Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

532 19. italy, a.d. 425,605
could wear an appealingly Roman mask. While, like Odoacer, he most
usually called himself rex, he seems not to have objected when, on an
inscription recording the restoration of the Via Appia at Terracina, a
hyperbolic official called him ‘king Theoderic, forever Augustus’ (rex
Theodericus semper Augustus). In a similar vein, the Romans supposedly
thought of Theoderic as a new Trajan or Valentinian. Theoderic fostered
such images by basing life at his court on models drawn from imperial
ceremonial. 34
It would be misleading, however, to claim that Theoderic’s attempts at
integrating the disparate elements under his rule resulted in unqualified
success. Among the peoples that accompanied him from the Balkans, for
example, the Rugi refused to intermarry with the king’s Gothic subjects,
preserving an independence which lasted until the dying days of the
kingdom. Even among his Gothic subjects, Theoderic’s authority could
amount to little more than ratifying decisions they made independently of
him. 35 The greatest area of tension was the king’s relationship with the
Roman population. Despite the images of harmony preserved by
Cassiodorus, Ennodius and the Anonymus Valesianus, it is clear that there
had been the potential for confrontation from very early in Theoderic’s
Italian career. At the time of his arrival, he had threatened to confiscate
senatorial properties if the owners did not abandon allegiance to
Odoacer. Moreover, Theoderic’s own expressions of romanitas had been
tempered by the uneasiness of his relationship with Constantinople. 36 In
the end, the result proved catastrophic for members of the Roman élite
whose cultural activities had led them into close contact with
Constantinople. In the last two years of his reign, when various aspects
of his government seemed to have fallen into disarray, Theoderic turned
on sections of the Roman aristocracy, suspecting them of treasonable
contact with Constantinople. 37
Despite these problems, the kingdom left by Theoderic at his death in
526 was a remarkable achievement. Whereas barbarian take-over in Spain,
Gaul and Britain had resulted in considerable social dislocation, Italy had
slipped almost imperceptibly from empire to kingdom. Even so, the situation
at his death was ominous. The man who had rewarded Cassiodorus’
elaborate reconstruction of the Amal genealogy had failed signally to
produce an heir of his own. Ultimately his choice devolved on his grandson,
Athalaric. 38 But when Theoderic died, the new king was still a child.
This provoked a power struggle among the Gothic élite which led to the
eclipse of the Amal line, starkly revealing how fragile was the unity to which
Theoderic had devoted so much of his energy.
34 CIL 10.6850–1;cf.Anon. Val. 12.60; Heather (1996) 221–35.
35 Procop. Wars vii.2; Cass. Var. viii.26. 36 Heather (1996) 227–30.
37 Moorhead (1992) 212–45. 38 Heather (1995) 165–72.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008