Читать книгу The Dark Ages Collection - David Hume, Эдвард Гиббон - Страница 15

§ 1. The Elevation of Anastasius (A.D. 491) and the Isaurian War

ON the evening of the day after Zeno’s death, the Senate, the ministers, and Euphemius the Patriarch assembled in the palace, and a crowd of citizens and soldiers gathered in the Hippodrome (December 10, 491).1 Ariadne,2 wearing the Imperial cloak, and accompanied by the Grand Chamberlain Urbicius, the Master of Offices, the Castrensis, the Quaestor, and others, but not by the Patriarch, then entered the Kathisma of the Hippodrome to address the people. She was warmly acclaimed. “Long live the Augusta! Give the world an orthodox Emperor.” Her speech was delivered by the Magister a libellis, who stood on the steps in front of the Kathisma. “Anticipating your request, we have commanded the illustrious ministers, the sacred Senate, with the approval of the brave armies, to select a Christian and Roman Emperor, endowed with every royal virtue, who is not the slave of money, and who is, so far as a man may be, free from every human vice.” People: “Ariadne Augusta, thou conquerest! O heavenly king, give the world a Basileus who is not avaricious!” Ariadne: “In order that the choice may be pure and pleasing to God, we have commanded the ministers and the Senate, the vote of the army concurring, to make the election, in the presence of the Gospels, and in the presence of the Patriarch, so that no one may be influenced by friendship or enmity, or kinship, or any other private motive, but may vote with his conscience clear. Therefore, as the matter is weighty and concerns the welfare of the world, you must acquiesce in a short delay, till the obsequies of Zeno, of pious memory, have been duly performed, so that the election may not be precipitate.” People: “Long live the Augusta! Cast out the thieving Prefect of the City! May all be well in thy time, Augusta, if no foreigner is imposed on the Romans!”3 Ariadne: “We have already anticipated your wishes. Before we came in, we appointed the illustrious Julian to the office of Prefect.” People: “A good appointment! Long live the Augusta.” After a few more words, Ariadne withdrew to the palace,4 and the ministers held a council in front of the Delphax to consult about the election. Urbicius proposed that the choice should be left to Ariadne, and the Patriarch, who was present, was sent to summon her. She chose Anastasius, a silentiary, and the Master of Offices sent the Counts of the Domestics and Protectors to fetch Anastasius from his house. He was kept that night in the Consistorium; notices were issued for a silentium5 to be held on the morrow; and the funeral of Zeno was performed.

Anastasius was a remarkable and well-known figure in Constantinople. He held unorthodox opinions, partly due, perhaps, to an Arian mother and a Manichaean uncle,6 and he was possessed by religious enthusiasm, which led him to attempt to convert others to his own opinions. He did this in a curiously public manner. Having placed a chair in the church of St. Sophia, he used to attend the services with unfailing regularity and give private heterodox instruction to a select audience from his cathedra. By this conduct he offended the Patriarch Euphemius, who by Zeno’s permission expelled him from the church and removed his chair of instruction;7 but he was well thought of by the general public on account of his piety and liberality. It even appears that he may have at one time dreamt of an ecclesiastical career, for he was proposed for the vacant see of Antioch.8 The Patriarch was highly displeased at the Empress’s choice of Anastasius, whom he stigmatised as unworthy to reign over Christians. His objections were overruled by the Senate and the Empress, but before he consented to take part in the coronation ceremony he insisted that the new Emperor should be required to sign a written declaration of orthodoxy. This was agreed to.

The officials dressed in white gathered in the Consistorium9 on the following day (April 11), and were received ceremonially by Anastasius. The Patriarch was present, and now, if not before, he must have obtained the Emperor’s signature to the declaration, which was lodged in the archives of St. Sophia under the care of the treasurer. Anastasius then left the Consistorium and ascended the steps of the portico10 of the triklinos of the Nineteen Akkubita. Here at the request of the senators he took a public oath that he would distress no person against whom he had a grudge, and that he would govern conscientiously. Then he proceeded to the triklinos of the Hippodrome, put on the Imperial tunic, girdle, leggings, and red boots,11 and entered the Kathisma, in front of which stood the troops, the standards lying on the ground. When he had been raised on a shield, and the torc placed on his head, the standards were raised, and he was acclaimed. Then he returned to the triklinos, when the Patriarch covered him with the Imperial cloak and crowned him. Reappearing in the Kathisma, he addressed the people, promising a donation of 5 nomismata and a pound of silver to each soldier — the same amount which had been given by Leo I. Among the enthusiastic acclamations with which he was greeted we may notice, “Reign as thou hast lived! Thou hast lived piously! reign piously! Restore the army! Reign like Marcian!” and “Cast out the informers!”

A few weeks later Anastasius married Ariadne (May 20). His accession was undoubtedly a welcome change to Byzantium. He was a man of tall stature and remarkable for his fine eyes, which differed in hue.12 He is described as intelligent, well-educated, gentle, and yet energetic, able to command his temper, and generous in bestowing gifts.13 A bishop of Rome wrote to him, “I know that in private life you always strove after piety.”14

The first task imposed upon the new Emperor was to put an end to the unpopular predominance of the Isaurians, which had lasted for over twenty years. The choice of Anastasius had disappointed and alarmed the Isaurians, who had looked forward to the succession of Longinus. A riot in the Hippodrome soon gave Anastasius a pretext for driving them out of the city. During a spectacle at which the Emperor was present, the people clamoured against Julian, the Prefect of the City, who had done something which public opinion disapproved. Anastasius ordered his guards to intimidate the rioters, who then set fire to the Hippodrome, and pulled down and insulted the bronze statues of the Emperors. Not a few were slain in the tumult.15 The Emperor found it politic to replace Julian by his own brother-in-law Secundinus, but he attributed the disturbance to the machinations of the Isaurians. He expelled them all from the city. He forced Zeno’s brother Longinus to take orders and banished him to the Thebaid. He confiscated Zeno’s property, even selling his Imperial robes. He naturally withdrew the large allowances which Zeno had made to his fellow-countrymen, amounting to 1400 lbs. of gold.16 A revolt had already broken out in Isauria,17 and the rebels were now reinforced by the exiles from Constantinople, among them Longinus of Kardala.18 Their total force is said to have numbered 100,000, and included Romans as well as Isaurians. The leaders in command were Linginines and Athenodorus.19 They were met at Cotyaeum in Phrygia by an Imperial army under John the Scythian and John the Hunchback,20 and were completely defeated, Linginines being slain. This battle shattered the power of the Isaurians irretrievably. But the defeated leaders did not submit and, just as in the case of the struggle between Illus and Zeno, warfare was carried on in the Isaurian mountains for several years before all the rebels were captured and killed.21 It was not till A.D. 498 that the last of them, Longinus of Selinus, was taken and done to death by torture at Nicaea.

The Emperor settled large colonies of Isaurians in Thrace.22 The brief ascendancy of this people was now over for ever, but it was not to be regretted, for it had served the purpose of averting the far more serious peril of a German ascendancy, which might have brought upon the East the fate of Italy. Henceforward the foreign elements in the army were kept well in control by a preponderance of native troops.

It was fortunate for the Empire that the Isaurian struggle was over before a serious war broke out with Persia, which will be described in another chapter. But there was fighting from time to time with other enemies. The Blemyes troubled Egypt,23 the Mazices attacked Libya,24 the Tzani overran Pontus.25 The Saracens of the desert invaded Euphratesia, Syria, and Palestine in 498, but were thoroughly defeated. Another raid four years later was followed by a treaty of peace.26 In A.D. 515 Cappadocia was laid waste by an irruption of the Sabeiroi who came down from the region of the Caucasus.27 But a more dangerous foe than any of these were the Bulgarians beyond the Danube.

After the disruption of the Hunnic empire in A.D. 454, a portion of the Huns had occupied the regions between the mouths of the Danube and the Dniester, where they were ruled by two of the sons of Attila. During the reign of Leo and Zeno, they sometimes raided the Roman provinces and sometimes supplied auxiliaries to the Roman armies.28 They were kept in check by the Ostrogothic federates, but the departure of Theoderic from Italy had left the field clear for their devastations in Thrace and Illyricum, which throughout the reign of Anastasius suffered severely. These Huns now come to be known under the name of Bulgarians.29 But we must distinguish these Bulgarians, who were also known as Unogundurs, from two other great Hunnic hordes who will presently come upon the scene of history: the Kotrigurs who lived between the Dnieper and the Don, and the Utigurs who lived to the south of the Don. These latter peoples were to disappear in the course of time; the Unogundurs were to be the founders of Bulgaria.

The Bulgarians were undoubtedly the foes who invaded the Empire in A.D. 493, defeated a Roman army, and killed Julian, Master of Soldiers.30 The next recorded incursion was in A.D. 499, when Aristus, Master of Soldiers in Illyricum, lost more than a quarter of his army of 15,000 men in a battle against the Bulgarians.31 Their depredations were repeated three years later (A.D. 502), and on this occasion their progress was unopposed.32 Anastasius had determined to secure at least the immediate neighbourhood of the capital against the raids of the barbarians, and for this purpose he built a Long Wall,33 the line of which can still be traced, from the Propontis to the Black Sea, at a distance of about 40 miles west of Constantinople. The southern extremity was just to the west of Selymbria, and the northern between Podima and Lake Derkos. The fortification consisted of a stone wall about 11 feet thick, without earthworks or ditch, and traces of round towers projecting about 31 feet in front have been found. The length of the wall was 41 miles, and it corresponds roughly to the modern Turkish fortifications known as the Chatalja Lines, though the extreme points were further west.34 We do not hear of another invasion till A.D. 517, when a host of barbarian cavalry laid waste Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly, penetrating as far as Thermopylae.35 The consequences of the devastations of Germans and Huns for more than a hundred years was the depopulation of the Balkan provinces, the decline of its agricultural produce, and a considerable diminution of the Imperial revenue.36

§ 2. Church Policy

If the elevation of Anastasius had been popular, his popularity did not continue. His reign was frequently troubled by seditions in Constantinople, which were in many cases provoked by his ecclesiastical policy. His purpose was to maintain the Henotikon of Zeno; his personal predilections were Monophysitic. We are ignorant of the cause of the sedition which broke out in A.D. 493, but it was evidently serious, as the statues of the Emperor and Empress were dragged through the city.37 The relations between Anastasius and the Patriarch Euphemius, who had been opposed to his elevation, were strained. Euphemius was devoted to the doctrine of Chalcedon, and had been planning a campaign against the Patriarch of Alexandria, first Peter, and then his successor Athanasius, both of whom anathematised the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. Without the Emperor’s knowledge he wrote a letter to Felix, the bishop of Rome, invoking his aid. The Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem informed the Emperor that Euphemius was a heretic;38 and a council was held at Constantinople which confirmed the Henotikon and deposed Euphemius (A.D. 496).39 This led to a disturbance, and the people, rushing to the Hippodrome, supplicated the Emperor in vain to restore the Patriarch. Macedonius was appointed to the Patriarchal throne. He seems to have held much the same opinions as Euphemius, but he did not scruple to sign the Henotikon.40

A serious riot in the Hippodrome occurred in A.D. 498. The Prefect of the City had thrown into prison some members of the Green faction for the not uncommon offence of stone-throwing. The Greens demanded their release, and when the Emperor summoned the Excubitors to suppress them, there was a great uproar. Stones were thrown at the Kathisma, and one of these nearly hit Anastasius. The man who had thrown it was hewn in pieces by the Excubitors, and then the Greens set fire to the Bronze Gate of the Hippodrome. The fire spread not only to the Kathisma but also, in the other direction, to the Forum of Constantinople. Many offenders were punished, but a new Prefect, Plato, was appointed.41

The pagan festival of the Brytae, which was celebrated with dancing,42 repeatedly caused sanguinary riots among the demes, and in one of these disturbances (A.D. 501) a bastard son of the Emperor was killed, and the Emperor forbade its celebration for the future throughout the Empire, thereby “depriving the cities of the most beautiful dancing.” He had already abolished the practice of contests with wild beasts (A.D. 499).43

In A.D. 511 the Patriarch Macedonius, who no longer concealed his adhesion to the Council of Chalcedon, met the same fate as his predecessors. The Monophysites represented him as plotting against the Emperor, while the orthodox asserted that he was deposed because he declined to give up the profession of orthodoxy signed by the Emperor at his coronation. In any case, Anastasius had begun to move in the Monophysitic direction so far as to abandon the neutral spirit of the Henotikon. The position of Macedonius was not strong, because by signing the Henotikon he had alienated the orthodox monks of the capital. Seeking to win back their confidence he did not scruple to denounce Anastasius as a Manichaean. He was deposed by a local council in August, A.D. 511, was forced to surrender the document with the Emperor’s signature, and was banished to Euchaita. Timothy, an undisguised Monophysite, was elected in his stead.

A distinguished Monophysite monk, Severus of Sozopolis, had, a few years before, arrived at Constantinople with a company of two hundred fellow-heretics and had been received with honour by Anastasius.44 He caused scandal and disturbances by holding services in which the Trisagion (“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts”) was chanted with the Monophysitic addition “Who wast crucified for us,” which had been introduced at Antioch fifty years before. The new Patriarch Timothy interpolated this heretical phrase into the liturgy in St. Sophia. Anastasius, supported by the counsels of Marinus, Praetorian Prefect of the East,45 determined to defy the religious sentiment of the people of Byzantium. On Sunday, Nov. 4 (A.D. 512),46 the orthodox multitude in the Church drowned with their shouts the chanting of the heretical priests, and there was such a disturbance that Marinus and Plato, the Prefect of the City, interfered with armed force. Some were slain and others imprisoned. On the following day there was a more sanguinary conflict in the court of a church, and on Tuesday (Nov. 6) the orthodox congregated and formed a camp in the Forum of Constantine. The rioting now assumed the dimensions of a revolt. The general Areobindus was the husband of Juliana Anicia, who was the granddaughter of Valentinian III,47 and thus a member of the Theodosian house. The people proclaimed him Emperor and pulled down the statues of Anastasius. Celer, the Master of Offices, and Patricius, Master of Soldiers in praesenti, who were sent to pacify them, were driven off with showers of stones; the house of Marinus was burnt. On the next day the Emperor sent heralds to the people proclaiming that he was ready to abdicate, and appeared in the Kathisma of the Hippodrome without his crown. He was greeted with demands that Marinus and Plato should be thrown to the beasts. But in some extraordinary way he succeeded in calming the tumult. The crowd begged him to put on his crown and promised good behaviour.

It was unfortunate for the peace of the East that Anastasius was not indifferent in questions of religious doctrine. His reason prompted him to enforce the Henotikon and to lean to neither party in his ecclesiastical measures. He honestly endeavoured to carry out this policy up to the year A.D. 511-512, but he was growing old, and, despairing of maintaining peace between the extreme parties, he threw himself into the arms of his Monophysite friends. It is to be observed that neither all the orthodox nor all the Monophysites demanded at this time a repudiation of the Henotikon; for the Monophysites could argue that it condemned the doctrines of Chalcedon, the orthodox that it did not.48 The middle party, of whom Flavian of Antioch was the most prominent, sought to act more or less in the true spirit of the act of Zeno and leave the doctrine of Chalcedon severely alone. In the capital the difficulty of preserving peace was aggravated by the agitation of the Sleepless Monks of the monastery of Studion, who were uncompromising opponents of the Henotikon, and remained in communion with the Church of Rome. Some vain attempts had been made to end the schism. Pope Anastasius II, in his brief pontificate,49 desired to conclude it by a concession which was almost equivalent to a partial acceptance of the Henotikon. He sent to Constantinople two bishops proposing to withdraw the demand of his predecessors that the name of Acacius should be expunged from the roll of Patriarchs. On account of this policy he is one of the Popes for whom the Catholic Church has little good to say, and Dante found for him a suitable place in hell.50 His successors obstinately refused to heal the breach.51

Far more significant than the deposition of Macedonius, who had never approved of the Imperial policy, was the deposition of the Patriarch of Antioch, the moderate Flavian,52 and the election of the Pisidian Severus, whom we have already met as the leading theologian of the Monophysites and bitter foe of Chalcedon (A.D. 512).53 On the occasion of his enthronement at Antioch, Severus anathematised the doctrinal decisions of that Council, and he determined to make his own Patriarchate as Monophysitic as that of Egypt. A synod at Tyre (A.D. 513)54 condemned Chalcedon and confirmed the Henotikon, which was interpreted in the Monophysite sense. The triumphant party were ready for extreme measures, and the Emperor had to warn the Duke of Phoenicia Libanensis that he would countenance no bloodshed in dealing with recalcitrant bishops. But the general proceedings of the Monophysites, under the guidance of Severus, during the next few years, seem to have amounted to a persecution.

The reply to the revolution in the Emperor’s policy was soon to come in the shape of a rebellion in Thrace.55

§ 3. Financial Policy

Anastasius was a conscientious ruler, and one of the great merits of his government was the personal attention which he paid to the control of the finances. A civil servant, who belonged to the bureau of the Praetorian Prefect, and began his career in this reign, asserts that the careful economy of Anastasius and his strictures in supervising the details of the budget saved the State, which ever since the costly expedition of Leo I against the Vandals had been on the brink of financial ruin.56

The economy of the Emperor enabled him to abolish the tax on receipts, known as the Chrysargyron, which weighed heavily on the poorest classes of the population.57 This act (May, A.D. 498) earned for him particular glory and popularity. The reception of the edict in the city of Edessa illustrates the universal joy which the measure evoked. “The whole city rejoiced, and they all put on white garments, both small and great, and carried lighted tapers and censers full of burning incense,” and praising the Emperor went to a church and celebrated the eucharist. They kept a merry festival during the whole week and resolved to celebrate this festival every year.58

The consequent loss of revenue suffered by the fisc was made good by an equivalent contribution from the revenue of the Private Estates.59 The Imperial Estates seem to have received considerable additions in this reign, principally from the confiscation of the property of Zeno and the Isaurian rebels. In consequence of this increase, Anastasius found it expedient to institute a new finance minister, with similar functions to those of the Count of the Private Estates, who was to administer the recently acquired domains and all that should in future be acquired by the crown. This minister was designed by the title of Count of the Patrimony.60

Perhaps the most important financial innovation introduced by Anastasius was in the method of collecting the annona. He relieved the town corporations of the responsibility for this troublesome task,61 and assigned it to officials named vindices, who were probably appointed by the Praetorian Prefect. The appointments seem to have been given by auction to those who promised most,62 so that this form was equivalent to a revival of the old system of farming the revenue. Opinion was divided as to the effects of this change. On one hand it was said that the result was to impoverish the provinces;63 on the other, that it was a great relief to the farmers.64 One of the abuses which the measure may have been intended to remove was the unfair advantage enjoyed by the richer and more influential landowners, whom the curial bodies were afraid to offend. Under the new system, however, inequality of treatment could be secured in another way, by bribing the vindices. Anastasius hoped perhaps to mitigate this danger by strengthening the hands of the defensores and bishops, who were expected to protect the rights of subjects against official oppression. Those who condemned the new policy said that the vindices treated the cities like hostile communities.65

The originator of this revolutionary measure was an able financier of Syrian birth, named Marinus, who seems to have been the most trusted adviser of Anastasius, throughout the latter part of his reign. He began his career as a financial clerk under the Count of the East,66 and attained to the post of head of the tax department of the Praetorian Prefect.67 In this capacity he gained the ear of the Emperor, and ultimately was elevated to the Praetorian Prefecture. The reform was probably carried out during his tenure of that post, but the date and duration of his Prefecture are a little uncertain.68 The immediate result of the new method of collecting the taxes was a considerable increase of the revenue and also of the private income of the Praetorian Prefect.69

It is not clear whether the reform of Marinus meant that the actual tax-collectors, who had hitherto been members of the town communities, were replaced by government officials. It seems more probable that the change consisted in placing the local collectors under direct government control. They received their instructions from the vindex, and the provincial governor, who remained responsible for the taxation of the province, communicated with the vindex and not with the corporation of decurions. The new system was not permanent. Though it was not completely done away with, it was considerably modified in the following reigns. In some places the vindex survived, but in most of the provinces he disappeared, and there was probably a return to the old methods.70

Other revenue questions occupied the anxious attention of the government at this period. The practice of converting the annona into money payments seems to have been considerably enlarged.71 But the problem of sterile lands appears now to have become more acute than ever. This grave difficulty perpetually solicited the care and defied the statesmanship of the Imperial government. Farms were constantly falling out of cultivation through the impoverishment of their owners or the deficiency of labour. The heavy public burdens, aggravated by the oppression of officials, reduced many of the small struggling farmers to bankruptcy. This would have meant a considerable loss to the revenue, in the natural course of things, and the problem for the government was to avoid this loss by making others suffer for the unfortunate defaulters. For this purpose the small properties of the free farmers of a commune were regarded as a fiscal unity, liable for the total sum of the fiscal assessments of its members;72 and when for any cause one property ceased to be solvent, the others were required to make good the deficiency. This addition to their proper contributions was known as an epibole.73 In the case of larger estates, which were not included in a commune, if one part became unproductive, the whole estate remained liable for the tax as originally estimated.74 But a difficulty rose when parts of such an estate were sold or when it was divided among several heirs. Notwithstanding the division it was still treated as a fiscal unity, and if one of the proprietors became insolvent the government was determined that the deficiency should be made good by other portions of the original estate.75 But there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the apportionment of the epibole in such a case. Should the whole estate be liable, or should the sterile property be annexed, along with its obligations, to the productive land in its immediate neighbourhood? The former solution would have assimilated the treatment of these estates to the lands of the communes. It is not clear what method was applied before the sixth century. We only know that the epibole in the two cases was not the same. In the reign of Anastasius an attempt seems to have been made to break down the distinction, and to have been successfully opposed by the Praetorian Prefect Zoticus (A.D. 511-512).76 Perhaps he defined the general method of dealing with sterile lands which was developed in the following reign by the Praetorian Prefect Demosthenes (A.D. 520-524).77 The most important points in this ruling were, that the provincial governor was empowered to decide in each case on whom the epibole should fall; that the unproductive land, with all that appertained to it, including the colons, should be transferred to those who were made liable for its burdens; and that this liability should be determined not by proximity, but by the history of the property.

The result of the economical policy of Anastasius and his financial reforms was that he not only saved the State from the bankruptcy which had threatened it, but, at his death, left in the treasury what in those days was a large reserve, amounting to 320,000 pounds of gold (about £14,590,000).78 His strict control of expenditure made him extremely unpopular with the official classes whose pockets suffered, and his saving policy, which probably included a great reduction of the expenses of the court, did not endear him to the nobles and ladies accustomed to the pageants and pleasures of Byzantine festivals. He was accused of avarice and stinginess, vices for which the men of Dyrrhachium, his native place, had a bad repute.79 This accusation was unjust, and can be refuted by the admissions of one of the writers who report it.80 Personally Anastasius was generous and open-handed; he seldom sent any petitioners empty away; and several instances of his liberality to individuals are recorded. His “parsimonious resourcefulness,” stigmatised by his successor Justin,81 was entirely in the interests of the State; and the general tenor of his policy was to finance the Empire by economy in expenditure, and not to increase, but rather to reduce, the public burdens.82 This feature of his administration corresponded to his character. Though resolute and energetic, he was distinguished, like Nerva, by his mildness.

Et mitem Nervam lenissima pectora vincunt.83

If he had not held heretical opinions, historians would have had little but praise for the Emperor Anastasius.

It remains to mention his useful monetary reform. For a long time past the general public had suffered great inconvenience through the bad quality of the copper money in circulation. It consisted of coins of very small denomination with no marks of value. Anastasius introduced a large copper follis, equivalent to forty sesterces, with smaller coins of the value of twenty, ten, and five sesterces, each clearly marked by a letter showing the value.84 This mintage was a great practical benefit, and must have been highly appreciated by the poorer citizens.

He was always ready to spend money on useful public works. Besides the Long Wall of Thrace, he constructed a canal in Bithynia connecting the Gulf of Nicomedia with Lake Sophon, and thus realised an old project of the younger Pliny. Liberal sums were always forthcoming to repair injuries caused by war, to assist towns which were damaged by earthquake, to cleanse harbours, to build aqueducts or baths.85

§ 4. The Rebellion of Vitalian86 and the Death of Anastasius (A.D. 513-518)

Partly through his religious policy and partly through his public economy Anastasius failed to secure the goodwill of various classes of his subjects; his unpopularity increased in the later years of his reign; and it was not surprising that an ambitious soldier should conceive the hope of dethroning him. Vitalian held the post of Count of the Federates, who were stationed in Thrace, and these troops now consisted chiefly of Bulgarians.87 The immediate pretext for his revolt was the conduct of Hypatius, the Master of Soldiers in Thrace, whom the Federates regarded as responsible for depriving them of the provisions to whom they were entitled. But Vitalian claimed to be more than merely the leader of aggrieved soldiers.88 He pretended to represent the religious discontent, to voice orthodox indignation at the new form of the Trisagion, and to champion the cause of the deposed Patriarch Flavian who was his personal friend, and the deposed Patriarch Macedonius. Vitalian was a man of exceptionally small stature and afflicted with a stammer; his enemies acknowledged his courage and cunning in war.

Hypatius seems to have been unpopular with the army. In A.D. 51389 Vitalian, by stratagem, compassed the death of two of the chief officers of the general’s staff; gained over to his side the Duke of Lower Moesia; and then, capturing Carinus, a trusted friend of Hypatius, granted him his life on condition that he should help him to seize Odessus. Hypatius, unable to cope with the situation, withdrew to Constantinople. The rebel reinforced his Federate troops by a multitude of rustics, and, at the head of 50,000 men (it is said), advanced to Constantinople, hoping that the populace of the capital would rally to him as the champion of orthodoxy.

The Emperor commanded bronze crosses to be set up over the gates of the city, with inscriptions setting forth his own view of the cause of the rebellion.90 He reduced by one-quarter the tax on the import of live stock for the inhabitants of Bithynia and Asia, in order to secure the loyalty of these provinces. The military authorities made what arrangements they could to meet the sudden crisis. When Vitalian occupied the suburbs and appeared before the walls, Patricius, Master of Soldiers in praesenti, who had won distinction in the Persian war and had considerably helped the advancement of Vitalian, was sent to confer with the rebel. Vitalian explained the purpose of his resort to arms. He was determined to rectify the injustices committed by Hypatius, and to obtain the ratification of the orthodox theological creed. He and his chief officers were invited into the city to discuss the matters at issue. He refused to accept the invitation himself, but his chief officers went on the following day and had an audience of the Emperor. Anastasius won them over by gifts and promises that the soldiers would receive all that was due, and by undertaking that the Church of Rome would be allowed to settle the religious questions in dispute. Vitalian had no option but to yield to the unanimous opinion of his officers, and he returned with his army to Lower Moesia to bide his time and mature new schemes.

The Emperor deposed the unpopular Hypatius and appointed in his stead Cyril, an officer of some experience, who immediately proceeded to Lower Moesia, perhaps with the purpose of capturing Vitalian by guile. But Vitalian was on the alert, and Cyril was assassinated. This act made it clear that the rebel was still a rebel, and a decree of the Senate was passed, in old Roman style, that Vitalian was an enemy of the republic. Alathar, a soldier of Hunnic origin, was appointed to succeed Cyril, but the supreme command of the Imperial army was assigned to another Hypatius, a nephew of the Emperor. This army, said to have been 80,000 strong, gained an inconsiderable victory (autumn, A.D. 513), which was soon followed by serious reverses.91 Hypatius then fortified himself behind a rampart of wagons at Acris, on the Black Sea, near Odessus. In this entrenchment the barbarians attacked him, and, assisted by a sudden darkness, which a superstitious historian attributed to magic arts, gained a signal victory. The Romans, driven over precipices and into ravines, are said to have lost about 60,000 men. Hypatius himself ran into the sea, if perchance he might conceal himself in the waves, but his head betrayed him. Vitalian preserved him alive as a valuable hostage.92 This victory enabled him to pay his barbarian allies richly, and placed him in possession of all the cities and fortresses in Moesia and Scythia. The Emperor sent ambassadors with ten pounds of gold to ransom his nephew, but they were captured at Sozopolis (Sizeboli), which at the same time fell into the rebels’ hands.

In the meantime a tumult, attended with loss of life, occurred at Constantinople, because Anastasius forbade the celebration of festivities in the evening on account of disorders in the Hippodrome. Among others the Prefect of the Watch was slain. This disturbance may have helped to dispose the Emperor to consider a compromise, when shortly afterwards (A.D. 514) Vitalian, flushed with victory, appeared in the neighbourhood of the capital. He had collected in the Thracian ports a fleet of 200 vessels. These he sent to the Bosphorus, and marching himself along the coast occupied the European shores of the Straits. A certain John,93 who seems to have been Master of Soldiers in praesenti, was sent to Sosthenion (Stenia) to treat with him. Conditions were arranged. Vitalian was appointed to the post of Master of Soldiers in Thrace, and Hypatius was liberated for a ransom of 9000 pounds of gold.

But the most important provision of the contract was that measures should be taken to establish peace in the Church by the convocation of a general Council, and it was agreed that a Council should be held at Heraclea in the following year.94 Vitalian expressly insisted that Rome should be represented, and it was arranged that both he and the Emperor should communicate with Pope Hormisdas.95 The date of the Council was fixed for July 1, A.D. 515, but it never met. Delegates indeed were sent from Rome and arrived at Constantinople late in the year, but as the Pope adopted an uncompromising attitude in regard to the condemnation of the memory of Acacius, and as the Emperor held that it was unjust that living persons should be excluded from the Church on account of the dead,96 no conciliation could be effected. A fruitless correspondence between Hormisdas and Anastasius ensued.

The Emperor appears to have also promised Vitalian that the bishops who had been driven from their sees should be restored,97 but it is not clear whether this measure was intended to depend on the decisions of the Council. As the Council did not meet, and as the bishops were not restored, Vitalian was convinced that the Emperor had no intention of fulfilling his part of the bargain, and it was probably in the later months of the same year that he assembled his fleet anew, and reappeared with his army on the banks of the Bosphorus,98 whence he occupied Sycae, the region of the city, on the north side of the Golden Horn, which was in later times called Galata. It is surprising to find that the command of the Imperial forces was committed to Marinus, the Emperor’s influential adviser, who had hitherto been employed only in civil affairs. This exceptional arrangement was due to the attitude of the two Masters of Soldiers in praesenti, Patricius and John, who were personal friends of Vitalian and his father. They hesitated to take command on the ground that if they were defeated they would be suspected of treason. The great financier, however, was equal to the crisis. The issue was decided by a naval battle at the mouth of the Golden Horn, in which the ships of the rebel were completely routed.99 It is related that this victory was achieved by the use of a chemical compound, similar to the Greek fire of later days, which, projected upon the enemy’s ships, set them on fire.100 Marinus then landed his forces at Sycae, slew the rebels whom he found there, and in the evening took up a position on the shores of the Bosphorus.101 In the night Vitalian fled with all the troops that were left to him and reached Anchialus, where he seems to have remained undisturbed during the next three years. The Emperor made a solemn procession to Sosthenion, which Vitalian had made his headquarters, and in the church of St. Michael, for which that place was noted, offered thanks to the archangel for the deliverance. All the rebels did not escape as easily as Vitalian. Tarrach, one of his henchmen, whom he had employed to assassinate Cyril, was burned at Chalcedon, and two others who happened to be taken were put to death.

The Empress Ariadne died in this year.102 Anastasius survived her by three years. He died at the age of eighty on the night of July 8-9, A.D. 518.103 He had no children and made no provision for the succession, though it was probably his intention to designate one of his three nephews, Probus, Pompeius, or Hypatius.104 His last months seem to have been troubled by new hostilities on the part of Vitalian, but the details are unknown to us.105

§ 5. Italy under Theoderic

The rule of the Patrician Theoderic in Italy, if we date it from the battle of the Adda in A.D. 490, lasted thirty-six years. In its general constitutional and administrative principles it was a continuation of the rule of Odovacar. One of the first things Theoderic had to do was to settle his own people in the land, and this settlement was exactly similar to that which had been carried out by his predecessor. The Ostrogoths for the most part replaced Odovacar’s Germans, who had been largely killed or driven out, though some of them who had submitted were permitted to retain their lands. The general principle was the assignment of one-third of the Roman estates to the Goths;106 but the commission which carried out the division was under the presidency of a senator, Liberius, so that we may be sure the senatorial domains were spared so far as possible.

For six years the Emperor Anastasius hesitated to define his attitude to Theoderic,107 but Theoderic carefully refrained from taking any measures that were incompatible with the position of a viceroy or that would render subsequent recognition difficult. At length they came to terms (A.D. 497), and a definite arrangement was made which determined the position of Italy and the status of the Ostrogothic kingdom. Theoderic still held the office of Master of Soldiers which Zeno had conferred upon him. Anastasius confirmed him in this office and recognised him as Governor of Italy under certain conditions, which in their general scope must have corresponded to the arrangement which Zeno had made with Odovacar. These conditions determined the constitutional position of Theoderic.

Under this arrangement Italy remained part of the Empire, and was regarded as such officially both at Rome and at Constantinople. In one sense Theoderic was an independent ruler, but there were a number of limitations to his power, which implied the sovranty of the Emperor and which he loyally observed.108

The position of the Ostrogothic king as a deputy comes out in the fact that he never used the years of his reign for the purpose of dating official documents. It comes out in the fact that he did not claim the right of coining money except in subordination to the Emperor.109 It comes out, above all, in the fact that he did not make laws.110 To make laws, leges in the full sense of the term, was reserved as the supreme prerogative of the Emperor. Ordinances of Theoderic exist, but they are not leges, they are only edicta; and various high officials, especially the Praetorian Prefect, could issue an edictum. Nor was this difference between law and edict, in Theoderic’s case, a mere difference in name. Theoderic did promulgate general edicts, that is, laws which did not apply only to special cases, but were of a general kind permanently valid, and which if they had been enacted by the Emperor would have been called laws. But the Praetorian Prefect had the right of issuing a general edict, provided it did not run counter to any existing law. This meant that he could modify existing laws in particular points, whether in the direction of mildness or of severity, but could not originate any new principle or institution. The ordinances of Theoderic, which are collected in his code known as the Edictum Theoderici, exhibit conformity to this rule. They introduce no novelties, they alter no established principle. We are told that, when Theoderic first appeared in Rome, he addressed the people and promised that he would preserve inviolate all the ordinances of the Emperors in the past.111 Thus in legislation, Theoderic is neither nominally nor actually co-ordinate with the Emperor. His powers in this department are those of a high official, and though he employed them to a greater extent than any Praetorian Prefect could have done, on account of the circumstances of the case, yet his edicts are qualitatively on the same footing.

The right of naming one of the consuls of the year, which had belonged to the Emperor reigning in the West, was transferred by the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius to Odovacar and Theoderic.112 From A.D. 498 Theoderic nominated one of the consuls. On one occasion (A.D. 522) the Emperor Justin waived his own nomination and allowed Theoderic to name both consuls — Symmachus and Boethius. But in exercising this right the Ostrogothic king was bound by one restriction. He could not nominate a Goth; only a Roman could fill the consulship. The single exception corroborates the existence of the rule. In A.D. 519 Eutharic, the king’s son-in-law, was consul. But it is expressly recorded that the nomination was not made by Theoderic; it was made by the Emperor, as a special favour.113

The capitulation which excluded Goths from the consulship extended also to all the civil offices, which were maintained under Ostrogothic rule, as under that of Odovacar.114 There was still the Praetorian Prefect of Italy, and when Theoderic acquired Provence, the office of Praetorian Prefect of Gaul was revived. There was the Vicarius of Rome; there were all the provincial governors, divided as before into the three ranks of consulars, correctors, and praesides. There was the Master of Offices. There were the two great finance ministries.115 There was the Quaestorship of the Palace.116 It may be added that Goths were also excluded from the honorary dignity of Patricius. Under Theoderic no Goth bore that title but Theoderic himself, who had received it from the Emperor.

The Roman Senate, to which Goths on the same principle could not belong, continued to meet and to perform much the same functions which it had performed throughout the fifth century. It was formally recognised by Theoderic as possessing an authority similar to his own.117

If all the civil offices were reserved for the Romans, in the case of military posts it was exactly the reverse. Here it was the Romans who were excluded. The army was entirely Gothic; no Roman was liable to military service; and the officers were naturally Goths.118 Theoderic was the commander of the army, as Master of Soldiers, for, though he did not designate himself by the title, he had retained the office, and no Master of Soldiers was appointed, subordinate to himself.119 Though the old Roman troops and their organisation disappeared, it has been shown that the military arrangements were based in many respects on practices which had existed in Italy under Imperial rule.

The various disabilities of the Ostrogoths which have been described depended on the fact that they were not Roman citizens. They, like the Germans settled by Odovacar, had legally the same status as mercenaries or foreign travellers or hostages who dwelled in Roman territory, but might at any time return to their homes beyond the Roman frontier. The laws which applied only to Roman citizens, for instance those relating to marriage and inheritance, did not apply to them. But what may be called the ius commune, laws pertaining to criminal matters and to the general intercourse of life, applied to all foreigners who happened to be sojourning in Roman territory; and thus the Edict of Theoderic, which is based on Roman law, is addressed to Goths and Romans alike. The status of the Goths reminds us of a fundamental restriction of Theoderic’s power. He could not turn a Goth into a Roman; he could not confer Roman citizenship; that power was reserved to the Emperor.

Their quality, as foreign soldiers, determined the character of the courts in which the Ostrogoths were judged. The Roman rule was that the soldier must be tried by a military court, and military courts were instituted for the Goths. But here Theoderic interfered in a serious way with the rights of the Italians. All processes between Romans and Goths, to whichever race the accuser belonged, were brought before these military courts. A Roman lawyer was always present as an assessor, but probably no feature of the Gothic government was so unpopular as this. Like the Emperor, Theoderic had a supreme royal court, which could withdraw any case from a lower court or cancel its decision, and this tribunal seems to have been more active than the corresponding court of the Emperor. It is indeed in the domain of justice, in contrast with the domain of legislation, that the German kings in Italy sharply asserted their actual authority.

Besides being Master of Soldiers in regard to the Ostrogothic host, Theoderic was likewise the king of the people. He did not style himself rex Gotorum; like Odovacar, he adopted the simple title of rex. This indefinite style was hardly due to the circumstance that the foreign settlers in Italy were not all Ostrogoths, that the remnant of Odovacar’s Germans, and notably the Rugians,120 acknowledged his kingship. It was perhaps intended also to express his actual, as distinguished from his constitutional, relation to the Roman population. While the Roman citizens were constitutionally the subjects of the Emperor, of whom the Patrician Theoderic was himself a subject and official, they were actually in the hands of Theoderic, who was their real ruler. To designate this extra-constitutional relation, the word rex, which had no place in the constitutional vocabulary of Rome, was appropriate enough. It served the double purpose of expressing his regular relation to his German subjects, and his irregular relation, his quasi-kingship, to the Romans of Italy.121

The continuity of the administration of Odovacar with that of Theoderic was facilitated by the fact that some of the Roman ministers of Odovacar passed into the service of the Ostrogothic ruler, and probably the mass of subordinate officials remained unchanged. For instance, the first Praetorian Prefect of Italy under Theoderic was Liberius (A.D. 493-500), who had been one of the trusted ministers of Odovacar. Cassiodorus — father of the famous Cassiodorus whose writings are our chief authority for Theoderic’s reign,— who had held both the great financial offices under Odovacar, continued to serve under Theoderic, and in the early years of the sixth century became Praetorian Prefect.122

The constitutional system of administration which Theoderic accepted and observed was not a necessity to which he reluctantly or lukewarmly yielded. It was a system in which he seems to have been a convinced believer, and he threw his whole heart and best energies into working it. His object was to civilise his own people in the environment of Roman civilisation (civilitas). But he made no premature attempt to draw the two classes of his subjects closer, by breaking down lines of division. They were divided by religion and by legal status. So far as religion was concerned, the king was consistently tolerant, unlike the rulers of the Vandals and the Franks. His principle was: “We cannot impose religion because no one can be compelled to believe against his will” — a maxim which might well have been pondered on by Roman Emperors.123 So extreme was his repugnance to influencing the creed of his fellow-creatures that an anecdote was invented that he put to death a Catholic deacon for embracing Arianism to please him. If there is any foundation for the story, there must have been other circumstances; but it is good evidence as to his religious attitude; if it was entirely invented, it proves his reputation.124

And just as he accepted the duality of religion, he accepted the dual system by which Goths and Romans lived side by side as two distinct and separate peoples. He made no efforts to bring about fusion, his only aim was that the two nations should live together in amity. But little love was lost between them. The rude German barbarians despised the civilised Italians, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was overthrown before fusion could begin; but the development in Visigothic Spain, under similar conditions, makes it probable that fusion would have ensued, if the Ostrogothic power had endured. It says much for Theoderic’s authority and tact that he was able to hold an equal balance between the two peoples, and to attain so nearly in practice to the difficult ideal which he set before him

Tors Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur.

After his death the concealed impatience of the Goths under his philo-Roman policy was soon to burst out and hurry them to disaster.

Although he aimed at maintaining peaceful relations with the Emperor throughout his long reign, this concord was threatened more than once, and there were even actual hostilities. A campaign which Theoderic undertook against the Gepids, in order to recover Sirmium and adjacent districts of the Prefecture of Italy which this people had occupied, led to a collision with the Imperial troops (A.D. 504-505). The events are obscure.125 It would seem that the Gepids yielded with little resistance, in consequence of internal dissensions. But the expedition which Theoderic sent against them aroused the suspicions of Anastasius. At this time the central provinces of the Balkan peninsula were exposed to the depredations of a Hun, named Mundo, who had organised a band of brigands. The government sent the Master of Soldiers, Sabinian, to capture him, and Sabinian was supported by a formidable force of allied Bulgarians. Mundo appealed for help to the Ostrogothic general Pitzias, who was engaged in completing the occupation of the territory which he had won from the Gepids. Our informants do not explain why he should have made the brigand’s cause his own, or regarded Sabinian’s movements as a threat to the Goths; but he marched into Dacia and won a decisive victory over the Bulgarians. Mundo also inflicted a severe defeat on Sabinian at Horrea Margi.126 The key to this episode probably is that Anastasius viewed with alarm the Gothic occupation of the important frontier town of Sirmium; he preferred that it should be in the hands of the Gepids than in those of his viceroy.127 After the defeat of Sabinian, he must have acquiesced in Theoderic’s restoration of the Prefecture of Italy to its old limits, for no further hostilities followed.128

These operations in the region of the Save were probably connected with an attempt to make his authority felt in the Pannonian province. Of the conditions in Noricum and Pannonia at this time we have no clear idea. But we know that about the year 507 Theoderic settled a portion of the Alamannic people in Pannonia, perhaps in Savia. The remnant of this people, after their defeat by Clovis (perhaps in A.D. 495), had wandered southward into Raetia to escape the sword or the yoke of the victor. Clovis requested Theoderic to surrender them, and we possess Theoderic’s reply. He deprecated the Frank king’s desire to push his victory further. “Hear the counsel,” he wrote, “of one who is experienced in such matters. Those wars of mine have been profitable, the ending of which has been guided by moderation.” He took the Alamanni under his protection and gave them a home within the borders of his kingdom.129

In his relations with foreign powers, Theoderic acted as an independent sovran. The four chief powers with which he had to reckon were the Visigoths, the Burgundians, the Franks, and the Vandals. It was natural that he should look for special co-operation from the Visigoths, who were a kindred folk. But his policy at first was not to draw the Visigoths into a close intimate alliance, which might seem a threat to the other powers. He sought to form bonds of friendship with all the reigning houses, by means of matrimonial alliances. If he wedded one of his daughters to the Visigothic king, Alaric II, the other married Sigismund (A.D. 494), who became king of the Burgundians after his father Gundobad’s death. Theoderic himself took as his second wife a Frankish princess, sister of Clovis. And his own sister married Thrasamund, king of the Vandals (A.D. 500). Thus he formed close ties with all the chief powers of the West.130 One object of this policy was doubtless to maintain the existing order of things, to preserve peace in western Europe, and secure Italy against attack. But we can hardly be wrong in thinking that it was also the purpose of Theoderic to secure his own position in Italy, in relation to the Imperial power. He could hardly fail to foresee that the day might come when Anastasius or one of his successors might decide to bring Italy under his immediate government or to deal with himself as Zeno had dealt with Odovacar. To meet such a danger, it would be much to have behind him the support of the western powers. As the centre and head of the system, linking together the German royalties, he would be in a far stronger position in regard to his sovran at Constantinople than Odovacar had been standing alone.

The family alliances of Theoderic did not avail to hinder war. He could not avert the inevitable struggle between the Franks and the Visigoths in Gaul. No moment in his reign caused him perhaps more anxiety than when Clovis declared war upon Alaric. Theoderic did what he could. We have the three letters which he wrote at this crisis to Alaric, to Gundobad, and to Clovis himself.131 It was in vain. Theoderic promised armed help to his son-in-law. But for some reason he was unable to render it. It would seem that he had calculated that the Burgundians would not side with the Franks, and that they cut him off so that he could not reach Aquitaine in time to intervene in the struggle. On the field of Vouillé (near Poictiers) the Visigothic king fell and Aquitaine was annexed to the dominion of the Franks (A.D. 507). But in the following years the generals of Theoderic conducted campaigns in Gaul. They succeeded in rescuing Arles and in saving Narbonensis for the Visigothic kingdom. They wrested Provence from Burgundy and annexed it to Italy. At the same time the personal power of Theoderic received another extension. The heir of Alaric was a child, and the government of his realm was consigned to Theoderic, who was his grandfather and most powerful protector. For the rest of his life Theoderic ruled Spain and Narbonensis. Thus no inconsiderable part of the western section of the old Roman Empire was under his sway: Spain, Narbonensis, and Provence, Italy and Sicily, the two provinces of Raetia, Noricum, part of Pannonia, and Dalmatia.

Thus the war in Gaul involved Theoderic, in spite of his relations to the royal houses, in hostilities against both the Franks and the Burgundians. The Burgundian alliance does not seem to have led to any close intimacy. Gundobad remained an Arian till his death (A.D. 516), but he took good care to remain on friendly terms with Anastasius. His son Sigismund, Theoderic’s son-in-law, who succeeded him, had been converted to Catholicism132 by Avitus, the bishop of Vienne, and appears to have been completely in the hands of Avitus and the Catholic clergy. He looked to the Emperor as his overlord, and addressed him in almost servile terms.133 Theoderic was alarmed at the prospect of political intimacy between Burgundy and Constantinople, and he would not allow Sigismund’s messengers to travel through Italy to the East.134 The strained relations between the courts were shown by the circumstance that the consulship of Eutharic was not accepted in Burgundy as the date of A.D. 519.135 Theoderic probably placed his hopes in his grandson Sigeric, who, though he had been converted to the Catholic creed, was not on good terms with his father. His mother was dead, and Sigismund had taken a second wife. We know nothing authentic of the breach between father and son, but the end was that Sigeric was put to death by his father’s orders (A.D. 522).136 Theoderic prepared for war to avenge his grandson, but it was the Franks, not the Ostrogoths, who were to punish Sigismund. It was not to their mind that Theoderic should have a free hand in Burgundy, and moving more quickly, they captured Sigismund and his family and subdued a part of the kingdom. An Ostrogothic force arrived afterwards and annexed the district between the Isère and the Durance to Theoderic’s realm (A.D. 523).137

The war between the Franks and Visigoths seems to have led to friction between Theoderic and the Emperor. In that struggle Clovis posed as the champion of Catholic orthodoxy, going forth to drive the Arian heresy from the confines of Gaul, and all the sympathies of the Gallo-Roman Church were with the Franks. The Emperor afterwards showed his approbation of the Merovingian king by conferring upon him the honorary consulship.138 Theoderic meanwhile was supporting the Visigoths, and we may conjecture that his Gallic policy was disapproved by Anastasius, who (A.D. 508) despatched a squadron of a hundred ships to ravage the coasts of Apulia.139

The ecclesiastical relations between Rome and Constantinople affected the political situation in Italy, more or less, throughout the reign of Theoderic.140 This was partly due to the fact that the great Roman families were now all Christian, and many of the senators held strong opinions on the subject of the schism which the Henotikon of Zeno had provoked. Festus had taken advantage of his political mission to Constantinople in A.D. 497 to attempt to heal the schism. He told the Emperor that he had hopes of inducing the Pope Anastasius to sign the Henotikon. But when he returned to Italy the Pope was dead.141 Festus, however, only represented the opinion of part of the Senate. There was a marked division in the views of the senators, of whom an influential section were opposed to any compromise on the theological question. This difference of opinion led to a bitter struggle over the election of a new Pope. Two men were elected on the same day (November 22, A.D. 498), Laurentius, the candidate of Festus and the party of reconciliation, and Symmachus, supported by the orthodox, who were prepared to make no concessions. Two rival Popes were enthroned in Rome, each upheld by strong and determined partisans, and for years the city was disturbed by sanguinary tumults.142 An appeal was made to Theoderic to decide between the two claimants. It is a remarkable episode in the history of the Church 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; II.7.23); Zoticus, A.D. 511-512 (Cyrillus, Vita S. Sabae, pp290, 294; this agrees with the chronological indications in John Lyd. III.27; from whom we also learn that Zoticus held office for little more than a year); Sergius, A.D. 517, April 1-Dec. 1 (C.J. V.27.6; II.7.24).

The Prefects of uncertain date are Armenius, Arcadius, Leontius (ib. XII.50.23; XII.37.7; VII.39.6), and Marinus. As to Leontius, he held office after 500 (cp. ib. VII.39.5, and John Lyd. III.17). For the Prefecture of Marinus we have the limits 498 (John Lyd. III.36) and 515, in which year he was ex-Pr. Pr. (John Mal. XVI pp403, 405, 407). He was influential with Anastasius in the Prefecture of Zoticus (Cyrillus, loc. cit.), and it is to be noted that Zacharias of Mytilene (VII.9), speaking of him as the Emperor’s friend and confidant, describes him as a chartularius (A.D. 511). The people of Constantinople held him as partly responsible for the ecclesiastical measures which caused the riot of Nov. 512, and his house was burnt down (Marcell. Chron., sub a.). On the whole, I would conjecture that he became Prefect in that year, having succeeded Zoticus. It does not follow from John Lyd. loc. cit. (as Borghesi supposes) that he immediately succeeded Polycarpus. In the latter part of his reign, Anastasius appointed only Scholastici (ῥήτορες, λογικοί) to the Prefecture (John Lyd. III.50; Priscian, Pan. 246-251), in accordance with the old tradition of the civil service. For the training of the scholasticus cp. Macarius, Hom. 15.42, in Migne, P.G. XXXIV.604. — Marinus is meant by the Μαριανός who is mentioned in Justinian, Nov. 96 § 15, as is evident from the context. He was Praetorian Prefect again under Justin A.D. 519 (C.J. V.27.7; II.7.25). — There is a slight difficulty about Appion, though John Malalas (source: Eustathius of Epiphania) says expressly that the patrician Appion was appointed ἔπαρχος πραιτωρίων ἀνατολῆς and sent to the East on the outbreak of the Persian War. This seems to harmonise with Joshua Styl. LV p44, who states that Appion the hyparch was at Edessa in May 503. But it would be very strange for a Praet. Prefect to proceed himself to the seat of war to supervise the commissariat, and we should naturally take hyparch to mean the officer called prefect of the camp, ὁ τοῦ στρατοπέδου ἔπαρχος (Procopius, B.V. I.11), both here and ib. LXX, where we learn that Calliopius became hyparch in May 504, an office which he occupied till 506, ib. XCIX. We cannot suppose Calliopius to have been Praet. Prefect, as the post was held by Constantine and Eustathius in 505-506, and it is a little difficult to interpret hyparch differently in the two cases. But we have to take into consideration the statement of John Lyd. III.17 that Anastasius was “moved with anger against Appion,” ἀνδρὸς ἐξοχωτάτου καὶ κοινωνήσαντος αὐτῷ τῆς βασιλείας ὅτε Κωάδης ὁ Πέρσης ἐφλέγμαινε, Λεοντίου τὴν ἐπαρχότητα διέποντος. This seems to mean that Apion was Praet. Pref. at the outbreak of the Persian War, but fell into disfavour and was succeeded by Leontius, and establishes the Prefecture of Appion. I am inclined to think that Joshua’s Appion was a different person.

— End of Volume 1 —