THE CAMBRIDGE MEDIEVAL HISTORY
CHAPTER XV
THE KINGDOM OF ITALY UNDER ODOVACAR AND
THEODORIC
THE time between the years 476 and 526 is a period of
transition from the system of twin Empires which existed from the time of
Arcadius and Honorius to the separation of Italy from the rest of the Empire.
It is for this reason an interesting period. It marks the surrender by Constantinople
of a certain measure of autonomy to that portion of the Empire which, finding
that government under the faction set up after the death of Theodosius was
impossible, had ended by submission to rulers nominated from Byzantium; it
marks too, the progress achieved by the barbarians, who far from wishing to
destroy a state of things which had formerly been hostile, adapted themselves
to it readily when they had once risen to power, and showed themselves as
careful of its traditions as their predecessors; it marks further, the
preponderant part played in the affairs of the time by a growing power — the
Church—and the adaptability shown by her in dealing with kings who were
heretics and avowed followers of Arius.
The attempt to found an Italian kingdom was destined
to speedy failure. There were too many obstacles in the way of its permanent
establishment; Justinian it is true was to show himself capable of giving
effectual support to the claims of Byzantium and of making an end of the
Ostrogothic kingdom, but even his authority was powerless to bring about the
union of the two portions of the Roman Empire. Another barbarian race, the
Lombards, shared with the Papacy —the one authority which emerged victorious
from these struggles — the possession of a country which, owing to the
irreconcilable nature of the lay and religious elements, was destined to
recover only in modern times unity, peace and that consciousness of a national
existence which is the sole guarantee of permanence.
Cassiodorus writes in his chronicle: "In the
Consulate of Basiliscus and Armatus, Orestes and his brother Paulus were slain
by Odovacar; the latter took the title of king, albeit he wore not the purple,
nor assumed the insignia of royalty." We have here in the concise language
of an annalist intent on telling much in a few words, the history of a
revolution which appears to us, at this distance of time, to have been pregnant
with consequences. The Emperor—that Romulus Augustulus whose associated names
have so often served to point a moral — is not mentioned. It was left to
Jordanes alone, a century later, to make any reference to him. The seizure of
the supreme power by leaders of
barbarian origin had become since the time of Ricimer a recognised process; it
is moreover Orestes who is attacked by Odovacar, and Orestes was a simple
patrician and in no sense clothed with the imperial dignity. The Empire itself
suffered no change, it was merely that one more barbarian had come to the
front. It was only when Odovacar was to set up pretensions to independent and
sovereign authority that annalists and chroniclers were to accord him special
mention on the ground that his claim was without precedent. Up to that point
his intervention was only one among many similar events which occurred at this period.
474-476] Orestes
Orestes was of Pannonian origin; he had acted as
secretary to Attila, and with Edeco had taken a chief part in frustrating the
conspiracy organized by Theodosius II against the life of the king of the Huns.
After the death of the barbarian king, he entered the service of Anthemius, who
appointed him commander of the household troops. He took part — under what
circumstances we are ignorant — in the struggles which brought about the fall
and the murder of Anthemius, an emperor imposed from Constantinople, the
elevation and death of Olybrius, the short-lived rule of the Burgundian
Gundobad and the elevation of Glycerius. For the second time the East imposed
an Augustus on the West, and Leo appointed Julius Nepos to bear rule at Rome. Under
his reign Orestes, who had been promoted to the rank of commander-in-chief, was
charged with the task of transferring Auvergne to the Visigoth king Euric, to
whom it had been ceded by the Roman government.
How it came about that Orestes, instead of leading his
army to Gaul, led it against Ravenna and who induced him to attack Nepos, we
have no documentary evidence to show. Nepos fled and retired to Salona, where
he found his predecessor Glycerius, whom he had appointed to be bishop of that
place. Having achieved this success Orestes proclaimed as the new Emperor
Romulus Augustulus, his son by the daughter of Count Romulus, a Roman noble
(475). Even as Orestes had driven out Nepos, another barbarian — Odovacar — was
before long to drive out Orestes and his son, and once more the contemporary
documents afford no plausible explanation of this fresh revolution.
Odovacar [476
Odovacar was a Rugian, the son of that Edeco, Attila's
general and minister. Odovacar had followed his father's colleague into Italy
where he occupied the humble position of spearman in the household troop, from
which he gradually rose to higher rank. Whether the ambition which fired him
was provoked by the spectacle of the internal conflicts in which he took part,
or whether by the prediction of St Severinus the Apostle of Noricum, it is
impossible to say. It is, however, certain at in the Lives of the Saints there
is a record to the effect that Severinus in his hermitage of Favianum was
visited one day by certain barbarians who asked for his benediction before
going to seek their fortunes in Italy, and one of them, scantily clad in the
skins of beasts, was of so lofty a stature that he was compelled to stoop in
order to pass through the low doorway of the cell. The monk observed the movement
and exclaimed: "Go, go forward into Italy. Today thou art clothed in sorry
skins but ere long thou shalt distribute great rewards to many people."
The man whom Severinus thus designated for supreme rule was Odovacar the son of
Edeco. He appears to have enjoyed great popularity among the mercenary troops,
and profiting by their discontent at the failure of Orestes to reward their
devotion, he induced them to take active measures, and gained to his side the
barbarians of Liguria and the Trentino. Orestes declined the combat offered by
Odovacar in the plains of Lodi, retreated behind the Lambro with the object of
covering Pavia and shortly afterwards shut himself up in that city. Odovacar
laid siege to him there, and Pavia, which, as Ennodius tells us, had been
pillaged by the soldiers of Orestes, was sacked by the troops of Odovacar;
Orestes was delivered up to Odovacar, who had him put to death 8 August, 476.
Odovacar next marched on Ravenna which was defended by Paulus the brother of
Orestes and where Romulus had taken refuge. In a chance encounter which took
place in a pine forest close to the city Paulus was killed and Odovacar,
occupied Ravenna, which had taken the place of Rome as the favourite residence
of the Caesars of the West.
Romulus who had hidden himself and cast off the fatal
purple was brought before him. Odovacar taking pity on his youth and moved by
his beauty consented to spare his life. He moreover granted him a revenue of
6000 gold solidi and assigned him as
his residence the Lucullanum, a villa in Campania hear Cape Misenum which had
been built by Marius and decorated by Lucullus.
In succession to three Emperors of the West who still
survived — Glycerius and Nepos in Dalmatia and Romulus in Campania — Odovacar,
styled by Jordanes King of the Rugians, by the Anonymus Valesii King of the
Turcilingi, and by other authorities Prince of the Sciri, now wielded supreme
power.
476-480] Odovacar
and Zeno
At this point certain questions arise as to the nature
of the authority which he exercised and to his relations with Byzantium and the
established powers in Italy. The documents which supply an answer are scanty.
The passages devoted to Odovacar give no details except such as relate to the
beginning and end of his reign; it is plain too, that the Latin writers of the
time were more intent on pleasing Theodoric than on recording the facts of
history.
Cassiodorus has been careful to point out that
Odovacar refused altogether to assume the imperial insignia and the purple robe
and was content with the "title of king." These events took place
when Basiliscus having driven Zeno from power was reigning as Emperor of the
East, that is, at a moment of dynastic trouble in the other half of the Empire.
The possession of Ravenna, the exile of Romulus, and the death of Orestes did
not suffice to secure to Odovacar the lordship of Italy; it was only after his
formal entry into Rome and his tacit recognition by the Senate, that he could
look upon his authority as finally established.
He was not however satisfied with this, but desired a
formal appointment by the Emperor and the recognition of his authority by
Constantinople. A palace conspiracy which broke out in 477 having replaced Zeno
on the throne of Byzantium, the ex-sovereign Romulus Augustulus, in spite of
the fact that never having been formally recognized by the Emperor, he had no
legal claim to take such a step, sent certain Senators as an embassy to Zeno.
The representatives of the Senate were instructed to inform the Emperor that
Italy had no need of a separate ruler and that the autocrat of the two
divisions of the Empire sufficed as Emperor for both, that Odovacar moreover,
in virtue of his political capacity and military strength, was fully competent
to protect the interests of the Italian diocese, and under these circumstances
they prayed that Zeno would recognize the high qualities of Odovacar by
conferring on him the title of Patrician and by entrusting him with the
government of Italy.
The Emperor's reply was truly diplomatic. After
severely censuring the Senate for the culpable indifference they had shown with
respect to the murder of Anthemius and the expulsion of Nepos, two sovereigns
who had been sent by the East to rule in Italy, he declared to the ambassadors
that it was their business to decide on the course to be pursued. Certain
members of the legation represented more especially the interests of Odovacar,
and to them the Emperor declared that he fully approved of the conduct of the
barbarian in adopting Roman manners, and that he would forthwith bestow on him
the well-merited title of Patrician if Nepos had not already done so, and he
gave them a letter for Odovacar in which he granted him the dignity in
question. Zeno in short had to recognize the fait accompli, the more so as the
ambassadors from Rome to Byzantium had there found themselves in the presence
of another mission sent from Dalmatia by Nepos to beg for the deposed sovereign
the assistance of the newly restored Emperor. He however could only condole
with him on his lot and point out its similarity to that from which he himself
had just escaped.
There is yet another proof of the tacit recognition of
Odovacar's authority. In 480 Nepos was assassinated by the Counts Victor and
Ovida (or Odiva) and in 481, as if he had been the legitimate heir of a
predecessor whose death it was his duty to avenge, Odovacar led an expedition
against the murderers, defeated and slew Ovida and restored Dalmatia to the
Italian diocese. More than this, Odovacar looked upon himself as the formally
appointed representative of Zeno, for at the time of the revolt of Illus, he
refused to aid the latter, who had applied to him as well as to the kings of
Persia and Armenia for assistance against the Emperor. He had already exercised
sovereign power in the cession of Narbonne to the Visigoths of Euric and in the
conclusion of a treaty with Gaiseric in 477, by the terms of which the king of
the Vandals restored Sicily to the Italians, subject to the payment of a
tribute and retaining possession of a castle which he had built in the island.
This is all we know, till Theodoric appears upon the
scene, of the achievements of Odovacar; with respect to his relations with the
inhabitants of Italy we are better informed. In and after 482 the regular
record of consuls, interrupted since 477, was resumed. The Roman administration
continued to work as in the past; there was a praetorian praefect Pelagius who, like so many of his predecessors,
contrived to exact contributions on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the
State. The relations between Odovacar and the Senate were so intimate that
together and in their joint names they set up statues to Zeno in the city of
Rome. Between the Church and Odovacar, albeit he was an Arian, no difficulties
arose, the Pope Simplicius (468-483) recognized the authority of Odovacar, and
the king preserved excellent relations with Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, and
with St Severinus, whose requests he was accustomed to treat with marked
deference and respect. On the death of Simplicius in March 483, a meeting of
the Senate and clergy took place and on the proposition of the praetorian prefect
and patrician Basilius, it was resolved that the election of a new pope should
not take place without previous consultation with the representative of King
Odovacar, as he is styled without addition in the report of the proceedings.
Further, future popes were bidden in the name of the king and under threat of
anathema to refrain from alienating the possessions of the Church.
The picture of Italy under the government of Odovacar
is difficult to trace. We have no Cassiodorus to preserve for us the terms of
the decrees which he signed. Our only source of information, the works of
Ennodius, is by no means free from suspicion. If we are to believe the bishop
of Pavia, it was the evil one in person who inspired Odovacar with the ambition
to reign, that he was a destroyer — populator
intestinus — that his fall was a veritable relief and that Theodoric was a
deliverer; in short that Odovacar was a tyrant in the full sense of the word.
It must be remembered that it is the panegyrist of
Theodoric who speaks in these terms. The word tyrant which he employs must be
understood, as the Byzantine historians understood it, in its Greek sense, that
is, in the sense of an authority set up out of the ordinary course. The
specific charges of tyranny which are made against Odovacar are unconvincing,
especially the accusation that he distributed amongst his soldiers a third of
the land of Italy. We will deal later with the part played by Theodoric.
It is not among these events that we must look for the
cause of the fall of Odovacar; the only possible explanation lies in the fact
that the Italians obeyed with alacrity, so soon as they were made clear, the
orders of Constantinople on domestic affairs — holding themselves free to
disobey them later on — and it was by the formal and specific authority of the
Emperor that Theodoric was sent into Italy.
Theodoric
[481-488
Theodoric, an Amal by birth, was the son of Theodemir
king of the Goths and his wife Erelieva. His father had discharged the duties
of a paid warden of the marches on the northern frontiers of the Empire of the
East. Theodoric having been sent to Constantinople as a hostage spent his childhood
and youth in that city; he stood high in the favour of the Emperor Leo and
became deeply imbued with Greek civilization; his education cannot however have
advanced very far, as when he reigned in Italy he was unable to sign his name
and was compelled therefore to trace with his pen the first four letters cut
out for the purpose in a sheet of gold.
On the death of his father, having in his turn become
king, Theodoric established his headquarters in Moesia and found himself
involved in a chronic struggle with a Gothic chief Theodoric "the
Squinter" (Theodoric Strabo), who aspired to the kingly dignity. To
accomplish this purpose Theodoric Strabo relied on the good will of the Eastern
Emperors. Having thrown in his lot with Basiliscus, he helped him to drive Zeno
from the throne and. received rewards in the shape of money and military rank;
but when Zeno returned to power it was Theodoric the Amal who in virtue of his
fidelity stood highest in the imperial favour. Adopted by the Emperor, loaded
with wealth and raised to patrician dignity, he enjoyed from 475 to 479 great
influence at the Byzantine Court. He was given the command of an expedition
sent to chastise Strabo who had risen in revolt, and found his rival encamped
in the Haemus; the men of each army were of kindred race and Theodoric the Amal
was compelled by his soldiers to form a coalition with the enemy. Till the
death of Strabo, which occurred in 481, the two Theodorics intrigued together
against the Emperor and with the Emperor against each other and there followed
a series of reconciliations and mutual betrayals. From that time forward
Theodoric the Amal became a formidable power, he held Dacia and Moesia and it
was necessary to treat him with respect. Zeno nominated him for Consul in 483 and
in 484 he filled that office; it was in this capacity that he subdued the
rebels Illus and Leontius, and on this ground he was granted in 486 the honour
of a triumph and an equestrian statue in one of the squares of Byzantium.
This accumulation of dignities conferred by Zeno
concealed the distrust which he felt, and which before long he made manifest by
sending Theodoric into Italy.
Jordanes maintains that it was Theodoric himself who
conceived the plan of the conquest of Italy and that in a long speech addressed
to the Emperor, he depicted the sufferings of his own nation which was then
quartered in Elyria and the advantages which would accrue to Zeno in having as
his vicegerent a son instead of a usurper, and a ruler who would hold his
kingdom by the imperial bounty. Certain authors such as the Anonymus Valesii
and Paulus Diaconus have transformed this permission granted by the Emperor
into a formal treaty giving to Theodoric the assurance, says the former, that
he should "reign" in the place of Odovacar, and recommending him, says
the latter —after formally investing him with the purple — to the good graces
of the Senate. The explanation given by Procopius and adopted by Jordanes in
another passage is, however, more plausible. Zeno, better pleased that
Theodoric should go into Italy than that he should remain close at hand and in
the neighbourhood of Byzantium, sent him to attack Odovacar; a similar method
had been pursued with Widimir and Ataulf in order to remove them to a distance
from Rome. In any case it was in the name of the Emperor that Theodoric acted,
and he held his power by grant from him.
The title which he bore when he started from
Constantinople, that of Patrician, sufficed in his own opinion and that of Zeno
to legalize his power and to clothe him with the necessary authority: it was
the same rank as that borne by Odovacar. Later, like Odovacar, he aspired to
something higher and like him he was to fail in his attempts to obtain it. Zeno
had no intention of yielding up his rights over Italy, and recognized no one
other than himself as the lawful heir of Theodosius.
488-493] Theodoric
and Odovacar
In 488 Theodoric crossed the frontier at the head of
his Goths; it was the first step in the conquest which took five years to
complete. Odovacar opposed him at the head of an army not less formidable but
less homogeneous than that of his adversary. He was defeated on the Isonzo; he
retreated on Verona, was once more beaten and fled to Ravenna. Theodoric
profited by this error of tactics to make himself master of Lombardy, and Tufa,
Odovacar's lieutenant in that district, came over to his side. This was merely
a stratagem, as when Tufa was sent with a picked body of Goths to attack
Odovacar, he rejoined him with his Ostrogoths at Faventia. In 490 Odovacar
again took the offensive; he sallied from Cremona, retook Milan and shut up
Theodoric in Pavia. The latter would have been destroyed if the arrival of the
Visigoths of Widimir, and a diversion made by the Burgundians in Liguria, had
not left him free to rout Odovacar in a second battle on the Adda and to pursue
him up to the walls of Ravenna. In August 490 Theodoric camped in the pine
forest which Odovacar had occupied in his campaign against Orestes and a siege
began which was to last three years. In 491 Odovacar made a sortie in which, after
a first success, he was finally defeated and the siege became a blockade.
Theodoric, while keeping the enemy under observation,
proceeded to capture other towns and to form various alliances. He seized
Rimini and so destroyed the means of provisioning Ravenna, after which he
opened negotiations with the Italians.
Without asserting that Theodoric owed all his success
to the Church, the facts show pretty clearly that she afforded him — Arian
though he was, like Odovacar—valuable assistance. It was Bishop Laurentius who
opened for him the gates of Milan and it was he who, after the treason of Tufa,
held for him that important city; Epiphanius bishop of Pavia acted in similar
fashion. In a letter written in 492, Pope Gelasius takes credit to himself for
having resisted the orders of Odovacar, and finally it was another bishop, John
of Ravenna, who induced Odovacar to treat.
Theodoric like Clovis understood to the full the
advantages which would accrue to him from the good offices of the Church. From
his first arrival in Italy he showed in his attitude towards her the greatest
consideration and tact. He was lavish in promises, he took pains to conciliate
and he did not despise the use of flattery. Thus when he saw Epiphanius for the
first time he is said to have exclaimed: "Behold a man who has not his
peer in the East. To look upon him is a prize, to live beside him
security." Again, he entrusts his mother and his sister to the care of the
bishop of Pavia, an act of high policy by which he added to the friendly
feelings already exhibited towards him. The conquest of Italy was practically
achieved between 490 and 493, and the various members of the nobility such as
Festus and Faustus Niger and the chief senators rallied to his cause; with the
capitulation of Odovacar, which took place at this latter date, the victory of
Theodoric was complete.
On 27 February 493, through the good offices of John
bishop of Ravenna who acted as official intermediary and negotiated the terms
of the treaty, an agreement was concluded between Odovacar and Theodoric. It
was arranged that the two kings should share the government of Italy and should
dwell together as brothers and consuls in the same palace at Ravenna. Odovacar
as a pledge of good faith handed over his son Thela to Theodoric, and on 5
March the latter made his state entry into Ravenna.
Theodoric broke the agreement by an act of the basest
treachery. A few days later he invited Odovacar, his son and his chief officers
to a banquet in that part of the palace known as the Lauretum. At the end of
the feast Theodoric rose, threw himself on Odovacar and slew him together with
his son. The chief officers of Theodoric's army followed his example and
massacred the Rugian leaders in the banqueting hall, while in the interior of
the palace and as far as the outskirts of Ravenna the Gothic soldiery attacked
the soldiery of Odovacar. It was clear that all acted on orders from
headquarters.
Theodoric had now no rival in Italy: he was not
however equally successful in his attempts to obtain recognition as king by the
Emperor. He had already, during the first year of the siege of Ravenna,
despatched Festus to Constantinople, hoping that his position as chief of the
Senate would favour the success of his mission. On the completion of his conquest,
Festus having in the meantime failed, Theodoric sent a fresh envoy, Faustus
Niger; the second enterprise was however no less abortive than the first. The
Anonymus Valesii tells us, indeed, that "peace having been made" (had
Theodoric then in the eyes of the Emperor been guilty of disobedience?),
"Anastasius sent back the royal insignia which Odovacar had forwarded to
Constantinople"; nowhere, however, do we find it stated that the Emperor
had authorized Theodoric to assume them. In a letter written to Justinian to
beg for his friendship, Athalaric records the benefits conferred by the Court
of Byzantium on his ancestors, he mentions adoption and the consulate and in
referring to the question of government he merely recalls that his grandfather
had been invested in Italy with the toga
palmata, the ceremonial robe of clarissimi of consuls who triumphed. However that may be, Theodoric took that which was
not conferred upon him. He abandoned military dress and assumed the royal
mantle in his capacity of "governor of the Goths and the Romans" (Jordanes);
but officially he was not, any more than Odovacar had been, king of Italy. Even
his panegyrist Ennodius who styles him "our lord the king," refers to
the Italians as "his subjects," accepts him as "lord of Italy"
and de facto "Imperator"
and speaks of him as clothed with the imperialis
auctoritas, nowhere calls him king of Italy or king of the Romans. He was
at once a Gothic king and a Roman official: Jordanes has called him quasi Gothorum Romanorumque gubernator.
Theodoric and Anastasius
We have proof of this double position in the two
letters which he wrote to Anastasius and which are quoted by Cassiodorus. In
the first Theodoric expresses to the Emperor the respect which he feels for the
latter's counsels and especially for the advice which he had given him to show
favour to the Senate. If he uses the word regnum (a word which may also mean nothing more than government) it is to tell the
Emperor that his object is to imitate the latter's system of governing. In the
second letter, his tone is that of a lieutenant who begs his superior officer
to approve the choice of a consul. It is the tone neither of a rebel on the one
hand, nor of an independent sovereign on the other.
As the Anonymus Valesii saw very clearly, Theodoric
made no attempt to found a new State: he ruled two nations together without
seeking to blend them, to allow one to absorb the other, or to make either
subordinate. The Goths retained their own rights, their own laws, and their own
officials; the Italians continued to be governed as they had been in the past,
and the rule of Theodoric offers us the spectacle of a government purely Roman
in character.
The Goths had established themselves almost
imperceptibly in Italy, as their king had been careful to maintain continuity
of government, and Theodoric appears in the pages of contemporary writers as a
sovereign whose habits and traditions were altogether Roman. The works of Ennodius
abound in evidence of this: his Panegyric in particular, in which he represents Italy and Rome as loud in their praise
of Theodoric because he had revived the old tradition and because he himself
was a Roman prince whose ambition it was to place Italy I in harmony with her
past; this is the idea which dominates the pages of the famous prosopopoeia of
the Adige.
The government of Theodoric was then wholly Roman; he
published laws and appointed consuls. He maintained and enforced Roman law and
the edictum Theodorici was derived exclusively from Roman sources. He even imitated
the imperial policy of encouraging barbarians in Italy, as when, for example,
he established the Alemanni as guardians of the frontier. He also had a Court,
officials and an administrative organization similar to that of Byzantium; he
respected the Senate, restored the consular office, and though himself an Arian
intervened as arbitrator, much as a Caesar would have done, in the affairs of
the Church. Theodoric had a royal palace at Ravenna and there held his Court (Aula) surrounded by the chief men of
Italy and his Gothic nobles. To enjoy interest at Court was all-important. No
career was open to the man who did not attend there. "He was unknown to
his master," says Ennodius. The Court was at once the home of good manners
and the source of enlightenment, the centre of state affairs and a school of
administration for the younger men.
Theodoric's Court
and Officials
The Court and the service of the palatium entailed certain functions nearly all of which were
discharged by Romans: the comes rerum
privatarum (Apronianus held the office in the time of Ennodius) had charge
of the privy purse, and in his double capacity of censor and magistrate was
responsible for the preservation of tombs and the administration of private
justice: the comes patrimonii (Julianus)
as steward of the royal domains, had under his orders the troublesome band of
farmers of the revenue (conductores)
and inspectors (chartularii); he had
moreover supreme charge of the royal commissariat. The palace with its
magnificent gardens and sumptuously decorated apartments was thronged with
Roman nobles who came there in search of preferment. It was guarded by picked
troops, and Ravenna was the head-quarters of an important military district
where the chief commands were filled by such men as Constantius, Agapitus and
Honoratus. There was not a Goth among them.
If from the Court we turn to the officials we find
again that they are all Romans. Among the ministers of the Court of Theodoric,
as would have been the case under the Roman administration, the most important
was the praetorian praefect Faustus,
a personage of high consequence who in right of his office enjoyed a
considerable police authority and extensive patronage; he was at the head of
the postal administration, and to him was the final appeal in all criminal
matters which arose in the provinces. His powers were almost legislative in
character; in the forum his jurisdiction was supreme and his person sacred. The comes sacrarum largitionum discharged
the duties of finance minister; the quaestor,
Eugenetes, was responsible in matters relating to jurisprudence and the framing
of laws. Then came the treasury counsel Marcellus, who filled a position
coveted by the rising members of the Bar, and who acted as a sort of
attorney-general with respect to the estates of intestates and unclaimed assets;
next came the magister officiorum and
then the peraequator whose business
it was to adjust the incidence of taxation in the royal cities. Finally the vicarius, the deputy in each diocese of
the praetorian praefect.
We have here only specified some of those officials
whose personal characters have been depicted for us in the letters of Ennodius.
If we complete — and with the help of Cassiodorus it is possible to do so — the
catalogue of government departments, both administrative and provincial, which
existed in Italy under Theodoric we might well imagine it to be a record, not
of the reign of a barbarian king, but of the times of Valentinian and Honorius.
It was the Romans alone who struggled—and they did so with the greatest
eagerness to obtain these posts. Did, for example, the office of Treasury
Counsel fall vacant, the whole province was agitated by intrigues, and even
bishops joined in the contest. The crowd of candidates for a minor office such
as peraequator was so great that
Ennodius could not refrain from bantering Faustus on the subject.
The cursus
honorum of the principal officers of state, during the forty years from
Odovacar to the death of Theodoric, proves that very little was altered in Italy
during that period, except the nationality of the ruler of the country. We
find, for instance, that Faustus was successively Consul, Quaestor, Patrician,
and Praetorian Praefect, and was moreover entrusted with missions to Anastasius;
while Liberius, who had remained faithful to Odovacar, and had even refused to
surrender Caesena to Theodoric, was nevertheless employed by the latter
sovereign, who made him a Patrician and Praefect of Ligurian Gaul. Senarius,
again, was employed first as a soldier, and then as a diplomatist, and Count of
the patrimonium; Agapitus, another
official, obtained the rank of Patrician, held a military appointment at
Ravenna, and was in turn Consul, Legate in the East, and Praefect of the city;
while Eugenetes, whom Ennodius styles "the honour of Italy," became a vir illustris, and was employed as an
advocate, a Quaestor, and as Master
of the Offices; other examples might also be quoted. The readiness of these
Italian noblemen to serve successively under both Odovacar and Theodoric arose
from no feeling of indifference on their part, but must rather be attributed to
the fact that these rulers were in no sense hostile to tradition, and because
they continued the form of administration established by the Roman Empire.
The Senate
The Senate and the consulate, those two institutions
with which the whole history of the past had been so intimately connected,
especially engaged the attention of Theodoric. Ever since the time of Honorius,
the part played by the Senate in the government of Italy had been growing more
and more important. After the death of Libius Severus, it had asked Leo for an
emperor; while both Augustulus and Odovacar had entrusted it with a similar
mission to Zeno. In a well-known novel, Majorian may be found thanking the
Senate for his election, and promising to govern according to its counsels; and
when Anthemius was endeavouring to involve Ricimer in the struggle that was to
end so fatally for himself, he leant for support upon the Curia. Examples such
as these show that the Senate represented tradition; it was the single
authority that remained unchanged through every vicissitude, and to it
accordingly Theodoric at once made overtures. He entrusted a mission of
considerable importance to two Senators, Festus and Faustus, the former of whom
occupied the position of chief of the Senate; and on making his entry into Rome
his first visit was to the Senate-house. In fact, to make use of a saying of
his own, as recorded by his panegyrist, he adorned the crown of the Senate with
countless flowers. He enrolled a few Goths among its members, but he only did
this on rare occasions, for he preferred, as a rule, to recruit the senatorial
ranks from among the old aristocracy of the country. During his reign men
became senators in three ways; they might either be co-opted, or else selected
from a list of candidates nominated by the king, or they obtained the rank
because they had been advanced to some dignity which conferred the title of
"illustrious." In Rome indeed the Senate at this time was the supreme
power. In conjunction with the praefect, it had the control of the municipal
police; it organized the games in the circus; and exercised authority over the
city schools and working men's corporations. Without abandoning any of its
legislative power it assumed the functions of the Aediles; nor could a royal edict become law until it had received
the senatorial sanction. The Varia of
Cassiodorus are full of letters from Theodoric to the Senate. Indeed, he never
made a nomination of any consequence, or filled up an important office, without
immediately communicating the fact to the senators in the most deferential
terms, and even soliciting their advice and approbation. A great deal of this
deference was no doubt a mere form, but to a certain extent it was also
sincere. The king's respect could hardly have been altogether feigned, for he
invariably addressed even those senators who held aloof from his government in
a kindly manner. Festus, for instance, although he remained in Rome and never
visited Ravenna, obtained the rank of Patrician, and received no less than four
letters from Theodoric, all expressed in the most flattering terms; while
Symmachus, another Patrician who refused to leave his native city, was favoured
with a royal letter praising the buildings which he had erected.
In spite of these friendly relations, some opposition
was aroused in the Curia by the question of the Arian schism; indeed towards
the end of the king's reign, the behaviour of the senators over this matter even
provoked against him the hostility of Byzantium. Not only was this opposition a
source of serious trouble to Theodoric, but it rendered him suspicious and
cruel, and caused him to act with great severity against some of the senatorial
families, and several victims, among whom Boethius was the most illustrious,
were executed by his command.
In the opinion of Theodoric, the consulship was as
valuable as ever, though in reality it had lost a great deal of its former
importance. As Justinian justly observes in an Authenticus, this office had originally been created to defend the
State in time of war, but since the emperors had undertaken the business of
fighting, the consulship had deteriorated into a means of distributing largess
among the people. Under these circumstances, candidates for the office were
not very numerous. Ennodius mentions the small number of aspirants for the
consulship; while Marcian, in an official communication, expresses his
indignation at the stinginess of the men holding this high office, and obliges
them to contribute a hundred pounds weight of gold, for the purpose of
repairing the aqueducts. The consulship indeed at this period had degenerated
into a mere name. A formula of nomination, which has been preserved for us by
Cassiodorus, merely recalls the fame of this magistracy in the past, and then
goes on to point out that a consul's sole duty is to be magnanimous, and not to
be sparing with his money. However, the consul has no more authority. "By
the grace of God," the formula declares, "we govern, while your name
dates the year. Your good fortune, indeed, is greater than that of the prince
himself, for though endowed with the highest honours, you have been relieved of
the burden of power." On the other hand, as if to make up for this loss of
authority, the dress of a consul was sumptuous and magnificent; a spreading
cloak hung from his shoulders; he carried a sceptre in his hand, and wore
gilded shoes. In addition, he possessed the right of sitting in a curule chair, and was allowed to make
the seven processions in triumph through Rome of which Justinian speaks in one
of his novels.
Theodoric would have liked to restore the consulship
to a somewhat more respected position. An eloquent letter on the subject of
this magistracy was addressed by him to the Emperor Anastasius, and when
Avienus, the son of Faustus, became consul in 501, Ennodius, who shared the
opinion of his master, wrote as follows: "If there are any ancient
dignities which deserve respect, if to be remembered after death is to be
regarded as a great happiness, if the foresight of our ancestors really created
something so excellent that by it humanity can triumph over time, it is
certainly the consulship, whose permanence has overcome old age, and put an end
to annihilation." In his Panegyric, moreover, Ennodius praises Theodoric
because, during his reign, "the number of consuls exceeded the number of
candidates for the office in previous times."
Theodoric's
Government
The main outlines of Theodoric's government have now
been described: and it will be seen that they were all of Roman origin. We must
next inquire in what manner he administered this government. A judicious policy
and gentle means had been employed to supplant Odovacar, and at the beginning
of his reign he governed by similar methods. He endeavoured to help the Italian
officials with whom he had surrounded himself , and to whom he had entrusted the
high offices of State, in their task of pacifying and reorganizing the country.
When Epiphanius described the miserable plight of Liguria to him, and told him
in moving terms how the land there lay uncultivated owing to its husband-men
having been carried away captive by the Burgundians, the king replied:
"There is gold in the treasury, and we will pay their ransom, whatever it
may be, either in money or by the sword." He then suggested that the
bishop should himself undertake negotiations for ransoming the captives. Epiphanius
accepted this mission; and, the king having placed the necessary funds at his
disposal, triumphantly brought home six thousand prisoners, whom he had either
ransomed or whose liberty he had obtained by his eloquent pleading in their
behalf. The effect produced in Italy by such an act of liberality, followed by
so satisfactory a result, can be imagined. The king's aim, indeed, as he told Cassiodorus,
was to restore the old power of Italy, to re-establish a good government, and
to extend the influence of that Roman civilitas upon which he desired to model his own administrations.
As ministers, he selected men capable of inspiring
confidence, such as Liberius, for instance, whose official work had been
attended with such excellent results. In his opinion, fidelity to a vanquished
patron was a virtue, nor was he afraid of praising it; indeed, in his
administration, the value of a post given to a son would be in proportion to
the deserts of the father. He attracted young men capable of making good officers
of state to his Court; in a word, he acted like a sovereign who desires to be
loved by his subjects, and at the same time to give stability to his rule. As
Ennodius remarks: "No man was driven to despair of obtaining honours; no
man, however obscure, had to complain of a refusal to his demands provided that
they rested on substantial foundations; no man, in fact, ever came to the king without
receiving liberal gifts"; but at this point we detect the panegyrist.
As we shall see before long, the end of his reign
differed from the beginning, but during the chief part of it, at any rate, he
governed with singular prudence. When Laurentius begged Theodoric to pardon
some rebellious subjects, the king answered him as follows: "Your duty as
a bishop obliges you to urge me to listen to the claims of mercy, but the needs
of an Empire in the making shut out gentleness and pity, and make punishments a
necessity." Nevertheless, we find that he allowed some mitigation to be
made in the punishment of the culprits.
Theodoric could be a just as well as a politic ruler,
and he showed is sense of justice when he had to deal with financial questions.
At the request of Epiphanius, he remitted two-thirds of the taxes for the
current year to the inhabitants of Liguria; levying the remaining third, it is
said, "in order that the poverty of his treasury might not impose fresh
burdens on the Romans." During his reign even the Goths were obliged to
submit to taxation, and he also made them respect the public finances. At
Adria, for instance, he forced them to give back what they had taken from the fiscus; in Tuscany he ordered Gesila,
the Sajo, to make them pay the land
tax. Moreover, if in any province the servants of the Gothic Count or his
deputy behaved violently to the provincials, we find Severianus giving
information against them; while in Picenum and Samnium we find him ordering his
compatriots to bring grants made to the king to Court, without keeping back any
portion of them.
Nevertheless, contemporary chroniclers have all
declared that Theodoric, like Odovacar, distributed a third part of the land
in Italy among his soldiers. Their statement appears to have been almost
invariably accepted by later historians, who have repeated it one from another.
A theory, that the barbarians despoiled the conquered people of their estates,
is commonly believed, and indeed has hardly ever been contradicted. But in
addition to the fact that such a proceeding would certainly have led to some
disturbance, of which we can find no evidence in any part of the country,
another circumstance renders such a conclusion unreasonable. This is that
neither Odovacar's soldiers, nor Theodoric's, were in reality sufficiently
numerous to occupy a third part of the land in Italy. Greek chronicles, it is
true, speak of the “tritimorion ton argon”,
Latin writers of the tertiae. But
what are we to understand by these expressions? Among the few scholars who have
attempted to dispute the current theory, some, like de Rozière, believe that
the chronicler's words denote an act of confiscation for which compensation was
made to the owners by a tax levied at the rate of one-third of the annual
value. Others, like Lécrivain, consider that they mean a surrender of
unappropriated land, in return for which a tribute was exacted equal to a third
of the annual produce. At no period, not even during the agrarian troubles in
the far away days of the Republic, had it ever been the custom to eject legal
proprietors from their estates. On the contrary, on every occasion when land
had been required for the purpose of making grants to the plebeians, to
veterans or praetorians, or even to barbarians, it had invariably been taken
from land owned by the community, that is to say from the land around the
temples, from unoccupied land, or from the property of the Treasury. Whenever
indeed a distribution of land took place, it was made exclusively from the
lands belonging to the Treasury, which, at certain periods, multiplied
exceedingly owing to escheated successions or confiscations. In our own
opinion, it was a third of these state lands, this ager publicus, that was
assigned to the barbarians during the reigns of Odovacar and Theodoric. In
addition to the fact that not one of the texts actually contradicts this
theory, it appears to be sufficiently proved by the following words, addressed
by Ennodius to Liberius, when the latter was ordered to allot the land of
Liguria to the Goths: "Have you not enriched innumerable Goths with
liberal grants, and yet the Romans hardly seem to know what you have been
doing." Even the courtier-like Ennodius would not have expressed himself
in this manner in a private letter, or even in an official communication, if
private estates had been attacked for the benefit of the conquerors.
Corn-distributions
During the early years of the Roman Empire, the annual
food supply of Italy had always been one of the government's chief anxieties;
and the writings of Cassiodorus constantly show us that Theodoric was not free
from a similar care. His orders to his officials, however, on this subject,
appear to have been attended with excellent results. During his reign,
according to the Anonymus, sixty
measures of wheat might be purchased for a solidus,
and thirty amphorae of wine might be had for a like sum. Paul the Deacon has
remarked the joy with which the Romans received Theodoric's order for an annual
distribution of twenty thousand measures of grain among the people. It was,
moreover, with a view to making the yearly food supply more secure, that the
king caused the seaports to be put into good repair; and we find him especially
charging Sabiniacus to keep those in the vicinity of Rome in good order.
At the same time, Theodoric gratified the ruling
passion of the Italians for games in the circus; and Ennodius, the Anonymus,
and Cassodorus, are unanimous in praising him for reviving the gladiators. From
their pages, we learn that he provided shows and pantomimes, that he
endeavoured to shield the senators from the abusive jests of the comedians, and
that he brought charioteers from Milan for the Consul Felix. But, in the eyes of
his contemporaries, the most striking of all Theodoric characteristics seems to
have been his taste for monuments, for making improvements at Rome and Ravenna,
and for works of restoration of every kind. Such a taste, indeed, was very
remarkable in a barbarian. According to the Anonymus he was a great builder. At
Ravenna, the aqueducts were restored by his order; and the plan of the palace
which he constructed there has been preserved for a mosaic in Sant Apollinare
Nuovo. At Verona, also, he erected baths and an aqueduct. Cassiodorus tells us
how the king sought out skilled workers in marble to complete the Basilica of
Hercules; how he ordered the Patrician Symmachus to restore the theatre of
Pompey; how he bade Artemidorus rebuild the walls of Rome, and how he desired
Argolicus to repair the drains in that city. We find him, moreover, requesting
Festus to send any fallen marbles from the Pincian Hill to Ravenna; and giving
a portico, or piece of ground surrounded by a colonnade, to the Patrician
Albinus, in order that he may build houses on it. Count Suna received
directions to collect broken pieces of marble, in order that they might be used
in wall-building; while the magistrates of a tributary town were required to
send to Ravenna columns, and any stones from ruins that had remained unused. In
fact, Ennodius' statement that "he rejuvenated Rome and Italy in their
hideous old age by amputating their mutilated members," is perfectly
correct in spite of its rhetorical style. Not a few of his orders, moreover,
bear witness to a care for the future: the Goths of Dertona, for instance, and
of Castellum Verruca, were commanded to build fortifications; the citizens of
Arles were directed to repair the towers that were falling into decay upon
their walls; and the inhabitants of Feltre were ordered to build a wall round
their new city. He even looked forward to his own death, building that strange
mausoleum now become the Church of Santa Maria della Rotonda, whose monolithic
roof is still an object of wonder.
Ennodius also tells us that Theodoric encouraged a
revival of learning, nor is this eulogy by any means undeserved, for a real
literary renaissance did in fact take place during his reign. In addition to
Cassiodorus himself, to Ennodius, who was at once an enthusiastic lover of
literature, an orator, a poet, and a letter-writer, and to Boethius, the most
illustrious and popular writer of his day, quite a number of other
distinguished literary men flourished at that time. Rusticus Helpidius, for
instance, the king's physician, has left a poem entitled the Blessings of Christ; Cornelius Maximianus
wrote idyllic poetry; while Arator of Milan translated the Acts of the Apostles
into two books of hexameters. The greatest poet of this period was Venantius
Fortunatus, who became bishop of Poitiers; and mention should also be made of
the lawyer Epiphanius, who wrote an abridgment of the ecclesiastical histories
of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.
498-500] The Church
Theodoric was himself an Arian, yet he was always
ready to extend is protection o the Catholic Church. Indeed, as we have already
noticed, it was his policy to win over the bishops of northern Italy.
Accordingly he granted complete liberty of worship to all Catholics; while so
long as papal elections were quietly conducted, as in the cases of Gelasius and
Anastasius II, he took no part in them. But should a pontifical or episcopal
election lead to disturbances of any kind, more especially if such disturbances
were likely to end in a schism, Theodoric at once intervened in them, in the
character of arbitrator or judge. For he claimed to be dominator rerum, that is to say the sovereign, responsible for the
maintenance of order in the State; the successor, indeed, of the Caesars, who
had always considered the task of maintaining the integrity of the faith as
their most especial prerogative. And he assumed such a position at the time of
the Laurentian schism.
In the year 498, two priests, Laurentius and
Symmachus, had been simultaneously elected by rival parties to the Roman See.
As neither prelate was willing to resign his claim to profit by the election,
the dispute was referred to the Gothic king, who decided that whichever
candidate had obtained a majority of votes should be proclaimed bishop of Rome.
This condition being fulfilled by Symmachus, he was accordingly recognized as
Pope, while Laurentius was given the bishopric of Nuceria as a compensation. By
this arrangement peace, it was believed, was again established; and, in the
year 500, Theodoric paid a visit to Rome, where he was enthusiastically
received by Pope, Senate and people.
But the schism was by no means at an end. On the
contrary, the enemies of Symmachus lost no time in renewing their attack with
redoubled vigour; and accusations of adultery, of alienating church property,
and of celebrating Easter on the wrong date, were successively brought against
the Pope. Theodoric summoned the accused Pontiff to appear before him, and when
Symmachus refused to comply with this command, the case was referred to an
assembly, over which Peter of Altinum presided as visitor. No less than five
synods were convoked for the purpose of settling this question, and it was
eventually terminated by the acquittal and rehabilitation of Symmachus.
The debates held in these ecclesiastical assemblies
were very stormy. The partisans on both sides appear to have been equally
unwilling to give way, nor did they scruple to promote their cause by exciting
riots in the streets, or by slanderous libels. Both parties indeed seem to have
been mainly occupied with justifying themselves in Theodoric's eyes, in order
that they might obtain his support; in fact, from the second Synod onwards, the
friends of Laurentius adopted the tactics of attempting to prove that
Symmachus and his adherents had disobeyed the orders of the king.
In every phase of this controversy, so full of
information respecting the relations of Church and State at that period,
Theodoric, it will be seen, occupies an important place. In Rome, troubles were
temporarily smoothed over by his presence, while his departure, on the other
hand, proved the signal for a fresh outbreak. Appeals for a peaceful settlement,
expressed with increasing vigour, and mingled with reproofs of increasing
sternness, fill his letters at this time. When the hostile parties, unable to
come to any decision on their own account, referred the question to their
sovereign, he reminded them of their duty in the following severe words:
"We order you to decide this matter which is of God, and which we have
confided to your care, as it seems good to you. Do not expect any judgment from
us, for it is your duty to settle this question." Later, as a verdict
still failed to make its appearance, he writes again: "I order you to
obey the command of God." And this time he was obeyed.
The fact that Theodoric was himself an Arian never
seems to have limited his influence in any way during this long quarrel, so
celebrated in the history of the Church. His prerogative as king gave him a
legitimate authority in ecclesiastical matters, nor does that authority ever
appear to have been called in question on the ground that he was a heretic. On
the contrary, we find him giving his sanction to canons and decrees, exactly in
the same manner as his predecessors had done in the days of the dual Empire.
But, though his words were sometimes haughty and peremptory, he was careful not
to impose his own will in any matters concerning faith or discipline; indeed
the most extreme action that can be laid to his charge is the introduction into
the Roman Synods of two Gothic functionaries, Gudila and Bedculphas, for the
purpose of seeing that his instructions were not neglected.
A similar wise impartiality, mingled with firmness,
distinguished his dealings with the clergy. When a priest named Aurelianus was
fraudulently deprived of a portion of his inheritance, restitution was made to
him by order of the king. He assisted the churches to recover their endowments;
he appreciated good priests, and did them honour. Occasionally, indeed, he
deposed a bishop for a time, on account of some action having been brought
against him, but he always had him reinstated in his see as soon as he had
proved his innocence. When he desired to give some compensation to the
inhabitants of a country over which his troops had marched, he placed the matter
in the hands of Bishop Severus, because that prelate was known to estimate
damages fairly; and when a dispute arose between the clergy and the town of
Sarsena he ordered the case to be tried in the bishop's court, unless the
prelate himself should prefer to refer it to the king's tribunal. Finally, he
made it a rule that ecclesiastical cases were only to be tried before ecclesiastical
judges.
Theodoric's last
years [507-523
The foreign policy of Theodoric was conducted in the
same masterly manner as his home government, or his dealings with the Church.
He appears to have exercised a kind of protectorate over the barbarian tribes
upon his frontiers, especially over those of the Arian persuasion, nor did he
hesitate to impose his will upon them, if necessary, by force of arms. As he
had only daughters he was obliged to consider the question of his successor;
and the marriages which he arranged for his children, or other relations, were
accordingly planned with a view to procuring political alliances. Of his
daughters the eldest, Arevagni, was married to Alaric, king of the Visigoths;
the second, Theudegotha, became the wife of Sigismund, son of Gundobad, king of
the Burgundians; and the third, Amalasuntha, was given in marriage to one of
Theodoric's own race, the Amal Eutharic. Other alliances were formed by the
marriage of his sister Amalafrida to Thrasamund, king of the Vandals, and of
another sister, Amalaberga, to Hermanfred, king of the Thuringians; while
Theodoric himself wedded Childeric's daughter Audefleda, the sister of Clovis.
These alliances were all made with the definite object
of extending Theodoric's sphere of action; but when, as for example in the case
of the Franks, they failed to attain the end desired by the king, they were
never permitted to hamper schemes of an entirely contrary nature.
A simple enumeration of Theodoric's wars is alone
sufficient to prove the firmness of his will. When he found that Noricum and
Pannonia, two provinces on the Italian frontier, were not to be trusted, he
attacked and killed a chieftain of freebooters, named Mundo, in the former
province. As the Emperor Anastasius was supporting Mundo, and had recently
despatched a fleet to plunder on the coasts of Calabria and Apulia, such an
attack gave Theodoric an opportunity of asserting his independence. Moreover,
in order to render his demonstration even more effective, he collected a fleet
of his own, which he sent to cruise in the Adriatic. At the same time, he took
Pannonia from the Gepid chief Trasaric, and thus effectually secured his
north-eastern frontiers. Those on the north-west next engaged his attention,
and here he protected the Alemanni from the attacks of Clovis, and eventually
settled them in the province of Rhaetia. Finally he took advantage of the wars
between the Franks and the Burgundians to secure the passes of the Graian Alps.
Theodoric had striven to prevent hostilities from
breaking out between the Franks and the Visigoths; but after Alaric's death at
the battle of Vouillé (507), he found himself obliged to take the latter people
under his own protection. In the war that ensued, Ibbas, one of his generals,
defeated the eldest son of Clovis near Arles (511); took possession of Provence;
secured Septimania for the Visigoths; and established Amalaric in Spain. Among
more distant nations we find the Esthonians on the shores of the Baltic paying
him a tribute of amber, while a deposed prince of Scandinavia found a refuge at
his Court.
History, as may be seen from these events, fully
corroborates the legends in which Theodoric is represented as a protector of
barbarian interests, and chief patron of the Teutonic races. In the
Nibelungenlied, for instance, we find him occupying a distinguished place under
the name of Dietrich of Bern (Theodoric of Verona). At the time of his death
his dominions included Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia, Noricum, the greater part of
what is now Hungary, the two Rhaetias (Tyrol and the Grisons), Lower Germany as
far north as Ulm, and Provence. Indeed, if his supremacy over the Goths in
Spain be also taken into account, it will be seen that he had succeeded in
re-establishing the ancient Western Empire for his own benefit, with the
exceptions of Africa, Britain, and two-thirds of Gaul.
So far as we have examined it, Theodoric's government
has been found invariably broad-minded and liberal, but it was destined to
undergo a complete change during the latter years of his reign. Whether this
change was the consequence of a relapse into barbarism, or whether, as seems
more probable, it must be attributed to the persecution under which the Arians
were suffering in every part of the Empire, is not easy to determine, for no
definite information on this point is to be found in any of the texts. In any
case, however, there can be no doubt that it was the religious question that
produced this complete change of policy. On this point the Anonymus is
perfectly clear; and if we disregard the severity and the cruelty of his punishments,
and at the same time make due allowance for intrigues of the Byzantine Court,
and of the Church itself, the precise nature of which cannot be determined, it
does not appear that the king was himself to blame.
During his reign we find the Jews enjoying an
extraordinary amount of protection ; and, in one of his edicts, he testifies
with what obedience this people had accepted the legal position assigned to
them by the Roman law. His son-in-law Eutharic, however, appears to have been
addicted to persecution; and during his consulship the Christians of Ravenna
made an attempt to force all the Jews in their city to submit to the rite of
baptism. As the Jews refused to comply, the Christians flung them into the
water, and in spite of the king's decrees, and the orders of Bishop Peter,
attacked and set fire to the synagogues. Upon this, the Jews complained to the
king at Verona, who ordered the Christians to rebuild the synagogues at their
own expense. This command was carried out, but not before a certain amount of
disturbance had aroused Theodoric's suspicions; and in consequence the
inhabitants of Ravenna were forbidden to carry arms of any kind, even the
smallest knife being prohibited.
523] Boethius
While these events were in progress, in the year 523,
the Emperor Justin proscribed Arianism throughout the Empire. Such an action
was a direct menace to the Goths, and Theodoric felt it very acutely. The
painful impression which it produced on him was probably much increased by the
fact that Symmachus' successors in the papal chair had not been as tolerant as
their predecessor; while one of them in particular, John I, had shown a most
bitter enmity towards heresy. We have no certain knowledge as to whether the
Senate was in sympathy with Theodoric on this occasion, or whether it approved
of Justin's measure, but the most probable theory seems to be that the Curia
was on Justin's side, and that Theodoric moreover was aware that this was the
case. At any rate, when the Senator Albinus was denounced by Cyprian for
carrying on intrigues with Byzantium the accusation found ready credence at
Court. The Anonymus declares, besides, that the king was angry with the Romans;
and it is difficult to see why he should have been thus angry unless the Romans
had been approving of Justin's religious decrees. On the other hand, if any
plot had existed in the real sense of the term, it is not probable that such a
man as Boethius, the master of the offices, that is to say one of the chief
officers of the Crown, would have endeavoured to shield Albinus by saying,
"Cyprian's accusation is false, but if Albinus has written to
Constantinople he has done so with my consent and that of the whole
Senate." He might perhaps have spoken in such a manner for the purpose of
expressing his own and his colleagues' approval of a religious decree
promulgated by a sovereign to whom they owed allegiance. Boethius indeed had
himself just published a work against Arianism, entitled De Trinitate, but it does not seem likely that he would have talked
in this fashion had a conspiracy really been brewing. In any case, he was at
once thrown into prison; and is said to have composed his work De Consolatione while in captivity. In
the end, after a brief trial, he was put to death with every refinement of
cruelty, while not long afterwards his father-in-law, Symmachus, met with a similar
fate.
Death of
Theodoric [523-534