the 6th century had
become a privileged vehicle of political relations in some of the richest and
most powerful centres, due to the ability of bishops to give and obtain support from newly created secular rulers in the western Roman Empire. The
war in Provence, not unlike the schism between Symmachus and Laurentius,
had imposed a reorganization of existing balances. The urban Christianity
of Ostrogothic Italy developed in the background of the new consolidation
caused by Theoderics victory and the resolution of the schism in favour of
Symmachus.61 Among the elements that favoured Christianity as a new civic
religion in the city, and which gave it the necessary impetus to conquer the
countryside, were the privileges granted to the ecclesiastical possessiones by
the Ostrogothic king and the limits he imposed on the jurisdiction of bishops.

From City to Countryside: The Protection of Ecclesiastical Wealth
Laurentius, Eustorgius predecessor in the see of Milan, had promised Pope

Symmachus not only the conciliar votes of the bishops of his cities, but also
such a large sum of money (400 solidi) to spend on the election campaign
that many years later the deacon Ennodius was still asking, by a variety of
discreet means, for its return.62 Theoderic did not forget how the bishop of
Rome had prevailed with the support of Milan, one of the sees most exposed
to Burgundian influence. During his episcopacy, Eustorgius was able to maintain the Milanese church with the high level of urbanity that Christians now
expected of a former imperial residence. Eustorgius continued construction
activity already begun by Laurentius,63 restoring (among others) the baptistery
59 Delage, Vie de Cesaire dArles, p. 76.
60 PCBE I, Eustorgius 2, pp. 71920 and PCBE II, Laurentius 15, pp. 123942.
61 See Sessas chapter in this volume.
62 The last of the three letters relating to that loan was sent not later then 508 by Ennodius
to Luminosus (PLRE 2, Luminosus, pp. 6923 e PCBE II, Luminosus 1, pp. 13367), who
moved from Milan to Rome in about 506: Ennodius, no. 283 (Ep. 6.16), p. 223.
63 Ennodius, no. 1.19 (Dictio 1.19), p. 3, lines 2435 and no. 97 (Carmen 2. 9), pp. 1201.
of St Stephen and enriching it with a fountain equipped with a sophisticated

plumbing system.64
As the great senator Q. Aurelius Symmachus had once requested the
defence of his provincial possessions from governors on whose amicitia
he could count, so, too, the bishop of Milan requested and received from
Theoderic protection for the properties that the Milanese church possessed in disparate regions, making them more difficult to control.65 Thus
Count Adila, on the orders of Theoderic, supported the lands and men that
Eustorgius church possessed in inland Sicily, ensuring that they were not subject to excessive burdens (gravamen aliquod) and were protected from enemy
incursions.66 This is the oldest record of the properties of the Milanese church
in Sicily, accrued through the aggregation of portions of imperial property,
alongside modest contributions from the faithful (who in troubled times preferred to surrender their property to the church, in exchange for either lifelong
tenancy or a lease contract), as well as more extensive private assets, given
as a legacy or as gifts by laymen or bishops.67 It was Ambrose in fact who
bequeathed to his church the first Sicilian possessions and was perhaps imitated by Pope Vigilius (53755) and Pope Gregory.68
A variety of forms of abuse and oppression threatened the revenues of
such ecclesiastical possessions, such as misappropriation or embezzlement,
not only by possessores or important lay tenants but also by more powerful
churches, including the Roman church.69 An edict of Cassiodorus brings to light
another type of abuse that had become increasingly frequent in Ostrogothic
Italy and which accentuated a more general crisis: the abuse of possessores,
including by churches, through the imposition of illegal taxes on the authority
(real or perceived) of a higher source of power. In the province of Lucania et
64 Ennodius, no. 379 (Carmen 2.149), p. 271.

65 Symmachus, Ep. 9.6; cf. Roda, Commento storico, pp. 103 (commentary); 332 (text); and 374
(translation).
66 Cass., Var. 2.29, ed. Fridh, p. 78, lines 212. The incursions alluded to here must be Vandal
raids. Even after the passage of the island to the Ostrogoths, the Vandals continued to
govern some strategic places. Lilybaeum, given to the Vandal king when he married
Theoderics sister, was a boundary constantly breeched by both Vandals and Goths.
See Clemente, La Sicilia nellet imperiale, p. 476.
67 Cracco Ruggini, La Sicilia fra Roma e Bisanzio, p. 13.
68 Cracco Ruggini, La Sicilia e la fine del mondo antico, p. 516, n. 68.
69 For a late 6th-century example of Roman abuse of Milanese ecclesiastical property, see
Gregory, Ep. 1. 80 (August 591), ed. Norberg, pp. 878.
466
Lizzi Testa
Bruttii, a southern region that roughly corresponds with Calabria today,70 the
canonicarii (employed as collectors) had exacted a part of the munera that
the sacrosanctae Ecclesiae of the province would have to pay (unless otherwise
exempted).71 They did this for their own profit, on behalf of accounting officers
who maintained the budget estimates of tax revenues (numerarii). The prefect
ordered that he who is further stained with this fraud will be dismissed from
the militia and lose access to his possessions.72 Cassiodorus refrained from
imposing the death penalty prescribed by law for abuses of this kind, but prescribed the loss of office and the total confiscation of the assets of guilty parties, giving the offence the connotation of sacrilegium.73 Since tax exemption
for churches was an expression of pietas, as an offering to God made possible
by the humility of the sovereign and through divine impulse (impulsu divinitatis), tax fraud at the expense of the churches was to be treated as a direct insult
to God (sacrilegium).74
It is not clear from the text which churches were affected by this kind of
fraud. Most likely they would have been small churches, grouped together for
fiscal purposes to pay the capitatio, so as to collectively form a taxable area
closer to the iugum (100 iugeri). The region was once believed to have had a
high density of churches built in major cities (the six municipiae and the three
coloniae of Pliny the Elders list) from as early as the 4th century. In reality
the region only saw a real growth of ecclesiastical seats in the 5th century and
above all in rural areas, as in neighbouring Apulia. The edict of Cassiodorus
suggests that over time even small rural churches were granted tax exemptions, which were more essential to their survival than territorial growth.
With regard to churches in southern Italy, granting exemptions was not only
an expression of royal pietas. The speed of repressive measures put in place
70 Paoletti, Occupazione romana e storia delle citt, p. 469; Buonocore, Regio III. Regium
Iulium, Locri, Taurianum, Trapeia, pp. XIIIXIV.
71 Many 4th- and early 5th-century constitutions explicitly forbade the use of palatine
canonicarii in the process of collection, since they were tax inspectors responsible for
monitoring the fiscal work of the provincial governor and his office. (Delmaire, Largesses
sacres et res privata, p. 162 lists at least nine, dating from 385 to 458). However, from the
second half of the 5th century (in both parts of the empire) only the canonicarii (in East
trakteuta or tractatores) were directly responsible for the collection of fees and taxes in
the provinces, under the authority of both financial comites and the praetorian prefect
(Seeck, Canonicarius (compulsor), pp. 1489.
72 Cass., Var. 12.13, pp. 478, lines 204.
73 Gnoli Rem privatam de sacro surripere, and Gnoli, Ricerche sul crimen peculatus, p. 105;
cf. Cass., Var. 9.16, ed. Fridh, lines 57.
74 Cass., Var. 12.13, ed. Fridh, pp. 4778, lines 46 and 309.
against fraudulent canonicarii and numerarii helps to illustrate the vital relationship between the government in Ravenna and the owners of these southern Italian estates. Above all, when the edict was issuedeither on the eve
of Belisarius landing in Catania (June 535) or during the subsequent arrival
of the eastern Roman army in Calabria in mid 536 reliance upon churches
and southern domini seemed decisive to the Ostrogothic king. They had reorganized the urban and rural structure of these areas and were the owners of
massae, with many clients who could be conscripted as soldiers. Nevertheless,
it is known that Cassiodorus speed in treating the situation was not enough
to prevent ruinthe future of Ostrogothic Italy was decided in the south by
the lay and ecclesiastical domini of the region who no longer felt sufficiently
protected by the Ostrogothic regime.

Granting of Privileges
Nevertheless, Theoderic had ruled the peninsula with good results for many
years, maintaining a high level of loyalty to his government among the propertied classes. He succeeded, furthermore, in pursuing a policy of measured privileges for the churches that had been typical of Roman emperors.
This is confirmed in the letter to the comes Adila, in which the king assured
protection for the lands of the church of Milan located in Sicily. The tuitio,
which requested the spectabilis comes (tuitionem studeas...praestare), was
an institution that pertained to every form of abuse of power.75 Cassiodorus
framed the content of the letter between an excess of obligations (gravamen), from which the king could free his subjects by ensuring them an otiosa
tranquillitas (peaceful tranquility), and the aggressive action of foreign nationes that the comes had to fight. Its limits were defined by the terms aequabilia (equitable privileges) and the expression salva civilitate.76 The former
referred to legal privileges, which Theoderic guaranteed for those exempt
by tradition such as the churches, while the latter regarded the respect for
general laws to which everyone, including landowners and churchmen,
were held responsible.77 Essentially, urban Christianity continued to receive
75 Cass., Var. 2.29, ed. Fridh, p. 78, line 10.
76 Cass., Var. 2.29, ed. Fridh, p. 78, lines 46: tamen specialiter ecclesias ab omni iniuria
reddi cupimus alienas, quibus dum aequabilia praestantur, misericordia divinitatis
acquiritur.
77 In the formula tuitionis (Cass., Var. 7.39, ed. Fridh, p. 289) salva civilitate is synonymous
with salvis legibus.
468
Lizzi Testa
protection and rural Christianity developed along the same model, as

6th-century Gothic Arian rulers believed that granting privileges to the Nicene
churches would obtain, in addition to their terrestrial support, Gods mercy.
As Roman emperors had never (except in very rare cases) gone too far in
their policy of privileges to bishops, clergy, and churches, so, too, Ostrogothic
kings took great care in dealing with requests for exemptions.78 Justinian
appreciated this attitude, as evidenced by a letter to the emperor from King
Theodahad in 535. The latter, in the face of complaints from Gods servants,
did not immediately grant the requested tax exemption, but sent an inspector
to the monastery.79 The countryside in Ostrogothic Italy was also populated
by female estate managers (dominae), in this case not lay owners but famulae
Dei (Gods servants) who were treated as dominae in fiscal matters because the
monastery was maintained through revenues of the land they had been given.
It must be assumed that even the properties of viri Dei and those of male monasteries in Ostrogothic Italy were governed by those relations of convenient
taxation that Theodahad wanted to preserve as evidence of the ability of the
Ostrogothic king to ensure a society functioning on a rational and civil basis.
In fact the Christianity of Ostrogothic Italy remained a favoured Christianity,
but legal limits to the enrichment of the churches were the same as those formerly established in imperial legislation. This continuity is demonstrated by
the harsh response of Theoderic to a bishop, who assumed he would enjoy
the unlimited benevolence of the king: the landowner will be satisfied with
a reduced rate of tax; tribute belongs to the purple, not to prelates wearing
rich robes.80 The Thesaurus linguae Latinae suggests an explanation of the
phrase attributing metonymic value to the two terms: as purpura indicates
the Roman emperor who wore robes with a purple hem, thus the lacerna as
a common garment could be a reference to ordinary citizens. The expression
could essentially be translated as tribute belongs to the king, not to private
citizens.81 Yet while the metonymy expressed by purpura appears obvious, less
clear is the meaning implicit in lacerna, which does not seem to have been
a common enough item of clothing in Ostrogothic Italy so as to identify it
78 Constantine himself recalibrated exemptions to churches after 329. See Lizzi Testa,The
Bishop, Vir Venerabilis, pp. 1326. On the behaviour of Roman emperors toward economic issues see Vera, Una carit razionale, pp. 18790.
79 Cass., Var. 10.26, ed. Fridh, pp. 4078, lines 718. Translation by Barnish, The Variae of
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, p. 141.
81 TLL, s. v. lacerna, cc. 8234.
immediately with ordinary taxpayers.82 In fact the lacerna was a knee-length

light cloak, which seems to have been a favourite clothing item for a certain
type of cleric at the end of the 4th century.83 Moreover, Caesarius of Arles
routinely directed the women in the female monastery he had established to
weave him prestigious coats84 in order to have a byrrus85 and other vestimenta
meliora.86 Further testimony also demonstrates that the custom of bishops to
use byrri and lacernae as prestigious garments (more ornamental than functional and therefore the target of more fastidious Christians) became firmly
established during the 6th century.87
Since the letter sent to the praetorian prefect Faustus rejected the exemption to a bishop because his request was deemed excessive, Theoderic did not
identify all ordinary taxpayers with the lacerna. In the final part of the text
the reference was evidently to those prelates of the richest and most important sees who prided themselves (and whose position ensured their particular
apparel) on being able to make excessively presumptuous requests to the king.
The preamble of the letter was thus addressed: Those who, with measured
requests, won the favour of our generosity, should not transcend, with excessively presumption, the terms of our concessions.88
The identity of the bishop to whom the exemption was denied is unclear,
but the text reveals that he was a bishop of an important see who, thanks to the
patronage of Cassiodoruss father, Cassiodorus the elder, had already obtained
exemption for his ecclesiastical property from extraordinary charges (superindicticiorum onera titulorum).89 The mechanisms used to enrich the churches,
tied to an effective patronage that guaranteed exemptions, can be read
between the lines of the letter. Indeed other lands were recently added to the
82 Kolb, Rmische Mntel, pp. 69167.
83 Sulpicius Severus, Dialogi 1.21, PL 20, col. 197B: Ceterum, cum neque opere neque virtute
conspicuus sit, si quis clericus fuerit effectus...uestem respuit grossiorem, indumentum
molle desiderat, atque haec caris viduis ac familiaribus mandat tributa virginibus, illa ut
byrrum rigentem, haec ut fluentem texat lacernam.
84 Caesarius of Arles, Testamentum 42, eds. de Vog and Courreau, p. 394.
85 Vita S. Caesarii 2.12, ed. Bona, p. 148: Tunc ergo, ut credidi Deo mihi peccatori inspirante,
birrum ipsius domni mei adprehendi, et vulneri meo imposui.
86 Caesarius of Arles, Testamentum 15, eds. de Vog and Courreau, p. 384.
87
Fatti, Nei panni del vescovo, pp. 195205; Lizzi Testa, Tributa sunt purpurae,
pp. 38093.
88 Cass., Var. 1.26.
89 Even the kind of tax exemptions that Unscila requested from the king is Mommsens
conjecture, from the lessons indictitiorum vel supradictorum of K and superindictorum of
DXEA. Hodgkin, Letters of Cassiodorus, p. 159, preferred onera indictorum titulorum.
470
Lizzi Testa
patrimony of what was Unscilas church, and for those the bishop asked for the
customary exemptions.90 As the reply was addressed to the praetorian prefect
Faustus Niger who according to the Liber Pontificalis had been a great supporter
of Pope Symmachus, it can be assumed that Unscila could then rely on the
patronage of that powerful aristocrat by virtue of their shared pro-Symmachan
sympathies.91 While this new patron was no less powerful than Cassiodorus
father, the bishop received a negative answer because, for Theoderic, tax relief
could not transcend the customary limits.92 In Ostrogothic Italy bishops, clerics, and churches did not become rich by obtaining greater privileges from a
weak king who needed their support. If it appears so, it is simply because other
(lay) domini had become poorer in the meantime.

The Jurisdictional Privileges of the Bishops and their Limits
Nor may it be said that the powers of the bishops as judges of the ecclesiastical
courts were enhanced in Ostrogothic Italy. A sentence from a letter of Pope
Gelasius (Si crimine respersi erant aliquo, ecclesiastica debuit examinatione
cognosci...)93 has usually been interpreted as if the Roman bishop held that
secular authorities could not only not decide on the ordination or deposition
of a bishop, but furthermore were incompetent to judge a bishop accused of a
crime.94 Taken in the context of the letter in which it belongs, however, another
meaning is revealed. The letter was a serious rebuke against eastern bishops,
who remained unmoved in the face of the oppression of Chalcedonians by
Acacian schismatics. Gelasius, therefore, claimed the authority of papal judgement not on bishops subject to actual criminal charges, but on those who
had made such doctrinal choices that other bishops (who were hostile to the
bishop of Rome) judged heretical. At the time certain heresies had been classified in the category of crimina and were thus dealt with by imperial legislation;

91 Liber Pontificalis 53, ed. Duchesne, p. 260, line 79 and p. 261, line 67: Solus autem Faustus
excons. pro ecclesia pugnabat. PLRE II, s. v. Fl. Anicius Probus Faustus iunior Niger 9,
pp. 45456. It is likely that the name engraved on at least one of the loca of the Flavian
Amphitheatre belongs to him. In this case, his full name was Anicius Acilius Probus
Faustus. See Orlandi, Epigrafia anfiteatrale, pp. 4768, n. 62.
93 Gelasius, Ep. 27.89, ed. Thiel, pp. 4301.
94 Banfi, Habent illi iudices suos, p. 277.
Bishops, Ecclesiastical Institutions, and theOstrogothic Regime
471
but they still concerned the doctrinal sphere, and remained judicial proceedings de fide.
In this sense, Gelasius was correct in reiterating that the right of the bishop
(in particular, the bishop of Rome) to judge such cases had been recognized
by imperial laws.95 The competences of the ecclesiastical and imperial courts
in the judgement and punishment of criminal behaviour by the clergy were
determined over the course of two centuries, and not without uncertainties
and confusion.96 The same picture from the Theodosian Code confirms that
when it was enacted in 438 juridical thought was still undeveloped and when
faced with the demands of the church (reinforced by everyday practice, as
the interventions in the letters of Ambrose and Augustine show) left room for
various and often contradictory interpretations. The five constitutions on this
subject (four included under the title de episcopis and one under de religio)
recognized the existence of a privileged forum, but its limits were not well
defined, reflecting the uncertainty in which the issue remained.97 A novella
of Valentinian III in 452 clarified the question, establishing that no jurisdictional power could be conceded to bishops for criminal matters.98 A mutilated
document issued by Majorian has lent itself to conflicting interpretations,
but his legislation was largely dismantled by Basil and Ricimer immediately
after his death.99 The content of the Novella 35 of 452, however, was not modified and Gelasius made no attempt to disobey it under Theoderic.
This is demonstrated precisely by those epistles of Gelasius which pertain to
the dossier of Eucaristus and are often cited as examples of the papal claim to
have jurisdiction in criminal matters.100 Eucaristus was a Christian, perhaps a
deacon, in a position that allowed him to squander the assets of the church to
which he belonged.101 Evidently to avoid being forced to make repayment and
to escape from a just condemnation, he had attempted to obtain the bishopric
95 Gelasius, Ep. 27.89, ed. Thiel, pp. 4301: praecipue cum etiam ipsae leges publicae ecclesiasticis regulis obsequentes, tales personas non nisi ab episcopis sanxerint iudicari.
96 Gaudemet, La premire mesure lgislative de Valentinien III, pp. 1305.
97 For the legislation see Gaudemet, LEglise dans lempire romain, p. 243 and Cuena Boy,
La episcopalis audientia, p. 149.
98 Nov. Val. 35 (April 15, 452), in particular: Quod his religionis et sacerdotii veneratione permittimus. Nam notum est, procurationem in criminalibus negotiis non posse concedi.
See Crif, A proposito di episcopalis audientia, p. 407 and Giglio, Patrocinio e diritto
privato, pp. 1589.
99 Nov. Mai 11 (March 28, 460).
100 Banfi, Habent illi iudices suos, p. 327, following Vismara, Episcopalis Audientia, p. 125, and
Mochi Onory, Vescovi e citt, p. 183, n. 131.
101 Gelasius, Ep. Fragm. 23, ed. Thiel, p. 497.
472
Lizzi Testa
of Volterra. But the means used were unlawful and for this he was accused.
He had entrusted a large sum of gold to the defensor ecclesiae Faustus, in order
for him to pay for the accommodation of curiales of Volterra in Rome. They were
supposed to support his candidacy, thus silencing the rumours that stained his
reputation, as it was said that the aspiring bishop was a parricide and (by his
own admission) a counterfeiter.102 When the operation proved unsuccessful,
Eucaristus demanded reimbursement for the sum, accusing Faustus of having
taken possession of the money. However, Faustus was unable to go to Rome
while Eucaristus was there, and so took his turn as accuser before the Roman
bishop, raising the issue of those crimes that he earlier had defended Eucaristus
from during the election. Pope Gelasius dealt with the controversynot the
crimes of Eucaristus, but rather the sum contested between Eucaristus and
Faustus. Having proved that Faustus had already returned the sum that had
been entrusted to him, Gelasius condemned Eucaristus, stripping him of his
prerogatives as administrator of the assets.103
Gelasius did not arrogate authority in issuing judgements in criminal cases;
this remained the responsibility of secular courts. It is known that the comes
Teia had attempted to transfer Eucaristus case from the papal judgement to
a provincial synod.104 The pope then threatened to refer the suit to Theoderic
(ne nos compellas...ad domnum filium meum regem haec omnia missa relatione referre...), not because he was certain that the Gothic king was inclined
to extend papal jurisdiction to criminal cases, but because he suspected that
Teia was acting in collusion with Eucaristus and was sure he himself would
have the support of Theoderic in obtaining justice.105
It was also the king and the secular courts that tried secular and religious
crimes in Ostrogothic Italy. In this sense, the provision given by Theoderic to the
bishop Eustorgius now becomes clear.106 It has been assumed that Theoderic
had entrusted Eustorgius with jurisdiction over the case, thus recognizing the
bishop of Milan with an exclusive authority over members of the clergy, even
in criminal cases.107 Rather, just as Gelasius, Theoderic preferred to be inspired
102 Gelasius, Ep. Coll. Brit. 45, ed. Lwenfeld, p. 22, lines 1112.
103 Gelasius, Ep. Fragm. 23, ed. Thiel, pp. 4967.
104 Gelasius, Ep. Coll. Brit. 2, ed. Mommsen (MGH AA 12), p. 389, lines 225: quia de nostro
iudicio causa deberet auferri, et ad episcopos intra provinciam positos pro Eucharisti et
sociorum voluntate transferri.
105 Vismara, Episcopalis Audientia, pp. 1256, n. 3.
106 Cass., Var. 1.9, ed. Fridh, p. 20, lines 1620: cf. supra, n. 6.
107 Biondi, Il diritto romano cristiano, p. 382.
by Roman law, in particular Novella 35 of 452, which was the last existing provision on the subject. The king, therefore, discussed and resolved the criminal
case of the bishop of Aosta and sent a letter to the metropolitan bishop to
ensure that he applied what had been decided. The term districtio, generally
used in the sense of severity and rigour,108 and which in the Breviarium of
Alaric II also acquired the meaning of jurisdiction,109 has the explicit meaning
of coercion to be applied by the metropolitan to clerics under his control in its
use at the end of the letter to Eustorgius. In this, Theoderic closely adhered to
the imperial legislative tradition.
Conclusion
The traditional image of a late antique church that was intent on enforcing
laws, on extending the exclusivity of the episcopal jurisdiction beyond cases
of de religione or de fide so that bishops could also deal with criminal matters,
and that enlarged the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts to include all subjects of the church now appears obsolete. Texts long interpreted in this manner lend themselves to a completely different understanding. As we have seen,
Theoderic, writing to Ianuarius of Salona, asked him not to evade payment any
longer, thereby offering justice to those who had sought it from the king.110 He
demanded that the bishop Aurigenes punish an employee of his church (homo
ecclesiae) whom Julian accused of having kidnapped his wife and usurped
her properties.111 Petrus, perhaps the same bishop of Ravenna who implored
Theoderic in vain about the synagogue burned by Christians,112 was solicited
by the king to return to Germanus part of his paternal inheritance, which his
church had claimed.113 It has been said that Theoderics government was incapable of administering justice and delegated to the bishops, who were accused
by their faithful at the court of the king, to deliver justice.114 The impression
given by the late ancient evidence is different. Theoderic entrusted the task
108 Cass., Var. 3.47, ed. Fridh, p. 129, line 2; Ennodius, no. 95 (Ep. 3.24), p. 119, l. 29; Gregory, Ep.
1.33, ed. , p. 40, l. 23.
109 Lex Visigot. 12.1.2, ed. Haenel.
110 Cass., Var. 3.7, ed. Fridh, p. 103: cf. supra, n. 41.
111 Cass., Var. 3.14, ed. Fridh, p. 108: cf. supra, n. 42.
112 P CBE II, Petrus iunior 30, pp. 17401.
113 Cass., Var. 3.37, ed. Fridh, p. 123.
114 De Marini Avonzo,I vescovi nelle Variae di Cassiodoro, p. 256.
474
Lizzi Testa
of reconciliation with the injured party to the bishops accused by their faithful because the alleged misdeeds were so obvious that they did not to require
a trial, and sometimes not even a review of the evidence. The solution was
indicated in the preamble of the letters and in their conclusions. And if they
had not acted accordingly, the king would have passed judgement personally.115
It does not appear, therefore, that Theoderic conceded to bishops powers
that imperial laws had never granted, but that he required the collaboration
of the church when it or its faithful had violated the official law because he
was convinced that a holy clergy could act to restore the violated rights more
quickly. In this sense, not much had changed since Constantine, but everything
would have been different with an eastern emperor and without a local king
capable of passing judgement with his secular court. The warp woven with an
old weft and some new threads gave way to a new weft interwoven with only
few old threads. At the end of the Gothic age a new era had begun and with it
a new Christianity.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Acta Synhodorum habitarum Romae CCCCXCVIIII. DI. DII., ed. T. Mommsen, Cassiodori
Berlin 1894.
Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis, ed. C. Nauerth, Agnellus von Ravenna: Liber pontificalis /
Bischofsbuch, Freiburg 1996.
Ambrose, De officiis, Patrologia Latina, vol. 16.
, Epistulae, ed. M. Zelzer (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
82.3), Vienna 1992.
Augustine, De Trinitate, ed. A. Trap/M.F. Sciacca/G. Beschin, La Trinit, Rome 1973.
, Enarratio in Psalmos, ed. V. Tarulli, SantAgostino. Esposizioni sui salmi, vol. 2,
Rome 1970.
Caesarius of Arles, Testamentum, ed. A. de Vog/J. Courreau, Csaire dArles. Oeuvres
monastiques, vol. 1: Oeuvres pour les moniales (Sources Chrtiennes 345), Paris 1988.
Cassiodorus, Institutiones, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, Oxford
1937.
, Variae, ed. A.J. Fridh, Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Variarum Libri XII (Corpus
Christianorum, Series Latina 96), Turnhout 1973; trans. T. Hodgkin, The Letters

of Cassiodorus, London 1886; trans. S.J. Barnish, The Variae of Magnus Aurelius
Cassiodorus Senator (Translated Texts for Historians 12), Liverpool 1992; Variae, ed.
A. Giardina, Cassiodoro. Variae, vol. II (Libri IIIV), Rome 2014; vol. V (Libri XIXII),
Rome 2015.
Codex Theodosianus, ed. T. Mommsen/P. Meyer, 2 vols., Berlin 1905.
Ennodius, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi 7), Berlin 1885 (repr. Munich 1995).
Excerpta Valesiana, Pars Posterior, ed. J. Moreau, Leipzig 1968.
Gelasius, Epistulae, ed. A. Thiel, in Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, vol. 1,
Braunsberg 1867 (repr. Hildesheim 1974).
, ed. G. Lwenfeld, Epistulae Romanorum pontificum ineditae, Leipzig 1885.
Gregory of Rome, Registrum epistularum, ed. P. Ewald/L.M. Hartmann (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 12), Berlin 188799 (repr. 1957).
, Dialogi, ed. A. de Vogu/P. Antin, Grgoire le Grand. Dialogues, vol. 2 (Sources
Chrtiennes 260), Paris 1979.
, Epistulae, ed. D. Norberg, S. Gregori Magni Registrum Epistularum Libri IVII
and Libri VIIIXIV, Appendix (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 140 and 140 A),
Turnoult 1982.
, In Ezechielem 1, hom. 8, ed. C. Morel, Grgoire le Grand. Homlies sur Ezchiel I
(Sources Chrtiennes 327), Paris 1986.
, In Ezechielem 2, hom. 4 and 7, ed. C. Morel, Grgoire le Grand. Homlies sur
Ezchiel II (Sources Chrtiennes 360), Paris 1990.
, Moralia 1, ed. R. Gillet/A. de Gaudemaris, Grgoire le Grand. Morales sur
Job (III) (Sources Chrtiennes 32 bis), Paris 1975.
Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum, ed. M. Oldoni, Gregorio di Tours. La storia dei
Franchi, Milano 1981.
Jerome, Epistulae, ed. J. Labourt, Saint Jrome. Lettres., vol. 4, Paris 1954; vol. 7, Paris
1961.
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1), Berlin 1882 (repr. 1961).
Lex Romana Visigothorum, ed. Haenel, Lipsia 1849.
Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, Le Liber pontificalis: texte, introduction et commentaire, 3 vols., Paris 18861957.
Procopius of Caesarea, Wars, ed. and trans. H.B. Dewing, Procopius: History of the Wars
(Loeb Classical Library), 5 vols., Cambridge, MA 191428 (repr. 1961).
Simplicius, Epistulae, ed. A. Thiel, in Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, vol. 1,
Siricius, Epistulae (Patrologia Latina 13).
Sulpicius Severus, Dialogi (Patrologia Latina 20).
476
Lizzi Testa
Vita Sancti Caesarii, ed. E. Bona, Vita Sancti Caesarii episcopi Arelatensis, Amsterdam
2002; ed. and trans. M.J. Delage, Vie de Cesaire dArles (Sources Chrtiennes 536),
Paris 2010.
Banfi, A., Habent illi iudices suos. Studi sullesclusivit della giurisdizione ecclesiastica e
sulle origini del privilegium fori in diritto romano e bizantino, Milano 2005.
Biondi, B., Il diritto romano cristiano, vol. 1, Milan 1952.
Bleckmann, B., Arelate metropolis: berlegungen zur Datierung des Konzils von Turin
und zur Geschichte Galliens im 5. Jahrhundert, Rmische Quartalschrift fr christliche Altertumskunde und fr Kirchengeschichte 98 (2003), 16273.
Brown, P., Through the Eye of a Needle. Wealth, the Fall of Rome and the Making of
Christianity in the West, 350550 AD, Princeton 2012.
Buonocore, M. (ed.), Regio III. Regium Iulium, Locri, Taurianum, Trapeia, Vibo Valentia,
Copia-Thurii, Blanda Iulia (Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae Septimo Saeculo
Antiquiores 5), Bari 1987.
Cantino Wataghin, G., La citt nellOccidente tardoantico: riflessione sui modelli di
lettura della documentazione archeologica, in U. Criscuolo/L. De Giovanni (eds.),
Trentanni di studi sulla tarda antichit: bilanci e prospettive, Napoli 2123 novembre
2007, Napoli 2009, pp. 6176.
Clemente, G., La Sicilia nellet imperial, in E. Gabba/G. Vallet (eds.), La Sicilia antica,
vol. 2.2: La Sicilia romana, Napoli 1980, pp. 46480.
Collins, R., The Western Kingdoms, in A. Cameron/B.Ward-Perkins/M.Whitby (eds.),
The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors,
A.D. 425600, Cambridge 2000, pp. 12630.
Cracco Ruggini, L., La Sicilia e la fine del mondo antico (IVVI secolo), in E. Gabba/
G. Vallet (eds.), La Sicilia antica, vol. 2.2: La Sicilia romana, Napoli 1980, pp. 482524.
, La Sicilia fra Roma e Bisanzio, in R. Romeo (ed.), Storia della Sicilia, vol. 3,
Napoli 1980, pp. 196.
Crif, G., A proposito di episcopalis audientia, in M. Christol/et al. (eds.), Institutions,
Socit et vie politique dans lEmpire romain au IVe sicle ap. J.-C. Actes de la table
ronde autour de loeuvre dAndr Chastagnol, Paris, 2021 janvier 1989, Rome 1992,
pp. 397410.
Cuena Boy, F.J., La episcopalis audientia, Valladolid 1985.
De Giorgio, D., Cesario di Arles e la redemptio dei captivi infideles: Vita Cesarii I, 3233,
Cristianesimo nella storia: richerche storiche, esegetiche, teologiche 26.3 (2003),
67182.
De Marini Avonzo, F., I vescovi nelle Variae di Cassiodoro, in Atti dellAccademia
Romanistica Constantiniana. VIII Convegno Internazionale, Perugia 1990, pp. 24960.
Delage, M.J., Le sjour de Csaire dArles en Italie, Studia Patristica 23 (1989), 10310.

Delaplace, C., La Guerre de Provence (507511), un pisode oubli de la domination ostrogothique dans en Occident, in Romanit et cit chrtienne. Permanences
et mutations, intgration et exclusion du Ier au VIe sicle. Mlanges en lhonneur dY.
Duval, Paris 2000, pp. 7789.
Delmaire, R., Largesses sacres et res privata. Laerarium imprial et son administration
du IVe au VIe sicle, Rome 1989.
Ennslin, W., Rex Theodericus inlitteratus, Historische Jahrbuch 60 (1940), 3916.
Fatti, F., Nei panni del vescovo: Gregorio, Basilio e il filosofo Eustazio, in R. Lizzi Testa
(ed.), Le trasformazioni delle lites in et tardoantica (Saggi di Storia Antica 28),
Rome 2006, pp. 177238.
Fvrier, P.A., Csaire et la Gaule mridionale au VIe sicle, in Csaire dArles et la christianisation de la Provence, Paris 1994, pp. 4573.
Fvrier, P.A./et al., Topographie Chrtienne des cits de la Gaule des origines au milieu du
VIIIe sicle VII. Province ecclsiastique de Narbonne (Narbonensis prima), Paris 1989.
Fiaccadori, G., Il Cristianesimo. Dalle origini alle invasioni barbariche, in G. Pugliese
Carratelli (ed.), Storia e civilt della Campania. Il Medioevo, Napoli 1992, pp. 14570.
, Calabria tardoantica, in S. Settis (ed.), Storia della Calabria antica. Et italica
e romana, Tarquinia 1994, pp. 70562.
Fuhrmann, M. proditio, in RE Suppl. 9, 1962, coll. 12211230 Gaudemet, J., La premire
mesure lgislative de Valentinien III, Iura 20 (1969), 12947.
Gaudemet, J., LEglise dans lempire romain, Paris 1958.
Giglio, S., Patrocinio e diritto privato nel tardo impero romano, Perugia 1995.
Grundmann, H., Litteratus illitteratus, Archiv fr Kulturgeschichte 40 (1958), 165.
Hall, S.G., The Organization of the Church, in A. Cameron/B.Ward-Perkins/M.Whitby
(eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors,
A.D. 425600, Cambridge 2000, pp. 73144.
Hobsbawn, E.J.,The Social Function of the Past. Some questions, Past and Present 55
(1972), 317.
Humphries M., Communities of the Blessed: Social Environment and Religious Change in
Northern Italy, Ad 200400, Oxford 1999.
Klingshirn, W.E., Charity and Power. Caesarius of Arles and the Ransoming of Captives
in sub-Roman Gaul, Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985), 183203.
, Caesarius of Arles. The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul,
Cambridge 1994.
Kolb, F., Rmische Mntel: paenula, lacerna, manduh, Rmische Mitteilungen 80
(1973), 69167.
Lizzi, R., Ambroses Contemporaries and the Christianization of Northern Italy,
Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990), 15673.
Lizzi Testa, R., Christianization and Conversion in Northern Italy, in A. Kreider (ed.),
The Origins of Christendom in the West, Edinburgh 2001, 4795.
478
Lizzi Testa
, The Bishop, Vir Venerabilis: Fiscal Privileges and Status Definition in Late
Antiquity, Studia Patristica 34 (2001), 12544.
, Le origini del Cristianesimo, in P. Tozzi (ed.), Storia di Cremona. I Et antica,
Cremona 2003, pp. 35095.
, Senatori, popolo, papi. Il governo di Roma al tempo dei Valentiniani, Bari 2004.
, The Late Antique Bishop: Image and Reality, in P. Rousseau (ed.),
A Companion to Late Antiquity, Oxford 2009, pp. 52538.
, Tributa sunt purpurae, non lacernae: il guardaroba del vescovo tardoantico, in A. Melloni (ed.), Tutto grazia. Omaggio a Giuseppe Ruggieri, Milano 2010,
pp. 37596.
, Rome during the Ostrogoth Kingdom: its Political Meaning as Apostolic
See, in H. Harich-Schwarzbauer/K. Pollmann (eds.), Der Fall Roms und seine
Wiederauferstehungen in Antike und Mittelalter, Berlin 2013, pp. 13149.
McLynn, N., Ambrose of Milan. Church and Court in a Christian Capital, Berkeley 1994.
Magani, F., Ennodio, 3 vols., Pavia 1886.
Marconi, G., Ennodio e la nobilt gallo-romana nellItalia ostrogota (Testi, studi, strumenti 27), Spoleto 2013.
Martindale, J.R. (ed.), The Prosopography of Later Roman Empire, vol. 2: A.D. 395527,
Cambridge 1980.
Mochi Onory, S., Vescovi e citt (sec. IVVI) (Biblioteca della Rivista di Storia del Diritto
Italiano 8), Bologna 1933.
Moorhead, J., The Last Years of Theoderic, Historia 32 (1983), 10620.
Orlandi, S., Epigrafia anfiteatrale dellOccidente Romano. VI. Roma. Anfiteatri e strutture
annesse con una nuova edizione e commento delle iscrizioni del Colosseo, Rome 2004.
Otranto, G., Per una storia dellItalia tardo antica cristiana (Biblioteca tardoantica 3),
Bari 2009.
Paoletti, M., Occupazione romana e storia delle citt, in S. Settis (ed.), Storia della
Calabria antica. Et italica e Romana, Roma/Reggio Calabria 1994, pp. 467556,
spec. 469471.
Pietri, C., Aristocratie et socit clricale dans lItalie chrtienne au temps
dOdoacre et de Thoderic, in Mlanges de lcole franaise de Rome, Antiquit 93
(1981), 41767; repr. in id (ed.), Christiana respublica. lments dune enqute sur le
christianisme antique, Roma 1997, pp. 100757.
Pietri, C./Petri, L. (eds.), Prosopographie chrtienne du Bas-Empire. 2. Italie (313604),
2 vols., Rome 1999.
Pizzolato, L.F., Laicit e laici nel cristianesimo primitivo, in Laicit. Problemi e prospettive, Atti del 47 corso di aggioramento culturale dellUniversit Cattolica, Milan
1977, pp. 5783.

Roda, S., Commento storico al libro IX dellepistolario di Quinto Aurelio Simmaco, Pisa
1981.
Santalucia, B., Diritto e processo penale nellantica Roma, Milan 1982.
Sardella, T., Societ, Chiesa e Stato nellet di Teoderico. Papa Simmaco e lo scisma laurenziano, Messina 1996.
, Giovanni I, santo, in Enciclopedia dei papi, Roma/Citt del Vaticano 2000,
pp. 48387.
Savon, H., Ambroise de Milan (340397), Paris 1997.
Scaravelli, I., La collezione canonica Anselmo dedicata: lo status quaestionis nella
prospettiva di unedizione critica, in R. Delle Donne/A. Zorzi (eds.) Le storie e la
memoria, in onore di Arnaldo Esc, Firenze 2002, pp. 3352.
Seeck, O., Canonicarius (compulsor), in Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertums
wissenschaft, vol. 3, Stuttgart 1899, pp. 148890.
Sirago, V.A., Gli Ostrogoti in Gallia secondo le Variae di Cassiodoro, Revue des tudes
anciennes 89 (1987), 6377.
Vera, D., Dalla villa perfecta alla villa di Palladio. Sulle trasformazioni del sistema
agrario in Italia fra Principato e Dominato, Athenaeum 83.1 (1995), 189211; 83.2
(1995), 33156.
, I paesaggi rurali nel Meridione tardoantico: bilancio consuntivo e preventivo, in G. Volpe/M. Turchiano (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti rurali in Italia meridionale fra tardoantico e altomedioevo, Bari 2005, pp. 2338.
, Una carit razionale: provvedimenti di carestia e finanza pubblica nel Tardo
Impero, Koinonia 36 (2012), 17390.
Vismara, G., Episcopalis Audientia. Lattivit giurisdizionale del vescovo per la risoluzione delle controversie private tra laici nel diritto romano e nella storia del diritto
italiano fino al secolo nono, Milan 1937.
Wirbelauer, E., Zwei Ppste in Rom: der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus,
Munich 1993.
CHAPTER 18
Mapping the Church and Asceticism in

Ostrogothic Italy
Rita Lizzi Testa*

Institutional Development: Dioceses and Metropoles
At the present state of research it is not possible to draw a complete picture of

the institutional development of the Ostrogothic church in all its ecclesiasti
cal articulations. The territory under the authority of Theoderic and his suc
cessors came to consist of two prefectures, but some areas were abandoned
even before the end of the Gothic War.1 Within these boundaries, which varied
over time, the organization of the various ecclesiastical provinces and dio
ceses has not been clearly reconstructed in each case. Indeed the foundation,
development, and/or disappearance of the same bishoprics is often uncertain
because of the absence of reliable episcopal lists, while data from more recent
archaeological or epigraphic sources are not always readily available every
where. Nonetheless, we can try to reconstruct the ecclesiastical geography of
the Italian peninsula, which in some respects is better known than other parts
of the Ostrogothic kingdom, in order to understand how the church of the 5th
and 6th centuries had changed since the previous period.

Metropolitan Districts
Throughout the West, the metropolitan organization of ecclesiastical prov

inces divided into dioceses solidified slowly, moulding itself mostly on to new,
Diocletianic administrative divisions.2 In Italy, the ecclesiastical metropo
les followed the territorial divisions of the regions two vicariates (Italia
* I am indebted to my colleagues and friends Kristina Sessa and Jonathan Arnold for their
thoughtful suggestions and careful revisions of this chapter.
1 See Arnold in this volume.
2 This organization was already mandated by Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch of 341, which
entrusted the care of an ecclesiastical province to the bishop presiding in its capital, calling
on the bishops of the region to recognize his authority.
Mapping the Church and Asceticism in Ostrogothic Italy
481
Suburbicaria and Italia Annonaria), while their metropolitan bishops tended

to assimilate the functions of former vicars. Towards the end of the 4th century,
bishops Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan exercised juridical functions
over the churches of Suburbicarian and Annonarian Italy, respectively, show
ing a determination to control the episcopal elections of these two areas.3 This
structure was consolidated over the course of two centuries, but some changes
intervened serving on the one hand to limit the areas belonging to the bishop
of Milan who shared with Aquileia and Ravenna control over an increasing
number of dioceses in Annonarian Italy, and on the other, to enhance the
authority of the bishop of Rome as apostolic primate.
The rights of the metropolitan of Milan are clearly described in Theoderics
letter to its bishop Eustorgius, including his authority to impose honest
behaviour upon the bishops of his metropolis and his power of ecclesiasti
cal coercion (districtio) over them.4 Special privileges such as the protection
of ecclesiastical wealth (tuitio) and fiscal exemptions for its property in Sicily
were likewise recognized by the Ostrogothic regime.5 In addition, Theoderic
gave special exemptions to one of the negotiatores in charge of the food supply
for the poor of the church of Milan.6 This last privilege was requested by the
defensores Ecclesiae Mediolanensis in accordance with what had already been
granted to the church of Ravenna,7 a detail that confirms the key role that the
see of Ravenna was able to play under the Ostrogoths.
Theoderic, however, synthesized the results of changes that had begun
during the previous century. Indeed it seems that the bishop of Ravenna had
obtained the right to appoint bishops in some churches of Aemilia inferior
already in the mid 5th century, even if for some scholars this was only a kind of
delegation of papal power. It is not certain whether Peter Chrysologus was the
3 On Ambrose and his authority in Northern Italy, Lizzi, Ambroses Contemporaries. Damasus
organized some councils in order to regulate the election or replacement of bishops in
Suburbicarian Italy; he also tried to get the emperor Gratian to recognize that the bishop of
Rome had a judicial power over other bishops that was similar to the praetorian prefect. See
Lizzi Testa, Senatori, popolo, papi, pp. 1717.
4 Cass., Var. 1.9, ed. Fridh, p. 20, lines 810: cuius est et probitatem moribus talibus imponere
et districtionem ecclesiasticam custodire. For the context see the previous chapter by Lizzi
Testa in this volume.
5 See Cass., Var. 2.29, again with the previous chapter of this volume.
6 Cass., Var. 2.30.3, ed. Fridh, p. 79, lines 1921: nec monopolii nec siliquatici nec aurariae
aliquid pensionis impendat vel quolibet gravamen ex permissa nundinatione sustineat.
7 Cass., Var. 2.30.2, ed. Fridh, p. 79, lines 1214: Hoc enim nos et Ravennati ecclesiae comme
morant motos rationabili allegatione tribuisse, quod pietatis exemplum ad suum quoque com
modum (scl. defensores sacrosanctae Mediolanensis ecclesiae) supplicant transferendum.
482
Lizzi Testa
first bishop of Ravenna to exercise this right. However, his authority, though
not necessarily metropolitan, was known to eastern bishops. In 431, some of
these asked John of Antioch to address letters in their name to the bishop of
Ravenna, as well as to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia, since all three con
demned the Apollinarism of Cyril of Alexandria.8 The growth of Ravenna into
an episcopal see is not surprising. The city, where Galla Placidia and Valentinian
III were living, had followed the same destiny as Constantinople over the last
two decades of the 4th century, when Theodosius I was its resident.
A testimony to Ravenna as a separate metropolis is also offered by the list of
subscribers to the Council of Milan in 451, which Pope Leo had asked Eusebius
of Milan to gather in order to publicize the good results of an embassy sent
to Constantinople.9 A similar request was also given to the bishop of Arles,
Ravennius, under whose presidency the same year the bishops of Viennensis,
Narbonnensis, and Alpes-Maritimes were gathered together.10 Tellingly absent
from the Council of Milan, however, were the bishops of Ravenna, Cervia,
Rimini, Cesena, and Forlimpopoli (Regio VIII, including the province of
Flaminia et Aemilia), as well as those of Faenza (Faventia), Bologna (Bononia),
Modena (Mutina), Voghenza (Vicohabentia), and Imola (Forum Cornelii), which
certainty existed as a diocese in 451,11 some of which Milan had extended its
jurisdiction over from at least the second half of the 4th century.12
It is hard to accept that all these sees were included in the metropolis of
Suburbicarian Italy dependent on the bishop of Rome. Missing from the list in
fact are the bishops of Regio X (with the exceptions of Brescia and Cremona),13
over which the see of Aquileia, then the point of reference for the dioceses
of Raetia Secunda, Noricum, and Pannonia Prima and Savia, had extended
its influence during the second half of the 4th century.14 We should, there
fore, believe that Leo I had also corresponded with the bishops of Ravenna
8 John of Antiochs letter is mentioned by Theodoretus, Ep. 112, ed. Y. Azma, p. 52.
9 The list of subscribers is preserved in the synodical letter that Bishop Cyriacus of Lodi was
commissioned to deliver to Leo I. See Eusebius Med., Ep., in Leo I, Ep. 97.3, PL 54, p. 947;
cf. PCBE 2.1, s. v. Cyriacus 3, pp. 52152.
10 Leo wanted to make known in the West that his authority, undermined by the Council of
Ephesus in 449, had been successfully re-established in East. See Ep. syn. Episc. Galliae 1,
ed. Munier, pp. 10710.
11 Lanzoni, Le diocesi dItalia, vol. 2, p. 751.
12 In 386 Ambrose communicated the date of Easter to the bishops of Aemilia (Dominis
fratribus dilectissimis episcopis per Aemiliam constitutis). See Ambr., Ep. Extra coll. 13,
ed. M. Zelzer (23M. coll. 10261035).
13 Lizzi Testa, Le origini del Cristianesimo, p. 392.
14 Cracco Ruggini, Storia totale di una piccola citt, pp. 2856, n. 328.
483
and Aquileia, requesting that they assemble councils in their respective loca
tions, just like the bishops of Arles and Milan. Two papal letters dated to
442 explicitly reference the exercise of Aquileias metropolitan jurisdiction.15
Hence, it seems that during the 5th century, two other sees exercised metro
politan functions in Annonarian Italy along with Milan: Aquileia and Ravenna.
The Variae of Cassiodorus, which contain an obvious reference to the tax privi
leges granted to the see of Ravenna,16 do not, on the other hand, provide any
evidence for the 6th-century activity of metropolitan Aquileia. Indeed when
a Christian accused the homines ecclesiae of the bishop of Pula of appropriat
ing a property that had belonged to his family for at least two generations,
Theoderic contacted the bishop directly, attempting to solve the issue without
disturbing his metropolitan.17 Despite this silence, however, the strength of the
see of Aquileia is evident in its bishops roles during the Laurentian schism
(498506/7) and later Three Chapters schism (from 553 onward).18
In Suburbicarian Italy the centralizing presence of the bishop of Rome, who
controlled all the dioceses, makes it more difficult to see how the metropolitan
organization evolved over the course of the 5th century. At the end of the 4th
century at least some cities, including Capua, Canosa, Syracuse, and Cagliari,
seem to have gained prominence in their respective provinces.19 From the
reign of Athalaric, however, the popes prerogatives as Apostolic Primate were
exalted far more than his metropolitan rights. Already defined by Pope Leo I in
the 5th century, these were strongly supported by the successors of Theoderic,
even Totila.20

Ecclesiastical Dioceses in Ostrogothic Italy
A general extension of the diocesan network during the 5th century corre
sponded with the enrichment of metropolitan sees in northern Italy (Milan,
Aquileia, and Ravenna). In comparison with the 4th century, the number of
Ostrogothic churches is indicated by the subscribing and absent bishops at
15 Leo I, Ep. 12, PL 54, coll. 5938.
16 See Cass., Var. 2.30, partially cited in n. 7 (above).
17 Cass., Var. 4.44, ed. Fridh, pp. 1712.
18 See, generally, Lanzoni, Le diocesi dItalia, vol. 2, pp. 8914.
19 Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica, pp. 1034.
20 On the Apostolic see and its political meaning for the Ostrogothic kings Cass., Var. 8.24,
9.15.11, and 11.2 are very important. See Lizzi Testa, Rome during the Ostrogoth Kingdom;
also Sessa in this volume.
484
Lizzi Testa
the Council of Milan in 451. In the middle of the 4th century, Annonarian Italy
was studded with a few dioceses: in the east, Aquileia, Padua, Verona, Brescia,
and Ravenna; at the centre, Milan; and in the west, Vercelli, which became a
point of reference for the Christians of western Regio XI, a portion of Regio IX,
and those living beyond the Alps, near the border with Narbonensis.21 Quite
different is the picture that we can trace in the middle of the 5th century.
When Eusebius gathered the council requested by Leo I at Milan, the bish
ops of Tortona, Asti, Alba, Genoa, and Albenga (from Regio IX) attended; as
well as those of Bergamo, Lodi, Pavia, Como, Novara, Vercelli, Turin, Ivrea, and
Aosta (from Regio XI); those of Brescia and Cremona (the only churches of
Regio X dependent on Milan); and those of Piacenza, Reggio, and Brescello
(from Regio VIII). In view of the absent sees, which were dependent on the
new metropoles of Aquileia and Ravenna, the dioceses of northern Italy must
have numbered around fifty at this time. Despite the vicissitudes of war and
pestilence that struck the region in the second half of the 5th century, this
number probably remained unchanged during the Ostrogothic era.
Much higher was the number of ecclesiastical sites in Suburbicarian Italy.
The councils held in Rome from 465 attest to the participation of many bish
ops from southcentral and insular Italy (with the exception of Sardinia),
with numerically relevant peaks from Tuscany, Umbria, Campania, Puglia, and
Lazio. Among those present in 465 were the bishops of Aveia (from Abruzzo),
Capua, Atella, Cuma, Naples, Telese (from Campania), Salapia, Siponto,
Canosa, Bari (from Apulia), and Squillace (from Calabria). At the Symmachan
councils of Rome (499, 501, and 502) on the other hand, a greater participation
of southern bishops is recorded, with the almost total exclusion of Abruzzi and
Sardinia. Bishops hailing from Sardinia, however, are attested at the Council
of Carthage in 484, confirming the presence of at least five episcopal sees
on the island: Cagliari, Forum Traiani, Sulcis, Turris, and Senafer.22 Although
the data fluctuate, by the 5th century nearly 200 dioceses can be identified in
Suburbicarian Italy, with the highest density in central Italy, where the proxim
ity of Rome, richer lines of communication, and the dense network of municipia favoured the establishment of an almost similar number of dioceses.
In the Ostrogothic kingdom, the situation probably remained unchanged.
Although Lanzoni dates the establishment of some dioceses to the late
6th century,23 it seems more likely that the diocesan network was complete
before the outbreak of the Gothic War (53553) and included some of those
21 Eus. Verc., Ep. 2.14, ed. Bulhart, p. 104.
22 Otranto, Italia meridionale, pp. 55; 7993; Penco, Storia della Chiesa, p. 86.
23 Lanzoni, Le Diocesi dItalia, 2 vols.
485
sees whose first mention is found in the letters of the Roman bishop Gregory
(590604). In fact inscriptions from the 4th century confirm the activity of
the bishops of Clusium in Umbria, Taurianum in Calabria, and Blanda Iulia in
Basilicata,24 dioceses once attested only by Gregory the Great.25
Moreover, the establishment of rural dioceses was a peculiarity of southern
Italy. In modern Puglia, of the thirty cities that developed during the impe
rial age,26 only thirteen had become dioceses within the first years of the
5th century.27 Two vici must be added to these, Carmeianum (Gargano) and
Turenum (Trani), which became episcopal sees at the end of the 5th century,28
revealing the strong vitality of the rural environment. The process followed
by Turenum is well known: initially it emerged as a rural bishopric, breaking
away from Canosa;29 then it acquired the institutional dimensions of a civitas, thanks to the continuous residence of its bishop and his performance of
various functions.30 The development of the vicus of Trapeia (Tropea) on the
Tyrrhenian Sea was not different. The organizational centre of its ecclesiasti
cal possessions (massa Trapeiana) was endowed with an ecclesia cathedralis,
a bishop or administrator of the Christian community. This collection of
24 Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae Septimo Saeculo Antiquiores (cited hereafter as ICI) 7, no.
2, ed. Mennella, pp. 1618 (on Lucius Petronius Dexter, bishop of Clusium during the 4th
century); ICI 7, no. 45 (on Florentinus, bishop of Clusium during the 6th century); ICI 5,
no. 8, ed. Buonocore, pp. 1314 (on Leucosius of Taurianum, 4th century); ICI 5, no. 52 (on
Iulianus of Blanda Iulia).
25 Ecclesius of Clusium and Paulinus of Taurianum are mentioned by Gr. Magn., Ep. 10.13,
11.3, and 9.135, ed. Norberg, pp. 83940, 861, and 6845. Romanus of Blanda Iulia was
present at the Roman council of 595; see Gr. Magn., Ep. 5.57a, ed. Ewald-L.M. Hartmann,
pp. 3626.
26 See Marazzi in this volume; cf. Silvestrini, Le citt della Puglia romana..
27 Otranto, Italia meridionale, pp. 12934.
28 Their bishops were present at the Roman councils of 501 and 502 (Acta Synhodorum
habitarum Romae a. DII, ed. Mommsen, pp. 434; 437; 453). On the relationships between
rural Carmeianums bishopric and the archeological site of San Giusto, located between
Aeca and Lucera, see Volpe (ed.), San Giusto, pp. 3318; Volpe, Liniziativa vescovile nella
trasformazione dei paesaggi urbani e rurali in Apulia, pp. 41419.
29 On Canosas bishop Sabinus, probably a member of the embassy which Pope John I led
to Constantinople in 525/526, see R. Cessi, Un vescovo pugliese del secolo VI, pp. 1153
5. Sabinus was a subscriber at the Roman council of 531, which dealt with issues sur
rounding the metropolitan of Larissa. See Blaudeau, Un point de contact entre Collectio
Avellana et Collectio Thessalonicensis?, pp. 111. He was likewise part of the mission that
Pope Agapetus promoted in Constantinople in 535: Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica, pp. 1648.
30 Otranto, Italia meridionale, pp. 24851.
486
Lizzi Testa
properties, the origin of which the Liber Pontificalis traces back to Constantine,
is referred to in the correspondence of both Pope Pelagius I (55661) and Pope
Gregory, as well as in a rich body of inscriptions.31 The rural settlements of
Myria and Cerillae also evolved towards urban ways of life as a result of the
presence of a bishop,32 just like Canusium and other locations in southern Italy,
now clearly identified by archaeologists.33 The massa Nicoterana (Nicotera)
in Calabria developed similarly,34 as did Pitinum (Pettino), which was not a
massa but a mansio (post station) on the Via Claudia Nova in Abruzzo, where
some rural settlements even replaced the oldest urban bishoprics. Valva, for
instance, which was a suburb of Corfinium, rose to the role of a diocese in the
5th century and likely replaced Corfinium itself. Likewise, Furconium (Civita di
Bagno), which was a vicus, supplanted the diocese of Aveia (Fossa) perhaps in
the 6th century.35
Such phenomena were so remarkable that it has been said that, in some
parts of Italy, country Christianity created towns rather than that the towns
created country Christianity.36 The replacement of old dioceses, which had
been established in municipal centres, by gradually emerging rural settle
ments can be explained by the tendency of Italians to abandon urban centres
in response to barbarian incursions and raids, the Gothic War, and the arrival
of the Lombards. In southern Italy, however, this took on a unique character,
partly as a result of the reorganization of this territory, which was carried out
after the loss of Africa to the Vandals in order to feed the two large court cities,
Rome and Ravenna.37 With the increasing rarity of villas and the enlargement
of those that remained, those paganic or vican forms of settlement (that is,
villages), which had been characteristic of the pre-Roman period, regained
their importance. This is because they proved to be more suitable for the new
type of production that took place between the 4th and 6th centuries, which
31 ICI 5, ed. Buonocore, nos. 1042.

32 Otranto, Italia meridionale, pp. 6574; Otranto, La cristianizzazione della Calabria,
pp. 3646; 370.
33 Volpe, Contadini, pastori e mercanti, pp. 3659; Cantino Wataghin/Fiocchi Nicolai/Volpe,
Aspetti della cristianizzazione, pp. 87130.
34 Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica, pp. 421; 4259.
35 Ibid., p. 229.
36 Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, p. 520. The creation of rural Christianity was also one
of the great developments of this period in Gaul and Spain; see, among others, Bowes,
Private Worship, pp. 12588; Barnish, Religio in stagno, pp. 38799.
37 Vera, I paesaggi rurali, pp. 257.
487
was based on agriculture, grazing, forestry, and breeding livestock.38 The

recently discovered villa at Faragola (Ascoli Satriano, south of Foggia) was built
in the late 5th century, when many villas lay deserted elsewhere.39 Sometimes
the owners of such villas, the majority of which were managers (conductores)
of imperial or landlord estates rather than senators, decided to build churches
on these properties;40 in other cases, small villages developed on ecclesiastical
lands around churches that were often built on the structures of a Roman villa.
As a result, the agrarian reorganization of the region gave rise to a substantial
network of rural dioceses.41 In northern Italy, in contrast, where the civitates
were less numerous but more important and more territorially extended, evan
gelization, diocesan structure, and ecclesiastical organization were almost
exclusively a civic phenomenon.
The Ostrogothic church, therefore, gathered the fruits of Christianitys prog
ress over the course of the 4th and 5th centuries, and only toward the end of
this period, during a number of wars, did Italys network of dioceses begin to be
subjected to a gradual process of destructuration, which was likely the result of
the disintegration of related imperial structures. By the end of the 5th century,
however, Pope Gelasius (4926) had formulated a new criterion for belong
ing to an ecclesiastical diocese, which surpassed the old civil administrative
units based on territory and focused on a group of faithful and its bishop who
administered baptism as a fundamental indicator of membership.42 This new
criterion, which he elsewhere summed up in the formula territorium etiam non
facere dioecesim (a territory does not make a diocese),43 was probably neces
sary to legitimize novel developments in the practice of worship and liturgical
and sacramental life, which had been provoked by changes in metropolitan
and diocesan structures. These had made precarious and unstable the frame
work of the church and its dioceses, while engendering continuing conflicts
between various bishops and between bishops and their metropolitan lead
38 Vera, Dalla villa perfecta alla villa di Palladio, p. 203. For changes to the environment
and agriculture in Ostrogothic Italy see Squatriti in this volume.
39 Volpe et al., Faragola (Ascoli Satriano), pp. 26590.
40 Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, pp. 4718.
41 Otranto, Italia meridionale, pp. 14950; Otranto, La cristianizzazione della Calabria,
p. 363, fig. 2 and pp. 36771; Volpe/Turchiano, The last enclave, pp. 54265.
42 Gelas., frag. 19, ed. Thiel, pp. 4945: Quid novae aedificationi antiqua ecclesiarum poterit
praeiudicare divisio, quum in ea non futura, sed quae erant praesentia finirentur?....Nec
enim terminis aut locis aliquibus convenit definiri, sed illud facere diocesim, quod supe
rius continetur, ut constet commanentes, a quo fuerint lavacri regeneratione purgati. On
this development, see Violante, Le strutture organizzazione della cura danime.
43 Gelas., frag. 17, ed. Thiel, p. 4923.
488
Lizzi Testa
ers with respect to territory and jurisdiction.44 It can be assumed, however,

that thanks to Gelasius intervention in this delicate institutional matter, the
church was able to overcome the crisis of civil administration that was already
perceptible at the end of the 5th century.

Nuns, Monks, and Monasteries
Monastic foundations, which were located within cities or more often in the
countryside, in both remote locations and along main roads, had multiplied
throughout Italy over the course of two centuries. Nevertheless, a map of
monastic settlements in Romano-Gothic Italy is extremely difficult to draw.45
Differences between Annonarian and Suburbicarian Italy in the spread of
diocesan networks and in the rural development of Christianity are evident in
the kinds of male monasticism that took root in these two regions during the
5th and 6th centuries: largely urban and with characteristics that combined
the monastic experience and clerical life in northern Italy; of the coenobitic
type and more related to the countryside in southern Italy. During the same
period, eremitical installations also began to populate the central Apennine
region, whereas previously they were mostly present in insular areas.46 In fact
each of these forms dated back to the second half of the 4th century but was
apparently preceded by early expressions of female asceticism, which there
fore will be analysed first.

Female Asceticism
According to Jerome, Marcella first expressed her ascetic inclination when

Athanasius of Alexandria was received by Pope Julius for a few months around
340/345. She was soon followed by other women in her family and then, with
little chronological gap, by other young virgins or widows of her own class.
Jeromes arrival in Rome around 380, finally, gave new impetus to female
44 Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica, pp. 12834.
45 Attempts to collate information on known monasteries in Italy before the 7th century
include: Ferrari, Early Roman Monasteries; Luiselli, La societ romano-gotica, pp. 10813;
Jenal, Italia Ascetica; and now Wood, Entrusting Western Europe to the Church, p. 47.
46 A very selective picture is provided in Luiselli, La societ romano-gotica, pp. 10813, and
Jenal, Zum Asketenund Mnchtum, which is an updated synthesis of Penco, Storia del
monachesimo in Italia.
489
a sceticism in the city.47 After a phase that was probably characterized by struc
tural informality and fluidity of movement, female ascetics, at least in the West,
were organized for two centuries according to two models of settlement, which
were maintained in the Ostrogothic period. The first model was composed of
urban housing units, capable of accommodating two or three young women
in addition to an owner and one or more widows (univirae). Examples include
Marcella, Albina, Melania Senior, Paula, and the other women known from
the correspondence of Jerome, as well as the sister of Ambrose, Marcellina,
her friend from Verona, the virgins residing in Vercelli, Emona, Bologna, and
still others.48 The second model of female ascetic settlement was an actual
monastery (monasterium). Beyond the Holy Land, these were typically estab
lished in suburban areas close to large cities, such as the monastic communi
ties that Melania the Younger organized around 408 on her properties in Sicily
and Campania.49 Accordingly, their dimensions were such that they were able
to accommodate more diverse social elements, including former slaves, give
assistance to the poor, and offer hospitality to travelers and pilgrims. From the
outset, therefore, the foundation of monasteries had resulted in donations and
bequests of land rents, which potentially made these centres new economic
units. Yet without such resources they could not survive (indeed, many did
not) nor expand due to hosting an increasing number of groups of ascetics;
nor could their founders maintain control, bequeathing the monasterium to
their daughters and relatives.50
On female monasteries in Italy during the Ostrogothic period we have the
isolated testimony of Pope Pelagius I who spoke about one such community
in Capua.51 For the remaining female monasteries, the main evidence comes
from the era of Gregory the Great. Next to those the pope himself built on his
Sicilian properties, other monasteries dated back to an earlier age and almost
all of these had a founder of senatorial rank.52 Most were in rural areas, located
on the estates of noblewomen who had left part of their land to the church,
47 Jerome, Ep. 127.5, ed. Labourt, vol. 7, pp. 1401. Jeromes reconstruction may be tenden
tious, as he intended to place the rise of a religious inclination in Marcella prior to
Melania the Elder; see Pricoco, Aspetti culturali del primo monachesimo dOccidente,
p. 189, n. 1.
48 Consolino, Tradizionalismo e trasgressione nelllite senatoria romana, pp. 65125.
49 Lizzi, Una societ esortata allascetismo; Lizzi Testa, Senatori, popolo, papi, pp. 11520.
50 Clark, Ascetic Piety and Womens Faith, pp. 20928.
51 Pelag., Ep. 49, ed. Gass/Battle, pp. 1301. Better evidence is available for female monaster
ies in Ostrogothic Gaul, particularly the community of Caesaria the Elder at Arles. For this
see Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles, pp. 11723.
52 Rizzo, Papa Gregorio Magno e la nobilt in Sicilia, p. 228.
490
Lizzi Testa
with precise testamentary instructions about the foundation and endowment

income of the future monastery. There were also cases of monasteries built in
the heart of the city within their founders own domus and with an adjoining
oratory: in her will, for instance, the patrician Rustica assigned a third of her
entire property to her monastic foundation in the city of Naples.53

Male Monasteries in Northern Italy
It was probably within the same ascetic context as Marcella, that is in Rome
rather than during his exile in the East,54 that Bishop Eusebius of Vercelli, once
a lector in the entourage of Pope Julius, had learned how to create a sort of
monastery for consecrated virgins55 and to combine monastic restraint with
the discipline of the Church in order to create a stricter means of devotion
for his clergy.56 The result was a kind of clericalmonastic centre established
on the initiative of a bishop and organized as a seminar for ascetic priests.
The first of its kind in the West, Eusebius experiment proved very influential,
and sparked a movement that spread quickly throughout northern Italy. Of the
centres that soon followed, the best known are the Cenacle of Aquileia, which
was attended by Jerome and Rufinus between 3703,57 and the monasterium of
Milan, which, as Augustine recalled in his Confessions, was located outside the
walls of the city at the time of Ambrose.58
53 Gr. Magn., Ep. 3.58, ed. Norberg, pp. 2067; Rizzo, Papa Gregorio Magno e la nobilt in
Sicilia, p. 229.
54 On the influence of Roman ascetism rather than Eastern models, Lizzi Testa, Le origini
del Cristianesimo, p. 372; cf. Ps.-Max., Sermo 7.2, ed. Mutzenbecher, p. 23: instar orientalis
propositi.
55 Ps.-Max., Sermo 7.2: propositum virginitatis instituit...monachorum introduxit forte
servitium. During his exile, Eusebius also turned to sanctae sorores as well as fratres; see
Eus. Verc., Ep. 2.11.1, ed. Bulhart, p. 109. For inscriptions of Vercellis virgines, dated between
the 5th and 6th centuries, see Bruzza, Iscrizioni antiche vercellesi, pp. 30913; 31618, nn.
1323; also Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 5, no. 6741, ed. Mommsen; cf. Roda, Iscrizioni
latine di Vercelli, pp. 1301.
56 Ambr., Ep. 14 extra Coll. (63M., 66 and 71), ed. Zelzer, pp. 270 and 273: monasterii conti
nentia et disciplina Ecclesiae...ut et in civitate positus instituta monachorum teneret
et ecclesiam regeret ieiunii sobrietate....Namque haec duo in attentiore Christianorum
devotione praestantiora esse quis ambigat, clericorum officia et monachorum instituta?.
57 Rufin., Apol. 1.4, ed. Simonetti, with Lizzi Testa, Christianization and Conversion,
pp. 1415, nn. 546.
58 Aug., Conf. 8.6.15.3, ed. ODonnell.
491
The survival of these ancient centres, however, is not directly documented.

A direct link between the monastery of Eusebius, for instance, and the
scriptorium of 10th-century Vercelli, known from the time of Bishop Atto, seems
untenable.59 Nor can it be assumed that there was some relationship between
the monastery of Ambrose and the auditorium mentioned by Ennodius in
the 6th century, which seems rather to have been a school conducted by the
rhetorician Deuterius.60 Nevertheless, during the Ostrogothic period groups
of young laypeople who were devoted to an ascetic lifestyle and lived with a
priest or bishop who acted as their teacher were especially prevalent in Italy.
Indeed they served as a sort of model community, even beyond the Italian
peninsula, as demonstrated by a proposal made at the Council of Vaison in
529, which sought to establish similar centres in Gaul, where the clergy would
live a communal life and youths would begin the study of sacred texts, all in
imitation of what was happening in Italy.61 The regulations of the Council of
Chalcedon (ca. 4 and 26), which had submitted monks and monasteries to the
jurisdiction of bishops, as well as the canons of the councils celebrated in Gaul
(at Agde in 506, at Orleans in 511 and 533, and at Epaone in 517)62 and the inter
vention of Justinian, who intensified episcopal control over monasteries in the
first half of the 6th century,63 certainly encouraged the growth and spread of
this kind of clericalmonastic institution, whose features could be attributed
to the first male monasteries of northern Italy.
59
Levine, Historical Evidence, pp. 5737; contra Scaravelli, La collezione canonica
Anselmo dedicata, pp. 469.
60 Magani, Ennodio, vol. 1, pp. 2889, thought Ennodius had taught in the seminary estab
lished by Epiphanius in Pavia, but it seems more likely that as a deacon he taught in the
Milanese auditorium. See Ennod., no. 3 (= dict. 7), ed. Vogel, pp. 68 (school transfer in the
forum); no. 59 (= dict. 8), pp. 7880 (presentation of his nephew Lupicinus to the rhetori
cian Deuterius); no. 85 (=dict. 9), pp. 11215 (introduction of Arator to the same school).
See also Marconi, Ennodio, pp. 7686.
61 Concilium Vasense, c. 1, ed. Maassen, p. 56. We do not know if paroecia was still a synonym
for diocese, according to the use of, for example, Paulinus of Nola, or if the term already
indicated parishes in rural areas, as used by Gregory the Great; see Penco, Storia della
Chiesa, p. 86.
62 A canon of the council held in Venice between 481 and 491 granted the abbot the right to
give permission to the monks to live in cells outside the monastery without permission
of the bishop (Conc. Venet. a. 481491, c. 7, ed. Munier, p. 153). The Gallic councils instead
were aimed at increasing the authority of the bishops over abbots and their monasteries.
Cf. Conc. Agath. a. 506, cc. 27 and 38, ed. Munier, pp. 205 and 208; Conc. Arel. a. 511, cc. 7; 19;
22, ed. de Clercq, pp. 37; 10; Conc. Epaon. a. 517, cc. 8 and 10, ed. de Clerq, p. 26; II Conc. Arel.
a. 533, c. 21, ed. de Clerq, p. 171.
63 Novell. Iust. 58; 131.8, ed. Schoell/Kroll.
492

Lizzi Testa
Insular Asceticism
Not long after the Council of Beziers (356) and his retirement to a monastery
near Milan, which was probably just a simple cell (sibi monasterium statuit),
Martin of Tours had moved to the island of Gallinara, located off the coast
of Albenga. He was attracted to the new forms of insular asceticism that had
begun to populate the coasts of the peninsula.64 A few years later, accord
ing to Jerome, bands of monks were scattered throughout the islands and
shores of the entire Etruscan Sea,65 and in 417, while returning to Gaul, Rutilius
Namatianus was sadly affected by the number of lucifugi viri (men fleeing the
light, i.e. monks) that had chosen to live on the inhospitable islands of Capraia
and Gorgona.66 Roughly a century later, the ascetics of Ostrogothic Italy
were favouring larger islands. While in exile from Vandal Africa (ca. 529), for
instance, Fulgentius of Ruspe founded some monasteries near the Sardinian
city of Cagliari, one of which grew up near the basilica of the martyr Saturninus
and had a scriptorium.67 After some early eremitical experiments, male coeno
bitic settlements also began to populate Sicily, although they did not always
give rise to real monastic institutions.68

Male Monasteries in CentralSouthern Italy
The oldest monastic experiences in southern Italy appear related to the rural
or suburban areas where Paulinus of Nola spent the last forty years of life (395
431). He enriched Cimitile with a lavish cruciform basilica and a small chapel
located at the tomb of the holy bishop Felix. He also described this monumen
tal complex in various poems and organized a community around it that he
referred to as a monasterium.69 Fasting, sexual continence, prayers, and vigils
governed the daily life of his community, as well as of other monastic settle
ments, both male and female, that he recalled between Otranto and Lupiae
64 Sulp. Sev., Vita Mart. 6.47.1, ed. Fontaine, pp. 58299.
65 Jerome, Ep. 77.6, ed. Labourt, vol. 4, p. 47: insulas, et totum Etruscum mare...et recondi
tos curvorum litorum sinus, in quibus monachorum consistunt chori....
66 Rut. Nam., De reditu lines 439440, ed. Keene, p. 144.
67 Pricoco, Il monachesimo nellet di Teoderico, pp. 4068; Id., Il monachesimo, pp. 901.
68 Cracco Ruggini, Il primo cristianesimo in Sicilia, pp. 11220.
69 Chierici, Cimitile, pp. 12537; Lipinski, Le decorazioni per la basilica di S. Felice,
pp. 6580. On the use of monachus/monasterium in Paulinus: Lienhard, Paulinus of
Nola, pp. 609, and Trout, Paulinus of Nola, pp. 104159; also Brown, Through the Eye of a
Needle, pp. 20840.
493
(Lecce).70 Nevertheless, at the end of 4th century, centres such as Paulinus

monasterium remained an isolated experience in central and southern Italy; but
between the 5th and 6th centuries this changed, as refugees arriving from aban
doned areas of the Roman Empire organized new monasteries in these regions.
Two of the three centres known from Naples in this period were built by
Bishop Severus (d. 409) and the refugee bishop Gaudiosus, who had escaped
from Vandal Africa in 439 along with Quodvultdeus, almost certainly the epon
ymous bishop of Carthage.71 We do not know very much about Gaudiosus
monastery, although it may be the earliest example of a new urban monastic
foundation in Naples.72 Far more is known of the third monastic centre, whose
abbot, Eugippius (ca. 460535), was a disciple of Saint Severinus (d. 482), the
Roman monk-apostle of Noricum. A refugee like Gaudiosus, Eugippius was
among the Romans of Noricum Ripense who fled this province in 488 at the
request of Odovacer. Bringing his saintly masters body with him, he laid it to
rest in a monastery that an illustris femina (Barbara or Barbaria) had founded
at Castrum Lucullanum (Pizzofalcone) near Naples. In this monastery interest
ing debates on Arianism, Augustines thought, and the ideals of monasticism
developed,73 so that the monastic experience at Castrum Lucullanum and the
literary activity of Eugippius (contemporary with the intellectual monastic
life of Vivarium and the activity of St Benedict) ended up moving the creative
monastic nucleus of the West from Lrins to centralsouthern Italy during
the 6th century.74 In fact Castrum Lucullanum probably served also as a pro
pulsive centre for the many monasteries that were built in the second half of
the 6th century in and around Naples. The letters of Gregory the Great are a
valuable source for some of their peculiar aspects, which included a high level
of culture, extensive possessions, and close ties with the local aristocracy.75
The monastery of Eugippius was similar to Fulgentius centre in Cagliari,
having been provided with a scriptorium,76 and became no less famous for
70 Paul. Nol., Carm. 17.8588, ed. Hartel, p. 85; Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica,
pp. 36973.
71 Vict. Vitens., Hist. pers. 1.15, ed. Lancel, pp. 1034, with Amodio, La componente africana,
p. 33.
72 Fiaccadori, Il Cristianesimo, p. 164.
73 Eugippius was the author of a collection of Augustinian excerpts, the Life of Saint
Severinus of Noricum (511) and perhaps a regula mixta (described below). See Pricoco, Il
monachesimo nellet di Teoderico, p. 407.
74 Pricoco, Il monachesimo nellet di Teoderico, pp. 4068.
75 Colantuono, Note per una ricostruzione, pp. 2489.
76 On the relationship between monasticism and culture, or better monasticism and books:
Cavallo, Dallo scriptorium, pp. 33152.
494
Lizzi Testa
its cultural activity than Vivarium, the monastery that Cassiodorus founded
on his property at Squillace in Calabria sometime after the mid 6th century.77
South of the Alessi River and the ancient town, this centre was located directly
above the sea and included a church dedicated to St Martin and a hermit
age called Castellense, which was placed in a defensive position atop Monte
Castello.78 Having failed in the proposal made to Pope Agapitus around 536
to create a school of higher sacred studies in Rome,79 Cassiodorus established
his monastery as a centre of religious and cultural formation, according to the
ratio studiorum espoused in his Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning.
This plan of study included the profane sciences and Greek literature, in addi
tion to biblical exegesis, and placed the seven liberal arts side by side with the
disciplines of history, geography, natural science, and medicine.80 The mor
phology of medieval monastic culture was fundamentally linked to the struc
ture that Cassiodorus gave it at Vivarium. No less influential were the monks at
Vivarium, who excelled at the accurate transcription of texts and were aided in
their endeavours by the instructions provided in Cassiodorus De orthographia.
Indeed it is likely that Cassiodorus monastic centre helped to refuel all the
great western libraries of the Middle Ages through the intermediary of the
Lateran Library, where the best manuscripts of Vivariums scriptorium were
collected in the early 7th century,81 when the monastery was in decline.
According to Pope Pelagius, there were also a number of monasteries in
Lucania and Samnium, although their extent and nature are unknown.82 The
settlements in the central region of the peninsula, especially to the north-east
of Rome, however, were mostly hermit centres. Among the Italian Fathers that
populate Gregory the Greats Dialogues,83 for instance, are many unforgettable
viri Dei residing in Monteluco near Spoleto, in the Val Castorina not far from
Norcia, or in the mountains of Abruzzo, around Amiternum, near lAquila. Here,
in particular, Equitius (480/490571) is said to have founded several monas
tic centres.84 The second book of the Dialogues, however, is entirely dedicated
to St Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480550), vir Dei, thaumaturge, healer, seer, and
77 On the history of the diocese at the end of the 5th century: Cracco Ruggini, Societ pro
vinciale, p. 246; Otranto, Per una storia dellItalia tardoantica, pp. 44551. Discussions of
the foundation of Vivarium include ODonnell, Cassiodorus.
78 Cass., Inst. 1.29, ed. Mynors, pp. 735; Fiaccadori, Calabria tardoantica, pp. 41718.
79 Cass., Inst. I, praef. 1.213.
80 Condorelli, Cassiodoro, pp. 17116.
81 Pricoco, Spiritualit monastica, pp. 35777.
82 Pelag., Ep. 87, ed. Gass/Battle, pp. 21213; Otranto, Italia meridionale, p. 76.
83 Rousseau, Monasticism, pp. 7747; Brown, Holy Men, pp. 78994.
84 Penco, Storia del monachesimo in Italia, p. 30; Otranto, Italia meridionale, p. 76.
495
father, and guide of twelve monasteries in Subiaco and of Monte Cassino.

We do not know what influence the communities founded by Benedict, who
died 21 March 547, were able to have on the Italian monastic scene during the
Ostrogothic era. Indeed it was probably the exodus of the community at Monte
Cassino to Rome, after the Lombard invasion destroyed the monastery in 581,
that brought Benedict to the attention of Pope Gregory who in those years was
leading a monastic life in his family home on the Caelian Hill, which he had
transformed into the monastery of St Andrew.

Monastic Rules in Italy: Latin Translations and New Models
Although the Benedictine model, which combined prayer, meditation, and

study with the exercise of complex economic activities related to the organi
zation and control of the territory in which a monastery was built, came to
dominate monastic life in the West from the 9th century, it was hardly the
norm during the Ostrogothic period. Rather, late 5th- and 6th-century Italy
was awash in a variety of practices and written rules, some Latin translations
of Greek texts, others local creations, and still others amalgams of different
monastic materials taking the form of what is known as the mixed rule. The
oldest of these were the rules of Pachomius (d. 346) and Basil of Caesarea
(ca. 33079). Rufinus of Aquileia had translated Basils Asketikon for the monks
of the monastery of Pinetum, praying that they would make copies to send
to other monasteries.85 In 404, his contemporary Jerome produced a Latin
version of the Pachomian Rule.86 John Cassian (ca. 360410) helped to renew
the same enthusiasm for asceticism in Rome (where he resided in 405) that
had existed in the time of Athanasius. His Instituta and Conlationes made east
ern traditions and spirituality accessible to the monks of the Italian peninsula
(and beyond), who avidly read these works between 420 and 430.87
In fact Cassians works strongly influenced two of Ostrogothic Italys most
important indigenous rules, the Regula Magistri (ca. 50025) and the Regula
S. Benedicti (ca. 53060). An anonymous text attributed to the Master, the
Regula Magistri presents a highly detailed, lengthy discussion of virtually
every conceivable aspect of monastic life, from the ordering of daily prayers
85 Ruf., Praef. in Reg. s. Basilii, ed. Simonetti, p. 241.

86 Jerome, Translatio Latina Regulae S. Pachomiae, ed. Boon, Pachomiana Latina.
87 Chadwick, John Cassian.
496
Lizzi Testa
to sleeping quarters and food apportioning.88 Composed near Rome (perhaps

in Campania), the Regula Magistri had more theoretical impact than anything
else, since there is no evidence that any monastery in Italy ever followed it.
Nevertheless, when Benedict penned his eponymous rule, he turned to the
Regula Magistri for insight. Benedict is believed to have composed his rule
between 530 and 560, possibly for the monks at Monte Cassino, though the
language of the text hints at a broader audience of monastics.89 Deriving its
general pattern (the school, the disciples, the master) from the Regula magistri,
Benedict elaborated a rule for his community that was nonetheless original.90
As in Egyptian coenobitism, it maintained a vertical axis of monks and their
hierarchical superiors (abbot and deacons) and horizontal relationships among
the monks themselves, who were to emulate each other in zeal and charity.91
The Regula S. Benedicti is arguably the most influential of all Ostrogothic-era
rules; however, there is no evidence of its observance in any monasteries until
the 7th century.92 In addition, Ostrogothic Italy likely produced an Italian
regula mixta, a compilation of monastic materials from (among other sources)
Augustine, Basil, and the Regula Magistri. Many scholars attribute this mixed
rule to the early 6th-century monastic founder Eugippius, who was known for
his keen interest in the works of Augustine.93 On the basis of its identification
with Eugippius, the rules origins are placed in southern Italy, perhaps even
at Castrum Lucullanum. However, recent work has called into question the
88 De Vog presents a good English-language introduction to the rule in The Rule of the
Master, pp. 1584.
89 On the dating of the Benedictine Rule see de Vog, La Rgle du Saint Benit, pp. 16972
and Kay, Benedict, Justinian, and Donations, who suggests a more restricted but plau
sible range from 537 to 555.
90 The priority of the Regula Magistri, and the reliance of the Benedictine Rule upon it, is
largely but not universally accepted by scholars. Dunn, Mastering Benedict, argues that
the Regula Magistri post-dates the Benedictine Rule. A response by de Vog to Dunns
criticisms along with a final rejoinder by Dunn are published in EHR 197 (1992): 95111.
91 Penco, Storia della Chiesa, pp. 9711; Pricoco, La Regola di San Benedetto.
92 On the gradual reception of the Benedictine Rule in early medieval monasteries see Mews,
Gregory the Great, Benedict of Nursia, and Roman Liturgy. There is no evidence, for
instance, that Gregory or any late 6th-century monastic followed the Benedictine Rule in
Rome: Hallinger, Papst Gregor der Grosse und der Hl. Benedikt.
93 This is the Regula handed down in Cod. Par. Lat. 12634 (6th century). See Pricoco, Il
monachesimo nellet di Teoderico, p. 407; Id., Il monachesimo, p. 91; and especially de
Vog, La Rgle dEugippe retrouve?. On Eugippius interest in Augustine, see above
n. 73.
497
authorship, dating, and provenance of the so-called Regula Eugippii.94 Further

research on this fascinating but understudied text is warranted as well as on its
possible connections with the Regula Magistri and the Benedictine Rule.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Acta Synhodorum habitarum Romae CCCCXCVIIII. DI. DII., ed. T. Mommsen,

in Cassiodori Senatoris Variae (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894.
Ambrosius, Epistulae, ed. M. Zelzer (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
82.3) Vienna 1992.
Augustine, Confessiones, ed. J.J. ODonnell, Augustine. Confessions, 3 vols. Oxford 1992.
Cassiodorus, Institutiones, ed. R.A.B. Mynors, Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, Oxford
1937.
, Variae, ed. A.J. Fridh, Magni Aurelii Cassiodori. Variarum Libri XII (Corpus
Christianorum, Series Latina 96), Turnhout 1973.
, Variae, ed. A. Giardina, Cassiodoro. Varie, vol. II (Libri IIIV), Rome 2014; vol.
V (Libri XIXII), Rome 2015.
Concilia Galliae a. 511695, ed. C. de Clercq (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 148A),
Turnhout 1963.
Concilia Galliae a. 314506, ed. C. Munier, (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 148),
Turnhout 1963 (repr. 2001).
Concilium Vasense, ed. F. Maassen, Concilia Aevi Merovingici (Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Concilia 1), Hannover 1893.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, ed. T. Mommsen, vol. 5: Inscriptiones Galliae
Cisalpinae Latinae, Berlin 18727.
Ennodius, Opera, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 7), Munich 1885.
Eusebius Vercellensis, Epistulae, ed. V. Bulhart, Eusebii Vercellensis Episcopi quae supersunt (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 9), Turnhout 1957.
Gelasius, Epistulae, ed. A.Thiel, in Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae, vol. 1,
Gregorius Magnus, Epistulae, ed. D. Norberg, S. Gregori Magni Registrum Epistularum
Libri IVII and Libri VIIIXIV (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 140 and 140A),
Turnhout 1982.
94 Dunn, Mastering Benedict.
498
Lizzi Testa
, Registrum epistularum, ed. P. Ewald /L.M. Hartmann, Gregorii I Papae

Registrum Epistolarum (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 12), Berlin
188799 (repr. 1957).
ICI 5 = Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae Septimo Saeculo Antiquiores, vol. 5: Regio III.
Regium Iulium, Locri, Taurianum, Trapeia, Vibo Valentia, Copia-Thurii, Blanda Iulia,
ed. M. Buonocore, Bari 1987.
ICI 7 = Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae Septimo Saeculo Antiquiores, vol. 7: Regio IX.
Dertona, Libarna, Forum Iulii Iriensium, ed. G. Mennella, Bari 2000.
Jerome, Epistulae, ed. J. Labourt, Saint Jrome. Lettres, vols. 4 and 7, Paris 19541961.
, Translatio Latina Regulae S. Pachomiae, ed. Boon, Pachomiana Latina, Leuven
1932.
Novellae Iustiniani, ed. Schoell/ Kroll, Corpus Iuris Civilis. Novellae, Berlin 1963.
Paulinus Nolanus, Carmina, ed. W. Hartel, Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani Carmina
(Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 30), Vienna 1894.
Pseudo Maximus, Sermones, ed. A. Mutzenbecher, Maximi Episcopi Taurinensis.
Collectionem Sermonum antiquam nonnullis sermonibus extravagantibus adiectis
(Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 23), Turnhout 1962.
Pelagius I, Epistulae, ed. P.M. Gass/C.M. Battle, Pelagii I papae Epistulae quae supersunt (556561), Montserrat 1956.
Regula S. Benedicti, ed. A. de Vog, La Rgle du Benit (Sources Chrtiennes 181186),
Paris 19711977.
Regula Eugippi, ed. F. Villegas and A. de Vog, Eugipii Regula (Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 87), Vienna 1976.
The Rule of the Master, trans. L. Eberle, Kalamazoo, MI 1977.
Rufinus, Opera, ed. M. Simonetti (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 20), Turnhout
1961.
Rutilius Namatianus, De reditu suo, ed. C.H. Keene, Rutilii Claudii Namatiani De reditu
suo libri duo, London 1907.
Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, ed. J. Fontaine, Vie de saint Martin, vol. 1 (Sources
Theodoretus, Epistulae, ed. Y Azma, Thodoret de Cyr. Correspondance, vol. 3 (Sources
Victor Vitensis, Historia persecutionis, ed. S. Lancel, Victor de Vita, Histoire de la perscution vandale en Afrique suivie de La passion des sept martyrs. Registre des provinces
et des cits dAfrique (Bud), Paris 2002.
Amodio, M., La componente africana nella civilt napoletana tardo-antica. Fonti let
terarie ed evidenze archeologiche, in Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di
Archeologia, ser. 3, memorie 6, Roma 2005, pp. 5257.
499
Barnish, S.J.B., Religio in stagno: Nature, Divinity and the Christianization of the
Countryside in Late Antique Italy, Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001),
387402.
Blaudeau, P., Un point de contact entre Collectio Avellana et Collectio Thessalonicensis?
Autour du cas dAbundantius de Dmtrias, Millennium 10.1 (2013), 111.
Bowes, K., Private Worship, Public Values, and Religious Change in Late Antiquity,
Cambridge 2008.
Brown, P., Holy Men, in A. Cameron/B. Ward-Perkins/M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge
Ancient History, vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425600, Cambridge
2000, pp. 781810.
, Through the Eye of a Needle. Wealth, the Fall of Rome and the Making of
Christianity in the West, 350550 AD, Princeton/Oxford 2012.
Bruzza, L., Iscrizioni antiche vercellesi, 2nd ed., Vercelli 1973.
Cantino Wataghin, G./Fiocchi Nicolai, V./Volpe, G., Aspetti della cristianizzazione
degli agglomerati secondari, in R.M. Bonacasa Carra/E. Vitale (eds.), La cristianizzazione in Italia fra Tardoantico e Altomedioevo (IX Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia
Cristiana, Agrigento 2025 nov. 2004), vol. 1, Palermo 2007, pp. 85134.
Cavallo, G., Dallo scriptorium senza biblioteca alla biblioteca senza scriptorium, in
Dalleremo al cenobio, Milano 1987, pp. 331422.
Cessi, R., Un vescovo pugliese del secolo VI (S. Sabino di Canosa), in Atti del Reale
Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 73 (19131914), 11535.
Chadwick, O., John Cassian, Cambridge 1950.
Chierici, G., Cimitile: la seconda fase dei lavori intorno alle basiliche, in Atti del III
Congresso Internazionale di Studi sullAlto medioevo, Spoleto 1959, pp. 12537.
Clark, E.A., Ascetic Piety and Womens Faith (Studies in Women and Religion 20),
Queenston, Ontario, 1986.
Colantuono, G., Note per una ricostruzione dellidentit cristiana di Napoli al tempo
di Gregorio Magno, Annali di storia dellesegesi 21 (2004), 23756.
Condorelli, A., Cassiodoro. Le discipline matematiche e lordine della natura, Catania
2007.
Consolino, F.E., Tradizionalismo e trasgressione nelllite senatoria romana:
ritratti di signore fra la fine del IV e linizio del V secolo, in R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), Le
trasformazioni delle lites nellet tardoantica (Saggi di storia antica, 28), Roma 2006,
pp. 65139.
Cracco Ruggini, L., Societ provinciale, societ romana, societ bizantina in
Cassiodoro, in S. Leanza (ed.), Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro. Atti della Settimana
di Studi (Cosenza-Squillace, 1924 settembre 1983), Soveria Mannelli 1986, pp. 24561.
, Storia totale di una piccola citt: Vicenza romana, in A. Broglio/L. Cracco
Ruggini (eds.), Storia di Vicenza, vol. 1: Il territorio, la preistoria, let romana, Vicenza
1987, pp. 205303.
500
Lizzi Testa
, Il primo cristianesimo in Sicilia (IIIVII secolo), in V. Messana/S. Pricoco

(eds.), Il cristianesimo in Sicilia dalle origini a Gregorio Magno. Atti del Convegno di
Studi (Caltanissetta, 2829 ottobre 1985), Caltanissetta 1987 (Quad. di presenza cul
turale 26), pp. 85125.
Dunn, M., Mastering Benedict: Monastic Rules and their Authors in the Early Medieval
West, English Historical Review 105 (1990), 56794.
, The Master and St. Benedict: A Rejoinder, English Historical Review 107
(1992), 10411.
Ferrari, G., Early Roman Monasteries: Notes for the History of the Monasteries and
Convents at Rome from the V through the X Century, Vatican City 1957.
Fiaccadori, G., Il Cristianesimo. Dalle origini alle invasioni barbariche, in G. Pugliese
Carratelli (ed.), Storia e civilt della Campania. Il Medioevo, Napoli 1992, pp. 14570.
, Calabria tardoantica, in S. Settis (ed.), Storia della Calabria antica. Et italica
e romana, Tarquinia 1994, pp. 70562.
Hallinger, K., Papst Gregor der Grosse und der Hl. Benedikt, in Commentationes in
Regulam Benedicti, Rome 1957, pp. 231319.
Jenal, G., Zum Asketenund Mnchtum italiens in der Zeit von Benedikt, in San
Benedetto nel suo tempo. Atti del VII Congresso Internazionale di Studi sullAlto
medioevo, Spoleto 1982, pp. 13783.
, Italia ascetica atque monastica: das Asketen und Mnchtum in Italien von den
Anfangen bis zur Zeit der Langobarden (ca. 150/250604), 2 vols., Stuttgart 1995.
Kay, R., Benedict, Justinian, and Donations mortis causa in the Regula Magistri,
Revue Bndictine 90 (1980), 16993.
Klingshirn, W., Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique
Gaul, Cambridge 1994.
Lanzoni, F., Le diocesi dItalia dalle origini al principio del secolo VII (an. 604), (Studi e
Testi 35), Faenza 1927.
Levine, P., Historical Evidence for Calligraphic Activity in Vercelli from St. Eusebius to
Atto, Speculum 30 (1955), 5737.
Lienhard, J.T., Paulinus of Nola and Early Western Monasticism, Kln 1977.
Lipinski, A., Le decorazioni per la basilica di S. Felice negli scritti di Paolino da Nola,
Vetera Christianorum 13 (1976), 6580.
Lizzi, R., Una societ esortata allascetismo: misure legislative e motivazioni economi
che nel IVV secolo D.C., Studi storici 30.1 (1989), 12953.
, Ambroses Contemporaries and the Christianization of Northern Italy,
Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990), 15673.
Lizzi Testa, R., Christianization and Conversion in Northern Italy, in A. Kreider (ed.),
The Origins of Christendom in the West, Edinburgh/New York 2001, pp. 4795.
, Le origini del Cristianesimo, in P. Tozzi (ed.), Storia di Cremona, vol. 1: Et
antica, Cremona 2003, pp. 35095.
501
, Senatori, popolo, papi. Il governo di Roma al tempo dei Valentiniani (Munera

21), Bari 2004.
, Rome during the Ostrogoth Kingdom: its Political Meaning as Apostolic
See, in H. Harich-Schwarzbauer/K. Pollmann (eds.), Der Fall Roms und seine
Wiederauferstehungen in Antike und Mittelalter, Berlin 2013, pp. 13149.
Luiselli, B., La societ romano-gotica, in San Benedetto nel suo tempo. Atti del VII congresso internazionale di studi sullalto medioevo, Spoleto 1982, pp. 49116.
Magani, F., Ennodio, vol. 1, Pavia 1886.
Marconi, G., Ennodio e la nobilit galloromana nellItalia ostrogota, Spoleto 2013.
Mews, C.J., Gregory the Great, Benedict of Nursia, and Roman Liturgy: the Evolution
of a Legend, Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011): 12544.
Otranto, G., Italia meridionale e Puglia paleocristiane. Saggi storici, Bari 1991.
, La cristianizzazione della Calabria e la formazione delle diocesi, Vetera
Christianorum 32 (1995), 33979.
, Per una storia dellItalia tardo antica cristiana (Biblioteca tardoantica 3), Bari
2009.
PCBE 2 = C. Pietri/L. Pietri (eds.), Prosopographie chrtienne du Bas-Empire, vol. 2: Italie
(313604), Rome 1999.
Penco, G., Storia del monachesimo in Italia, Rome 1961.
, Storia della Chiesa in Italia, vol. 1: Dalle origini al concilio di Trento, Milano
1978.
Pricoco S., Aspetti culturali del primo monachesimo dOccidente, in A. Giardina (ed.),
Societ romana e impero tardoantico, vol. 4, Rome/Bari 1986, pp. 189204.
, Spiritualit monastica, in S. Leanza (ed.), Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro.
Atti della Settimana di Studi (Cosenza-Squillace, 1924 settembre 1983), Soveria
Mannelli 1986, pp. 35777.
, Il monachesimo nellet di Teoderico, in A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra
Oriente e Occidente, Ravenna 1995, pp. 40114.
, La Regola di San Benedetto e le Regole dei Padri (introduzione, traduzione e commento), Milan 1995.
, Il monachesimo, Rome/Bari 2003.
Rizzo, R., Papa Gregorio Magno e la nobilt in Sicilia, Palermo 2008.
Roda, S., Iscrizioni latine di Vercelli, Torino 1985.
Rousseau, P., Monasticism, in A. Cameron/B. Ward-Perkins/M. Whitby (eds.), The
Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14: Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425
600, Cambridge 2000, pp. 74580.
Scaravelli, I., La collezione canonica Anselmo dedicata: lo status quaestionis nella pros
pettiva di unedizione critica, in R. Delle Donne/A. Zorzi (eds.), Le storie e la memoria, in onore di Arnald Esc, Firenze 2002, pp. 3352.
502
Lizzi Testa
Silvestrini, M., Le citt della Puglia romana. Un profilo sociale, Bari 2005.
Trout, D.E., Paulinus of Nola. Life, Letters and Poems, Berkeley 1999.
Vera, D., Dalla villa perfecta alla villa di Palladio. Sulle trasformazioni del sistema
agrario in Italia fra Principato e Dominato, Athenaeum 83.12 (1995), 189211;
33156.
, I paesaggi rurali nel Meridione tardoantico: bilancio consuntivo e preven
tivo, in G. Volpe/M. Turchiano (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti rurali in Italia meridionale fra tardoantico e altomedioevo, Bari 2005, pp. 2338.
Violante, C., Le strutture organizzative della cura danime nelle campagne dellItalia
centrosettentrionale (secoli VX), in Cristianizzazione ed organizzazione ecclesiastica delle campagne nellalto Medioevo: Espansioni e Resistenze, Spoleto 1982, pp.
9631158.
Vog, A. de, La Rgle dEugippe retrouve?, Revue dHistoire de la Spiritualit 47
(1971), 23365.
, Introduction, in The Rule of the Master, trans. L. Eberle, Kalamazoo, MI 1977,
pp. 1584.
, The Master and Benedict: A Reply to Marilyn Dunn, English Historical Review
107 (1992), 95103.
Volpe, G., Contadini, pastori e mercanti nellApulia tardoantica, Bari 1996.
(ed.), San Giusto, la villa, le ecclesiae, Bari 1998.
, Liniziativa vescovile nella trasformazione dei paesaggi urbani e rurali in
Apulia: i casi di Canusium e di san Giusto, in R. Farioli Campanati/et al. (eds.),
Ideologia e cultura artistica tra Adriatico e Mediterraneo orientale (IVX secolo). Il
ruolo dellautorit ecclesiastica alla luce di nuovi scavi e ricerche. Atti del Convegno
internazionale (Bologna-Ravenna, 2629 novembre 2007), Bologna 2009, pp. 41419.
Volpe, G./et al., Faragola (Ascoli Satriano): una residenza aristocratica tardoantica
e un villaggio altomedievale nella Valle del Carapelle: i primi dati, in G. Volpe/
M. Turchiano (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti rurali in Italia meridionale fra tardoantico e altomedioevo, Bari 2005, pp. 26597.
Volpe, G./Turchiano, M., The Last Enclave. Rural Settlement in the 5th Century in
Southern Italy: the Case of Apulia, in P. Delogu/S. Gasparri (eds.), Le trasformazioni
del V secolo. LItalia, i barbari e lOccidente romano. Atti del Seminario di Poggibonsi,
1820 ottobre 2007, Turnhout 2010, pp. 53177.
Wood, I., Entrusting Western Europe to the Church, 400700, Transactions of the
Royal Historical Society 23 (2013), 3773.
CHAPTER 19
Religious Diversity
Samuel Cohen*

Introduction: Religious Diversity
Ostrogothic Italy was comprised of different religious communities, the most

prominent of which were Catholic Christians, Jews, and the Ostrogoths themselves who have typically been labeled as Arians in secondary literature.
Although these terms suggest that each community possessed a relatively
stable set of beliefs and practices, the religious identities presupposed by Jew,
Catholic, and Arian were not self-evident or static; rather they were fluid,
gradually emerging together through a process of self-definition and exclusion.1
A crucial tool in this process was the discourse of heresy and orthodoxy, which
served to differentiate Christian from non-Christian and to distinguish the
right and wrong kind of Christian.2 Thus, the religious labels that appear in
our sources were not merely descriptive; especially in the case of Christian
heretics, they were proscriptive and polemical. Arianism in particular was a
flexible heresiological epithet that despite its association with Theoderic was
generally not employed to describe the Goths or their faith during the early
phase of the Ostrogothic kingdom. It was only in the later years of Theoderics
reign and subsequently with Justinians reconquest of Italy on the horizon that
Catholic authors commonly equated Arriani and Gothi.
With these qualifications in mind it is the intention of this chapter to first
describe the two major players on our diverse stage, the Jews and the Goths,
especially in terms of their relationship with each other and with Italian
Catholic religious authorities such as the bishop of Rome. As we shall see, these
communities did not exist in isolation from one another. Jews, Catholics, and
* I would like to thank Kristina Sessa and Jonathan Arnold for their comments, suggestions,
and advice in preparing this chapter.
1 Sandwell, Religious Identity, p. 4. Iricinschi/Zellentin, Making Selves and Marking Others,
pp. 1121. See also Lieu, Christian Identity; Rebillard, Christians and their Many Identities; and
on the overlap of Christian and Jewish identities in Late Antiquity: Boyarin, Border Lines and
Dying for God.
2 Le Boulluec, La notion dhrsie, vol. 1, pp. 1120; Boyarin, Border Lines, pp. 24; Burrus, Making
of a Heretic, pp. 1518.
504
Cohen
Goths formed relationships with one another and often transgressed social
and religious restrictions imposed upon them. This chapter will then consider
the vestiges of pre-Christian religious traditions and Christian heretics who
were also part of the religious landscape in this period. Much of our evidence
for these communities comes from Catholic sources, and the organized church
will therefore by necessity make an appearance in what follows. However,
a systematic description of the churchs development and operations has been
left to other chapters of this book.3
Jews
There had been Jewish communities in Italy for centuries before the advent
of the Ostrogothic kingdom; however it was in Late Antiquity that Italian
Jewry became, in the words of Leonard Rutgers, the single most visible and
tangible Jewish community of the entire western Diaspora.4 The largest and
oldest Jewish centre was in Rome.5 But other important Jewish communities included Palermo and Catania in Sicily, Venosa and Naples in the south,
and Milan and Ravenna in the north.6 The size of these communities is difficult to estimate given the limitations of ancient demography.7 However, it
does appear that the urban population, especially in Rome itself, expanded
throughout the late antique period as Jews increasingly moved to cities from
smaller rural areas of Italy.8
Until recently it had been commonly thought that these Jewish communities were relatively isolated from their non-Jewish neighbours. It is certainly
true that as Christianity emerged as a sine qua non of social relations in the
4th and especially the 5th centuries, Jews were increasingly excluded from
the networks of patronage and power that dominated the politics of the late
empire.9 Laws preserved in the Theodosian Code, for example, banned Jews
3 See Sessa and Lizzi Testa in this volume.
4 Rutgers/Bradbury, Diaspora, p. 492.
5 See for example, Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome; Solin, Juden und Syrer, pp. 587789.
6 Sicily: Rutgers, Interaction and Its Limits. Southern Italy: Colafemmina, Insediamenti e
condizione and for a slightly later period, von Falkenhausen, LEbraismo dellItalia meridionale. Northern Italy: Ruggini, Ebrei e Orientali nellItalia; Brown, Ebrei e orientali a
Ravenna; Somekh, Teoderico e gli Ebrei.
7
On the problems of Jewish demography in particular see McGing, Population and
Proselytism, p. 106.
8 Rutgers/Bradbury, Diaspora, p. 494.
9 Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, p. 179.
Religious Diversity
505
from public offices (honores and dignitates) and from service in the army.
Other legislation placed limits on Jewish slaveholding, forbade new synagogue
construction, prohibited Jews from proselytizing, and in general attempted to
inscribe and enforce boundaries separating Jews and Christians.10 In a rhetorical shift detectable by the late 4th and the early 5th centuries, Christian legislation began to describe Judaism using increasingly antagonistic terms that
evoked notions of corruption, defilement, and sacrilege, and to associate Jews
with other marginalized groups such as pagans and eventually heretics.11 But
despite the growing restrictions imposed upon them, Jews nevertheless continued to enjoy legal recognition and protection in the later Roman period.12
Anti-Jewish laws were unevenly enforced while other legislation protected
synagogues from Christian attackers and granted peaceful Jews the full protection of the state.13
Jews in Late Antiquity also found ways to transgress the limitations placed
upon them. Recent archaeological and epigraphic work have convincingly
demonstrated that, notwithstanding important cultural and religious differences and legal restrictions, Jews formed relationships with their pagan and
Christian neighbours to a greater degree than had previously been thought
and shared with them many of the same political and social expectations.14
Jews were also granted the right to employ the lex Judaeorumthat is, Jewish
communities had a degree of legal autonomy with regards to civil matters. And
in certain circumstances Jewish curiales enjoyed exemptions from the onera
usually imposed on this class.15
The ambivalent position of the Jew in late Roman societyat once disadvantaged and protectedremained largely unchanged in Theoderics Italy.
Indeed, although it is tempting to ascribe the particularly modern quality of
religious tolerance to Theoderic, the essentials of his Jewish policy closely
10 Roman laws pertaining to the Jews are collected in Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial
Legislation.
11 Linder, Legal Status of the Jews, pp. 14953; Salzman, Superstition in the Codex
Theodosianus, pp. 176, 182.
12 Millar, Christian Emperors, pp. 48.
13 For example, Codex Theodosianus (hereafter cited as CT) 16.8.13 (397), ed. Mommsen/
Meyer, a law of Honorius and Arcadius allowing Jews to live by their own (religious) law;
CT 16.8.21 (412/418) (Codex Justinianus 1.9.14, ed. P. Krger, Berlin 1877), a law of Honorius
and Theodosius II protecting synagogues from attack.
14 See, for example, the collection of essays in Goodman, Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. On
Rome see Rutgers, Jews in Late Ancient Rome.
15 At least up to 383. Bachrach, Jewish Community, p. 403; Rabello, Legal Condition of the
Jews, pp. 7313.
506
Cohen
irrored the principles that had been set out in Roman law.16 Theoderics
m
edictum explicitly stated that Jews were to enjoy the traditional privileges conferred upon them in Roman law, giving them legal protection for their persons
and places of worship.17 A similar emphasis is expressed in letters written by
Cassiodorus in Theoderics name to the Jewish communities of Genoa and
Milan and preserved in the Variae. For instance, Theoderic confirmed the
long-standing legal rights of the Milanese Jewish community to maintain their
synagogue with the proviso that the Jews remain separate from the Christian
community.18 To the Jews of Genoa the king granted the right to rebuild the
roof of their decaying synagogue so long as the building was not expanded and
no ostentatious decorations were added.19 The language and content of these
letters carefully articulates the conditions under which Jews enjoyed legal
protection in Ostrogothic Italy: they were to remain inferior to Christians and
their places of worship smaller and less grand. It is worth noting that the kings
oft-quoted dictum to the Genoese Jews that no one can be forced to believe
against his will also declares that the Jews were destitute of Gods grace and
condemns their errant prayers.20 Likewise in his above-mentioned letter granting protection to the Jews of Milan, Theoderic wonders why the Jews seek quies
in this world when they cannot find aeterna requies in the next.21 Still, Italys
Jews may well have preferred the status quo maintained by Theoderic and his
successors to the policies of Justinian; the Jews of Naples fought on the side of
the Ostrogoths against Belisarius during the siege of the city in 536.22
16 See the introduction to and translation of Theoderics legislation pertaining to the
Jews of Italy in Linder, Jews in the Legal Sources, pp. 2006. On Theoderics policies as
a return to traditional Roman imperial attitudes towards the Jews see Brennecke,
Imitatioreparatiocontinuatio.
17 Edictum Theoderici regis 14, ed. F. Bluhme, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Leges nationum Germanicarum, Hanover 1889, vol. 5, pp. 14579. English translation in Lafferty, Law
and Society, pp. 24394 cited at p. 290. Some scholars are not entirely convinced that the
Edictum Theoderici can be attributed to Theoderic. See Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman
Imperial Restoration, p. 129, n. 41.
18 Cassiodorus, Variae (cited hereafter as Var.) 5.37, ed. Mommsen.
19 Var. 2.27.
20 Var. 2.27. ...divinitatis gratia destituti...; damus quidem permissum, sed errantium
votum laudabiliter improbamus: religionem imperare non possumus, quia nemo cogitur
ut credat invitus. On this phrase of Theoderics, see Moorhead, Theoderic, p. 97 and n. 147.
21 Var. 5.37. Sed quid, Iudaee, supplicans temporalem quietem quaeris, si aeternam requiem
invenire non possis?
22 Procopius, Bellum Gothicum, 1.8.41, 1.10.2426, ed. and trans. Dewing, London 1919. On
Justinian see de Lange, Jews in the Age of Justinian.
Religious Diversity
507
Rather than tolerance, Theoderics Jewish policy, like that of Roman emperors before him, was guided above all by a desire to preserve order. In a second
letter to the Genoese Jews the king emphasized the preservation of their rights
and privileges in the context of his more general desire to uphold civilitas
a word that encompasses notions of good government, stability, and the
continued rule of Roman law.23 When violence or public disorder disrupted
civilitas, Theoderic reacted decisively. For example, the Anonymus Valesianus
reports that in 519 or possibly 520 a mob in Ravenna had attacked and burned
the synagogues of the city. The Christians, it seems, had become incensed
by the fact that the Jews had thrown oblatapossibly holy water intended
for baptisms or perhaps something to do with the Eucharistinto the river.24
After a second wave of violence, members of the Jewish community pled their
case with the help of the praepositus cubicula Triwanis before Theoderic who
was then residing at Verona. Theoderic responded by ordering the Roman (i.e.
Catholic) community of Ravenna to finance the rebuilding of the destroyed
synagogues. Anyone lacking the financial means to contribute to the project
was to be whipped through the streets of the city.25
A perennial source of tension between Jews and Christians was slaveholding. Legislation of the 4th and 5th centuries had sought to discourage Jews
from keeping non-Jewish slaves.26 The concern was not of course slavery per
se, but rather that Christian slaves would convert (or be converted) to Judaism
so that they could better perform various household duties that were restricted
to Jews under Jewish law.27 To prevent this emperors had promulgated laws
throughout the later Roman period that forbade the conversion of non-Jewish
slaves. Other laws banned Jews from owning Christian slaves entirely. However,
these prohibitions were not consistently enforced.28
23 Var. 4.33. On civilitas see Saitta, La Civilitas di Teodorico, pp. 561 and more recently,
Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 12630, especially n. 28 with
references.
24 For oblata as relating to the Eucharist: Moorhead, Theoderic, p. 98 and in general on this
incident, pp. 989. See also Somekh, Teoderico e gli Ebrei, p. 139.
25 Anonymus Valesianus pars posterior (cited hereafter as Anon. Val.) 802, ed. Mommsen.
26 For example CT 16.9.15; 3.1.5. On the 4th century in particular see De Bonfils, Gli schiavi
degli ebrei.
27 On the various laws against Jewish proselytizingthe root of Christian objection to
Jewish slaveholdingsee Feldman, Jew and Gentile, pp. 38795.
28 E.g. CT 16.8.9; 16.8.21; 16.8.257. Enforcement does seem to have become stricter during
and after the reign of Theodosius II, but there are nonetheless references to Jewish ownership of Christians slaves well into the 6th century. For a detailed discussion on Jewish
slaveholding in the later Roman Empire, see Linder, Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation,
508
Cohen
The tension prompted by Jewish slaveholding persisted into the Ostrogothic

period. The Vita Caesarii, for example, describes the saint redeeming Christian
slaves in Ostrogothic-controlled Provence so that they would not become
Arians or Jews, perhaps a reference to the likelihood that slaves would convert to the faith of their masters.29 Elsewhere, in a late 5th-century letter sent
to Bishops Siracusius, Constantius, and Laurentius, Gelasius (bishop of Rome,
4926) reports that a Jew named Judas claimed that one of his slaves had
escaped and taken sanctuary in the church of Venafrana in Campania. Judas
wished the slave to be returned. However, the slave declared that he had been
a Christian since birth (ab infantia Christiano); he had only recently been circumcised (and presumably forcibly converted to Judaism) by his masteran
act that if we believe the unnamed slave would have been in violation of Roman
law. Generally speaking the right of sanctuary did not apply to runaway slaves.30
But the issue was more delicate when the faith of a Christian was threatened,
as appears to be the case here. It is also possible that the slave was in fact
Jewish and that he was simply attempting to escape his lot by now claiming
to be Christian. In his response to this complex case Gelasius endeavours to
balance the rights of a Christian and the rights of a slave owner, whatever his
religion. The bishop of Rome does not prejudge the case but commands the
bishops to look into it diligenter.31 A second example of the difficulties engendered by Jewish slave owning can be gleaned from another attack against a
synagogue, this time in Rome itself. We learn from a letter of Theoderic preserved in the Variae that a Roman synagogue had been burned in 509 or 511
by a Christian mob that had rioted when some slaves were publicly punished
for the murder of their master.32 This violent reaction makes the most sense if
we assume that the slaves were Christians and the master a Jew.33 In response
the king asked the Senate to investigate the destruction of a synagogue and to
punish the perpetrators.
Not only did Jews in Ostrogothic Italy own Christian slaves, but they also
at times contravened the legal and social restrictions imposed upon them in
pp. 825 and Legal Status of the Jews, pp. 1648 with references to the often contradictory legislation on this question.
29 Vita Caesarii I.32, ed. and trans. Bona, pp. 989. The (re)creation of the prefecture of the
Gauls under the control of the Ostrogothic kingdom is announced in Var. 3.17.
30 From the Gelasian corpus see frag. 41, ed. Thiel, pp. 5056.
31 Gelasius frag. 43, ed. Thiel, pp. 5067. Jews were banned from owning Christian slaves in
Italy by the end of the 6th century. The results of the bishops inquiry is lost. On asylumseeking and the Jews see Allen/Neil, Crisis Management, pp. 478 and notes.
32 Var. 4.43.
33 Lafferty, Law and Society, p. 32, n. 35.
Religious Diversity
509
other important ways. Another example drawn from the Gelasian corpus is
that of the vir clarissimus Telesinus. Gelasius wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of Antonius, a relative of Telesinus, to another bishop named
Quinigeius. In this letter Gelasius states that although Telesinus seems to be
Jewish, he has endeavoured to prove himself to us to such an extent that we
ought to rightly call him one of us.34 The Latin is ambiguous and the improbable relationship between a Roman bishop and a Jewish senator prompted
Andreas Thiel, the 19th-century editor of Gelasius letters, to interpret it as
an indication that Telesinus had converted to Christianity.35 This reading
is certainly conceivable although perhaps not definitive. Telesinus relative
Antonius, who is referred to by Gelasius as frater, most likely had converted
to Christianity.36 However, it is possible to read Gelasius statement about
Telesinus as a backhanded compliment (he only seemed to be Jewish). Without
additional evidence it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if
Telesinus was in fact a convert. Conversion was the most obvious way for Jews
to gain access to professions and patronage that might otherwise be unattainable. Antonius is an excellent example of this fact. On the other hand, the
existence of a Jew of senatorial rank is unusual although not unprecedented.37
There is epigraphic evidence from southern Italy for Jews holding municipal
offices in the Ostrogothic kingdom. An early 6th-century funerary inscription
in Latin and Hebrew from Venosa commemorates Faustina, granddaughter of
Vitus and Asellus who are described as maiores civitatis, leaders of the community, although it is unclear whether this was a term of general appreciation
rather than an indication that they held a particular office.38 Also from Venosa
we have a Latin and Hebrew epitaph from 521 for a certain Augusta, wife of
34 Gelasius frag. 45, ed. Thiel, p. 508. Vir clarissimus Telesinus, quamvis Judaicae credulitatis esse videbatur, talem se nobis approbare contendit, ut eum merito nostrum appellare
debeamus.
35 Thiel added as a subtitle to this letter, Judaeorum quemdam conversum probalae fidei et
integritatis episcopo commendat.
36 Gelasius frag. 45, ed. Thiel, p. 508. et ideo fratrem supradictum [sc. Antonius] voluntatis
nostrae mandatorumque respectu ita te habere convenit, ut non solum in nullo penitus
opprimatur, verum etiam in quo ei opus fuerit tuae se gaudeat dilectionis adiutum.
37 A vir clarissimus and comes named Cham is known from a funerary inscription from the
late 4th or early 5th century. See Chastagnol/Gag/Leglay/Pflaum, LAnne pigraphique,
p. 67. Ruggini, Ebrei e Orientali nellItalia, p. 225, n. 95.
38 Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, vol. 1, no. 86, pp. 11415 and commentary on pp. 11619. The history of this family, including their involvement in municipal politics and their gradual
acculturation is reconstructed from the epigraphic evidence in Williams, Jews of Early
Byzantine Venusia.
510
Cohen
Bonus, who is described as a vir laudabilis.39 The Anonymus Valesianus also

mentions a Symmachus Scholasticus who was a Jewish advisor to Theoderics
court, although Symmachus role is unclear.40
Burial practices in the late imperial and Ostrogothic periods also suggest
that expected boundaries between religious communities were not absolute.
Jews and Christians (and even pagans) in Italy and across the empire were
often buried side by side well into the early medieval period.41 It was precisely
the fact that Jews and Christians intermingled so mucheven in death!that
so vexed Christian commentators, prompting them to endeavour to enforce
stricter separation between the two faiths and to vilify Judaism in heresiological and anti-Jewish polemical writings.42

Arians and Arianism
The most obvious religious minority in Italy was of course the Ostrogoths
themselves. Theoderic and many of his followers were non-Nicene Christians,
generally described as adherents of Arianism, the 4th-century heresy named
for the Alexandrine presbyter Arius who preached that Christ was created by
and thus subordinate to God the Father. This understanding of Ostrogothic
religion is problematic. First, religion in Late Antiquity was not necessarily tied
to ethnic identity, an interpretation that ignores the complex mechanisms of
conversion and the often regional nature of religious belief and practice. The
example of Theoderics own mother Ereleuva, a convert to Catholicism (possibly from some form of paganism) is a clear indication that Theoderics own
heterodoxy (from the perspective of the Roman Church) was not n
ecessarily
39 Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, vol. 1, no. 107, pp. 1378 and commentary on pp. 13840. On
this inscription see also Volpe, Contadini, pastori e mercanti, pp.11213; Colafemmina,
Insediamenti e condizione degli Ebrei, p. 206.
40 Anon. Val. 94. Scholasticus likely designates a man of learning, but not necessarily a legal
advocate. See Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, eds. Jones/Martindale/Morris
(hereafter PLRE), vol. 2, Scholasticus 5.
41 Rutgers, Archaeological Evidence, pp. 10915; Rutgers, Interaction and Its Limits,
p. 255 for his conclusions on the Sicilian evidence. The latest find is a cemetery south
of Jerusalem, active between the 4th and 8th centuries that contain both Christian and
Jewish burials. Earlier Italian examples include somewhat ambiguous evidence from
Rome and its environs, Ostia, and Sicily (the latest dating from 597). See also Rebillard,
Conversion and Burial, p. 65.
42 Boyarin/Burrus, Hybridity, p. 432.
Religious Diversity
511
indicative of the faith of all of his followers.43 Moreover, as a number of recent

studies have noted, Arianism itself was not a single discrete religious phenomenon. Rather, it was an umbrella term applied by hostile orthodox polemicists
such as Athanasius and Ambrose to any position that conflicted with their
own Trinitarian theology.44 The pantheon of Arians, in the words of Ralph
Mathisen, is comprised of three groups: the Homoiousians who against the
Homoousiansthe position that emerged as orthodox and which claimed that
Christ was the same substance (homoousios) as the Fatherargued that Christ
was of a similar substance (homoiousios) to the Father; the Anomoeans who
contended that the Son was unlike (anomoios) the Father; and the Homoians
who rejected the usefulness of attempting to speak of the Godhead in terms of
ousios.45 Arian, then, was not an objective technical label; it was a polemical
term that emerged out of the 4th-century debate over the nature of the Trinity
that was not meant to describe but to delegitimize and exclude. When our
43 Ennodius, Panegyricus 42, ed. and trans. Rohr, p. 226 (hereafter Ennodius, Pan.), describes
Theoderics mother as sancta mater and she even exchanged letters with Gelasius. See
Gelasius, Epistulae Theodericianae Variae (hereafter ETV) ep. 5, ed. Mommsen; frag. 13,
ed. Thiel, p. 490. On her conversion, see Anon. Val., 58. Mater, Ereriliva dicta Gothica,
Catholica quidem erat, quae in baptism Eusebia dicta. If we can trust this account,
Ereleuva converted from paganism rather than non-Nicene Christianity given the various prohibitions against re-baptism in canon law. However, Amory argues the conversion was from Arianism, a possible but perhaps not demonstrable suggestion. See Amory,
People and Identity, pp. 2689, especially n. 138. Contra Amory, see Moorhead, Theoderic,
pp. 8990. The choice of the Greek name may well allude to Theoderics mothers
piety, but not to her confession prior to her conversion. A mix of Catholic and non-Nicene
Christianity seems to have been relatively typical among barbarian ruling families. The
Lombard queen Theodelinda was Catholic and not unlike Ereleuva and Gelasius, she
exchanged letters with Gregory the Great. Many of the women of the Burgundian royal
family (and some men including of course Sigismund) also appear to have been Catholic.
On the Burgundians see Heil, Avitus von Vienne und die homische Kirche der Burgunder,
pp. 4857.
44 On the role of Athanasius in particular in developing the dichotomy of orthodoxy
and Arianism see Lyman, Typography, pp. 568; Gwynn, Archaeology and the Arian
Controversy, pp. 2313; Gwynn, The Eusebians, pp. 1348. Arianism as an umbrella
term (Sammelbegriff) see Brennecke, Framing the Historical and Theological Problems,
p. 1.
45 For an overview of Arianism and the problems associated with this term (and the
so-called Arian Controversy) see Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine, passim, but
especially pp. xviixi; Lienhard, The Arian Controversy, pp. 41620; Ayres, Nicaea and
its Legacy, especially 10531; Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition. Mathisens formulation and a concise overview of the parties typically refered to as Arian can be found in
Mathisen, Barbarian Arian Clergy, pp. 1447.
512
Cohen
sources for the later phase of the Ostrogothic kingdom use Arian to describe
the religion of the Goths, they are making a heresiological rather than a historical statement about the supposed Gothic fidelity to the teachings of Arius.46
But Arianism was not merely a rhetorical construct. The discourse of heresiology could, especially through the application of law, create the very categories of disbelief it had been thought only to describe or explain.47 Indeed
the label Arian was eventually successfully applied to the Ostrogoths, but this
did not occur until the last years of Theoderics reign and after. In contrast,
our Italian Nicene sources for the early phase of kingdom conspicuously avoid
using the term to describe the religion of the Ostrogoths. For instance, in the
surviving correspondence of Gelasius neither Arian nor Arianism was ever
applied to the Ostrogoths.48 Instead, Gelasius describes the religion of the
Gothic comes Teia as an alter communio, a neutral phrase that discriminates
between the Catholic Church and that of the Goths, but avoids condemning
the Gothic faith as heretical.49 Similarly, Theoderic complaining that he did
not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of the church during the Laurentian/
Symmachian schism, referred to the faith of the Roman Church as vestra religio.50
And despite his protestations to the contrary, Theoderic did play a crucial role
in deciding the outcome of the schism. According to the account preserved in
the Liber Pontificalis, the partisans of Symmachus and Laurence, both of whom
had been elected to the episcopacy of Rome, agreed that the Ostrogothic king
would adjudicate their claims.51 Aliena religio, a comparable expression to
46 On the problematic relationship between the teachings of Arius and those of Ulfila, for
example, see Heather/Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century, pp. 35141, Schferdiek,
Ulfila Und Der Sogenannte Gotische Arianismus, 223.
47 Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts, pp. 2412. I would like to thank Robin Whelan for his
comments on this section.
48 For Gelasius, Arian and Arianism were epithets not applied to the Goths, but rather
to the supporters of the Henotikon in the context of the ongoing Acacian schism. For
what follows and in particular on Gelasius views of Arianism and the religion of the
Ostrogoths see the discussion in Cohen, Heresy, Authority, pp. 187211.
49 Gelasius, ETV ep. 2, ed. Mommsen, pp. 38792. PLRE, vol. 2, Teia 2. Also Amory, People
and Identity, p. 420: TEIA/ZEIA. He is described as a vir sublisimus, comes, possibly the
comes civitatis of Volaterra and/or the Gothic commander of the garrison there. Volaterra/
Volaterana is today Volterra in eastern Tuscany.
50 The phrase is contained in Theoderics letter preserved as the Anagnosticum regis = Acta
Synhodorum habitae Romae 5, ed. T. Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, auctores antiquissimi, Berlin 1894, vol. 12, pp. 4256.
51 Liber Pontificalis (hereafter LP), ed. Duchesne, vol. I, p. 255. Theoderic played an ongoing
role in the schism, at first supporting Symmachus candidacy for bishop of Rome, then
withdrawing this support, only to ultimately rule again in favour of Symmachus. However
Religious Diversity
513
that of Gelasius and Theoderic, is later used by Athalaric (or by Cassiodorus

in Athalarics name) to describe Nicene Christianity in a speech given after
August 526 to the Roman Senate in which the new king praised the senators
for accepting Felix IV (52630) who had been appointed bishop of Rome by
Theoderic.52 Clearly Gelasius, Theoderic, and Athalaric distinguished the
Roman Church from that of the Ostrogoths. But the careful language used
to describe one another suggests that at least for these three men, Nicene
Christianity and the faith of the Goths were not irreconcilably antithetical, but
rather represented two possible positions on a range of acceptable beliefs. At a
minimum it seems clear that during the first decades of Ostrogothic rule in Italy
both the Roman Church and the Ostrogothic leadership were keen to downplay their religious differences.53 Indeed despite Gelasius above-mentioned
suggestion that Teia was something other than Nicene, in a second letter to
the same Gothic count the bishop of Rome appealed to Teias responsibility
as a Christian to protect those who serve God (in this case Nicene clerics).54
Elsewhere, Gelasius appears to evoke Theoderics sense of membership in the
wider Christian community by appealing to the piety of his Christian mind.55
Of course Gelasius was dealing with Theoderics regime from a position of
weakness and it would not have been advisable for the bishop of Rome or anyone else in Italy after 493 to openly condemn the Ostrogoths for their supposed
heretical beliefs. Moreover, Romes attention was focused on the ongoing and
bitter dispute with Constantinople over the question of the Henotikon that
would last until 519. Nonetheless, it is significant that the ecumenical language
Noble, Theoderic and the Papacy, p. 407 suggests that Theoderic did his best to avoid
interference in Roman episcopal politics. For an overview of the schism see, for example, Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 11445; Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rom, pp. 940; Sardella,
Societ, Chiesa e Stato, pp. 739, and most recently, Cohen, Schism and the Polemic of
Heresy, pp. 198205. For a chronology of the sources for the early years of the schism see
Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rom, pp. 216.
52 Var. 8.15.
53 On the attitude of the Roman Church towards the Ostrogoths before the end of the
Acacian schism, see Amory People and Identity, pp. 20616.
54 Gelasius, ep. 24, ed. Thiel, pp. 3901. Christianis gratum semper debet esse, quod ab
eorum poscitur dignitate praestandum, quia Deo servientibus beneficium negare non
convenit.
55 Gelasius, ETV ep. 1, ed. Mommsen. Christianae mentis vestrae pietate confisus virum
spectabilem Constantium credidi vobis meis litteris intimandum, utpote qui pro quolibet
homine supplicare sacerdotalis officii ratione convenior. See letters to the comes Teia:
ETV, ep. 2, 4: ad domnum filium meum regem... To Theoderics mother: ETV epp. 4, 5:
domno filio meo, magnifico regi illudentes; ...domno filio excellentissimo regi...
514
Cohen
used in Gelasius letters to members of the Ostrogothic regime persists in his

correspondence with other Catholic bishops.56
Similarly, Theoderics heterodoxy does not seem to have troubled the two
most famous supporters of the Ostrogothic regime: the Italian Catholics
Ennodius and Cassiodorus. Ennodius writings in particular often use specifically Christian imagery to describe the king. The Vita Epiphanii, for example,
portrays Theoderic as a pious and just Christian ruler comparable to King
David (whom Theoderic surpasses).57 Throughout the text Theoderic treats
Epiphanius with admiration and reverence while Theoderics rule is described
as divinely sanctioned. The king even cites scripture in his conversation with
Epiphanius.58 In short, Theoderic is depicted as a good Christian ruler. Ennodius
also penned his famous panegyric for Theoderic in early 507, and even in his
private correspondence he praises the king. Nowhere does Ennodius call
Theoderic an Arian.59 Nor was the faith of the Goths seen as problematic for
Cassiodorus, author of the Variae written on behalf of the Ostrogothic regime
and as a chronicle and a history of the Goths. The chronicle in particular was
carefully crafted to present the Goths in the best possible light, for instance by
shrewdly substituting the ecumenical term christiana for catholica when the
author thought it prudent to do so.60 Even texts from slightly further afield
such as the vita of Caesarius of Arles portray Theoderic as a wise and pious
king.61 This positive view of Theoderic and his regime is also echoed by other
members of Romes Christian elite, although it must be said that public decla56 E.g. Gelasius frag. 13, ed. Thiel, p. 490 to Quinigesius and Constantinus: ad comitatum
filii mei regis...vir praecellentissimus filius meus Theodericus rex...; frag. 11, ed. Thiel,
p. 489 to bishops Gerontius and John, ad comitatum domini filii nostri [sc. Theoderic]...
57 Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii (hereafter VE) 144, ed. and trans. Cook. See also the discussion in Cesas Italian edition of the VE, p. 157. On the Vita Epiphanii and its depiction of
Theoderic as a Christian (and Roman) ruler see Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial
58 In recounting Epiphanius embassy to Theoderic, which sought the restoration of legal
privileges for the former partisans of the now-deposed Odovacer, the saint appeals
directly to the kings sense of himself as a Christian. Theoderic responded by pointing
to Sauls failure to exterminate the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15) before ultimately agreeing to
Epiphanius petition. Ennodius, VE 12535, pp. 827.
59 See also Ennodius letter to Caesarius of Arles (not Symmachus, as Vogel thought), ep.
9.30, 10 (op. 458), ed. Vogel, pp. 31819. On the addressee of this letter see Amory, People
and Identity, p. 206, n. 52.
60 For example, Cassiodorus Chronica, a. 380, ed. Mommsen, p. 153 renames Ambrose
pro catholica fide, as the work is called in Prospers chronicle, to de christiania fide. See
ODonnell, Cassiodorus, pp. 3643, especially pp. 389.
61 Vita Caesarii I. 36, ed. and trans. Bona, pp. 1025.
Religious Diversity
515
rations of support for a militarily dominant strong-man, however enlightened

he may have been, should be taken with a large grain of salt.62
Of course we would not expect a condemnation of Theoderics faith (or any
aspect of his rule) from men deeply implicated in the regime (especially in a
panegyric as in the case of Ennodius).63 But what is so fascinating about the
examples of Gelasius, Cassiodorus, Ennodius, and the authors of Vita Caesarii
is that these men were not tolerant of Arianism. In fact various examples
from their writings show them to have been resolutely hostile to this archetypal heresy.64 Gelasius in particular specifically condemned Arianism in
a number of his letters and tractates,65 and the Liber Pontificalis also claims
that Gelasius composed duos libros aduersus Arrium.66 Cassiodorus likewise
attacked the lunatic rashness of the Arians in his Expositio Psalmorum.67 All
of these authors, writing during the first decades of Theoderics rule, clearly
distinguished between the heresy of Arianisma flexible and pejorative heresiological categoryand the faith of the Ostrogoths.
There was precedent for such a distinction. Not unlike the example of
Judaism discussed above, a certain form of non-Nicene Christianity enjoyed
limited protection in late Roman society. In a western law of 386 promulgated
62 For example, Theoderic is acclaimed thirty times by the attendees of the Roman synod of
499: Exaudi Christe! Theoderico Vitam! See Acta synhodorum habitarum Romae, ed.
Mommsen, p. 405.
63 Ennodius, Panegyricus, ed. Rohr, p. 18. It should be noted that panegyric appears not to
have been officially commissioned by the Ostrogothic regime and there is no consensus
as to whether it was ever in fact recited to the king (or what he would have made of it).
Rohrs view that it was given in Rome is based on a misreading of Pan. 22. For the misreading see Schrder, Ein falsches Argument and in general: Arnold, Theoderic and the
Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 326 and especially n. 108 and 109.
64 Archetypal heresy is a phrase borrowed from the Maurice F. Wiles book of that name.
65 Gelasius condemnations of Arianism are in every case directly linked to the Acacian
schism, not the religion of the Ostrogoths. See Cohen, Heresy, Authority, pp. 1924.
66 LP, ed. Duchesne, vol. I, p. 255. These books are not mentioned in any other ancient
source according to Duchesne p. 257, n. 14. If these works were actually written, they do
not survive.
67 Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum 54.20, ed. P.G. Walsh, Explanation of the Psalms, 3 vols.,
New York 1990. Ennodius, VE 92, pp. 689 has Epiphanius of Pavia refrain from dining
with the Visigothic king Euric for fear of being polluted by his priests, although they are
not called Arian. And as noted above, the authors of the Vita Caesarii describe the saint
as redeeming hostages to ensure that Christians who had lost their freedom would not
become perhaps an Arian or a Jew.
516
Cohen
by Valentinian II68 the emperor differentiated Homoianism, as represented by

the Creed of Rimini (359), from the other proscribed versions of non-Nicene
Christianity.69 The inclusion of this law in the Theodosian Code suggests that
it was still valid more than half a century after its initial promulgation and
that it was meant to remain in effect for the foreseeable future.70 Perhaps as a
result of the protection they received under the law, a number of non-Nicene
communities existed in Italy prior to the Ostrogothic conquest, although it is
difficult to reconstruct the degree to which they survived, especially during
the second half of the 5th century.71 There is also evidence of Latin-speaking
Homoian communities in Illyricum on the Dalmatian coast and in parts of
Pannonia.72 None of these communities would have identified themselves as
68 The law is in the names of Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius; however Humfress
characterizes this law as a deliberate attack by Valentinian against Theodosius definition of orthodoxy which established an inclusive rather than exclusive definition of
orthodoxy. Humfress, Law and Orthodoxy, p. 146.
69 The Council of Rimini (Ariminum) took place in 359. The creeds promulgated at Rimini
and at the parallel Council at Seleucia, and finally in Constantinople in 360 state that Jesus
was like the Father (homoios) as the divine Scriptures teach. The Creed of Ariminum/
Rimini is preserved in Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.21. The creed accepted at
Constantinople can be found in Athanasius, De Synodis 30, translated in Kelly, Early
Christian Creeds, p. 293.
70 CT 16.1.4.
71 The important study by Zeiller remains worthwhile: tude sur larianisme, especially
pp. 12836, on the non-Nicene Church in Italy and the Ostrogoths. Many non-Nicene
churches such as those known for Milan and Aquileia, were 4th-century foundations and
it is difficult to trace their existence into the second half of the 5th century. Possible 5thcentury non-Nicene churches have been detected (largely in literary sources) in Naples,
Grado, and Spoleto. See Cecchelli, Larianesimo, pp. 7579, 76173; Cecchelli/Bertelli,
Edifici, pp. 2358. Textual evidence for the communities is largely limited to the later 4th
and 5th centuries and includes the Collectio Veronensis, so-called Arian scholia edited by
Gryson, the Anonymi in Iob Commentarius and the opus imperfectum in Matthaeum. For
scholia see: Scripta Arriana Latina: Collectio Veronensis, Scholia in Concilium Aquileiense,
Fragmenta in Lucam rescripta, Fragmenta theologica rescripta, Volume 1, ed. R. Gryson,
Turnhout 1982. A list of so-called Arian Latin sources can be found in the Dekkers, Clavis
Patrum Latinorum, pp. 680708.
72 Meslin, Les Ariens, pp. 5999. Whether or not 5th- and 6th-century Italy, together with the
Balkans, was an Arian stronghold as claimed by Patrick Amory can be debated. However
it does seem likely that an indigenous non-Nicene Christianity remained part of the religious landscape long after its supposed defeat by Ambrose of Milan at the Council of
Aquileia (381).
Religious Diversity
517
Arians.73 However the original intent of this law was almost certainly to provide legal sanction for the faith of many of the foederati who were important
members of the Roman army.74 Indeed in the second half of the 5th century
Italy was dominated by the non-Nicene magister militum Ricimer (died 472)
and his successor Gundobad.75 Ricimer in particular is thought to have patronized the Homoian Church and was likely responsible for the decoration of
Saint Agatha in Rome.76 Yet our textual evidence is silent on the supposed religious deviance of these two men. Ennodius Vita Epiphanii omits any mention
of Ricimers faith.77 This same text also presents relatively positive portraits
of both Odovacer and Gundobad.78 Indeed Odovacer managed to rule Italy
with little comment about his religion for thirteen years. He is not called an
Arian by Eugippius in his Life of St Severinus, a text written around 511 in which
73 Palladius of Ratiara, for example, who was deposed by Ambrose in 381, denied any formal
connections to Arius. Like many bishops at this time, Palladius opposed the term homoousios on the grounds that it was not scriptural. On Palladius rejection of the term Arian
see Barnes/Williams, Introduction, p. xv, n. 7.
74 Mathisen, Ricimers Church, p. 310; Gwynn, Archaeology and the Arian Controversy,
pp. 2589; Heather, Goths and Romans, pp. 1824.
75 PLRE, vol. 2: Flavius Ricimer 2. PLRE, vol. 2: Gundobadus 1. According to Gregory of Tours,
libri historiarum X, 2.32, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum, Hannover 1951, vol. 1.1, p. 78, Gundobad (and the people) were Arians. Avitus of Vienne may well have convinced Gundobad to convert to
Catholicism after he assumed the kingship of the Burgundians, although he refused to
confess his new faith in public. His son and successor Sigismund, on the other hand, was
a professed Catholic. For the context of Gundobads rule see Heil, Avitus von Vienne und
die homische Kirche der Burgunder, pp. 1523.
76 Ricimer decorated the church (today, SantAgata dei Goti) with mosaics and the ILS
(inscriptiones latinae selectae) 1294, preserves the inscription: Fl. Ricimer v.i. magister
utriusque militae patricius et ex cons. ord. pro voto suo adornavit. Ward-Perkins, noting epigraphical evidence from the Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae (vol. 2, p. 438,
no. 127 = Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres 1637) states that Ricimer not only decorated but actually built the Arian church of S. Agata dei Goti (459/70). Ward-Perkins,
Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages, appendix 2, p. 240. On St Agatha see also Zeiller,
Les Eglises ariennes, pp. 1923. St Agatha was re-dedicated to Nicene Christianity by
Gregory the Great in 591 or 592. See Gregory the Great, Dialogi 3.30, ed. A. de Vog,
Sources Chrtiennes, Paris 197880, vols. 251, 255, 265.
77 Ennodius does not, however, hesitate to have a group of Ligurian nobles derisibly call
Anthemius, the Western Roman Emperor who had been appointed by Leo I, graeculus.
See Ennodius, VE 54, pp. 523.
78 Odovacer: Ennodius, VE 101, pp. 723; Gundobad: VE 15267, pp. 93101.
518
Cohen
Odovacer comes off rather well.79 His religion, like that of Ricimer before him
and Theoderic after, had been an unremarkable part of the Italian religious
landscape for more than a century. A similar situation existed in the eastern
half of the empire. The supposed Arianism of Aspar and his son Ardabur was
at least grudgingly accepted in Constantinople at the same time Theoderic
himself was likely in the eastern capital as a hostage.80
But what of the Ostrogoths faith and their church? The exact nature of
Ostrogothic theology and ecclesiology is perhaps irrecoverable due to the
poor state of our available evidence.81 But some conclusions are possible. The
Ravenna papyri reveal the presence of a sizeable non-Nicene clergy in the city
during the Ostrogothic periodsixteen of whom were still in the service of
the Gothic cathedral dedicated to the Anastasis (or possibly to St Anastasias)
as late as 551that is, long after the glory days of the Ostrogothic kingdom had
passed into history.82 As the capital of Theoderics kingdom in earlier decades,
Ravenna had become a centre of non-Nicene church building. According to
the testimony of Agnellus of Ravenna, the city had two episcopal palaces
(episcopia) and at least six Gothorum ecclesiae, two of whichthe palatine
church (today SantApollinare Nuovo) built next to Theoderics palace complex and the above-mentioned Gothic cathedralare still standing today,
together with the famous Arian Baptistery, which was originally part of the
cathedral complex.83 There is nothing particularly Gothic or Arian about any
79 Eugippius, Vita Sancti Severini 7.22, ed. R. Noll/E. Vetter, Berlin 1963. See also Anon. Val.
45, which cites the Vita of Severinus. Interestingly, Gelasius, ep. 26, ed. Thiel, p. 409 calls
Odovacer a barbarus hereticus in a letter to the bishops of Dardania in 495. Presumably it
was safe (and even politically advisable) to denigrate the previous regime once Theoderic
had established himself in Italy. Hereticus here is plainly a polemical term, not an accurate description of Odovacers beliefs. This is a good example that one could become a
heretic when political circumstances shifted.
80 And like Theoderic in Italy, the Ardaburs were often called upon to intervene in the affairs
of the Orthodox Church in Constantinople. See Snee, Gregory Nazianzen, pp. 1801. On
Theoderic in Constantinople see Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 1314.
81 Brown, Role of Arianism, p. 417 has a rather more positive opinion of our available
evidence.
82 On the dedication see Deichmann, Ravenna, pp. 3013 (to St Anastasius); to the Anastasis
(that is, the resurrection of Christ) Johnson, Toward a History of Theoderics Building
Program, pp. 7980. Clergy: Tjder, Die lateinischen Papyri, pp. 98104.
83 Episcopia: Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis 70, ed. O. HolderEgger, p. 326. On the non-Nicene churches of Ravenna and their later suppression see
Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis 8592, ed. O. Holder-Egger,
pp. 3346. They are also described in detail by Johnson, Toward a History of Theoderics
Building Program, pp. 7980 and especially by Deliyannis, Ravenna, pp. 14387.
Religious Diversity
519
of the surviving buildings (the fact that they were easily converted for use by
the orthodox is suggestive), although specialists have discerned subtle hints
of their heterodox origins in their iconographic programmesfaint echoes of
non-Nicene Christianity in tesserae. Yet what is striking is not the radical difference between orthodox and Arian iconography but its similarity.84 The Arian
Baptistery itself was built in direct imitation of its orthodox counterpart and
the baptismal rites that would have been practised there in the Ostrogothic
period were also, as far as we can tell, practically identical to those of the
orthodox.85 Indeed in Italy as well as in North Africa and elsewhere there are
simply no detectable differences between Arian and Nicene church construction whatsoever.86 The fact that Arians and Catholics were happy enough
to take over each others buildings, often leaving the decorative programmes
largely intact, also suggests that there was no fundamental incompatibility, at
least architecturally and artistically, between the two churches.87 On the other
hand, language may have distinguished the eccelsia of the Goths from that of
the Catholics. Theoderics church could have used the vernacular (Gothic)
although a number of Gothic writers also wrote in Latin. There may have also
been differences in the liturgical calendar of the Gothic church as well.88
The ascension of Justin I, the end of the Acacian schism in 519, and the eventual rise to power of Justinian signal a shift in Catholic attitudes to Gothic heterodoxy (and possibly of Theoderics attitude towards the organized Catholic
establishment in Italy). As Brian Croke highlighted almost thirty years ago, it
was only in the second and third decades of the 6th century that it became
obvious to Romans in the east that a Gothic kingdom was not part of the
Roman Empire, and so agitation began for unification once more under a
Roman emperor.89 Anti-Arianism and the defence of orthodoxy emerged as
key elements of Justinians renovatio ideology, which was in turn mobilized to
justify and endorse his attempts to conquer Africa and Italy. In sharp contrast
to the writings of Gelasius, Cassiodorus, and Ennodius referred to above in the
84 Ward-Perkins, Archaeology and Iconography, p. 271 states that despite subtle stylistic
differences, the underlying iconography in the Arian and Catholic baptisteries are identical. See also Bockmann, Non-Archeology of Arianism, pp. 21012.
85 Wood, Merely an Ideology?, pp. 2501; Deliyannis, Ravenna, pp. 1789.
86 Bockmann, Non-Archeology of Arianism, p. 217.
87 Ward-Perkins, Archaeology and Iconography, p. 267.
88 Berndt/Steinacher, The ecclesia legis Gothorum and the Role of Arianism in Ostorogothic
Italy, pp. 2257.
89 Croke, A.D. 476, p. 86.
520
Cohen
520s and 530s and after it became increasingly common for authors to equate
Arriani and Gothi.
The growing tendency to view Theoderics regime as both politically and
religiously problematic during this period helps explain the discrepant depictions of Ostrogothic Arianism in our later sources. For instance the vitae of earlier Roman bishops in the Liber Pontificalis such as Felix III (48392), Gelasius
(4926), Anastasius II (4968), Symmachus (498514), and Hormisdas (514
23) refer to Theoderic merely as rex.90 But an increasingly critical tone can be
detected after the biography of Hormisdas, the Roman bishop who negotiated
the end of the Acacian schism. In the biography of John I (5236) Theoderic
is described as the heretic king who wished to put all of Italy to the sword.
Moreover, the Liber Pontificalis suggested Theoderic was responsible for Johns
deatha fact which contributed to the Gothic kings own death shortly
thereafter.91 But the most obvious contrast in the depiction of the Ostrogothic
religion can be seen in the Anonymus Valesianus. The source is problematic, not
least because it presents two radically different views of Theoderics regime.92
On the one hand, this source famously states that Theoderic so governed
two peoples at the same time (duas gentes in uno), Romans and Goths, that
although he himself was of the Arian sect, he nevertheless made no assault
against the Catholic religion.93 The Anonymus also states that during his visit
to Rome in 500 the king worshiped at St Peters ac si catholicus.94 However,
later in the same text Theoderic is said to have ordered the takeover of all
Catholic churches by the Arriani (with the help of the Jew Symmachus)an
act which seems to have prompted a divine intervention with the result that
Theoderic died ignominiously on the privy in the same way as Arius himself.95
These sources represent an obvious change in the way Theoderic and his
faith were perceivedno longer as an alter communio but as Arriani. In the
end it was not the Catholic churches of Italy that were seized by heretical barbarians, it was the Homoian churches that were appropriated by the Catholics.
90 Theoderic is also called a heretic in the epitomes of the vita Symmachi.
91 LP, ed. Duchesne, vol. I. p. 275. Pro hanc causam hereticus rex Theodericus audiens hoc
exarsit et uoluit totam Italiam ad gladium extinguere.
92 The two perspectives are so different that some scholars have proposed that the work was
in fact a compilation of two different texts: one in support of Theoderic and the other
deeply opposed to the Ostrogothic king. On the debates surrounding the Anonymus and
its authorship, see Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 656 and
notes 223.
93 Anon. Val. 60.
94 Anon. Val. 65.
95 Anon. Val. 945. See also Barnish, Anonymus Valesianus II.
Religious Diversity
521
In 551, over a decade after Belisarius had recaptured Ravenna from the Goths,
the indebted clergy of the Gothic cathedral in that city sold some marshland
to a defensor named Peter, likely a Catholic clergyman.96 This particular sale
represents the last written record of a non-Nicene Gothic church in Ravenna.
That the Gothic cathedral was forced to sell its property in order to pay its
debts is an obvious indication that it was in deep financial distress.97 And
when Justinians general Narses completed the conquest of Italy in 554, it was
only a matter of time before the non-Nicene churches would be suppressed in
territories controlled by the empire.98 But even in its final days, there are hints
that the divisions between the two churches were not as definite as we might
expect. The ecclesia legis Gothorum, as the Gothic cathedral is described in the
Ravenna papyri, was in fact repaying a debt it had taken from Peter sixteen years
earlythat is, in 535 at the beginning of the conflict with the east. Despite the
rising tensions a Gothic church could (and did) borrow from Catholics, and
after years of conflict, which devastated Italy, the loan was repaid.

Pagans, Pelagians, and Manicheans
As we have already seen in the case of Ostrogothic Arianism, the categories

of heresy and orthodoxy were not always clearly defined nor do they represent distinct and self-contained groups engaged in inevitable theological
conflict with each other. This same view can be extended to our references
to the remnants of traditional Roman polytheism in Ostrogothic Italy. Once
we set aside essentializing definitions for religious identities that emerged
in explicitly polemical contexts, the divide between paganism (the word
itself was a convenient term invented by Christians to describe and denigrate a wide range of beliefs and practices) and Christianity no longer seems
absolute.99 For instance, traditional rituals and practices could continue in a
Christian context, although often stripped of any particular pagan religious
96 Tjder, Die lateinischen Papyri, pp. 98104. Peter (Petrus) as a Catholic: Tjder, p. 93 and
Scardigli, Sprache und Kultur, pp. 2823.
97 On the potential value of this marshland see Squatriti, Marshes and Mentalities, pp. 103.
98 This occurred after 565. On the date of the suppression of the Arian Church see
Deliyannis, Ravenna, p. 146 and n. 42.
99 On the invention of the term paganism and for an overview of the traditions and practices it is meant to cover see Fowden, Late Polytheism: the World-view, p. 521; Bowersock,
Hellenism in Late Antiquity, pp. 56. The distortion caused by emphasizing conflict
between Christians and Pagans, heretics and the orthodox, is succinctly addressed in
Sandwell, Religious Identity, p. 10; Lyman, Hellenism and Heresy, especially pp. 20911.
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 supporters, especially a certain Andromachus.101 Neil Mclynn has argued that the
celebration of the Lupercalia at the end of the 5th century was not indicative of a revival of classical pagan traditions. Rather it represents a species of
euergetisman opportunity for rich aristocrats such as Andromachus and the
other members of Romes 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 kings efforts to renovate and restore
Rome.102 Although our references to the Lupercalia do not seem to represent
a kind of paganChristian syncretism, it is nonetheless interesting that this
festival, even if devoid of its original religious significance, was still celebrated
by Romes Christians (with the support of the citys 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, allowing 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. 598607. 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
lonien, ed. G. Pomars, Sources chrtiennes Paris 1959, vol. 65; Holleman, Pope Gelasius
I and the Lupercalia; Ullmann, Gelasius, pp. 25254. However McLynns analysis is by far
the best and the earlier works should be read with caution. See especially Crying Wolf,
pp. 1656 (contra Holleman), and the conclusions at pp. 1725.
104 Frankfurter, Beyond Magic; Dickie, Magic and Magicians, pp. 273321. On the denunciation of magical practices see Flint, Demonization of Magic; Harl, La dnonciation des
festivits profanes.
105 Gelasius, frag. 16, ed. Thiel, p. 492.
Religious Diversity
523
polemical and formulaic nature of his condemnations make an analysis of

rural religion in southern Ostrogothic-controlled Gaul problematic.106
More troubling for orthodox authorities in the Ostrogothic kingdom was the
presence of Christian heretics, especially Pelagianism. Gelasius wrote a long
tractate condemning the heresy, adversus Pelagiam haeresim,107 as well as a
number of letters to bishops in Picenum on the north-east coast of Italy and
Dalmatia, the province opposite Picenum on the east coast of the Adriatic Sea.
From Gelasius perspective, the appearance of Pelagianism reflected serious
failures of these local churches to enforce disciplinefailures that prompted
Romes direct intervention. And at least in the case of Picenum, the spread of
heretical ideas was exacerbated by the barbarianshere likely a reference to
the conflict between Odovacer and Theoderic that had caused devastation in
northern Italy.108 To Honorius of Dalmatia Gelasius chastised the bishop for
failing to properly watch over his clergy and flocka failure that permitted the
recurring weed of Pelagianism (recidiva Pelagianae pestis zizania) to resurface
even after its repeated condemnation by the bishops of Rome.109 In a slightly
different context the Pelagian controversy also troubled Hormisdas in 51920
when John Maxentius and his Scythian monks, then residing at Rome, together
with their North African supporters including Fulgentius of Ruspe attempted
to have the teachings of Faustus of Riez condemned as Pelagian. Hormisdas
was less than impressed.110
In addition to Pelagianism 6th-century Italian sources also refer the heresy of Manichaeism. The Liber Pontificalis reports that Gelasius, Symmachus,
and Hormisdas discovered Manicheans in Rome, and all three bishops are said
to have burned Manichean books and to have sent the heretics themselves
into exile.111 But in Late Antiquity Manicheanism, like Arianism, was used by
orthodox polemicists in an increasingly abstract and epithetical manner.112 For
example, Symmachus himself is called a Manichean by Emperor Anastasius
and Roman bishops including Symmachus commonly compared their
106 Klingshirn, Caearius of Arles, pp. 20910.
107 Gelasius, tractatus adversus Pelagiam haeresim, ed. Thiel, tract. 5, pp. 57198.
108 Gelasius, ep. 6.1, ed. Thiel, pp. 32535. sed quantum inter ipsa recentium calamitatum
ferventia pericula comperimus, perniciosiorem diabolus Christianorum mentibus labem,
quam corporibus hostilis feritas, irrogavit.
109 Gelasius, ep. 4.1,3, ed. Thiel, pp. 3213.
110 Hormasdas, ep. 124, ed. Thiel, pp. 92631.
111 L P, ed. Duchesne, vol. 1, pp. 2701.
112 Despite the tendency among orthodox polemicists to describe Manicheanism as monolithic, the nature of the Manichean religion, especially in North Africa, was fluid. See, for
instance, Lim, Unity and Diversity and Nomen Manichaeorum.
524
Cohen
o pponents in the Acacian schism to the Manichean wickedness.113 Given the

rhetorical use of the accusation of Manicheanism the references to this sect in
the biographies of Gelasius, Symmachus, and Hormisdas may well owe more
to the circumstances in which the Liber Pontificalis was composed, especially
in the context of the Acacian and Laurentian schisms, than any particular
anti-Manichean campaign initiated by these bishops.114 Nevertheless, it is true
that Gelasius warned new bishops not to ordain Africans without deliberation
(nulla ratione), since some of them were known to be Manicheans while others were re-baptized.115 In another letter Gelasius also reported that he had
learned that congregants of the church of Squillace (Scyllaceum in Calabria)
had refused to participate in the Eucharist, an accusation that echoes those
made by Leo the Great and Augustine against the Manicheans.116 However, the
particular superstitio in Squillace is not named.
Roman bishops concern for heresyespecially Pelagianism and
Manichaeismwas of course theological and soteriological. But it was also
connected to anxieties over private religious practices that took place outside the supervision of the church.117 This was especially true in the case of
Pelagianism, which had long associations with domestic religiosity, asceticism,
113 The accusation against Symmachus can be inferred from his response to the emperor
written in 506. Symmachus, ep. 10, ed. Thiel, pp. 7008. Christological error as Manichean
wickedness, for example in Symmachus, ep. 13.6, ed. Thiel, pp. 71722. Declinemus sacrilegum Eutychetis errorem cum Manichaea malitia congruentem.
114 As I argue in Cohen, Schism and the Polemic of Heresy.
115 Gelasius, ep. 15, ed. Thiel, pp. 37980. Manicheanism and Donatism (presumably the target of the reference to re-baptism) were both associated with Africa. Interestingly almost
100 years after Gelasius letter, Gregory the Great wrote to the bishop of Squillace with the
same warning, using almost identical phrasing. It is difficult to imagine that Donatists
and Manicheanism continued to trouble Italian bishops at the dawn of the 7th century.
See Gregory the Great, ep. 2.37, ed. D. Norberg, S. Gregorii Magni Registrum epistularum,
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina vols. 140, 140a, Turnhout 1982.
116 Gelasius, ep. 37, ed. Thiel, pp. 4502. Leo, tr. 42.5, ed. A. Chavasse, Leo Magnus Tractatus,
Turnhout 1973, pp. 23850. Augustine, de haeresibus 46.11, eds. R. Van der Plaetse/
C. Beukers, Sancti Aurelii Augustini De haeresibus, Turnhout 1969, p. 316 explains that
the Manicheans avoid wine because its bitterness is a property of the prince of darkness: Nam et uinum non bibunt, dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum, cum uescantur uuis. On the Manichean refusal to drink wine, see Grillmeier, Verweigerung der
Kelchkommunion durch rmische Manicher unter Papst Leo I, pp. 15161.
117 Late antique episcopal opposition to estate-based worship was often closely tied to
broader questions of discipline and heresy. See, for example, Bowes, Christianization
and the Rural Home, pp. 15560 and Private Worship, Public Values, p. 102. Christian
Roman emperors had consistently legislated against private meetings of the heretics,
Religious Diversity
525
and the aristocracy.118 Indeed the leaders of the late antique Italian church
were intensely aware that domestic religious practice, especially in elite households, helped generate and preserve a model of Christian religiosity that often
complemented but potentially diverged from the model of public worship controlled by bishops.119 The home could also provide a space for the propagation
of teachings or practices that were considered outside the accepted norm.120
Thus it should not be surprising that in the later 5th and 6th centuries, Roman
bishops made a concerted attempt to more strictly regulate private religious
foundations in Italia Suburbicaria.121 This was certainly part of a wider process
of professionalization and bureaucratization of the Roman Church that was
underway in the Ostrogothic period.122 But interest and intervention in private
religious foundations also served to demonstrate the authority of Romes bishops through their expertise in household management.123 It is perhaps possible that the threat of heresies such as Pelagianism provided an additional
ideological justification for more clearly delineating the relationships between
the bishop of Rome and Italian villa churches.124
Conclusion
The use of heresiological categories to describe the religious landscape of Italy
under the Ostrogoths creates an image of a world dominated by a radical division between heretics and orthodox Italians. But if we set this view aside, we
are left with a far messier but perhaps more interesting religious landscape
that includes Jews as well as non-Nicene Christians and other non-conforming
religious groups, all of whom from the perspective of the Nicene church occupied different positions on the spectrum of acceptable belief. Moreover, the
boundaries dividing these different communities may not have been as rigidly enforced in practice as we might imagine, and the question of identity,
especially the Donatists, Manicheans, and Arians, but also others. For representative
examples from the Theodosian Code see Maier, Religious Dissent, p. 60, n. 8.
118 Brown, Pelagius and his Supporters; Brown, Patrons of Pelagius.
119 Sessa, Christianity and the Cubiculum.
120 Maier, Topography of Heresy, pp. 2413; Religious Dissent, pp. 556.
121 Not always successfully. See Pietri, vergtisme chrtien et fondations prives.
122 Pietri, Christiana respublica, pp. 148294; Marazzi, I Patrimonia, pp. 6579.
124 Cohen, Heresy, Authority, pp. 14750.
526
Cohen
especially Ostrogothic identity, is at a minimum complicated by the diverse, at

times contested, but never isolated nature of religion in Late Antiquity.
Bibliography

Primary Sources
Acta Synhodorum habitae Romae A. CCCCXCVIIII. DI. DII, ed. T. Mommsen (Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12) Berlin 1892, pp. 392455.
Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. O. Holder-Egger,
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et
Italicarum saec. VIIX), Hannover 1878, pp. 265391; ed. and trans. D.M. Deliyannis,
The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna, Washington 2004.
Anonymi Valesiani pars posterior, ed. T. Mommsen (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Auctores Antiquissimi 9), Berlin 1892, pp. 30628; trans., J.C. Rolfe, Ammianus
Marcellinus: Res Gestae, vol. 3, Cambridge, MA 1939, pp. 53169.
Codex Theodosianus, eds. T. Mommsen/P. Meyer, Berlin 1905.
Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445700, vol. 2., ed.
J.O. Tjder, Lund 1955.
Ennodius, Opera, ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera (Monumenta Germaniae
, Panegyricus dictus clementissimo rege Theoderico, ed. and trans. C. Rohr,
Der Theoderich-Panegyricus des Ennodius (Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Studien, Hannover 1995; ed. and trans. S. Rota, Magno Felici Ennodio: Panegirico del
Clementissimo Re Teoderico, Rome 2002.
, Vita Epiphanii, ed. and trans. G.M. Cook, The Life of Saint Epiphanius by
Ennodius, Washington 1942; ed. and trans. M. Cesa, Vita del beatissimo Epifanio
vescovo della chiesa pavese, Como 1988.
Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, ed. A. Thiel, Braunsberg 1868.
Epistulae Theodericianae Variae, ed. T. Mommsen, in Cassiodori Senatoris Variae
(Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 12), Berlin 1894, pp. 38992.
Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, vol. 1, ed. D. Noy, Cambridge 1993.
Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis: texte, introduction et commentaire, 2nd ed., 3 vols., Paris 195557.
The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, ed. A. Linder, Detroit 1998.
The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, ed. A. Linder, Detroit 1987.
Vita Sancti Caesarii Episcopi Arelantensis, ed. and trans. E. Bona, Amsterdam 2002;
trans. W.E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters, Liverpool 1994,
pp. 965.
Religious Diversity
527
Allen, P./Bronwen, N., Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410590 CE): a Survey of the
Evidence from Episcopal Letters, Leiden 2013.
Arnold, J.J., Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, Cambridge 2014.
Ayres, L., Nicaea and Its Legacy: an Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology,
Oxford 2004.
Bachrach, B.S., The Jewish Community of the Later Roman Empire As Seen in the
Codex Theodosianus, in J. Neusner/E.S. Frerichs (eds.), To See Ourselves as Others
see Us: Christians, Jews, Others in Late Antiquity, Chico 1985, pp. 299422.
Barnes, M.R./Williams, D.H., Introduction, in id./ead. (eds.), Arianism after Arius:
Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, Edinburgh
1993.
Barnish, S.J.B., The Anonymus Valesianus II as a Source for the Last Years of Theoderic,
Latomus 42 (1983), 57296.
Berndt, G.M./Steinacher, R., The ecclesia legis Gothorum and the Role of Arianism in
Ostorogothic Italy, in G.M. Berndt/R. Steinacher (eds.), Arianism: Roman Heresy
and Barbarian Creed, Farnham 2014, pp. 21929.
Bockmann, R., The Non-Archaeology of ArianismWhat Comparing Cases in
Carthage, Hadra and Ravenna can tell us about Arian Churches, in G.M. Berndt/
R. Steinacher (eds.), Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed, Farnham 2014,
pp. 20118.
Bowersock, G., Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Ann Arbor 1990.
Bowes, K., Christianization and the Rural Home, Journal of Early Christian Studies 15
(2007), 14370.
, Private Worship, Public Values, and Religious Change in Late Antiquity,
Cambridge 2008.
Boyarin, D., Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism,
Stanford 1999.
, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia 2004.
Boyarin, D./Burrus, V., Hybridity as Subversion of Orthodoxy? Jews and Christians in
Late Antiquity, Social Compass 52.4 (2005), 43141.
Brennecke, H.C., Framing the Historical and Theological Problems, in G.M. Berndt/
pp. 119.
, Imitatioreparatiocontinuatio: Die Judengesetzgebung im Ostgotenreich
Theoderichs des Grossen als reparatio imperii? Zeitschrift fr antikes Christentum
4 (2000), 13348.
Brown, P., Pelagius and his Supporters: Aims and Environment, in id., Religion and
Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, London 1973, pp. 183207.
528
Cohen
, The Patrons of Pelagius, in id., Religion and Society in the Age of Saint
Augustine, London 1973, pp. 20826.
Brown, T.S., Ebrei e orientali a Ravenna, in A. Carile (ed.), Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2,
Venice 1991, pp. 13549.
, The Role of Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy: The Evidence from Ravenna, in
S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the
6th Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 41726.
Burrus, V., Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy,
Berkeley 1995.
Cecchelli, C., Larianesimo e le chiese Ariane dItalia, in Le chiese nei regni dellEuropa
occidentale e i loro rapporti con Roma sino all 800 (Settimane di Studi del Centro
Italiano di Studi sullAlto Medioevo 7), Spoleto 1960, pp. 743888.
Cecchelli, M./Bertelli C., Edifici di culto ariano in Italia, in Actes du XIe Congrs international darchologie chrtienne: Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Genve et Aoste (2128
Septembre 1986), Rome 1989, pp. 23347.
Chastagnol A./Gag, J./Leglay, M./Pflaum, H.G. (eds.), LAnne pigraphique, Anne 1976
(1980), no. 247.
Cohen, S., Heresy, Authority and the Bishops of Rome in the Fifth Century: Leo I (440461)
and Gelasius (492496), PhD diss., University of Toronto 2014.
, Schism and the Polemic of Heresy: Manichaeism and the Representation of
Papal Authority in the Liber Pontificalis, Journal of Late Antiquity 8.1 (2015), 198230.
Colafemmina, C., Insediamenti e condizione degli Ebrei nellItalia meridionale e insulare, in Gli Ebrei nellAlto Medioevo (Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi
sullalto medioevo 26), Spoleto 1980, pp. 197227.
Croke, B., A.D. 476: The Manufacture of a Turning Point, Chiron 13 (1983), 81119.
De Bonfils, G., Gli schiavi degli ebrei nella legislazione del IV secolo: Storia di un divieto,
Bari 1993.
Deichmann, F.W., Ravenna: Hauptstadt des sptantiken Abendlandes, vol. 2, Wiesbaden
1976.
Dekkers, E., Clavis Patrum Latinorum, 3rd ed., Steenbrugis 1995.
Dickie, M.W., The Demonization of Magic and Sorcery in Late Antiquity: Christian
Redefinitions of Pagan Religions, New York 2001.
de Lange, N., Jews in the Age of Justinian, in M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005, pp. 40126.
Feldman, L.H., Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from
Alexander to Justinian, Princeton 1993.
Fowden, G., Late Polytheism: the World-view, in A.K. Bowman/P. Garnsey/A. Cameron
(eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 12: The Crisis of the Empire, AD 193337,
Religious Diversity
529
Grillmeier, A., Verweigerung der Kelchkommunion durch rmische Manicher unter

Papst Leo I. (440461). Zum manichischen und kirchlichen Eucharistieverstndnis,
in L. Lies (ed.), Praesentia Christi. Fetschrift Johannes Betz zum 70. Geburtstag,
Dsseldorf 1984, pp. 15161.
Goodman, M. (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 1998.
Gwynn, D.M., The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the
Construction of the Arian controversy Oxford 2007.
, Archaeology and the Arian Controversy, in id./L. Lavan/S. Bangert (eds.),
Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity, Leiden 2010, pp. 22963.
Gwynn, D.M./Bangert, S., Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity: an Introduction, in
id./L. Lavan/ead. (eds.), Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity, Leiden 2010, pp. 714.
Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318
381, Edinburgh 1988.
Harl, M., La dnonciation des festivits profanes dans le discours piscopal et
monastique en Orient Chretien a la fin du IVe sicle, in id., Le Dchiffrement du
sens: tudes sur lhermneutique chrtienne dOrigne Grgoire de Nysse, Paris 1993,
pp. 43353.
Heather, P., Goths and Romans, 332489, New York 1991.
Heather, P./Matthews, J., The Goths in the Fourth Century, Liverpool 1991.
Heil, U., Avitus von Vienne und die homische Kirche der Burgunder, Berlin 2011.
Holleman, A.W.J., Pope Gelasius I and the Lupercalia, Amsterdam 1974.
Humfress, C., Roman Law and the Formation of Christian Orthodoxy, in S. Elm/
E. Rebillard/A. Romano (eds.), Orthodoxie, Christianisme, Histoire, Rome 2000,
pp. 12547.
, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity. Oxford 2007.
Iricinschi, E., and H.M. Zellentin, Making Selves and Marking Others: Identity and
Late Antique Heresiologies. in id./ead. (eds.), Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity,
Tbingen 2008, pp. 129.
Papers 42 (1988), 7396.
Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed., London 1972.
Klingshirn, W.E., Caearius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late
Antique Gaul, Cambridge 1994.
Lafferty, S.D.W., Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: a Study of the Edictum
Le Boulluec, A., La notion dhrsie dans la littrature grecque, vol. 1, Paris 1985.
Leon, H.J., The Jews of Ancient Rome, rev. ed., Peabody 1995.
Lienhard, J.T., The Arian Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, Theological
Studies 48.3 (1987), 41537.
Lieu, J., Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 2004.
530
Cohen
Lim, R., Unity and Diversity among Western Manichaeans: A reconsideration of

Manis sancta ecclesia, Revue des tudes Augustiniennes 35 (1989), 23150.
, The Nomen Manichaeorum and Its Uses in Late Antiquity, in E. Iricinschi/
H.M. Zellentin (eds.), Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity, Tbingen 2008, pp. 14367.
Linder, A., The Legal Status of the Jews in the Roman Empire, in S.T. Katz (ed.), The
Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge
2006, pp. 12873.
Luiselli, B., Dallarianesimo dei visigoti di costantinopoli allarianesimo degli ostrogoti
dItalia, in Ravenna da capitale imperiale a capitale esarcale: atti del XVII Congresso
internazionale di studio sullalto medioevo, Spoleto 2005, pp. 72960.
Lyman, J.R., A Typography of Heresy: Mapping the Rhetorical Creation of Arianism, in
M.R. Barnes/D.H. Williams (eds.), Arianism after Arius: Essays on the Development of
the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflicts, Edinburgh 1993, pp. 4562.
, Hellenism and Heresy (2002 NAPS Presidential Address), Journal of Early
Christian Studies 11. 2 (2003), 20922.
McGing, B., Population and Proselytism: How many Jews were there in the ancient
world?, in J.R. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, London 2002,
pp. 99106.
McLynn, N., Crying Wolf: The Pope and the Lupercalia, Journal of Roman Studies 98
(2008), 16175.
Martindale, J.R. (ed.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2: A.D. 395
527 Cambridge 1980.
Mathisen, R.W., Ricimers Church in Rome: How an Arian Barbarian Prospered in a
Nicene World, in A. Cain/N. Lenski (eds.), The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity,
Burlington 2009, pp. 30825.
, Barbarian Arian Clergy, Church Organization, and Church Practice, in G.M.
Berndt/R. Steinacher (eds.), Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed, Farnham
2014, pp. 145191.
Maier, H.O., Religious Dissent, Heresy and Households in Late Antiquity, Vigiliae
Christianae 49.1 (1995), 4963.
, The Topography of Heresy and Dissent in Late-Fourth-Century Rome,
Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte 44.2 (1995), 23249.
Marazzi, F., I Patrimonia sanctae Romanae ecclesiae nel Lazio (secoli IVX), Rome 1998.
Meslin, M., Les Ariens dOccident, 335430, Paris 1967.
Millar, F., Christian Emperors, Christian Church and the Jews of the Diaspora in the
Greek East, CE 379450, Journal of Jewish Studies 55.1 (2004), 124.
Moorhead, J., Theoderic in Italy, New York 1992.
Noble, T., Theoderic and the Papacy, in O. Capitani (ed.), Teodorico il Grande e i Goti
dItalia: Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullAlto Medioevo, Spoleto
1993, pp. 395423.
Religious Diversity
531
Pietri, L., vergtisme chrtien et fondations prives dans lItalie de lantiquit tardive
in J.-M. Carri/R.L. Testa (eds.),Humana sapit. tudes dantiquit tardive offertes
Lella Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout 2002, pp. 25363.
, Christiana respublica: lments dune enqute sur le christianisme antique,
3 vols., Rome 1997.
Rabello, A.M., The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire, Aufstieg und
Niedergang der rmischen Welt 2.13 (1980), 662762.
Rebillard, ., Conversion and Burial in the Late Roman Empire, in K. Mills/A. Grafton
(eds.), Conversion in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Seeing and Believing,
Rochester 2003, pp. 6183.
, Christians and their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa 200450 CE,
Ithaca 2012.
Ruggini, L., Ebrei e Orientali nellItalia settentrionale fra il IV e il VI secolo d. Cr.,
Studia, et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 25 (1959), 186308.
Rutgers, L.V., Archaeological Evidence for the Interaction of Jews and Non-Jews in
Late Antiquity, American Journal of Archaeology 96.1 (1992), 10118.
, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman
Diaspora, Leiden 1995.
, Interaction and Its Limits: Some Notes on the Jews of Sicily in Late Antiquity,
Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 115 (1997), 24556.
Rutgers, L.V./Bradbury, S., The Diaspora, c. 235638, in T.S. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge
History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge 2006,
pp. 492518.
Saitta, B., La Civilitas di Teodorico: Rigore amministrativo, tolleranza religiosa e recupero dellantico nellItalia Ostrogota, Rome 1993.
Salzman, M.R., Superstition in the Codex Theodosianus and the Persecution of
Pagans, Vigiliae Christianae 4 (1987), 17288.
Sandwell, I., Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews, and Christians in Antioch,
Cambridge 2007.
Sardella, T., Societ, Chiesa e Stato nellet di Teodorico: Papa Simmaco e lo scisma laurenziano, Rome 1996.
Scardigli, P., Die Goten: Sprache und Kultur, Munich 1973.
Schferdiek, K., Ulfila und der sogenannte gotische Arianismus, in G.M. Berndt/
pp. 2143.
Schrder, B.-J., Ein falsches Argument in der Diskussion ber den Anla von Ennodius
Theoderich-Panegyricus (zu Ennod., opusc. 1 [263 Vogel], 22), Historia: Zeitschrift
fr Alte Geschichte 54.4 (2005), 499500.
Schwartz, S., Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., Jews, Christians, and
Muslims from the ancient to the modern world, Princeton 2001.
532
Cohen
Snee, R., Gregory Nazianzens Anastasia Church: Arianism, the Goths, and
Hagiography, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52 (1998), 15786.
Solin, H., Juden und Syrer in westlichen Teil der rmischen Welt: Eine ethnisch-
demographische Studie mit besonderer Bercksichtigung der sprachlichen
Zustnde, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt 29.2 (1983), 587789.
Somekh, A., Teoderico e gli Ebrei di Ravenna, in A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra
Oriente e Occidente: Congresso Internazionale Ravenna, 28 settembre2 ottobre 1992,
Ravenna 1995, pp. 13749.
Squatriti, P., Marshes and Mentalities in Early Medieval Ravenna, Viator 23.1 (1992),
116.
Ullmann, W., Gelasius I (492496): das Papsttum an der Wende der Sptantike zum
Mittelalter, Stuttgart 1981.
Volpe, G., Contadini, pastori e mercanti nellApulia tardoantica, Bari 1996.
von Falkenhausen, V., LEbraismo dellItalia meridionale nellet bizantina (secoli
VIXI), in C. Fonesca/M. Luzzati/G. Tamani/C. Colafemmina (eds.), LEbraismo
dellItalia Meridionale Peninsulare dale origini al 1541. Societ, Economia, Cultura.
IX Congresso internazionale dellAssociazione italiana per lo studio del Giudaismo:
Potenza-Venosa 2024 settembre 1992, Potenza 1996, pp. 2546.
Northern and Central Italy AD 300850, Oxford 1984.
, Archaeology and Iconography of Germanic Arianism, in D.M. Gwynn/
L. Lavan/S. Bangert (eds.), Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity, Leiden 2010,
pp. 26589.
Williams, M., The Jews of Early Byzantine Venusia: The family of Faustinus I the
Father, Journal of Jewish Studies 50.1 (1999), 3852.
Williams, R., Arius: Heresy and Tradition, London 1987.
Wirbelauer, E., Zwei Ppste in Rom: der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus
(498514), Munich 1993.
Wood, I.N., Theoderics Monuments in Ravenna, in S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.),
The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the 6th Century: an Ethnographic
Zeiller, M.J., Les eglises ariennes de Rome lpoque de la domination gothique,
Mlanges darchologie et dhistoire (1904), 1733.
, tude sur larianisme en Italie lpoque ostrogothique et lpoque
Lombarde, Mlanges darchologie et dhistoire 25 (1905), 12746.
Glossary of Select Sources

The following glossary is a selective guide to the most essential literary sources of relevance to the Ostrogothic kingdom. Individual entries are limited to details of a biographical or historical nature, descriptions of works and their value, and major issues
of scholarly debate. References to modern scholarship, editions, and translations are
not provided here. Instead, readers are invited to consult the bibliographies of relevant
chapters appearing in this volume.
Acta Synhodorum habitarum RomaeA source of great value to the history of Rome,
the Catholic Church, and especially the Laurentian schism, these Acts contain the
minutes and/or subscription lists for a series of synods held in Rome between 499
and 502, as well as related correspondence between members of the church and
King Theoderic.
Agathias of Myrina (ca. 53280?)A lawyer by training, resident of Constantinople,
and author of poetic works, his Histories in five books was begun during the reign
of Justin II (56578) as a deliberate continuation of Procopius Wars. A chief source
for the years 5529, the work is concerned primarily with eastern affairs, although
the first two books are invaluable for their treatment of the final years of the Gothic
War in Italy, during which time the general Narses faced a number of local Gothic
revolts and thwarted a major Franco-Alamannic invasion of Italy led by the duces
Butilinus and Leutheris.
Anonymus Valesianus Pars PosteriorAlso known as the Chronica Theodericiana or
Excerpta Valsesiana II, this is the second of two biographical excerpts originally
edited and published in the 17th century by Henri Valois, whence Valesianus. The
text focuses primarily on events in Italy and to a lesser extent Constantinople
between 474 and 526. Its main area of coverage is the reign of Theoderic, for which
it provides many unique and occasionally fabulous details: some perhaps the product of oral tradition; others possibly derived from a source (or sources) close to the
court at Ravenna. Its authorship is unknown and its treatment of certain topics,
particularly the reign of Theoderic, is so bipolar, so repetitive, and so seemingly
contradictory that some scholars have suggested it is the work of multiple authors
or that one author has clumsily combined two (or more) opposing sources. Others
maintain that it is the product of one author whose apparent contradictions were
deliberate. This issue of authorship is further complicated by the fact that the surviving text is an excerpt, as indicated by its 9th-century manuscript heading (Item
ex libris Chronicorum inter cetera) and the absence of anything resembling an
introduction or conclusion. Its date of composition is also uncertain. Some place
it shortly after the death of Theoderic in 526; others as late as the 540s or even 550s.
534
Boethius (ca. 480524)A member of the famous Roman family the Anicii, Boethius
was courted by the Gothic Amal family as an important link to the senatorial aristocracy at Rome. Theoderic advanced Boethius public career, although the stages
of this career are a matter of some conjecture. Boethius received the western consulship in 510 and his sons held the consulships of the West and the East in 522,
the year of his appointment as Magister Officiorum. In gratitude Boethius recited
a (non-extant) panegyric addressed to Theoderic. In 523, detractors at Theoderics
court accused a senator and ex-consul, Albinus, of treason. Boethius attempt to
defend his colleague caused him to fall under suspicion, although various reasons
have been suggested to explain his fall from favour. In any case, Theoderic placed
Boethius under arrest on an estate outside of Pavia, where he was eventually executed. Boethius was survived by a lustrous scholarly reputation, earned for his
translation of Greek scientific and philosophical works into Latin (for example, De
arithmetica, De institutione musica, De topicis differentiis, In Porphyrium commentaria) and for a number of short theological tracts (Tractates). His lasting reputation was secured by his authorship of the Consolation of Philosophy, a philosophical
dialogue between himself and Philosophia, written during his imprisonment. It is
not known how the Consolation survived his execution, and its transmission during
the 6th century is speculative at best. The brief biographical text known as the Ordo
Cassiodororum compares the literary and public lives of Boethius, his father-in-law
Symmachus (also executed for treason by Theoderic), and Cassiodorus, although
the familial connection between Boethius and Cassiodorus is debated.
Caesarius of Arles (ca. 469/70542)A Gallo-Roman noble born in Burgundian
Chalon-sur-Sane, monk of Lrins, abbot of Arles, and bishop of Arles from 502
until his death, he was an active promoter of Christianization and reform in Gaul
and was deeply committed to preaching and an ascetic ideal. As bishop he revised
the monastic rule for the monks under his charge (Regula ad monachos) and later
founded the citys first convent, for whose nuns he composed another rule (Regula
ad virgines). More than 250 of his sermons survive and provide evidence for the
style and content of his preaching, which were heavily influenced by Augustine.
He presided over five church councils, whose canons are extant: Agde (506), Arles
(524), Carpentras (527), Vaison (529), and Orange (529). Following the Ostrogothic
annexation of Provence in 508/11, he was sent to Ravenna under guard but exonerated by Theoderic. Shortly thereafter, Pope Symmachus granted him the pallium,
confirming Arles metropolitan status in 513; later, he was made papal vicar to Gaul
and Spain and developed close ties with the Ostrogothic praetorian prefect of Gaul,
Liberius. A handful of letters exchanged between Caesarius and his peers survive;
so, too, does his testament, which sought to endow and protect the convent he
founded. His Vita, finally, was written shortly after his death by five close associates.
Taken as a whole, the Caesarian corpus provides invaluable insight into the social
535
and cultural history of southern Gaul directly before, during, and after its period of
Ostrogothic dominance.
Cassiodorus (ca. 490585)Born to an aristocratic family in Bruttium, Flavius
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator was a leading statesman and patrician of
the Ostrogothic kingdom, who served as consilarius (ca. 503), quaestor (ca. 50711),
ordinary consul (514), corrector of Lucania et Bruttium (?511/33), magister officiorum (5237), and praetorian prefect of Italy (5337). During this career he wrote a
number of works on behalf of the Ostrogothic regime, including (now fragmentary)
panegyrics treating individual rulers, a Chronicle celebrating the consulship of
Theoderics intended heir, a Gothic History in twelve books (now lost), and official
documents, mostly letters penned in the name of Ostrogothic kings and queens,
which were edited and published possibly as early as 537 in a collection known
as the Variae. Among the most important sources for the Ostrogothic kingdom,
the Variae has inspired much debate, ranging from the extent of contribution of
Cassiodorus or Gothic rulers to the contents of the original letters, to the extent
to which individual letters may have been later edited, augmented, or even created for publication, to the collections purpose and intended audience. Soon after
its publication, a treatise on the soul (De anima) was appended to the Variae and
described as its thirteenth book, reflecting a shift in Cassiodorus priorities. By the
late 540s he was in Constantinople, perhaps as a refugee or hostage, where he wrote
a commentary on the Psalms (Expositio psalmorum) before returning to Bruttium
and establishing a double monastery (Castellum and Vivarium) on his family estate
around 554. Here, until his death, he wrote commentaries on the Bible and Church
Fathers, a guidebook to sacred and secular learning (Institutiones), and a treatise on
spelling and grammar (De orthographia), works that had a profound influence on
medieval Christian thought. He also collaborated on the Historia Tripartita, a Latin
translation of three Greek ecclesiastical histories fused into one narrative.
Collectio AvellanaA collection of 244 documents related to the See of Rome and
deriving its name from the library of Fonte Avellana, Italy, where one of its manuscripts was discovered. It was compiled sometime after 553 and its contents consist
of mostly papal and imperial correspondence dating from the mid 4th through the
mid 6th century. The sole text for the majority of the materials preserved within it, it
is an invaluable source for the history of the church, its schisms, and especially the
papacy at this time; secular affairs, not least those of imperial and senatorial interest, are also included. Of particular relevance to the Ostrogothic period are those
documents that speak to the (often tense) relationship between the see of Rome
and the church and emperors at Constantinople, especially during the Acacian
schism, Theopaschite controversy, and early stages of the Three Chapters schism.
Dionysius Exiguus (d. 540)Came to Rome in 497 from the Roman province of
Scythia Minor in the context of the Acacian schism under the Emperor Anastasius
536
and his affiliation with the rebel eastern general Vitalian and the Theopaschite
monks. He is often called a Scythian, although this is likely a reference to his province of origin. Exquisitely educated in both Greek and Latin, Dionysius attracted
the friendships of learned men in the orbit of the church at Rome, including
Boethius and Eugippius. Cassiodorus studied with him for a period and the latters
Institutiones celebrates Dionysius learning, written works, and ascetic discipline.
At Rome he worked with the patronage of Popes Gelasius, John I, and Hormisdas to
translate religious materials from Greek into Latin. He translated a range of hagiographical materials (a vita of Pachomius, the writing of Proclus of Constantinople
to the Armenians, and the De opificio hominis of Gregory of Nyssa), but his Collectio
Dionysiana, a compilation of sources for canon law, became his greatest work, combining eastern conciliar materials, ecclesiastical decretals, and imperial letters.
Finally, his liturgical calendar later became the basis for dating according to the anno
domini.
Edictum TheodericiAlso known as the so-called Edictum Theoderici, this legal
source consists of a prologue, epilogue, and 154 statutes derived from earlier Roman
legal compilations and commentaries, which were emended, updated, and generally simplified for its intended users, referred to as Romans and Barbarians in the
text. Internal evidence demonstrates that the Edictum was compiled no earlier than
461 and a reference to the city of Rome in its 111th chapter is often taken to indicate
an Italian provenance. Nevertheless, the origin of this text remains controversial. If
genuinely originating in the court of Theoderic the Great, it is an invaluable source
for the legal and social history of the Ostrogothic kingdom. However, strong cases
have been made for other originators, including Odovacer and Theoderic II of the
Visigoths. The debate is rendered all the more difficult by the history of the edicts
manuscripts, which were lost by their sole editor in the 16th century, leaving only
an editio princeps. The relationship between these lost manuscripts and the modern edition is thus uncertain and has even caused some to claim that the work is
a forgery. Others, while accepting the edict as genuine, have suggested that certain
portions may be interpolations or additions made by the editor, not least the edicts
solitary reference to a King Theoderic, which is found in its explicit. That Goths are
never specifically mentioned in the text has also troubled some scholars, although
others have simply argued that they should be counted among the Barbarians referenced neutrally throughout the text.
Ennodius (ca. 473/4521)From a Gallo-Roman family but raised and classically
educated in Italy, Magnus Felix Ennodius served as a deacon for the churches of
Pavia and Milan and was later Bishop of Pavia and a papal envoy to Constantinople.
Notorious for his complex Latin style, his works were composed primarily during
his deaconate (ca. 50313) and constitute a very large corpus that has been divided
537
into nine books of letters (epistulae), ten miscellaneous minor works (opuscula
miscella), twenty-eight speeches (dictiones), and two books of poems (carmina).
As these divisions are a modern convention not found in the manuscript tradition,
many scholars cite individual works in order of their appearance in the manuscripts
to a total of 470. As a whole, the Ennodian corpus is an invaluable source for the
social, cultural, religious, and political history of late 5th- and early 6th-century
Italy. Of particular interest are opuscula miscella 15, which include the Life of
Epiphanius, Life of Antony of Lrins, Libellus pro Synodo, Panegyric to King Theoderic,
and Eucharisticon. These works provide details of great importance to reconstructions of the fall of Rome, the reigns of Odovacer and Theoderic, the Laurentian
schism, and Ennodius own biography. Scholarly debates are generally minor, focusing on possible dates of composition or delivery, the motivation and purpose of a
particular work, and issues of accuracy or bias. Ennodius role as a papal envoy to
Constantinople during the Acacian schism is recorded in the Collectio Avellana. His
epitaph, which celebrates these missions, has also survived.
Epistulae Theodericianae VariaeA modern collection of nine letters edited by
Theodor Mommsen in the late 19th century and included as the first of three appendices for his MGH edition of Cassiodorus Variae. The first eight letters were written by Pope Gelasius and are addressed to either Theoderic himself, his mother, or
certain bishops. These demonstrate on the whole a positive relationship between
the pontiff, the Gothic king, and his family. The final letter is written in Theoderics
name to the senate at Rome in March of 507/8 and is of interest because of its
content (of relevance to the role of the senate and church at Rome) and for being
among the handful of Theoderican letters that are not part of the Variae collection.
Presumably, it was written by someone other than Cassiodorus.
Eugippius (d. after 533)Monk and disciple of Severinus of Noricum (d. 482), he was
among those evacuated from Noricum to Italy at the order of Odovacer in 488, later
founding a monastery at Castellum Lucullanum near Naples. Here, he assembled
an impressive library of religious texts, which may have influenced similar libraries (e.g. at Cassiodorus Vivarium) and whose contents were later copied and circulated in Italy and eventually other regions. Beyond the influence of this library,
Eugippius is known for his own writings. These include a collection of excerpts
taken from the works of Augustine of Hippo (Excerpta Augustini), authored around
500, and his Life of Severinus, authored as a memorandum around 509/11. Both works
were widely read, the former serving as a quintessential guidebook to Augustinian
thought and the latter as a devotional text and an invaluable source for modern
reconstructions of the midlate 5th-century Upper Danube region. Eugippius is
also known to have authored a rule for his monks, although whether the so-called
Eugippii regula is in fact his own has been debated; some of his correspondence,
on the other hand, does survive, including letters exchanged with such noteworthy
538
figures as the nun Proba of Rome, whose library he used, and Dionysius Exiguus,
who dedicated a Latin translation of Gregory of Nyssa to him.
Jordanes (d. after 552)A Latin author whose biography is a matter of scholarly
debate but who is usually identified as a notary of barbarian ancestry (Goth or
Alan), either from the Balkans or from Italy, who later experienced a conversio (the
meaning of which is another matter of scholarly debate) and who, while residing in
Constantinople in the early 550s, wrote two historical works, which were joined into
one volume. The first of these works is known as the Romana. It provides a world history beginning with Creation but eventually focusing on Roman history alone and
concluding with a Constantinople-centred Roman Empire in the mid 6th century.
Although some of the material is clearly Jordanes own, the Romana relies heavily
on other sources for its narrative, particularly on the Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes
and its continuation, as well as an unknown source, for its treatment of events from
the mid 5th century forward. Of particular interest is its account of Italian history
following the death of Theoderic (d. 526) and especially the events of the Gothic
War. Jordanes second work, known as the Getica, was begun and completed while
he was still composing the Romana. It provides a history of the Goths as a whole
from their mythical origins to the late 4th century, at which point separate accounts
are provided for the Visigoths and then Ostrogoths. The latter brings the history of
both peoples to the mid 6th century, although Ostrogothic Italy itself receives a relatively short treatment at roughly twenty chapters. Like the Romana, the Getica is
derivative and relies on a number of Greek and Latin sources for its narrative. Most
controversial is its relationship to Cassiodorus lost Gothic History, a work Jordanes
claims he read and epitomized from memory and to which he admits adding material of his own. The sources for and reliability of much of the Geticas earliest material is likewise a matter of scholarly debate, as is Jordanes purpose and motivation
in composing this work.
Liber PontificalisThe Pontifical Book presents short lives of individual popes
beginning with Peter and continuing forward with each subsequent bishop of the
Roman see. While some entries offer early biographical information they generally focus on developments during the bishops episcopal tenures with emphasis
placed on liturgical innovation, church building and decoration, clerical ordinations, the popes death, burial, and interregnum. Transmitted anonymously, the
Liber Pontificalis was most likely produced by a team of writers, presumably local
Roman clerics, who had access to a range of materials and who showed familiarity
with the religious topography of the city. Moreover, the Liber Pontificalis is a living document, a text that was continuously amended, added to, and abridged at
various points across centuries, and thus eschews simple dating. Since the early
539
work by Louis Duchense (188692), scholars have dated the Liber Pontificalis origins to the Ostrogothic period. Recent work identifies the version commonly used
by modern scholars as a second edition likely produced during the episcopate of
Vigilius (53755). The second edition appears to be a reworking of a slightly earlier
first edition produced just after 535, which included the lives of Peter to John II
(53355). After the second edition was produced, however, the entire project was
abandoned until the 580s, when several additional lives were added. Writing was
resumed again during the 620s and then continued sporadically through the 9th
century. The Liber Pontificalis was likely not the only serial papal biography to circulate in Rome during the Ostrogothic period. Another text, known today only in
fragmented form (the so-called Laurentian Fragment), seems to reflect an alternative perspective on at least one Roman bishop, Symmachus.
Marcellinus Comes (ca. 480540)Illyrian courtier, possibly soldier, and later count
(comes) who rose to prominence in Constantinople under the emperors Justin
(r. 51827) and Justinian (r. 52765). Orthodox in faith, his primary language was
Latin and his sole surviving work is a consular Chronicle written as a conscious continuation of Jeromes Chronicle. Its first edition covers the period 379 to 518; its second 519 to 534. Although noteworthy for being the first source to mention the fall
of the western empire, providing two dates (454 and 476), Marcellinus Chronicle
is primarily concerned with the East, especially Constantinople and the Balkans.
It provides tantalizingly few details about the Ostrogothic kingdom; however, its
anonymous continuation, which extends the second edition to 548, focuses heavily on Italy and is an invaluable source for the Gothic War. There is some debate as
to when Marcellinus composed the first edition of his Chronicle (ca. 518 to as late
as the mid 520s), the context in which he was writing, the prevalence of his views
on western affairs, and the sources he employed. The main debate surrounding its
continuation is the origin and identity of its author. Some have suggested he was
Italian; others eastern, probably Constantinopolitan.
Papal LettersLetters written by (and occasionally addressed to) Roman bishops constitute our most substantial body of evidence for the Roman church
and its bishops during the Ostrogothic period. The subject of the letters range
from official missives to clergy on matters of theology, clerical discipline, and
church doctrine (i.e. the decretals), to screeds against perceived heretical threats
addressed to emperors, to far more mundane exchanges that record Roman
bishops involvement in the daily business of ecclesiastical management. Some
of the letters addressed to other bishops on matters of discipline and doctrine
were preserved outside of Rome from the early 5th century, but the earliest Italian
collections date to the Ostrogothic period: Dionysius Exiguus compilations of
540
papal decretals produced for the Roman titular priest Julianus during the tenure of Symmachus (498514) and the Collectio Avellana. Modern editions of late
Roman papal letters from the Ostrogothic era include A. Thiel (ed.), Epistolae romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a Hilario usque ad Pelagium
II (1868); P. Ewald (ed.), Die Papstbriefe der Brittischen Sammlung, Neue Archive
der Gesellschaft fr ltere deutsche Geschichteskunde 5 (1880); E. Schwartz (ed.),
Vigiliusbriefe (1940); and P. Gass/C. Batlle (eds.), Pelagii I Papae, Epistulae quae
supersunt, 556561 (1956).
Pragmatic SanctionThe general title given to a series of twenty-seven enactments
issued by Emperor Justinian on 13 August 554 and intended to restore Roman law
(as imagined in the emperors own legal programme) and order to a newly reconquered Italy at the end of the Gothic War. Among other things, it confirmed the
decrees and appointments of the rulers of the Amal dynasty, which were seen as
lawful, but nullified those of Totila who is described as a tyrant throughout. The
remaining enactments deal with such topics as property rights, the status of freed
slaves, weights and measures, taxation, the legal authority of Italian bishops and
especially the pope, and certain privileges for the city of Rome, such as the annona.
As a whole, it is an invaluable legal source that speaks to the history of Italy during
its long (and painful) transition from Ostrogothic to Byzantine rule.
Procopius of Caesarea (ca. 500?560s)From Palestine, he was classically educated
and trained in legal studies, serving as secretary/legal advisor (assessor) to the
Byzantine officer and later general Belisarius beginning in 527 and accompanying
him on his campaigns against the Persians, Vandals, and Goths into the 540s. These
experiences contributed heavily to his most extensive (and arguably most important) work, a classical history in Greek known as the Wars, originally published in
seven books in 550/1, with an eighth book added sometime before 557 (the date is
a matter of scholarly debate). It recounts the wars of Justinian against the Persians
(books 12), Vandals (books 34), and Ostrogoths (books 58), providing historical
details that serve as a background to these campaigns but focusing primarily on
the period 52752. It is an invaluable source for the history of Ostrogothic Italy and
essential for reconstructions of the Gothic War. Generally seen as a trustworthy and
straightforward account, there are some who question Procopius political biases,
employment of ethnographic rhetoric, and use of irony, which may be products of
the genre in which he wrote. There are also certain details of earlier history that
appear to be inaccurate, either intentionally so or perhaps owing to faulty information or confusion. Procopius other works, both authored in the 550s, include the
Buildings and Secret History, which while useful sources for the reign of Justinian
are not especially relevant to the Ostrogothic kingdom.
Symmachan ForgeriesA modern title used for convenience in reference to eleven
documents claiming to date from the 4th and 5th centuries but almost certainly
541
written during the Laurentian schism (498506/7). The forgeries include three
redactions of a Roman synod supposedly convened in 324; four letters relating to
the Council of Nicaea in 325; and four narrative accounts of fictional ecclesiastical events and trials in which bishops are investigated and exonerated of a range
of charges. Partisans of Symmachus, the bishop who ultimately prevailed in the
schism, seem to have authored most of these documents, although at least two
reflect another point of view, presumably that of Laurentius supporters.
Index
Aachen352
Abano237, 357
Abruzzo484, 486
Acacian schism, see Christianity
Acacius443
Adila465, 467
administration, see Ostrogoths
Adrianople195, 458
adventus121, 136, 442
Aestuna237
Aetius6, 124, 300
African Red Slip ware268
Agapitus, Pope133, 367, 431 434, 494
Agnellus212, 312, 359, 361, 365, 370, 37576,
382, 518
agri deserti181
agriculture, see rural life
Alamanni74, 80, 93, 176
Alans209
Alaric II29, 279, 454, 455
Alba484
Albenga484
Albina489
Albinus31, 138, 144
Alexandria332
Amal, royal family10, 2940, 5657, 60,
67, 130, 14041, 144, 180, 208, 296312,
428, 433. See also names of individual
family members and Mausoleum of
Theoderic
Amalaberga303
Amalafrida33, 30203
Amalaric29, 35, 85, 88, 92, 302
Amalasuentha8, 30, 3336, 54, 84, 92,
14041, 218, 221, 223, 248, 296312, 321,
353, 359
Ambrose227, 305, 339, 341, 458, 461, 465,
471, 481, 489, 491, 511
Ammianus Marcellinus208
Ampelius91
Anastasius, Emperor20, 2930, 48, 55, 85,
131, 148, 444, 523
Anastasius II, Pope433, 435, 520
Andromachus522
Anicia Juliana303
Anicii, senatorial family of125, 142

annona39, 50, 53, 61, 64, 68, 91, 185, 188, 255,
39394
Anonymous Cosmographer253
Anonymus Valesianus20, 32, 55, 63, 121, 127,
238, 240, 24345, 247, 311, 321, 380, 507,
510, 520
Anthemius, Emperor303
Anthimus of Constantinople445
Aosta397, 45455, 459, 462, 464, 473
apocrisarius430
apparitores6667
Apulia52, 133, 268, 284, 384, 400, 412
aqueducts24245, 357
Aquileia189, 241, 246, 248, 251, 45657,
48184
Arator133, 140, 142, 33839
Arcadius, Emperor154, 160, 300
Arcadius, Column of214
archaeology18991, 27077, 39699, 431
architecture, see art
Ardabur518
Ariadne353
Arians/Arianism, see Christianity
Arigern87
Aristotle33031, 333
Arius510, 512, 520
Arles88, 237, 240, 454, 455, 45758, 463,
48283
art35086
architecture35784; see also
Mausoleum of Theoderic
churches35965, 384
palaces35759, 36578
portraiture35257
Asia Minor255
Asinarius93
Aspar518
Asti484
Astuna358
Athalaric31, 33, 35, 37, 56, 76, 82, 84, 108,
130, 139, 150, 163, 16566, 218, 222, 285,
297, 30002, 30607, 321, 353, 358, 435,
437, 483, 513
Athanasius488, 495, 511
Index
Athaulf151
Athens332
Attalus, Emperor124
Attila17374, 187
Atto491
Audofleda302, 303, 310
Augusta, Jewish woman509
Augustaion352
Augustine27677, 33638, 34041, 461, 471,
490, 493, 524
Augustus, Emperor2223, 86, 99, 382
Aurigenes459, 473
Avignon89
Balkans1, 193, 208, 210, 215, 391
Barbaria493
Barcelona89
Basil of Caesarea471, 495
basilica Herculis367
Basilicata485
Basilius86, 140
Bassianae81
Belisarius24, 3638, 98, 142, 188, 19293,
214, 223, 299, 384, 467, 506, 521
Benedict of Nursia337, 49394, 496
Bergamo484
Bessas223
Bible336, 33942, 494
Bleda174
Boethius11, 25, 3132, 34, 56, 129, 132, 134,
13740, 144, 165, 245, 285, 299, 326, 329,
33137, 34142, 383, 434, 443
Consolation of Philosophy31, 33436
Bologna482, 489
Boniface II, Pope435, 437
Bonifatius, comes300
Brandila218
Brescia250, 414, 482, 484
Breviarium of Alaric279, 473
Bruttium5152, 108, 133, 284, 465
Bulgars8182, 216
Burgundians29, 32, 35, 73, 8485, 17678,
303, 45455, 458, 464
Busta Gallorum39, 193, 195
Caesarea, sister of Caesarius457
Caesarea, suburb of Ravenna254, 359
Caesarius of Arles90, 432, 454, 45759, 463,
469, 508, 51415, 522
543
Cagliari48384, 49293
Calabria133, 284, 467, 48586, 494
Calcidius336
Campania132, 28485, 288, 484, 489, 508
cancellarii51, 65, 6768
canonicarii51, 67, 467
Canosa115, 384, 483, 485
Capua483, 489
caput senatus127, 131
Caracalla, Emperor153
Carthage304, 493
Cassiodorus11, 23, 2528, 31, 3435, 38, 48,
56, 60, 65, 81, 84, 86, 102, 104, 10609,
116, 12930, 13334, 14142, 147, 155,
17778, 18486, 192, 208, 215, 219, 234,
236, 238, 243, 24546, 249, 273, 282,
28486, 289, 299300, 308, 317324,
32629, 33132, 33637, 33942, 355,
35758, 36768, 375, 383, 399, 409, 416,
434, 442, 451, 457, 459, 462, 465, 467,
46970, 483, 494, 506, 51315, 519
Cassiodorus, senior469
Castellum Lucullanum337, 342, 493, 496
Castro dei Volsci39798
Catana237, 240, 247, 467, 504
Celsina76
Cervia482
Cesena250, 482
Chalcedon445
Charlemagne352
Childeric352
Chlodomer32
Chosroes52
Christianity
Acacian schism30, 137, 334, 434, 443,
452, 470, 519, 524
Arians/Arianism1, 3, 10, 32, 98, 11213,
185, 20607, 212, 221, 22327, 239, 248,
253, 305, 310, 322, 350, 357, 359, 361, 370,
376, 378, 425, 442, 451, 493, 503, 508,
51021
Apollinarism482
bishops11316, 42547, 45174
Chalcedonian443, 445
churches (individual), see churches
and classical intellectual culture33742
ecclesiastical administration52, 11316,
42833, 43741, 45174, 48088
Henotikon443
544
Laurentian schism115, 131, 134, 144, 431,
43536, 439, 442, 444, 46264, 483, 512,
524
Monasticism48897
Nicene1, 27, 113, 226, 239, 248, 378,
42547, 45174, 50304, 513, 519, 525
patrimonium of the Church42829,
46467, 438
Pelagianism52125
Secular politics of44146, 45174
See of Rome42547
Theopaschite445
Three Chapters controversy38, 44546,
483
tituli churches429, 437, 439
church councils
Council of Agde491
Council of Beziers492
Council of Chalcedon443, 491
Council of Epaone491
Council of Milan482, 484
Council of Orleans491
Council of Serdica428
Council of Vaison491
churches (individual)11316, 248, 35965,
384
Arian Baptistery, Ravenna365, 51819
Baptistery of St Stephen465
CaBianca361
Ecclesia Gothorum359
Hagia Sophia384
Lateran431
Holy Apostles, Constantinople383
Holy Cross112
Orthodox Baptistery, Ravenna363, 365
S Eusebio, Ravenna253, 361
S John Studios362
S Lawrence116
S Mary Chalkoprateia362
S Paul, Rome384, 428
S Peter, Rome22, 121, 38384, 428, 437,
442, 520
S Pietro in Orphanotrophio359
S Stefano Rotondo113
Saint Agatha517
San Giovanni Evangelista112, 367, 370
San Leucio116, 384
San Severo in Classe368
San Vitale112, 384
Index
SantApollinare in Classe361
SantApollinare Nuovo112, 240, 365, 367,
370, 518
Santo Spirito361
SS Cosmas and Damian113, 248, 384, 428
SS Sergius and Bacchus384
Venafrana508
Cicero327
Cimitile492
cities, see Italy
civilitas2627, 29, 39, 73, 77, 89, 156, 184,
220, 236, 238, 297, 45556, 507
Civita di Bagno486
Classe240, 249, 25455, 359
Clementius353
Clothild303
Clovis29, 80, 30203
Codex Argenteus224
Colle S. Giovanni di Atri410
Collectio Avellana426
coloni, see rural life
Colosseum352, 407
Colosseus8283, 89
comes archiatrorum256
comes domesticorum186
comes patrimonii54, 58, 6163, 133
comes privatarum6162, 18081, 133
comes sacrarum largitionum6162, 133,
18081
comitatus5658, 61, 6667, 89
comites, Gothic6264, 68, 76, 8182, 89,
10304, 121, 148, 162, 217
comites, Merovingian188
comitiaci6668
Como104, 242, 484
conductors487
Constantine, Emperor99, 109, 115, 12223,
154, 159, 38283, 474, 486
Constantinople3738, 4950, 5354, 57, 75,
84, 112, 138, 142, 149, 254, 297, 299, 321,
352, 359, 362, 367, 370, 38284, 386, 399,
430, 44145, 451, 518
Chalke gate37576
Constantius II, Emperor133
Constantius, bishop508
Constitutio Antoniniana153
consuls73
countryside, see rural life
Corippus55
545
Index
cornicularii51
Corsica7475, 427
Cremona482, 484
curiales52, 6263, 99, 10203, 108, 472, 505
Curitana76
cursus publicus57, 63, 68
Cyprian, senator82, 133, 13839, 14041, 187,
21516, 21819, 222
Cyril of Alexandria482
Dalmatia33, 3637, 64, 7378, 80, 82, 9193,
133, 176, 432, 516, 523
Damasus, Pope426, 481
Decii, Roman family of125, 13234, 142
defensores, public administration52, 63,
10203, 16162
defensores ecclesiae432, 472, 481, 521
Deitrich von Bern56
demography/population, see Italy
Dertona251
Deuterius318, 491
Dicineus152
Diocletian, Emperor99, 109, 153, 278, 383,
480
Dionysius Exiguus32829, 332, 342
Dionysius Periegetes341
Dioscorides, medical writer320, 341
Dioscorus, deacon of Rome435, 437
Domagnano189, 350
domestici4950, 5354, 186, 188
Domus Pinciana359
Dorotheus of Thessalonica444
Dracontius339
duces6263, 7980, 85, 162
Eastern Empire1718, 3031, 3637, 49, 55,
74, 81, 84, 144, 221. See also Anastasius,
Constantinople, Justin, and Justinian
Ecclesius112, 458
economy910, 4960, 98117, 25456,
26389
land owning/countryside26389
taxes5054, 98117, 17783, 27584,
46567
Edict of Theoderic59, 65, 149, 15152, 15556,
160, 16364, 16667, 270, 27280,
28284, 319, 506
education, see Italy
Egypt255, 370
Elba413
Emilia Romagna268, 407
Emona489
Ennodius11, 23, 26, 28, 55, 57, 8082, 87, 212,
238, 316, 31819, 321, 32426, 329, 332,
338, 433, 462, 464, 491, 51415, 517, 519,
522
environment/geography, see Italy
Equitius494
Eraric38
Ereleuva510
Eucaristus47172
Eudocia305
Eugippius328, 33748, 493, 517
Eunapius306
Eusebius of Caesarea341
Eusebius of Milan482
Eusebius of Vercelli491
Eustorgius459, 46265, 481
Eutharic3031, 92, 139, 245, 297, 303, 311, 323
exceptores49, 61, 430
excubitores57
Expositio Psalmorum515
Fabricula274
Faenza237, 242, 250, 482
Faragola487
Faustina, Jewish woman509
Faustus Niger13132, 32627, 332, 46970
Faustus of Riez523
Faustus, defensor ecclesia472
Feletheus75
Felix III, Pope433, 435, 520
Felix IV, Pope113, 248, 42829, 431, 433, 435,
443, 458, 513
Felix, senator85
Filattiera271, 413
Forli353, 482
Forum, of Rome24142, 357, 428
Franks29, 35, 80, 85, 9293, 166, 174, 182,
188, 193, 219, 238, 302, 45455
Fredegar55, 238
Fridibad91
Frigidus195
Fulgentius of Ruspe49293, 523
Galeata56, 357
Galen320, 341
Galerius, Emperor38283
546
Galicia391
Galla305
Galla Placidia84, 112, 300, 482
Gamzigrad38283
Gargano485
Gaudentius, senator140, 165
Gaudentius, bishop457
Gaul1, 18, 29, 33, 5354, 8491, 92, 133, 149,
176, 182, 193, 219, 285, 432, 455, 457, 463,
49192
Geiseric30405
Gelasius, Pope11415, 43234, 43840,
44344, 458, 47072, 48788, 50809,
51213, 515, 51920, 52224
Gemellus8890, 455
Geneva248
gender, see women
Genoa484, 506
Gepids35, 75, 8083, 93, 174
Germanus39, 307, 473
Gesalec29, 85
Gothic War3, 9, 24, 32, 3640, 58, 9194, 98,
106, 117, 14244, 173, 187, 19195, 22022,
244, 247, 267, 285, 296, 312, 324, 342,
393, 401, 407, 438, 480, 484, 486, 506
government, see Ostrogoths
governors, provincial62, 6465
Grado248
Gratian, Emperor305
Decree of461
Gratiana84
Greece116
Gregory of Nyssa328
Gregory of Tours3, 18788, 31011
Gregory, Pope337, 414, 453, 461, 465,
48586, 489, 49395
Gudelina309
Gundila221, 241
Gundobad458, 517
Hadrian, Emperor382
Helena382
Heraclius, Emperor59
Herduic81
Hermanfrid303
Heruls35, 38, 83, 174
Hildebad38
Hilderic33, 302, 303
Index
Hippocrates320
Homer312
honorati10203, 109
Honorius, bishop523
Honorius, Emperor154, 245, 367, 38283
Hormisdas, Pope328, 435, 438, 445, 520,
52324
hospitalitas, see Ostrogoths
Huneric30405, 310
Huns17374, 20809, 213, 241
Ianuarius459, 473
Ibas of Edessa445
Ibba85, 89, 455
identity, see Ostrogoths
Illus210
Illyricum7475, 84, 92, 516
Imola250, 482
incastellamento265, 398
intellectual culture, see Italy, and also art
Invillino191
Isidore of Seville352
Istria380
Italia Annonaria79, 114, 481, 488
Italia Suburbicaria114, 427, 438, 481, 488,
525
Italy
environment and geography910,
26469, 28586, 390416, 40015
land owning, see rural life
literature/intellectual culture31642
centers and networks32130
education31720
philosophy33036
population910, 25154, 39298
urban culture/history98102, 23456;
see also art, architecture
housing24950
spectacles24547
spoliation35859
Jerome338, 341, 488, 490, 492
Jews1, 27, 252, 455, 503, 50410, 525
synagogues131, 252
John Cassian495
John I, Pope32, 44243, 520
John II, Pope433, 435, 437, 445
John Maxentius523
Index
John of Antioch306, 482
John, deacon of Rome334, 434
John, of Constantinople444
Jordanes2324, 152, 208, 299, 304, 352
Josephus341
Judas508
Julian, Emperor154, 473
Julius Honorius341
Julius Nepos, Emperor3, 17, 74, 126, 176
Julius, Pope488, 490
Justin, Emperor3031, 130, 442, 444, 519
Justina30506
Justinian18, 24, 3539, 52, 93, 116, 140,
14243, 154, 156, 165, 178, 221, 285, 298,
308, 309, 353, 357, 359, 376, 384, 433,
435, 44445, 468, 491, 519, 521
Justinianic Code39, 154, 156, 27879, 452
Novellae39
Justinianic Plague286
Laurentian Schism, see Christianity
Laurentius46364, 508
law, see Ostrogoths
Lazio484
Leo, Emperor209
Leo, Pope443, 48284, 524
Libellus Hormisdae44445
Liber Pontificalis32, 414, 426, 431, 434, 442,
446, 470, 486, 512, 515, 520, 52324
Liberius25, 27, 34, 36, 8790, 92, 106, 133,
14042, 219, 223
Liguria5152, 134, 413
Lilybaeum35
literature, see Italy
Liwirit91
Lodi484
Lombards265, 267, 391, 401, 486
Lucania5152, 108, 133, 465, 494
Luni400
Lupercalia522
Lusitania255
Macedonia116
Macrobius327, 330, 336
magister militum303
magister officiorum25, 60, 63, 122, 130, 299,
331
Magnentius305
547
Maiorian, Emperor124, 471
Malchus126
Mammo85
Manicheans52125
Marabad89
Marcella48890
Marcellianus, bishop463
Marcellina489
Marcellinus Comes23
Marcian, Emperor304, 306
Marcias93
Marseilles89, 251
Martianus Capella327, 330
Matasuentha37, 39, 142, 30607, 323, 368
Maurice, Emperor59
Mausoleum of Theoderic37884
Maxentius, Emperor38283
Maximian, poet32930
Maximin Daia, Emperor383
Maximus, Emperor124, 305
Melania, senior489
Melania, younger489
Milan56, 116, 138, 183, 189, 212, 246, 248, 251,
318, 32425, 382, 453, 45658, 462,
46465, 467, 48184, 490, 492, 504, 506
military, see Ostrogoths
millenarii178, 182
Modena250, 482
Moesia81
Mons Lactarius39, 195
Monte Barro10708, 272, 41314
Monte Cassino49596
Monza357
Mundo36, 81
Naples9, 3738, 242, 244, 248, 25152, 352,
408, 414, 490, 493, 504, 506
Narbonne8586, 89, 45557, 482, 484
Narses39, 194, 521
Navy, Ostrogothic54, 57, 62, 327, 330
33233, 33536
Nicomachus Cethegus142
Nicomachus of Gerasa332
Nicotera486
Noricum7375, 7880, 93, 273, 482, 493
North Africa9, 18, 29, 37, 91, 101, 176, 255,
276, 285, 302, 432, 446, 486, 492, 519,
52325
548
notarii430
Novara484
Novellae, 5th-century154, 471, 473
Novellae, Justinianic39
numerarii467
Odovacer3, 6, 1718, 20, 7475, 79, 85, 98,
103, 122, 12427, 129, 134, 14344, 174,
177, 216, 221, 267, 285, 326, 438, 493,
51718, 523
Olybrius, Emperor124
Opilio133, 13840, 142, 165, 215
Orestes353
Origen461
Orosius151, 253, 322, 341
Ostia244
Ostrogoths
administration/government2430,
4769, 98117, 16166, 18388, 23940
and the Senate, see Senate
archaeology of, see archaeology
economy of, see economy
end of kingdom, see Gothic War
extent of kingdom/provinces7394
and hospitalitas17783
identity79, 2024, 17375, 18991,
20129, 35052, 50304
language22223
law14767
and crime15761
vulgar law15257
military67, 2122, 2627, 5360,
6364, 17395, 20607, 21018; see also
navy
modern historiography of111, 20107,
42527
political history and constitutional
position1724, 7475, 20715,
296312
political ideology1740, 14752
religion, see Christianity, Arians
royal court5560, 35759, 36578
royal family, see Amals
and taxes, see economy
Ostrogotho32, 303
Osuin7678
Otranto395, 409, 492
Ovid317
Index
Pachomius495
Padua484
pagans/paganism52125
Palazzolo357
Palermo504
Palestine255
Palladius270
Panegyric55, 84, 32324, 368, 522
Pannonia35, 64, 73, 7578, 8084, 88, 93,
209, 228, 482, 516
Parenzo248
Parma237, 243
Parthenius339
Patza218
Paula489
Paulinus of Nola49293
Pavia56, 13839, 165, 183, 212, 238, 240, 244,
247, 251, 255, 324, 352, 357, 375, 408, 484
Pelagianism, see Christianity
Pelagius I, Pope51, 434, 486, 489, 494
Persia3839, 52
Perugia408
Pescara213
Peter of Altinum436, 442
Petrus, bishop473
Pettino486
philosophy, see Italy, literature/intellectual
culture
Piacenza56, 255, 484
Picenum37, 51, 133, 217, 432, 523
Pitzia8182, 221
Plato330, 333
Pliny the Elder465
Podere Chiavichetta255
Podere San Marino27172
Porphyry330, 333
possessores62, 78, 10203, 108, 111, 234, 465
praepositus cubicula507
praetorian prefect25, 51, 6063, 73, 104, 107,
122, 130, 14041, 143, 323, 46970
Pragmatic Sanction3, 39, 116
Priscian55
Priscus173
Proba337
Probus303
Procopius24, 34, 3738, 49, 54, 17778,
19193, 211, 21314, 22223, 242, 252,
296312, 32122, 352
Index
Procula218
protectores49
Provence74, 85, 93, 193, 325, 455, 457, 464
Ptolemy341
Puglia48485
Pula483
Pulcheria304, 306
Pythagoreanism332
quaestor60, 122, 140, 150, 163, 322
Quinigeius509
Quodvultdeus493
Raetia7475, 7980, 89, 93, 216, 482
Ranilio274
Ravenna9, 11, 25, 3638, 5658, 76, 8081,
85, 90, 98, 102, 11013, 129, 134, 138, 142,
149, 183, 189, 212, 226, 234, 23738, 240,
24246, 25053, 255, 270, 286, 297,
32022, 325, 342, 352, 35865, 375, 384,
395, 407, 436, 442, 451, 45658, 467,
48184, 486, 504, 507, 521
Ravenna Cosmographer218, 322
Ravenna papyri521
Ravennius482
Reggio400, 484
Regina218
Regula Benedicti49597
Regula Eugippi497
Regula Magistri49597
Religion, see Christianity and Jews and
pagans
Res Publica23, 25, 39, 49, 87, 220
Ricimer6, 124, 303, 471, 51718
Rimini37, 250, 482
Rodez85
Rome9, 25, 3031, 33, 3738, 90, 107, 111,
11314, 121, 129, 136, 138, 149, 155, 189,
234, 237, 23940, 24446, 248, 25152,
269, 285, 299, 337, 35253, 375, 382, 386,
438, 446, 456, 472, 486, 504
Romulus Augustulus6, 17, 176, 312, 391
Rufinus490, 495
Rugians7475, 174, 215
rural life
agriculture40015
archaeology of27077
coloni and slaves27784
549
economy, see economy
environment, see Italy
land owning27784
settlement patterns26469, 27784,
39298, 40015
Rustica490
Rusticius Helpidius Domnulus327
Rusticus, deacon434
Rutilius Namatianus492
S. Antonino413
S. Filitica403
S. Michele di Trino413
Sabinus11516, 384
saiones6263, 66, 68, 162, 412
Salona76, 93, 459
Salvian of Marseilles276
Samnium132, 217, 221, 494
San Giovanni di Ruoti9
Sardinia7475, 427, 484, 492
Sarmatians75, 215
Savia73, 7578, 80, 82, 91, 93, 133, 482
Savona397
scholares49, 50, 186
Scirians174, 215
scrinarii49, 61
Scythian monks523
Securus Melior Felix327
Sedulius339
Senarius434
Senate8, 22, 25, 3334, 3839, 87, 90, 12144,
299, 308, 437, 441, 508
Senegallia Medallion86, 184, 214, 355
Servatus79, 89, 216
Severinus7778, 91
Severinus of Noricum493, 517
Severus, bishop455, 493
Sicily1, 3536, 7475, 92, 127, 133, 165, 213,
255, 269, 395, 397, 400, 427, 465, 467,
481, 489, 492, 504
Sidonius Apollinaris242, 339, 404
Sigeric32
Sigismund32, 303, 458
silentiarii50
Silius Italicus317
Silverius, Pope38
Simeon, comes7677
Simplicius, Pope430, 432, 435, 439, 457
550
Singidunum83
Siponto408, 412
Siracusius508
Siricius, Pope460
Sirmium73, 75, 8183, 8889, 93
Siscia7677
slaves, see rural life
Skeireins224
Spain1, 18, 2931, 8491, 92, 193, 219, 463
spectacles, see Italy, urban culture
Split383
Spoleto237, 244
Squillace494, 524
Stilicho124
Subiaco495
Suna104
Supersano410
Symmachan Forgeries436, 439
Symmachi, senatorial family of125
Symmachus, Pope115, 131, 334, 384, 428, 433,
435, 442, 46263, 470, 520, 52324
Symmachus, Quintus Aurelius465
Symmachus, Quintus Memmius3132, 34,
134, 138, 140, 249, 32528, 33032
Symmachus, Jewish scholar510, 520
Syracuse483
Syria116, 255
Tancila104
Tavoliere412
taxes, see economy
Teia39, 143, 195, 51213
Telesinus509
Terence317
Teurnia79
Theatre of Pompey357, see also Italy, urban
culture, spectacle
Theodahad3437, 9293, 13941, 192, 218,
221, 269, 274, 298, 302, 307, 309, 321, 353,
355, 468
Theodegotha302
Theoderic3, 67, 911, 1718, 20, 2224, 26,
2932, 35, 37, 39, 4849, 51, 5455, 61,
73, 7582, 8490, 98, 10207, 111, 113, 115,
12122, 12425, 12829, 13437, 144, 147,
14950, 156, 16365, 173, 175, 177, 193,
206, 21012, 21518, 23738, 240, 243,
249, 267, 285, 29697, 299, 32122, 350,
Index
352, 362, 404, 42829, 435, 438, 441, 443,
451, 459, 462, 46465, 468, 474, 48081,
483, 505, 507, 51314, 518, 520, 523
Theoderic II, Visigothic king149
Theoderic Strabo173
Theodora309, 384
Theodore of Herecleia224
Theodore of Mopsuestia445
Theodoret of Cyrrhus445
Theodosian Code124, 156, 160, 164, 27879,
452, 471, 504, 516
Theodosius, Emperor160, 30506, 482
Theodosius II, Emperor124, 154, 300, 304
Thessalonica305
Theudebert93
Theudis35, 92
Thrace209, 211, 228
Thrasamund30203
Thraseric80
Three Chapters controversy, see Christianity
Thuringians35, 303
Torre S. Stefano Belbo413
Tortona56, 484
Totila7, 3839, 58, 143, 192, 195, 221, 483
Toulouse173, 176
Traguila31011
Trajan, Emperor24243, 245
Trento98, 111, 251
Treviso251
Tribonian167
tribunus voluptatum246
Tropea485
Tuluin32, 34, 87
Tuscany35, 132, 26869, 271, 302, 400, 410,
413, 484
Ulfila224
Uligisalus93
Umbria132, 48485
Unimundus361
Unscila470
urban culture/history, see Italy
urban prefect52, 110, 12324, 127, 13334, 165
Ursina79
Ursus7980
Valamer209
Valentinian I, Emperor78, 305
551
Index
Valentinian II, Emperor160, 305, 516
Valentinian III, Emperor84, 112, 124, 154,
163, 245, 281, 300, 303, 305, 471, 482
Valila8
Vandals10, 29, 33, 35, 7475, 101, 127, 166, 176,
30204, 310, 486, 492
Venetia133, 268
Venosa504, 509
Vercelli484, 489, 491
Verona3, 56, 238, 240, 244, 357, 408, 484,
507
Verus, bishop454
Vesuvius266, 268, 288
Vettius Basilius Mavortius327
Victor, bishop112
Vienne463, 482
Vigilius, Pope38, 221, 339, 426, 432, 43335,
437, 44546, 465
Virgil229, 317, 319

Visigoths10, 29, 35, 7374, 8485, 88, 92, 151,
155, 219, 279, 302, 304, 454
Vivarium320, 34142, 494
Volterra472
Volusianus of Tours454
Vouill, Battle of462
Wiliarit253
Witigis35, 3738, 8384, 9293, 14243,
30607, 323, 357, 368
women296312, 48890
Zeno, Emperor1718, 20, 7475, 126, 131,
20911, 303, 352
Zosimus30506

A Companion To Ostrogothic Italy

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Companion To Ostrogothic Italy

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bceh

Urban Life and Culture234

Landowning and Labour in the Rural Economy263

The Heroine and the Historian: Procopius of Caesarea on the

Intellectual Culture and Literary Practices316

Art and Architecture350

Barbarizing the Bel Paese: Environmental History in Ostrogothic

The Roman Church and its Bishops425

Bishops, Ecclesiastical Institutions, and the Ostrogothic Regime451

Mapping the Church and Asceticism in Ostrogothic Italy480

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 6|doi .63/9789004315938_002

Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa

Figure 1.1 Map of Europe and the Mediterranean, ca. 500

Roman structures and ideas endured.2 Alternatively, other scholars underline

A Long and Wide Ostrogothic Italy

Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa

Figure 1.2 Map of Ostrogothic provinces, ca. 525

A broad approach is especially warranted given recent scholarly emphasis on

Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa

Politics and the Army

Odovacers deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 marked the temporary

significant non-military administrative posts to local Roman elites. As recent

Ethnicity and Social Relations

Just as it is problematic to oversimplify the ethnic compositions of the

Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa

self-identify as Goth and/or Roman probably shifted from generation to

and the diplomatic significance of marriage alliances were hardly Ostrogothic

Demography, the Environment, and the Economy

Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa

life is an important question explored by Squatriti in this volume. These overall

Religious and Cultural Trends

Figure 1.3 Map of 6th-century Rome

Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa

Figure 1.4 Map of 6th-century Ravenna

Goffart, W., Barbarians and Romans: Techniques of Accommodation, Princeton 1980.

The Ostrogothic Kingdom: Ideologies

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 6|doi .63/9789004315938_003

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

is to present a brief outline of the political history of the Ostrogothic kingdom

contemporary actors interpreted, negotiated, and legitimized the political and

Theoderics Imperial Kingdom

10 See Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 359; Haarer, Anastasius, pp. 802.

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

by the gentilicium Flavius, which conveyed a distinctly Roman (and perhaps

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

in 476.34 Procopius, writing in Greek, carefully exploited the tensions between

Organization of Power and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

state emerges as essentially Roman. While it is clear that Cassiodorus shaped

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

Kingdom and Empire

The Ostrogothic kingdom formed part of a complex political landscape, and

kingdom until Theoderics death, allowing access to Visigothic treasure, taxes,

Succession and Narratives of Failed Consensus

To secure the succession within the Ostrogothic kingdom was one of

66 Collins, Visigothic Spain, pp. 405; Diaz/Valverde, Goths, pp. 3604.

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

78 Moorhead, Boethius, pp. 1920; idem, Libertas.

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

The Ostrogothic Kingdom

actually a panegyric of Amalasuentha, in which he highlighted the legitimacy

10 See Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 359; Haarer, Anastasius, pp. 802.

66 Collins, Visigothic Spain, pp. 405; Diaz/Valverde, Goths, pp. 3604.

78 Moorhead, Boethius, pp. 1920; idem, Libertas.

125 Pohl, Justinian, pp. 4634.

64 For a reconstruction of the context of Cassiodorus public life: Bjornlie, Variae of

88 Edict of Theoderic 64, ed. Baviera.

1 For an elaboration: Arnold, Theoderic, especially pp. 2313.

22 Matthews, Boethius, p. 19.