Mater Regens or Regina? Amalasuintha and the Regency
Despite the wide use of the term “regina” in Roman literature, fifth- and early sixth-century authors did not often use the word to designate the wife of the king; indeed, recent statistical studies have demonstrated that the use of the term was infrequent.61 Chancery sources of the late sixth and early seventh century, such as the Epistulae Austrasicae and the correspondence of Gregory the Great, used it on the headings of documents written in the name of queens or addressed to them, but generally it is not to be found in the body of the texts. For example, Gregory the Great generally addressed the Frankish Brunhild, the Lombard Theodelinda, and the Anglo-Saxon Bertha as excellentia vestra or gloria vestra in the body of his letters, though all were queens.62 We also find these and other similar forms in the Epistulae Austrasicae.
Cassiodorus, following the chancery style, used the title of regina with reference to queens only in the headings of letters written in the name of Amalasuintha and of Theodahad’s wife, Gudeliva. These are among the rare instances in the Variae of letters written in women’s names. And this point has great significance here, because, as we saw above, the question of when Amalasuintha assumed the title of regina has traditionally revolved around the use of the term in Cassiodorus’s letter headings: Amalasuintha appears for the first time as regina in the headings of the letters written in her name only after Athalaric’s death.63 Similarly, Gudeliva bears the title of regina only in the headings of the two letters of the Variae in her name, which follow Amalasuintha’s deposition.64
Except for one particular case, which I shall analyze below, in the body of his letters as well as in non-chancery documents, such his panegyrics,65 Cassiodorus refers to all Amal royal women, including Amalasuintha, as dominae, even those who were queens in other kingdoms. We see him use this terminology to reference Amalafrida, the former Vandal queen; Queen Gudeliva, wife of Theodahad;66 Amalasuintha, both as regent of Athalaric and coregent of Theodahad;67 and Mathasuintha, Amalasuintha’s daughter and wife of King Witiges.68 This is in keeping with other chancery sources from the fifth and sixth centuries. Cassiodorus did use the term “regina” in references to very ancient figures with whom Amalasuintha is compared; these are Queen Semiramis (a regent mother of the ninth century B.C.), whom he praised for having built the walls of Babylon, and the Queen of Sheba, who came to learn the wisdom of Solomon.69 But while these documents, certainly the second one, were produced when Amalasuintha was regina, Cassiodorus nevertheless still refers to her in them as domina.
After his career at the palace was over, Cassiodorus composed the introduction to the Variae, declaring that he had often proclaimed the praises of queens and kings: dixisti … frequenter reginis ac regibus laudes.70 It is clear that Cassiodorus was referring to his orations for Amalasuintha and Matasuintha, which survive in fragments, as well as to his letter-panegyric Variae 11.1, and it is certainly possible that he also wrote pieces for Audefleda and Gudeliva. But when we leave the introduction and turn to the documents themselves, we find that Cassiodorus, singing the praises of the queens, uses the word “domina,” never “regina.” Certainly, any identification of domina as regina in Cassiodorus’s work must be done carefully.71 But if the title of regina for Amalasuintha is not found until late 534, this is most likely due to the lack of letters in her name preceding the loss of her son.
Outside the chancery, two authors writing a few decades after the publication of the Variae attributed the title “regina” to the wives of the Merovingian kings with a certain regularity. These are Gregory of Tours in his History and Venantius Fortunatus in his panegyrics and poems. Interestingly, Gregory uses this term for the women who belonged through birth or marriage to the Merovingian dynasty, but he does not grant this title to royal women outside the Frankish world and especially the queens with an Arian creed and/or the wives of kings who were enemies of the Franks. (The lack of a royal title for Basina, the mother of Clovis, is perhaps due to the fact that she left her husband, the king of the Thuringians, to marry Childeric well before the Franks’ conversion to Catholicism). Gregory refers to Amalasuintha, whom he despises for her Arianism, as the filia Theudorici regis Italici.72 We could easily speculate that the lack of a royal title for Amalasuintha is due to the fact that in Gregory’s eyes she was technically not a queen. But this is not a satisfactory explanation, because in the same account the author does not use the term “regina” for her Arian mother, Audefleda, Clovis’s sister, nor does he accord it to Ostrogotho Areagni, the wife of the Catholic Burgundian King Sigismund, who for Gregory remains another filia Theudorici regis Italici. Interestingly, in Gregory’s account the second wife of Sigismund also lacks the royal title, as does Theoderic’s niece Amalaberga in the Thuringian kingdom, who was nothing more to Gregory than King Herminafrid’s uxor iniqua atque crudelis.73
Cassiodorus’s letters lack references to two other Gothic queens, Audefleda and Erelieva, respectively, Theoderic’s legitimate wife and royal mother,74 so we lose an opportunity to see how he would have titled them in his letters. However, a letter of Pope Gelasius from the year 495/6 is addressed to Hereleuva regina.75 As in the chancery tradition, the royal title appears only in the heading of the letter, while in the document Erelieva is addressed as sublimitas vestra.76 This is one of the forms that are used a century later by Gregory the Great and in the Epistulae Austrasicae to address queens, as alternatives to excellentia vestra, gloria vestra, pietas vestra, and clementia vestra. While it is theoretically possible that Pope Gelasius simply used this title as a matter of respect, it seems more likely that Erelieva had an honorary queenship, which she possessed by virtue of her son’s kingship rather than through her former position as royal concubine.77
The example of Erelieva indicates that in Gothic Italy a royal woman could be addressed as regina without being married to a king. And it is possible that the kingdom had, for short periods, two royal women bearing the title of queen—Audefleda, wife of Theoderic, naturally enough bore the title, but so did Erelieva, Theoderic’s mother, who had never been a regent and was not the wife of a king; rather, she was Theudimer’s concubine. After Theodahad’s election, both Amalasuintha and Gudeliva held the title: the latter became regina on the day of her husband Theodahad’s election or, at the latest, after Amalasuintha’s deposition. This may have been unusual in some of the post-Roman kingdoms, but there is certainly a parallel in Frankish Gaul after Clovis. His heirs’ wives were called queens even while Clotilde, his widow, kept the royal title and maintained some level of authority. But not until Brunhild in the late sixth century do we find a powerful queen regent in Gaul.
Like her paternal grandmother, Erelieva, Amalasuintha was a widowed queen mother. But she was an unusual one, and her royal motherhood played an important role in defining her political power. In both the Getica (probably relying on Cassiodorus’s lost historical work) and the Romana, Jordanes refers to Amalasuintha solely as the mater regens.78 Justinian’s 554 Constitutio Pragmatica, which lacks royal titles for all the Amal kings,79 refers to her as Athalaric’s regia mater: this expression is a unique occurrence in Justinian’s Code, and it is also very rare in the sources; the adjective regia indicates her royal bloodline.80 Jordanes may have been familiar with the Constitutio Pragmatica, which was meant to reorganize Italy after the Gothic war. It was issued about the same time and in the same place Jordanes wrote his two historical works, and in the same milieu in which Procopius completed and published the Gothic War.81 Within a short but complex passage, Jordanes describes in the Romana the events that took place in the palace of Ravenna during the years 526–535: “But in Italy, after King Theoderic had died, by his own order Athalaric his grandson succeeded [him];