The Dark Ages Collection. David Hume
that such a question should be referred to an Arian. As the tranquillity of Italy was in peril, the ruler could not stand aloof, and he consented to give a decision. He was conscious of his obligations to Festus, but the clergy, especially the clergy of North Italy, were as a body adherents of Symmachus, and it was in favour of Symmachus that Theoderic decided (A.D. 499).
But the matter was not finally settled by the king’s arbitrament. The behaviour of Symmachus was aggressive and uncompromising,143 and charges were brought against him, which were submitted to a synod held two years later. He was acquitted and recognised as the legitimate bishop of Rome,144 but his conduct alienated Theoderic, and no steps were taken to remove or suppress Laurentius, who continued to maintain his papal pretensions at Rome for the next few years. But in A.D. 505 there was a revulsion of feeling. The adherents of Laurentius were chiefly men who considered the maintenance of close relations with the Imperial court a fundamental interest of Italy. But their Italian sentiments were aroused by the incidents connected with Sirmium. Here their sympathy was with Theoderic, and it seems highly probable that the hostilities between the troops of Anastasius and those of his viceroy in Dacia were partly at least responsible for a general change of opinion in favour of Symmachus.145 This made the position of Laurentius impossible, and he was obliged to retire before the end of A.D. 506.
Thus ten years after the settlement which had been arranged between Theoderic and the Emperor, the policy of the Gothic ruler had brought it about that Italy presented a united front, and the influence of Constantinople now reached its lowest point. The Church and the Senate were united against the East on the ecclesiastical question. In the spring of A.D. 507 Ennodius, one of the leading dignitaries of the Italian Church, pronounced his Panegyric on the Arian king.146 But this situation was only momentary. Hitherto Theoderic had followed the example of Odovacar in basing his government on close co-operation with the great Roman families, members of which were chosen to fill the highest civil posts, especially the Prefecture of Rome and the Praetorian Prefecture of Italy. But from this time forward we can mark the beginning of a new policy. Probus Faustus Niger, who had been the leading champion of Symmachus in the conflict over the Papal throne, is indeed Prefect of Italy from A.D. 507-512, but we find new men, who do not belong to the senatorial circle, appointed Prefects of the City.147 It was apparently the aim of Theoderic to diminish his dependence on the senate. At Ravenna he had gathered round him a circle of other ministers of provincial origin who were devoted to his interests. To such were entrusted the financial offices; from such were generally selected the Master of Offices and the Quaestor.
Of Theoderic’s acts and policy throughout the rest of the reign of Anastasius we know very little. He looked with favour on the vain attempts of Vitalian to restore the unity of the Church, and was ready to co-operate with Pope Hormisdas to bring it about.148 It would be a mistake to read into his Edict, which was probably issued in A.D. 512, any design of diminishing the power or prestige of the senatorial classes.149 Throughout the provinces Romans and Goths alike were constantly attempting to encroach upon the lands of their neighbours; many acts of violence occurred;150 and the principal object of the Edict seems to have been to put an end to these illegalities and disorders.
The relations between Ravenna and Constantinople were never cordial. Italians who were banished from Italy by Theoderic were treated with marked favour at the Byzantine court, and received posts in the Imperial service. We learn this fact from Priscian, the distinguished African grammarian, who, leaving the realm of the Vandals, had settled in Constantinople and sympathised with the national feeling of the Italians against Gothic rule.151 The presence of these exiles, who, we may be certain, maintained a frequent correspondence with their friends in Rome, is a circumstance which must not be lost sight of in studying the relations of Theoderic with the Emperor and with the Roman Senate.
It is remarkable that Theoderic, who was educated at Constantinople and was imbued with sincere admiration for Greek and Roman civilisation, was illiterate. It is recorded that he was unable to write his own name. He caused a gold stencil plate to be pierced with the four letters legi (I have read), so that he could sign documents by drawing a pen through the holes.152
Theoderic chose Ravenna, the city of Honorius and Placidia and Valentinian, as his capital. The Emperors who reigned in the days of Ricimer had seldom resided in the palace of the Laurelwood (Lauretum), but Odovacar had made it his home. Theoderic built a new palace in another part of the city, and erected beside it a new church dedicated to St. Martin, in which his Arian Goths worshipped. Of the palace only a wall, if anything, remains. But the church, one of the fine works of the Ravennate school of architecture, still stands. It was afterwards dedicated to St. Apollinaris, and is known as San Apollinare Nuovo.153 Of the mosaic pictures which adorn the nave only those which are aloft near the roof,— scriptural scenes,— and the figures between the windows, belong to Theoderic’s reign; the decoration of the church was not completed till thirty years after his death.154 We may assume that it was he who built the Arian baptistery which survives as S. Maria in Cosmedin. It is interesting to learn that near the State factories at the port of Classis he drained a portion of the marshes and planted an orchard.155
Ravenna has another famous memorial of Theoderic, the round mausoleum which he built for himself. It was “covered by a cupola consisting of a single piece of Istrian limestone, the circumference of which is provided with twelve handles, intended, without doubt, to lift by means of ropes and drop into its place this wonderful inverted basin.”156 We must suppose that the body of the king once lay in the sepulchre which was designed to receive it. What befell it is a matter for conjecture; we only know that three hundred years later the tomb had long been empty.157
Under the rule of Theoderic, Italy is said to have enjoyed peace, prosperity, and plenty, such as she had not known for many a long year. His success was due not only to his political and military capacity, but also to his rigorous though humane ideal of justice. The praises of Italian panegyrists are borne by the verdict of one who was afterwards employed in active hostility against Theoderic’s successors. If a Ravennate chronicler asserts that the king “did nothing wrong” (nihil perperam gessit),158 the historian Procopius makes a statement, hardly less unqualified, in regard to the justice of the administration, and dwells on the deserved devotion which his subjects entertained towards him.159 The peace and plenty of his times are illustrated with vivid hyperboles in an Italian chronicle.160 “Merchants from divers provinces used to throng to him. For so perfect was the public order that if a man wished to leave his silver or gold in his field, it was respected as much as if it were within the walls of a town. This was shown by the fact that he built no new gates for any town in all Italy, nor were the gates of any town ever closed. Any one could go about his business at any hour of the night just as if it were day. In his time sixty modii of wheat cost a solidus, and thirty amphorae of wine were sold for the same price.”161 If this cheapness of provisions was normal, it would be one of the most convincing signs of the prosperity of Italy under Theoderic’s government. But notwithstanding the improvement in their material conditions and in their general security, we can hardly believe that the Italians, with the barbarians settled in their midst, regarded themselves as steeped in felicity.
APPENDIX:
ON THE PRAETORIAN PREFECTS OF THE EAST UNDER ANASTASIUS
There are considerable difficulties as to the succession of the Praet. Prefects in this reign. The evidence will be found collected in Borghesi, Les Préfets de Prétoire, I.370 sqq., but his results are not clear or satisfactory. The dates in C.J. are our main guide. The following seem to be fairly certain: Matronianus, A.D. 491, July (C.J. VII.39.4; I.22.6); Hierius, A.D. 494 (John Mal. XVI p392)-496, Feb. 13 (C.J. VI.21.16); Euphemius, A.D. 496, April 1-Aug. 21 (ib. X.16.13; X.19.9); Polycarpus, A.D. 498, April 1 (ib. V.30.4); Constantine, A.D. 502, Feb. 15-July 21 (ib. III.13.7-6, 20.18); Appion, A.D. 503 (John Mal. XVI p398); Leontius, A.D. 503-504 (John Lyd. III.17); Constantine again, A.D. 505 (C.J. II.7.22, but the month Iul. is wrong; Krüger suggests Ian.); Eustathius, A.D. 505, April 19-506, Nov. 20 (ib. I.4.19;