M.E.

STEWART (DRAFT: April, 2014)

Three Views of Theoderic: Review of Sean Lafferty, Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: A study of the Edictum Theoderici (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); and Jonathan Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Restoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Peter Heather, The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes & Imperial Pretenders (London: MacMillan, 2013). The Gothic Kingor is that Western Roman emperorTheoderic (ruled 489/93-526) has recently received a great deal of scholarly attention. In The Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes & Imperial Pretenders, Peter Heather devotes several chapters to the Amal rex. Cambridge University Press has published two major studies on Theoderic in the past year alone: Sean Laffertys Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great: A study of the Edictum Theoderici (2013) and Jonathan Arnolds Theoderic and the Roman Restoration. Though all three of these works have done much to advance Theoderican studies their bipolar presentations of Theoderic will probably leave graduate students assigned these works confused. On the one hand, Lafferty provides his reader with a traditional vision of Theoderican Italy as one of several post-Roman worlds. His Theoderic is a barbarian rex dressed in Roman clothing. Theoderics Italy is seen by L as bit of a magicians trick, heavy on rhetoric, but based on a much more humble and depressing reality. Despite the ancient rhetorics claims to the contrary, in Ls (20) mind, Theoderic was unable to solve most of Italys structural problems. L points out rightly that our major source for the reign, Cassiodorus Variae, do
1

not necessarily reflect conditions as they were. Under the Goths, Italy was becoming increasingly militarized, which culminated with a merging of the civilian and military branches of the Italo-Roman government (101-102). L does find that in Ostrogothic Italy that the integrity of the judicial system was basically the same as in the Later Roman Empire. He concludes, however, that the Ostrogoths offered Italo-Romans and Goths a watered down version of Roman law and justice. Ultimately, in Ls mind, Theoderic was a bit of a charlatan. While recognising Theoderics ability to mask these problems behind a rhetoric of Roman renewal that stressed continuity between his reign and those of other great Emperors like Trajan or Valentinian. L contends that the ordinary citizen was worse off, unable to overcome the inherent biases that favoured the rich, the well-connected, and the militarized Gothic elite. While on paper things may not have changed much from when the Roman emperors wore the purple, L concludes that Theoderican Italy was hindered by a failure of judges who were unable or unwilling to enforce the Kings laws.(155). On the other hand, Jonathan Arnold is more inclined to take Italo-Roman writers like Ennodius and Cassiodorus at face value. Arnold (90) goes so far to say Theoderics reignconstituted much more than simply that of a king along the same lines as Odovacer or other barbarian kings of the West. He was a princeps Romanus, or Roman emperor, acknowledged as such by his own subjects and presented as such, though in a deferential and conciliatory manner, to the East. The glorious opening decades of Theoderics rule were nothing less than the rebirth of the Western Roman Empire. Instead of being ruled by unmanly Greek emperors from the East like Anthemius (ruled 467-72), the effeminized fifthcentury Italo-Romans had been both rescued and reinvigorated by the manly Goths, cast by men like Ennodius and Cassiodorus as new Romans draped in traditional Roman martial virtues. Arnold explains, Contemporary western propaganda sought to paint the Gothic Ricimer as a noble Roman protector" whilst casting Easterners like the Western Roman Emperor Anthemius "as an enraged Galatian and Greekling rather than the Roman he claimed to be. (153). Goths and Gothicness, he continues, represented martialism, the old Roman virtue of virtus (the very source of the term virtue), which meant manliness or courage. Virtus was an ideal that the Romans had seemingly lost, becoming overly effeminate (perhaps even overly Greek), yet which until recently had been most Roman indeed.

This view of the fifth-century collapse of the West as the fault of enervated Western Romans at the hands of manly barbarians troubles me. Depictions of the Later Empire like those
2

found in Arnold bring to mind the image of cowed unmanly Roman aristocrats handing over their lands to magnificently armoured barbarians that so angers scholars like Walter Goffart. As Goffart reminds us, The fall of the West Roman Empire is not now (perhaps not ever) envisioned as a military defeat by brave barbarians of enervated troops that had lost the will to fight.i Even in the final years of the West, Roman generals like Aetius continued to prove this dominance on the battlefield.iiMost scholarship on the Late Roman army agree with this assessment, contending that when properly led, the Eastern and the Western Roman armies continued to maintain a distinct advantage in direct confrontations with their foreign enemies.iii Italo-Romans would have remembered a good number of manly fifth-century Western Roman soldiers. So too was there an acceptance amongst many Italo-Romans of a shared Romanitas amongst Easterners and Westerners well into the sixth century. I would agree, however, with Arnold that the familiar trope concerning the unmanly and Greek identity of Eastern Romans is found in both Eastern and Western writers. Procopius spends much of his Gothic Wars trying to rebut this gendered propaganda. This does not mean that the majority of Italo-Romans saw Easterners like Anthemius as unmanly, only that they thought that men like Ricimer and Theoderic might want to hear such traditional tropes. As Procopius shows his readers throughout Wars the Italo-Romans often had mixed loyalties.iv Furthermore, Procopius views of Italy and the major characters Gothic and Roman were not in as much dissonance with Western Sources as Arnold suggests (e.g 73). Procopius character sketches of leading figures in the Gothic leadership such as Amalasuintha, Theodahad, Athalaric, and Totila are very similar to accounts given in the Western sources.v Indeed, much of what Procopius tells his readers about the Gothic Wars after 540 most likely came from his contacts within the Italian Senate.viSo too does there appear to be a continuing divide between Goths and Italo/Romans in the generation after Theoderic. If the Goths were truly new Romans more juxtaposition should be seen. Arnold does not address adequately the notion found in Wars that the Goths continued mostly to live amongst themselves in Northern Italy. Moreover, abandoning his and his peoples Arianism would have been an easy step in being accepted as true Romans. In the East, the generalissimo Aspar was willing to make his son convert to Orthodoxy in order to marry the Emperor Leos daughter in 470 to be better accepted..so why not Theoderic? Religious conviction seems unlikely, Gothic identity and the need to maintain the continuing loyalty of the Gothic warriors that truly kept him in power seems the most likely reason that this step was never taken.
3

Despite my concerns with some of As more sweeping statements, his study is much more thorough and interesting for both the novice and the expert than Laffertys work that is based largely on a tenuous source. Indeed, despite Ls claims, whether Theoderic even composed the Edictum is not clear, or accepted by specialists who see it as a much later product. It is a bit strange given the two scholars familiarity and similar topic that they do not engage one anothers disparate views of Theoderics Italy. Perhaps like mixing matter and anti-matter, neither work would have survived the confrontation! Peter Heather's new book Restoration of Rome: Barbarian Popes & Imperial Pretenders is the sequel to his popular Fall of Rome (2005). While aimed at a broad audience, Heather also has many titbits and, indeed, sometimes startling conclusions for academics. Heather engages with many on-going disputes in the field of Late Antique history. The study, however, would have benefitted with further engagement with recent scholarship that contradicts many of his main points. His bibliography is missing many important articles and recent works that are fundamental if one hopes to put together a narrative on the poorly covered fifth century. While sections of this book are interesting, particularly his chapters on the two Theoderics and Justinian's "reconquest" of the "lost" western provinces in the sixth-century, as a whole this is the weakest of Heather's trilogy. Indeed, as he move away from his area of expertise the quality declines dramatically. His chapters on Carolingians and the rise of the papacy are convoluted and often unrelated to his main thesis. I will, however, leave my comments to his opening chapters on Theoderics rise and Justinians wars of reconquest. While recognizing that he was aiming at a larger audience, his Theoderic offers a portrait of a stereotypical barbarian rex that could have been found in something published a century earlier. With some exceptions, Hs narrative falls back on the old ethnic divide of Romans versus barbarians as an explanation to the political turmoil that beset Leos and Zenos regimes (though H claims that he follows the newer consensus that depicts these divisions as largely factional disputes). Moreover, he makes no mention of Croke and Woods recent articles arguing that Leo and Zeno, indeed, may have been very similar to men like Ricimer, and the two Theoderics. His Theoderic educated in Constantinople had two choices once free from Leos captivity: mildly submit to Roman cultural superiority, or smash for himself and his people a place in this world; certainly this is a vision of Theoderic and the Goths that our Byzantine sources would have wanted us to believe. Arnold suggests plausibly that Theoderic had been shaped by those early years in Constantinople. He was, indeed, probably
4

much more of a typical upper-class Eastern Roman than the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, who sent him to overthrow Odovacer. His study represents a very bipolar world of Romans against barbarians, a paradigm that has been demolished by many scholars in the past ten years. I also kept wondering where the hell was the Eastern Emperor Leo in the narrative. I think that he appeared three times. With that said, Heather does however provide the reader with a lucid and fast-flowing narrative on the scheming that marked late fifth-century Eastern Roman politics. Following Jonathan Arnold, I would just argue that Theoderic and Leo would have shared many values and hopes for the Empire. Certainly, Theoderics move into Italy and subsequent reign is much more nuanced than Hs work suggests. Hs views on Cassiodorus and other Italo-Romans having to justify to the New Eastern Roman ruler of Italy why they had continued to serve Gothic kings despite their arrival on Italian soil (55) is puzzling in light of the fact that he showed throughout his study that such propaganda had begun as soon as Theoderic arrived in Italy. His idea that as a consequence of an Eastern Roman victory, Cassiodorus gave his writings a quick rewrite and culling of his letters to ingratiate himself to Justinian and his inner-circle is unconvincing.vii Indeed, as Arnold as relates, Cassiodorus remained loyal up until Vitigis was captured and sent to Constantinople in 540. So too has Arnold shown in his writings that Cassiodorus was only one of many Italo-Roman writers who composed works dedicated to depicting Theoderic and his Goths as the manly saviours of Italy. Ethnic identity in the Late Antiquity appears to have been much more fluid than Heather frequently suggests. I found some of his comments on Gothic identity incongruent. He posits, plausibly enough, that the lower-status (Gothic) warriors and even more the slaves had much less of a stake in their groups existence, so that the strength of individual affiliation to the groups identity fell off dramatically as you moved down the scale. However, he uses Theoderics famous Romanus miser quote to back up this suggestion. Certainly this example argues the opposite. Rich Gothsone would think including many high-ranking warriors,in this passage imitate rich Romans. The emperor Justinian (ruled 527-565) has received a great deal bad press in the past two decades. Where the older historiographical tradition mostly praised him for his reconquest of the lost provinces in the West, law code, and his example as an engaged Christian emperor, revisionist scholars have lately condemned him as a megalomaniac Christian despot.viii Heathers work reflects this more negative view; though thankfully he does not blame the rise
5

of the Arabs in the seventh century on Justinians failed policies. Heather (203) goes so far as to describe the emperor as an autocratic bastard of the worst kind. Heather compares Justinian to the twentieth centurys most infamous murders Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Even the sixth-century Byzantine writer Procopius, who composed his Secret History in attempt to undermine Justinians legacy, might be surprised that such a negative description of an emperor has largely taken hold in modern scholarship. While I recognise that Heathers emotive prose is designed to appeal to a less academic audience, this is only one instance of many where Hs hyperbole undermines his duty as a historian. I also doubt that Procopius merely hoped for the Secret History to be comical. So if you only have time to read one new book on Theoderic this year, make it Roman Restoration. I would, however, keep John Moorheads less sensationalbut in places more sound and thorough 1992 tome on Theoderic (Theoderic in Italy) by my side to check and compare some of the more sweeping assertions. Heathers chapters on Theoderic and Procopius can also provide the usually accepted alternative views to be found largely in A's extensive footnotes. Though one need not always agree with his conclusions, As reanalysis of the evidence surrounding Theoderic is thorough and engaging, and despite my reservations about the overriding thesis, it is the best and ultimately most important of the three books reviewed above. In closing, Arnold makes the wise point that our view of the period is often crafted by both ancient and modern historians who knew that Theoderics bold experiment had failed. As he points out both mid-sixth century historians Procopius and Jordanes offer us an Eastern viewpoint after Justinians reconquest had driven the Goths to near extinction. Seen from the vantage of 511 Rome, Theoderics regime may have offered much hope for Italo-Romans seeking to restore the Greatness and military prowess of ancient Rome.

Goffart, Barbarian Tides, 28.

ii

For the continued effectiveness of the Western army under the command of Aetius, see Hugh Elton, Defence in fifth-century Gaul, in Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity?, ed. John Drinkwater and Hugh Elton (Cambridge: University Press, 1992) 167-76.
iii

Southern and Dixon, Later Roman Army, 177; see also Heather, Fall of the Roman Empire, 446, who argues that the dual problems of the Hunnic invasions combined with political infighting in the fifth-century Western Empire led to a perfect storm of calamity, whereby the barbarian peoples had just enough military might to carve out their enclaves.

iv

A discussion of these mixed loyalties is found in Maria Kouroumali, The Justianic Reconquest of Italy: Imperial Campaigns and Local Responses, in War and Warfare in Late Antiquity , 2 vols (Brill, 2013), 970-71
v

E.g. the similar descriptions of Amalasuinthas adulation of classical learning found in Cassiodorus, Variae 10.3.4; Procopius, Wars 5.2.11-17. Her manliness is extolled by both authors as well; Athalarics alcoholism discussed by Procopius is hinted at by Cassiodorus. The Goths seizures of Italian lands is discussed by Cass. Variae 8.29 and Proc. Wars 5.3.1. Totilas restraint and fatherly treatment of the citizens of Rome: 7.8.12-25, 7.20.29.31 and the Liber Pontificalis 61.7. In fact the entire episode found in Cassiodorus and discussed by Arnold (50-51) concerning the Western Emperor Valentinian IIIs unmanly education at the hands of his mother Placida as a primary cause for the fifth-century Western Empires troubles is found in Procopius Wars 3.3.9-14. There are many more congruencies that could be added.
vi

J.A.S. Evans, Procopius (New York: Twayne, 1972), 31-36.

vii

Heathers viewpoint represents a modified version of M. Shane Bjornlies controversial revisionist thesis (Politics and Tradition Between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013] that the Variae had been composed in the 540s, not in 537/8 as commonly believed. Bjornlie contends, however, that they were aimed at Roman aristocrats opposed to Justinians regime.
viii

See e.g., James ODonnell, The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History (New York: Harper, 2008).