Theodoric

collapse of the Western Empire, only to fizzle out (in Rome, not Constantinople) under that empire’s partial restitution by Justinian.

the last Western Emperor

What happened to Romulus — nicknamed, with affectionate contempt, Romulus ‘Augustulus’ — little emperor’ — after he was compulsorily retired with a generous pension (an act which reflects most creditably on the ‘barbarian’ Odovacar)? If a letter written to ‘Romulus’ by Cassiodorus in the period 507-11 refers to the ex-emperor, that means he was still alive more than thirty years after his deposition. Other than this, we can only speculate as to how long he may have survived, which allows me to have him still living (imagined as a gentle recluse) in Lucullus’ villa near Naples in 519. The villa, constructed by a famous general of the late Republic, was a celebrated beauty spot. (Gibbon gives a good description of the place and its history).

Chapter 33

a successful orchard in Ravenna

‘After the example of the last emperors, Theoderic preferred the residence of Ravenna, where he cultivated an orchard with his own hands’ (Gibbon).

the newly appointed minister

Boethius became Master of Offices (comparable in some ways to our role of Prime Minister) in 523. In the interests of the story, I have put this date back a little without, I think, distorting the sequence of historical events.

resentment over growing German influence

Germans had never been acceptable as emperors. Though it was never put to the test, there are good reasons for supposing that overstepping such a ‘red line’ could have had dire consequences. For example, in Constantinople in 400, as an indirect result of Alaric’s Goths going on the rampage in the Balkans, anti-German violence flared up and several thousand Goths were massacred. And in Italy, following the execution of the Vandal general Stilicho in 408, suspicion of the Germans in the army had led the Roman element to launch a pogrom against the families of the German troops. Despite such precedents, did Theoderic attempt to cross that line?

The rioting of 519-20, which I have suggested could well have been a cover for anti-Arian (i.e. anti-Gothic) resentment, was not an immediate consequence of any measure enforcing religious toleration, which had long been in force. (‘They respected the armed heresy of the Goths; but their pious rage was safely pointed against the rich and defenceless Jews’ — Gibbon.) So what could have sparked it off? Cassiodorus, according to Moorhead (in Theoderic in Italy) suggests that the disturbances were not specifically anti-Jewish but were rooted in some other cause. Is it too fanciful to suggest that the Terracina inscription proclaiming Theoderic emperor, which may well have been contemporary with the riots, could have been that cause? The planned coronation in St Peter’s is invention, but the fact that nearly three centuries later a German monarch (Charlemagne) was crowned there as (Holy) Roman Emperor, gives food for thought. Was the idea behind the coronation of 800 original, or was it perhaps inspired by a memory of Theoderic’s unfulfilled dream?

retribution was swift and harsh

This is confirmed by Anonymous Valesianus, who ascribes to Eutharic the punishments meted out to the Romans of Ravenna. To quote Wolfram (in History of the Goths), ‘Eutharic’s popularity among the Romans must have declined quickly for during the unrest of 520 he advocated stern countermeasures’.

his imperial dreams

The wording and imagery of the Senigallia medallion, the Ravenna mosaic portrait head crowned with a diadem, the Terracina inscription: these are but the most telling manifestations of Theoderic’s ambition to become a Roman emperor, occasions when, as Heather (in The Goths) says, ‘the mask slipped’.

Chapter 34

a sneaking sympathy for a people

Like the Visigoths (and indeed the Ostrogoths), the Jews were forced to become a wandering people, especially when (after several failed and bloody insurrections against Roman rule) they were finally expelled from Palestine by Hadrian, thereafter to encounter varying degrees of persecution in the countries where they tried to make a home — culminating in the Holocaust. ‘Nowhere is Theoderic seen more attractively than in his policy towards the Jews’, says Moorhead. Compared to zealots like the emperor Theodosius I and his partner in bigotry Bishop Ambrose of Milan, who stamped out the slightest deviation from orthodox Catholicism with fanatical thoroughness, Theoderic comes over as a model of enlightened tolerance, rare for his time and indeed for any subsequent period. When Pope Hormisdas was all for putting pressure on Justin to whip the Monophysites of Egypt into line, Theoderic may well have played a part in ensuring that moderate policies prevailed, which, by turning a blind eye to Egyptian ‘heresy’, may have averted another Schism. The conclusion of his letter to the Jews of Genoa, giving them permission to rebuild their synagogue, says it all: ‘We cannot command adherence to a religion, since no one is forced to believe unwillingly’. What a tragedy that such a gifted, courageous and resilient race, who have produced, inter alios, David, Jesus, Paul of Tarsus, the historian Josephus, the philosopher Spinoza, Mendelssohn, Einstein and Menuhin, should have suffered ‘the slings and arrows of [such] outrageous fortune’. If only they could have taken a more accomodating stance towards the Romans, the present agony of Palestine might have been avoided.

that portent of the death of kings

This is mentioned by Anonymous Valesianus, also by various Byzantine authors who date it as occurring c. 520. (The association with the death of kings comes from the Roman author Suetonius, whom the Anonymous may have read.)

named him [Justinian] as his heir

Whether Hilderic went quite as far as this is doubtful, but he certainly established a very cordial entente with Justinian, who avidly cultivated his friendship — to the extent that, according to Browning (in Justinian and Theodora), ‘For a time it looked as though Africa might be returned to Roman sovereignty without a blow being struck.’ When Justinian eventually invaded, Hilderic was murdered by the Vandal nobles, on suspicion of being a fellow traveller.

the shipyards are busy night and day

Compared to his hasty construction in late 507 or early 508 of a fleet of light vessels to counter an Eastern naval expedition against Italy, Theoderic’s building of an armada in the last years of his life (probably starting in 523) was a vast project involving the launching of a thousand mighty warships or dromons. Whereas the first was a sensible and timely response to a very real and pressing emergency, the second seems to have been an inexplicable over-reaction to largely illusory threats: a perceived Rome-Constantinople senatorial conspiracy to overthrow him; and Hilderic’s pro-Byzantine policy following his accession in 523. (Theoderic’s attitude towards Hilderic must have been coloured by the fact that the new Vandal king had thrown Thrasamund’s widow, Amalafrida, Theoderic’s sister, into prison, where she later died, and had her Ostrogothic bodyguard slaughtered.) To create such a massive armament in case ‘The Greek [i.e. the East Roman Empire] should. . reproach or. . the African [i.e. the Vandal king of Africa] insult’, as Cassiodorus put it, seems a disproportionate response, suggesting a state of mind approaching paranoia. True, the invasion did eventually materialize, but it was hardly imminent in Theoderic’s lifetime. In Theoderic in Italy, Moorhead suggests that ‘the building of the fleet may have been in response to the death, perhaps not of natural causes, of Amalafrida’, which some scholars date as occurring in 523, others in 525 or 526. Such a response surely belongs more to some distant heroic age (shades of Helen of Troy — ‘the face that launched a thousand ships’) than the cold realpolitik of late antiquity. If true, it suggests that Theoderic may have been suffering from some kind of mental breakdown.

they will remember me for this

No fear of that not happening! Massive, austere, uncompromising, the Mausoleum of Theoderic dominates the landscape and is impossible to ignore. The workmanship is superb, the limestone blocks of its construction fitting so exactly as to need no mortar. How the dome was transported across the Adriatic and manoeuvred into position remains a mystery. Even with today’s sophisticated technology, the undertaking would present a daunting challenge. Regarding its design, varying theories abound. Some claim Gothic inspiration, others classical, while one