No More Learning

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 circum-
stances they prayed that Zeno would recognise 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 shewn 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
1 Malchus gives the history of this embassy. Excerpt. de leg. gent. ap. Müller,
Fragm. Hist. Graec. iv. 119. Müller quite gratuitously emends the text on the
supposition that the embassy was sent by Odovacar and not, as the Byzantine writer
states, by Augustulus. The original reading is far more convincing.
2 This is the first allusion to the promotion of Odovacar to the important office
which during the reign of Nepos had been filled by Orestes.
CH. XV.
28—2


## p. 436 (#466) ############################################

436
Odovacar's Government
[480-490
for Odovacar in which he granted him the dignity in question. Zeno
in short had to recognise 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 in-
habitants 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) recognised
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 praefect 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


## p. 437 (#467) ############################################

476–487]
Reign of Odovacar. Theodoric
437
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, 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 civilisation ; 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
CH. XV.


## p. 438 (#468) ############################################

438
Theodoric
[481–488
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 Illyria 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 legalise
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. Ženo had no intention of yielding up his rights over Italy,
and recognised no one other than himself as the lawful heir of
Theodosius.
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.
9


## p. 439 (#469) ############################################

488—493 ]
Theodoric and Odovacar
439
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 shew 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 shewed 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
CH. XV.


## p. 440 (#470) ############################################

440
Fall of Odovacar
[493
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 comple-
tion 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”; no-
where, however, do we find it stated that the Emperor had authorised
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.
We have proof of this double position in the two letters which he wrote
:


## p. 441 (#471) ############################################

Theodoric and Anastasius
441
to Anastasius and which are quoted by Cassiodorus (Var. 1. 1; 11. 5). 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 shew 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 par-
ticular 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
in harmony with her past; this is the idea which dominates the pages of
the famous prosopopæia 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
organisation 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.
The Court and the service of the palatium entailed certain functions
CH. XV.


## p. 442 (#472) ############################################

442
Theodoric's Court and Officials
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 ad-
ministration 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 roval commissariat. The
palace with its magnificent gardens and sumptuously decorated apart-
ments was thronged with Roman nobles who came there in search of
preferment. It was guarded by picked troops, and Ravenna was the
headquarters 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.
a


## p. 443 (#473) ############################################

Theodoric's Officials.
The Senate
443
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 administra-
tion established by the Roman Empire.
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 shew 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
CH. XV.


## p. 444 (#474) ############################################

444
The Senate.
The Consulship
1
1
a
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 organised 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 con-
tribute 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
1


## p. 445 (#475) ############################################

Theodoric's Government
445
we
more authority. “By the grace of God,” the formula declares,
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. "
7
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 reorganising 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
CH. XV.


## p. 446 (#476) ############################################

446
Theodoric's Government
a good government, and to extend the influence of that Roman civilitas
upon which he desired to model his own administration.
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 administra-
tion, 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 founda-
tions ; no man, in fact, ever came to the king without receiving liberal
gifts”; but at this point we detect the
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 shewed
his 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 Theo-
doric, 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 con-
tradicted. But in addition to the fact that such a proceeding would
1


## p. 447 (#477) ############################################

Corn-distributions
447
certainly have led to some disturbance, of which we can find no evidence
in any part of the country, another circumstance renders such a con-
clusion 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
τριτημόριον αγρών
tpitnuóplov tv árypôv. 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.
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 shew 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
CH. XV.


## p. 448 (#478) ############################################

448
Theodoric's Buildings
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
Cassiodorus, 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's 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 him-
self, 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
а


## p. 449 (#479) ############################################

498–500]
The Church
449
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.
Theodoric was himself an Arian, yet he was always ready to extend
his protection to 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 recognised 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.
29
C. MED. B. VOL. I. CH. xv.


## p. 450 (#480) ############################################

450
The Church
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 attempt-
ing 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 settle-
ment, 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 appear-
ance, 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
:


## p. 451 (#481) ############################################

Foreign Affairs
451
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.
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 Burgun-
dians; 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 (sic, per circuitum placuit omnibus
gentibus, says the Anonymus); 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
CH. XV.
2942


## p. 452 (#482) ############################################

452
Theodoric's last years
[507–523
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 Es-
thonians 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 reestablishing 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 punish-
ments, 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
1 The following saying of Theodoric's should not be forgotten : “We cannot
impose a religion by force, since no one can be compelled to believe against his
will. ” Cass. Var. 11. 27.


## p. 453 (#483) ############################################

523]
Boethius
453
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 com-
mand 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.
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 shewn a most bitter enmity towards heresy.
We have no certain knowledge as to whether the Senate was in sym-
pathy 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.
Theodoric, indeed, understood very well that his whole life-work was
CH. XV.


## p. 454 (#484) ############################################

454
Death of Theodoric
(523–534
-
--
+
likely to be compromised by this readiness on the part of his subjects to
accept Justin's edict. For what would become of his authority if it
became the fashion to criticise him on account of his faith? It was in
the hope of finding some remedy for this situation that he summoned
Pope John to Ravenna, and from thence despatched him, accompanied
by five bishops and four senators, on an embassy to Constantinople
.
The king charged this mission, among other things, with the task of
requiring the Emperor to reinstate the outcast Arians within the pale
of the Church. But the Emperor, though willing enough to make
concessions on any other subject, would concede nothing to the Arians,
and the mission was forced to leave Constantinople without obtaining
any redress on this point. As for Pope John, he died almost immedi-
ately after his return to Italy, and as his biographers tell us that he
worked numerous miracles after his death, we may conclude that this
sectarian quarrel must have been very acute. The failure of this
embassy made Theodoric so furious that he allowed an edict to be
published during the consulship of Olybrius by Symmachus, the chief
official in the Scholae, which stated that all Catholics were to be ejected
from their churches, on the seventh day of the Kalends of September.
But on the very day fixed upon by his minister for the execution of
this act of banishment, the king died, apparently from an attack of
dysentery, in the year 526.
The Byzantine historian Procopius—though he was himself an
opponent of the king's—has summed up Theodoric and his work in the
following verdict, which remains true in spite of the errors committed
by him during the latter years of his reign. “His manner of ruling
over his subjects was worthy of a great Emperor ; for he maintained
justice, made good laws, protected his country from invasion, and gave
proof of extraordinary prudence and valour. "
Theodoric's work was not destined to survive his death. He left a
daughter, Amalasuntha, the widow of Eutharic, who was not unlike
him; and who now became guardian to her son Athalaric, to whom his
grandfather had bequeathed the crown on his death-bed. She had been
educated entirely on Roman lines, and understood the value of her
father's work; but she had to reckon with the Goths. During
Theodoric's lifetime this people had done nothing to excite attention,
and had lived side by side with the Romans without shewing any
desire to obtain the upper hand; but under the regency of a woman
we find that they soon aspired to play a more important part. Their
first step was to take Athalaric from the guardianship of his mother.
He died, however, in 534. Amalasuntha was now confronted once
again with her former difficulties; and in the hope of overcoming them,
she attempted to share the crown with Theodoric's nephew Theodahad,
a man of weak and evil character. The new king's first care was to get
rid of Amalasuntha, and he had her shut up on an island, in the lake of


## p. 455 (#485) ############################################

534–536]
Death of Amalasuntha
455
Bolsena. From her prison, she appealed to Justinian for assistance.
When this came to Theodahad's ears, he had her strangled.
But her cry for help had not been unheeded. By the death of
Anastasius the situation at Constantinople had been completely
changed; it was no longer the imperial policy to allow Italy to be
governed by a vassal, more especially if that vassal were an Arian; and
political and religious motives alike urged Justinian to intervene. A
struggle began accordingly which was to last from 536 to 553, which
was to devastate Italy with fire and bloodshed, and which ultimately
opened the door for a new invasion by the Lombards.
CH, XV.


## p. 456 (#486) ############################################

456
*
CHAPTER XVI.
THE EASTERN PROVINCES FROM ARCADIUS
TO ANASTASIUS.
care.
By the death of Theodosius the Eastern throne passed to his incapable
elder son, Arcadius, then 17 years old, while the practical administration
was in the hands of the praetorian praefect, Rufinus of Aquitaine, a man
of vigour and ability who in the pursuit of ambition and avarice was not
limited by scruples. Under these circumstances a conflict was likely to
arise between Rufinus and Stilicho, who was the guardian of the Western
Emperor Honorius, and husband of Theodosius' niece, who also asserted
that Theodosius had on his death-bed committed both his sons to his
Rufinus proposed to counterbalance the advantage which his rival
possessed in his connexion with the imperial family by marrying Arcadius
to his own daughter ; but, unfortunately for him, he had a rival at
Court in the eunuch Eutropius, a former slave who had risen to the
position of praepositus sacri cubiculi ; who now profited by the praefect's
absence to thwart his scheme. Lucian, whom Rufinus had made count
of the East, had refused a request of Eucherius, the Emperor's great-
uncle; and, upon Arcadius complaining of this, the praefect, to shew his
own loyalty, made a hasty journey to Antioch and put Lucian to a cruel
death. Meanwhile Eutropius induced Arcadius to betroth himself to
Eudoxia, daughter of Bauto the Frank, who had been brought up by a
son of Promotus, an enemy of Rufinus; who thus had the mortification
of seeing his master united not to his own daughter but to one who from
her upbringing would be bitterly opposed to him (27 Apr. 395).
The inferiority of Rufinus was increased by the fact that the best of
the Eastern troops had accompanied Theodosius to the West, and of
these only some of the less efficient had been sent back. The Visigothic
foederati had however returned to Moesia ; and their leader Alaric, who
was now proclaimed king, was quick to profit by the weakness of the
government. Professing indignation at not being appointed magister
militum, he invaded Thrace and advanced to Constantinople, while
Rufinus, having also to meet an incursion of Caucasian Huns into
Asia Minor and Syria (July), where Antioch was threatened and Old


## p. 457 (#487) ############################################

395–396]
Murder of Rufinus
457
another way.
Tyre abandoned by its citizens, had no forces to oppose to him. He
therefore went to the Gothic camp, and, after some negotiations, Alaric
withdrew to Macedonia, and after a check from local forces at the Peneus
passed into Thessaly. Stilicho, who, besides desiring to overthrow
Rufinus, wished to re-unite eastern Illyricum to the Western power,
treated this as a pretext for interference; and, starting in early spring,
he marched with considerable forces to Thessaly, and met the Goths in
a wide plain. Probably, however, he did not wish to crush them ; and,
after some months had been spent in skirmishes or negotiations, Rufinus,
who feared Stilicho more than Alaric, sent him in the Emperor's name an
order to evacuate the dominions of Arcadius and send back the Eastern
troops. To break openly with the East at this time did not suit Stilicho's
purpose ; and, as the Eastern forces, which comprised a large Gothic
contingent, were devoted to him, he could attain his primary object in
He therefore returned at once, while the Eastern army
under Gaïnas the Goth marched to Constantinople. In accordance with
custom the Emperor, accompanied by Rufinus, came out to meet the
troops, and the soldiers, at a signal from Gaïnas, fell upon the praefect
and cut him in pieces (27 Nov. ).
The Emperor's chief adviser was now Eutropius, who appropriated a
large part of Rufinus' property and procured the banishment of the two
most distinguished generals in the East, Abundantius and Timasius
(396), while he entrusted positions of power to such obscure men as
Hosius the cook and Leo the wool-comber.