Procopius and Cassiodorus represent different but complementary views on the Gothic monarchy. Procopius offers the historical perspective of a Byzantine official, at least outwardly supporting Justinian, while Cassiodorus is the skilled Western Roman bureaucrat, immersed in the culture of the palace of Ravenna, and probably a confidant of Amalasuintha. These two most important authors require further introduction.
Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator
It is not wrong to state that Cassiodorus grew up beside Amalasuintha, of whom he was the elder by a few years.25 Born around 490, he moved when very young to the court of Ravenna, where he joined his father, the Praetorian prefect, as consiliarius. His success in eulogizing Theoderic brought Cassiodorus, as soon as he reached the age of majority in 507, the appointment of quaestor of the palace until circa 511. He was consul in 514 and soon afterward became patrician. Later he again took an active role at court as master of the offices for the years 523–527; he was therefore employed at the palace at the time of Theoderic’s death. In 528 he disappeared from the political scene, and he does not reemerge in our records until 533, when Amalasuintha appointed him Praetorian prefect. This was one of the most important offices that a Roman of that time could hold. Only one year later, Cassiodorus witnessed the unfolding drama of the arrest and exile of his queen, Amalasuintha, ordered by the newly elected King Theodahad. Some senators, as well as other key figures of the kingdom, such as Liberius, were able to escape to the East,26 but Cassiodorus’s closeness to the court and his leading administrative position bound him to the political scene. Eventually he supported Theodahad and also his successor, Witiges, in the capacity of Praetorian prefect. After 538, he left the palatine administration, which he concluded by publishing a selection of the letters that he had written over the years in the name of the rulers. This collection, in twelve books, is also known as the Epistulae Variae. Because Cassiodorus arranged this collection at the time of his departure from the political scene, scholars have speculated variously about the criteria of composition and the purposes of this work.
The letters in the name of Amalasuintha, as well as those that refer to her, are generally propagandistic and shaped as short panegyrics. The most detailed example is Variae 11.1. This is a panegyric addressed to the Roman Senate, a laus with which Cassiodorus thanked Amalasuintha for having promoted him to the Praetorian prefecture. This letter indicates that she, rather than Athalaric, was the mind behind his promotion, although the promotion letters (Variae 9.24 and 9.25) were written in King Athalaric’s name, as was customary. Published as the first document of the two final books of the collection, this letter, or “letter-panegyric,” an unusual document in the Variae, focuses on the praises of Amalasuintha as ruler, and Cassiodorus included it for a purpose. Perhaps this letter was originally meant to prepare the senators for a government of Amalasuintha after the death of Athalaric, who was ill at the time.27 Cassiodorus could have easily avoided publishing this piece. By placing it as the first document of the two books containing his correspondence as Praetorian prefect, however, he celebrated Amalasuintha and her governance for Athalaric, leaving to posterity a positive portrait of the queen and suggesting that at the palace it was Amalasuintha who made the important decisions for her son. Amalasuintha’s legacy as a strong female ruler in premodern Europe is based largely on this panegyric.28 In combination with Procopius’s account, this letter has strongly influenced the opinion of modern historians about the Gothic queen, in a clear contrast with the negative image transmitted by Gregory of Tours.
Other letters from this collection particularly useful for a study of Amalasuintha’s political activities include Variae 10.4, which was modeled partially on the letter-panegyric Variae 11.1 and which was addressed one year later to the Roman Senate in the name of Theodahad. There are also other letters in Amalasuintha’s name, which are addressed respectively to Emperor Justinian and to the Roman Senate to announce the election of Theodahad (Variae 10.1 and 10.3). These erudite documents concern high diplomatic matters. Two more letters were addressed by the queen to Justinian and to Theodora during the weeks or months of her co-regency with Theodahad (Variae 10.8 and 10.10).
Procopius of Caesarea
Procopius accompanied Belisarius during his military campaign in Italy in the first years of the Gothic war (until ca. 540/2), as his consiliarius and later as his adsessor.29 After the Byzantine general took Rome in December 536, the historian came into contact with people of the senatorial elite of the old capital, and he later included in his account the vicissitudes of some of them.30 He probably collected much of his information about Amalasuintha in Rome or in Ravenna, although it is likely that during his career he was in touch with key people at the palace of Ravenna who could provide him with more solid information about the events of the Gothic court. Liberius and Maximianus may have been among Procopius’s informers.31 Possibly the historian met the senator Liberius, who was close to Amalasuintha, and who betrayed Theodahad as soon he arrested the queen. Liberius was among those senators who were sent to the East to announce Amalasuintha’s deposition, but he deserted the embassy and never went back. He embraced Justinian’s cause, and the emperor rewarded him with different appointments.32 Or perhaps the historian met with Maximianus, who was presumably the court poet of Theodahad and who was about the same age as Cassiodorus. At some point Maximianus was sent to the East with an embassy, and if he ever returned, it was probably as Justinian’s prefect of Italy a few years later. Procopius makes various references to him in his narrative.33 Another potential source is Peter the Patrician, Justinian’s ambassador, who, although not a friend of Procopius,34 was a high-ranking diplomat sent a few times to Theodahad during the imprisonment of Amalasuintha and the first years of the Gothic war. Finally, while we cannot dismiss the possibility that Procopius met Cassiodorus in Constantinople, we do not have any evidence of contact between them, either in the Gothic War or in any of the other works of the two authors.
In the first chapters of the Gothic War (especially book 1, sections 2–4) Procopius provides us with a colorful portrait of Amalasuintha, particularly her personal and political vicissitudes; the historian occasionally also refers to these in the Vandalic War. Years later, in his invective against Theodora he would clarify in the Secret History (or Anecdota) “the truth”—or rather his own understanding of the truth—behind the Amalasuintha affair.35 The letters and speeches he attributes to Amalasuintha are rhetorical, following the Thucydidean model. Some historical and juridical elements contained within them, however, are confirmed by other sources.
Procopius’s narrative intent does not undermine the reliability of his account. His representation of Amalasuintha’s reign is consistent with the internal problems of the Gothic kingdom, and it finds some confirmation in the Cassiodoran letters. His chronology of events, however, even if it is often detailed, is not always accurate, as we see when we compare his account of the events of the years 533–535 with the evidence of other authors, especially Jordanes and Cassiodorus. Some of the differences are due to the complexity of the “state secret” around the affair of Amalasuintha—the authors had different sources and different levels of access to intrigues at that high level. For Procopius, as for all these authors, modern historians have the difficult task of evaluating the historical and diplomatic context of the sources.
Gregory of Tours
In addition to Cassiodorus and Procopius, we have