Amalasuintha. Massimiliano Vitiello
harsh locutions of women; in whom the desire for what is right has so become second nature that even if she wanted to lie she could not commit the error. Her tongue gives the charm of chaste sweetness, nor is cloudiness of thought covered over by a veil of calm, bright speech; this is true of her heart as it is of her speech. May she pardon the one who claims for her the crown of women, which I grudge to her Silence; I should wish that imitation of that be held up as exemplar in all the parts of Italy, so that all women who do not yield to her teachings might at least be transformed by her example (velim illam omnibus Italiae partibus imitationem praeferri, ut quae non adquiescunt monitis formarentur exemplis). There is also Stephania, a most glorious light of the Catholic Church, the day of whose birth glows with a brighter light once you know her manner, much as the sun, the eye of the world, outshines a torch; and if you set aside the rays of her inborn behaviour, nothing will shine together brighter than her ancestry.28
Around the same time, Ennodius sent another letter to Barbara, whom he considered a close friend, encouraging her to leave the old capital for Ravenna to accept an appointment at the court: “I assure myself and my own desires, that the accepted appointment (dignitas) calls you, with your happiness and joy to the palatine office (comitatenses excubias), which may satisfy my vows. Do not, my Lady, wish that you be exempted from this work, from this burden. Let the provinces see the goods of the city of Rome, and those [women] who are educated through teachings, may be formed by examples through those good things that God conferred upon you (velim illam omnibus Italiae partibus imitationem praeferri, ut quae non adquiescunt monitis formarentur exemplis).”29 In this letter Ennodius partially repeats a concept that he also expresses in his eulogy of Barbara: an education is not just based on teaching; it finds its natural completion in examples. Barbara was an exemplum of the Roman female aristocracy. Because of her social status, her education, and her place in the cultural circles of the old capital, such a symbolic figure was certainly more than a good educator for aristocratic women.
Ennodius’s letter suggests that Barbara was summoned to the palace around 510 or shortly after.30 Surely Barbara was more compatible with the Arian Gothic court than Stephania, the Roman noble lady whom Ennodius praised as “a most glorious light of the Catholic Church.” Obviously Barbara was summoned to the royal palace with a higher position than cubicularia, although she must have been intimately close to the person(s) that she was meant to care for. Assuming that she accepted the position offered to her, it is likely that she was employed to mentor elite Gothic women, and to educate them in grammar, rhetoric, and the virtues cultivated by Roman aristocratic ladies. For whom was she brought to Ravenna? We know that Amalafrida had left Ravenna in 500, while Amalaberga departed around 510–511.31 The most likely candidate is therefore Amalasuintha, who in that year lived at the palace and was also of an age not unsuitable for her to have a tutor.
Like all the other imperial and royal family members, including Athalaric, Amalasuintha must have had many teachers, probably males as well as females, in her broad education. Though we do not have direct evidence of her curriculum or her tutors, her high level of education is clear from later documents. The Amal princess had been ruling beside her son for eight years when Cassiodorus in a letter-panegyric addressed to the Roman senators praised her intellectual qualities. His long eulogy included, but was not limited to, her knowledge of three languages, Gothic, Latin, and Greek, and of literature:
For every realm most properly reveres her. To behold her inspires awe; to hear her discourse, wonder. In what tongue is not her learning proven? She is fluent in the splendour of Greek oratory; she shines in the glory of Roman eloquence; the flow of her ancestral speech brings her glory; she surpasses all in their own languages, and is equally wonderful in each. For if it is the part of a wise person to be well acquainted with his native tongue, how should we value the wisdom which retains and faultlessly practices so many kinds of eloquence? Hence, the different races have a great and necessary safeguard, since no one needs an interpreter when addressing the ears of our wise mistress. For the envoy suffers no delay, and the appellant no damage from the slowness of his translator, since each is heard in his own words, and is answered in the speech of his nation. To this is added, as it were a glorious diadem, the priceless knowledge of literature, through which she learns the wisdom of the ancients, and the royal dignity is constantly increased.32
Her fluency in languages was beneficial for diplomacy. Amalasuintha had no need of a translator when she received foreign dignitaries.33 Though it is not specified, she may have been able to understand the Frankish language of her mother, who, like Amalafrida in Africa, probably came to Italy accompanied by an entourage of bodyguards, attendants, and palace women.34 The passage above seems to consider Gothic as a sort of lingua franca among peoples of East Germanic stock—the circulation of the Wulfila Bible may also testify in this direction.35 Though Greek was no longer widely known in the West (Theodahad himself does not seem to have known Greek, despite his education in Platonic philosophy),36 it retained a prominent place in the education of elites, and it was desirable for rulers to know it. Theoderic learned Greek in Constantinople and used it in diplomatic relations with the emperors during his more than thirty years in the East, and later as king of Italy. He likely made sure that his daughter learned the language of the emperors. Cassiodorus’s claim about Amalasuintha’s knowledge of Greek oratory also fits with the queen’s strong interest in the imperial and Byzantine models that I explore in Chapter 5.
Amalasuintha’s skill in languages was accompanied by composure, discretion, diplomacy, and other virtues, one of them being restraint. She was a wise ruler, capable of handling the secrets of the palace: “But, although she rejoices in such linguistic perfection, she is so silent in public business (in actu publico sic tacita est) that you would think her indolent. She unties the knots of litigation by a few words; she quietly calms heated conflicts; she acts in silence for the public good (silentiose geritur publicum bonum). You do not hear proclaimed the measures which are openly adopted; and, with wonderful restraint (temperamento mirabili), she transacts by stealth what she knows must be done in haste.”37 These are the same praises that Cassiodorus repeats one year later when eulogizing Amalasuintha in the name of Theodahad:
Who could sufficiently explain with such piety, such authority of customs she is adorned? … She is acute in examining problems, but she is authoritative and extremely measured in her speech (ad loquendum summa moderatione gravissima). With no doubt this is a royal virtue: to think more quickly what is necessary, and more slowly, to break out in words. Indeed, one does not know how to say regrettable things, who entrusts to his own examination the things that he will later declare publicly. Hence it is that her admirable learning is expanded through the large richness of the knowledge of multiple languages of her, whose intellect is found so prepared even at a moment’s notice, that it does not seem mortal…. In a few words an immense meaning is encompassed, and with great ease is formulated what is not expressed even through a long reflection. Happy is the State that is glorified by the government of such a ruler.38
Among her many virtues, Cassiodorus acknowledges Amalasuintha’s gravitas, and also her moderatio, a quality that he also attributes to Empress Theodora.39 All these virtues were necessary for those closest to the king, as the Roman and the Gothic courtiers Cyprianus and Tuluin had been to Theoderic.40 For rulers, these qualities were not just desirable, they were indispensable; and both panegyrists and historians highlighted them. Sidonius Apollinaris attributed them to the Visigothic king Theoderic II: “Meanwhile deputations from various people are introduced, and he listens to a great deal of talk, but replies briefly, postponing business which he intends to consider, speeding that which is to be promptly settled.”41 Jordanes, abridging Cassiodorus, described King Walamer as “a good keeper of secrets, bland of speech and skilled in wiles.”42 And, to quote a closer example, in Ennodius’s praises of Theoderic we read: “Without speaking, his expression is enough alone to promise the ambassadors either a beautiful peace, if it is calm, or a war, if it is frightful. So many qualities are encompassed in you that—if they were distributed one to every man—it would be enough to make everyone perfect.”43 The language used to praise Amalasuintha as regent is the same language used