INTRODUCTION
In 551–552, Jordanes composed two Latin works of history in Constantinople: the Romana, a breviarium of world and Roman history, and the better known Getica, a history of the Goths. The Getica in particular has been the object of intense debate. Whereas scholars working on Gothic history have focused on its reliability regarding early Gothic history,Footnote 1 those interested in Justinian's Italian policy and later Latin literature have focused on its ideological message and its relationship with the lost Gothic history of Cassiodorus. As far as ideology is concerned, the message of the Getica has been interpreted by some as a plea for a reconciliation between the Goths and Romans and by others as advocating the ruthless suppression and subordination of the Goths.Footnote 2 With regard to Cassiodorus, Jordanes’ admission that his Getica relies mainly on Cassiodorus’ lost Gothic History (Get. pr.2) has fuelled attempts to identify his degree of dependency. The most ingenious attempt to downplay Jordanes’ own contribution was Momigliano's suggestion that he actually copied a revised, second edition of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History. More recently, however, scholars have tended to emphasize Jordanes’ own input,Footnote 3 as he clearly used additional sources besides Cassiodorus (Get. pr.3). Both issues, Jordanes’ ideological message and his relationship with Cassiodorus, are linked: if one sees Jordanes as just copying Cassiodorus, one is unlikely to think he advocates Byzantine aggression, for Cassiodorus’ Gothic History was composed, probably in 526–533, at the behest of the Gothic king, and was therefore bound to be favourably disposed towards the Goths.Footnote 4
This article argues that Jordanes cannot be situated on one side of either of those dividing lines. In fact, the specific time and social circumstances in which his works were produced explain why they may seem to convey conflicting messages about Justinian and about Jordanes’ relationship with Cassiodorus. Two factors are paramount. First, Jordanes was writing in the years 550–552, a period of crisis marked by military insecurity on all fronts and by an ecclesiastical deadlock between East and West regarding the Three Chapters (Section I). Just like the Wars of Procopius, the Romana and Getica are part of the historiographical response to this crisis and the doubts it raised about Justinian and his earlier achievements (Section II). Second, whilst there is good evidence for a close relationship with Cassiodorus (indeed, we shall introduce additional, new evidence for that in Section III), some caution is warranted: Jordanes had connections with, but did not belong to, the group of exiled Italians of which Cassiodorus was part. Rather, Jordanes had served the Gothic groups that had remained settled in Moesia and had not travelled to Italy with Theodoric in 488. Confluences in views between the exiled Italians and Jordanes should not lead us to postulate an Italian origin for Jordanes, for these are caused by the turn of the Italian war in 540–550 (Section IV).Footnote 5 Jordanes, then, cannot be reduced to a mouthpiece of either the courtFootnote 6 or Cassiodorus. Rather, in Jordanes we hear one particular voice in the Constantinopolitan debates about Justinian.
Methodologically, this paper combines close textual analysis with an attempt at reconstruction of the social circles in which Jordanes moved. In doing so, we shift attention away from the Getica to the Romana. The scholarly focus on the former tends to obscure the fact that Jordanes was already writing the Romana when a certain Castalius asked him to summarize the Gothic History of Cassiodorus (Get. pr.1). The Romana indeed contains precious clues as to Jordanes’ stance on the events that shook Constantinopolitan society in the years 550–552. Contrary to its dismissal in recent scholarship as a work disengaged from contemporary politics and composed by someone who had espoused some form of religious life (Get. 266),Footnote 7 we argue that the Romana is not only profoundly engaged with contemporary politics but also provides new clues about Jordanes’ relationship with Cassiodorus.
I 550–552: CRISIS AND HISTORIOGRAPHY
The first decade of Justinian's reign (527–540) was marked by military success in Africa, Italy, and the Eastern frontier. Combined with intense legislative activity, this seemed to justify Justinian's claim to have started a new golden age.Footnote 8 From 540, however, his fortunes changed. A decade of serious military and religious problems reached a nadir in the years 550–552. On the military side, the clear gains Justinian had achieved in the 530s were virtually reduced to naught on three fronts. In the East, the Eternal Peace with the Persians of 532 was broken in 540: Chosroes raided the Eastern provinces on a yearly basis until a new truce was established in 545. Because Justinian's troops were tied down in Italy, a temporary and partial peace had to be bought in 545 at the price of 2,000 pounds of gold. In 551 the truce was renewed on roughly the same conditions, except that another 600 pounds were added to the price. For Procopius, this meant that the Roman Empire effectively became tributary to the Persians with yearly payments of 400 pounds — an impression that Justinian sought to avoid by paying the total sum of 2,600 pounds immediately.Footnote 9 Only in 557 would warfare end in Lazika, leading to a peace treaty in 561.Footnote 10
In Italy, Belisarius was recalled in 540, but the conquest was all but over. In 541, the Goths chose Totila as their king. In the following years, he would turn the tables on the Romans. He regained control of virtually the entire peninsula, symbolically marked by his occupation of Rome between December 546 and April 547 and, again, in January 550. Totila followed up with a raid on Sicily, a siege of Rimini and another victory over the Roman army near Ravenna. Even Belisarius, sent back to Italy from 544 until 548–549, could not decisively improve the situation. Justinian responded by organizing a new expedition in 550, led by his nephew Germanus. He married him to Matasuntha, the widow of the Gothic king Witigis, who had surrendered to the Romans in 540, hoping that such a union would weaken Gothic resistance.Footnote 11 When Germanus died in the summer of 550, Justinian did not immediately abandon the plan, and it would be almost another year before Narses was sent to march on Italy from April 551 onwards. In June or July 552 Totila was killed in the battle Ad Busta Gallorum.Footnote 12 The Pragmatic Sanction of 554 pretended to restore imperial order in Italy, but power remained in the hands of Narses and his generals. Years of warfare had inflicted profound damage on Italian society and hastened the demise of the traditional Roman élite.Footnote 13
On the Balkan frontier, the years 545–552 were also characterized by increased military unrest. Until 540, Justinian had sought to strengthen that frontier through fortification, administrative reforms and military presence. As argued by Alexander Sarantis, a major change was brought about by the fact that the Gepids abandoned the alliance with Constantinople in 536 and developed a web of anti-Roman treaties. They consciously facilitated raiding by other peoples, leading to a climax in 550–552: this period saw raids by the Sklaveni, Huns and Goths, as well as a rebellion by the generals Ildiges and Goar. Stability only returned when the Romans allied themselves with the Lombards to decisively defeat the Gepids in late spring or summer 552.Footnote 14
In addition to military turmoil on these three fronts, the years 550–552 also saw new heights of ecclesiastical instability. In another attempt to reconcile miaphysites and chalcedonians, Justinian decreed in 544/5 the condemnation of the so-called Three Chapters, works by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus.Footnote 15 The condemnation met with strong disapproval in the West, where it was feared that the post-mortem condemnation of bishops who had been approved of at the Council of Chalcedon (451) meant the tacit disavowal of that council. As the Bishop of Constantinople, Menas, had rendered his acceptance conditional on that of the Bishop of Rome, it became imperative for Justinian to have Vigilius of Rome agree: he would, so the emperor hoped, carry along not only Menas of Constantinople, but also the Western bishops. As Vigilius had become bishop of Rome with the support of the Roman army in 537, he could be expected to toe Justinian's line. Yet faced with serious opposition in Italy, Africa and the Balkans, Vigilius initially withheld his approval. Summoned to Constantinople in 545, he sent Menas his Iudicatum, in which he finally condemned the Three Chapters, on 11 April 548. A storm of protest ensued in the West and by 550 Justinian allowed Vigilius to withdraw the document. Instead, the emperor decided to call an ecumenical council. Yet, in July 551, he published his Edict on Orthodox Faith, reiterating the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Taking this edict as an attempt to pre-empt the council, Vigilius excommunicated the bishops who accepted it. After the restoration of relations between Vigilius and the court, the council finally opened in May 553. After months of intense pressure, Vigilius capitulated and signed the condemnation of the Three Chapters without being certain of the support of the Western bishops. He died in 555 on his way back to Rome. His successor Pelagius would uphold the condemnation of the Three Chapters, but resistance in the West, especially North Africa and parts of Italy, was slow to dissipate.Footnote 16 The resulting polemic against Justinian would highlight not only the theologically flawed nature of his condemnation, but also the high-handed tactics with which he had sought to force its approval.
As will be clear from this survey, a whole series of severe military and religious setbacks and disputes came to a climax in the years 550–552. Strikingly, these years of crisis also mark a concentration in the production of historiographical works. The major historian of the age of Justinian, Procopius, published Books 1–7 of the Wars in 550/551, followed by Book 8 in 552/553.Footnote 17 The Anecdota were probably written in the same period, c. 550/551.Footnote 18 If some of Procopius’ narrative reflects official representations,Footnote 19 his tone grows progressively more critical of Justinian.Footnote 20 A less well-known work written in Constantinople around the same time was the common source of Jordanes and the continuation of Marcellinus Comes, which was published between 548 and 551. It focused heavily on Italy but, in contrast with the other accounts, it seems to have been fairly favourable towards Justinian.Footnote 21 As we shall demonstrate below (Section III), the Historia Tripartita of Cassiodorus was published between c. 544/5 and 551/552, and was read as criticizing Justinian's ecclesiastical policy. Finally, Jordanes composed his Romana and his Getica in these same years. Whereas Brian Croke has argued strongly for dating both works before 31 March 551,Footnote 22 a slightly later date has been favoured by other scholars. It is certain, at any rate, that Jordanes does not know of the defeat of Totila at Ad Busta Gallorum in June or July 552, which can serve as terminus ante quem.Footnote 23 If the Getica strikes a generally optimistic tone about Gothic and Roman achievements, the Romana is bracketed, significantly, by two disillusioned statements: in the preface, Jordanes notes that Rome is only a spectre of its former self, and in the last chapter, the Republic, constantly under attack in the Balkans, is said to be ‘worthy of a tragedy’.Footnote 24
Historiography, then, was one of the ways in which the literati of Constantinople responded to the political and ecclesiastical crisis of the years 550–552, which clearly shattered confidence in Justinian. If, in Late Antiquity, the genre often expressed praise of the ruler,Footnote 25 in this case it was used as a forum for critique, albeit not exclusively, as the common source of Jordanes and Marcellinus Comes shows. Historiography may well have been a particularly suitable genre for such debates, as any evaluation of Justinian would have to explain both the early successes and the later downturn. It is precisely such an explanation that the Romana suggests to the reader.
II JORDANES AND JUSTINIAN
The concerns Jordanes expressed about the current state of affairs at the beginning and conclusion of the Romana were not offhand remarks. This section argues that he positions himself consciously in opposition to Justinian's ecclesiastical and military policy.
Ecclesiastical Policy
Neither the Romana nor the Getica have much to say about ecclesiastical history. Given Jordanes’ link with Cassiodorus, to which we will return in the next section, we may speculate that he shared Cassiodorus’ opposition to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. If this must remain speculation, one piece of evidence allows us to see clearly that Jordanes was at odds with another aspect of the theology promoted by Justinian, viz. theopaschism. Indeed, in Romana 258, Jordanes notes the Passion of Christ with the following words: ‘In his [Tiberius’] 18th year, our Lord Jesus Christ suffered in Judea under Pontius Pilate in the flesh, but not in godhead’ (‘passus est carne non deitate’). The expression rejects the theopaschite formula ‘one of the Trinity suffered’ (‘unus ex trinitate passus est’), first promoted by the Scythian monks from 519 onwards, with the aim of fending off the miaphysite critique that the Council of Chalcedon leaned towards Nestorianism. The formula was accepted by the emperor Justinian in 527 as well as by Bishop John II of Rome in 533, and was confirmed in the edict of 551 and at the council of 553.Footnote 26 Indeed, from what was now the official view, Jordanes’ formula could be interpreted as Nestorian for seeming to restrict suffering to the manhood of Christ. Jordanes was not the only one to reject the theopaschite formula, as the repeated anathemas of 551 and 553 show. Even as late as c. 568 the chronicler Victor of Tunnuna recalled the unjustified and violent imposition of the formula, attributed to Theodora.Footnote 27 As there are no parallels for Jordanes’ formulation in the chronicles of either Jerome or Cassiodorus, his possible sources for this passage, aversion to theopaschism seems to be specific to Jordanes.
Military Policy
The Romana presents a narrative of Roman military success and expansion,Footnote 28 but it has been argued that its pessimistic tone expresses a Christian rejection of the world, or traces the divinely ordained course of history.Footnote 29 Indeed, Jordanes elsewhere says of himself that he went through a conversio, probably meaning his abandonment of a secular career (Get. 266).Footnote 30 Yet the narrative of the Romana does not lament the tragedies of human life: it regrets the loss of imperial power. We argue that it is constructed in such a way that the reader is conditioned, at the end of the work, to make a critical judgement of Justinian's achievements.
Although the Romana starts with creation, it quickly introduces Roman power, first in §6 as part of the second preface, and then again in §38 and §52, before exclusive attention is given to Rome from §86 onwards.Footnote 31 From the very first reference, the sword and the law are identified as the twin tools of Roman power, and the narrative is constructed as one of the empire's progressive geographical expansion. This probably explains Jordanes’ choice of Florus (early second century) and Festus (mid-fourth century) as his sources for the period from the foundation of Rome to the end of the Republic: in contrast to Eutropius (writing in 365), whom he also knew,Footnote 32 these historians ordered their narrative according to the geographical theatres of war, thus emphasizing the growth of Roman dominion.
From Augustus until 378, Jordanes uses the chronicle of Jerome as his main source. Excerpting mostly instances of military success or failure, Jordanes does not suppress negative judgements of individual emperors, usually expressed with the formula ‘he was of (no) use to the state’, ‘(non) profuit rei publicae’. In practice, this ‘usefulness’ is very narrowly defined as military valour. The vice of Nero is noted, for example, but judged less badly than the loss of two legions in Armenia (§261). Gallienus’ lack of virility is exploited by the Parthians (§287). Claudius is praised for his conquest of Britain and Trajan for his expansion in the East (§§267–8). This leads to a series of surprising characterizations. Nerva, traditionally an example of a bonus princeps, is quickly dismissed (§266). Other respectable emperors such as Hadrian (§269), Antoninus Pius (§271), Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius (§272) are condemned for lack of success or initiative. Conversely, in a striking reversal of the Christian association of orthodoxy and military success, emperors who persecute Christians can receive a positive judgement. Aurelian is a case in point (§§290–1), but the biggest surprise comes with Julian, of whom it is said: ‘This excellent man and necessary for the Republic waged war against the Parthians with massive preparations’ (§304). The first half of the sentence is derived from Eutropius, but Jordanes changed the latter's ‘vir egregius et rem publicam insigniter moderaturus’ into ‘vir egregius et rei publicae necessarius’.Footnote 33 In this way, Julian's usefulness to the state is shifted from internal reform to anti-Persian aggression.
With Theodosius I, Jordanes shifts to the chronicle of Marcellinus Comes as his source. The nature of the narrative changes, too: each reign is treated at much greater length. As a consequence, judgements are less laconic, if still identifiable. Emperors such as Theodosius I (§318), Marcian (§333) and Zenon (§353), who succeeded in defeating internal opponents and external enemies and died in peace, are praised. The praise for Marcian, not derived from Marcellinus, is particularly extensive: he is the only emperor to receive the honorary epithet divus. Though the Council of Chalcedon is not mentioned, it is likely that this extra praise can be explained by Jordanes’ esteem for the emperor who convoked that council. Praising Marcian is, thus, another way of shedding doubt on Justinian's theological innovations, seen by conservative chalcedonians as undermining the Council of Chalcedon.Footnote 34
By the time the reader reaches the narrative of Justinian's reign, his appreciation has thus been thoroughly prepared: the value of an emperor lies in his capacity to expand the empire and face up to its enemies. Initially, judgement on Justinian is left to the reader, who may remember the fulsome praise of Julian when reading about Justinian's lack of success in dealing with the Persians (§§363, 376–7). Yet after this, Jordanes becomes increasingly more explicit about the military failures of Justinian and their consequences. If success crowns the initial phase of the Western campaign, the recall of Belisarius in 540 is given as the beginning of the reversal of fortune: ‘So that the reader may know more clearly the disaster which we said happened in the West, I shall mention it more explicitly.’Footnote 35 The second recall of Belisarius, from Sicily in 547, is marked in a similar way by blaming the ensuing success of Totila on the decision of the emperor.Footnote 36 For the reader hard of hearing, the penultimate sentence of the Romana blames the loss of conquered territories on ‘incompetent rulers’ (‘ignaris rectoribus’, §388).Footnote 37 Although Jordanes emphasizes the pacification of Africa (§385), the problems in Italy clearly contribute heavily to the pessimistic tone of the final paragraphs.
The Romana, then, invites the reader to make a negative judgement of Justinian, even if the work acknowledges his achievements. It is the emperor himself who nullifies his early success in Italy by recalling his best general. Readers would have been more than ready to assent to the interpretation this narrative suggests to them, as it seems to have been a widespread one. The Wars of Procopius, for example, also become progressively more critical of Justinian,Footnote 38 and the growing disaffection in the later part of Justinian's reign is well documented.Footnote 39 The terms in which Jordanes invites the reader to bring such judgement are strikingly militaristic, indicating how high a priority imperial conquest had in Jordanes’ mind. It may also be that Jordanes’ image was influenced by the official discourse of divinely ordained success that accompanied Justinian's early victories.Footnote 40 Indeed, traces of official, Justinianic justification for the war in Italy can be found elsewhere, too. The Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes, for example, which Jordanes used, sought to justify Justinian's policy of reconquest and forced religious unification.Footnote 41 Again, both Jordanes and the continuation of Marcellinus Comes, relying on a shared source, represent the invasion of Italy as Justinian's response to the usurpation of Theodohad and the execution of Amalasuntha, the rightful heiress of Theodoric.Footnote 42 Yet this does not mean that Jordanes consistently aligned himself with Justinian throughout his narrative. Indeed, when things went awry, the official focus on Justinian's own decision-making blew up in the emperor's face. The Romana well illustrates this problem.
Jordanes’ identification of 540 as a turning point helps to understand the, at first sight, conflicting presentation of Justinian in the Getica, where Jordanes offers high praise for the emperor:
This race that deserves to be praised ceded to a prince who is even worthier of praise and capitulated to a braver general, whose fame will be silenced in no century and no age. Indeed, the victorious and triumphant emperor Justinian and the consul Belisarius will be called Vandalicus, Africanus and Geticus.Footnote 43
Yet the Getica has little to say about the Roman conquest of Italy and effectively ends with the capitulation of Witigis in May 540, at which point the praise just quoted is inserted. Indeed, the work halts at the moment when the conquest of Italy seemed complete and final, and before Justinian made what the Romana considers to be the fatal error of recalling Belisarius. Far from being in conflict with the interpretation of Justinian in the Romana, then, the Getica judges the emperor by the same military criterion — but at a different point in time, before things had gone awry. The praise in the Getica is addressed to Belisarius and Justinian and should therefore be read as the positive counter-image of the critique of the Romana: as long as Belisarius and Justinian work in tandem, Roman success is assured.
Conclusion: His Own Voice
Jordanes, as shown by his praise of Marcian and his rejection of the theopaschite formula, was a conservative defender of Chalcedon. This renders it likely that he was also opposed to the condemnation of the Three Chapters, which was seen as undermining the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. If this puts him in line with Cassiodorus and most other Westerners living in Constantinople, his refusal to accept the theopaschite formula sets him apart and at odds with the position taken by the Bishop of Rome.Footnote 44 As regards his judgement of military policy, Jordanes’ view is more habitual, betraying a view also found in Procopius: the early stages of the conquest were seen as positive, but its results were imperilled by the bad decisions of the 540s and early 550s. The negative judgement that the Romana invites the reader to make of Justinian's current policy renders it impossible to see Jordanes as a propagandist for the court.Footnote 45 This does not, however, turn him into a detached observer, lamenting the ways of the world from a Christian perspective.Footnote 46 However much Jordanes may have emphasized the transitory nature of this life in the Romana (§5), the strikingly military tone of the narrative proves that he was not free of worldly concerns. Rather, the views held by Jordanes on ecclesiastical and military matters show that he was an engaged and critical participant emitting his own, particular voice in the debates about Justinian's policy in the years 550–552.
III JORDANES AND CASSIODORUS
If, in the Romana, Jordanes is neither a detached observer nor a mouthpiece of the court, are we allowed to think that he was following Cassiodorus? After all, his Getica is explicitly based on the latter's Gothic History. Yet Jordanes’ rejection of theopaschism, discussed in the previous section, suggests at least one significant difference. In this section, we argue that the relationship between the two was even more complex. We adduce new evidence to show that Jordanes did not use Cassiodorus’ Gothic History exclusively, but also the Historia Tripartita and possibly his Chronica. If this suggests a close acquaintance, the subdued way in which Jordanes uses these works and his awkward representation of his relationship with Cassiodorus in the preface of the Getica show him distancing himself from Cassiodorus.
The Getica and the History of the Goths
The dedicatee of Jordanes, Castalius, asked him to write a summary version of the Gothic History by Cassiodorus. The latter work was certainly published before 533, and most likely after 526.Footnote 47 Traces of it are very scanty and come exclusively from references in Cassiodorus’ Variae.Footnote 48 In the absence of evidence against which to check Jordanes’ account, we can only look at the way Jordanes represents his relationship with Cassiodorus in the preface of the Getica.
This preface has many features of a typical late antique dedicatory preface,Footnote 49 in which Jordanes accepts the demand by Castalius to compose an abbreviation of the twelve books of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History:
you persuade me to leave aside the work at hand, that is, On the abbreviation of chronicles [i.e. the Romana], and to squeeze together in my own words in this one little booklet the twelve books of the Senator On the origin and deeds of the Getae from the distant past to the present day, proceeding by generations and kings.Footnote 50
In line with convention, Jordanes admits his own lack of qualifications for the task and suggests that Castalius, who was acquainted with the Goths, could correct the work. Most scholarly attention has gone to what Jordanes describes as his major difficulty:
But above all the difficulty is that I am not given access to those very books, so that I can follow his thought; no, — and this is not a lie — three days I had to reread (relegi) those books before now, thanks to his steward. Although I do not recollect their wordings, I think I fully recall the sense and the events.Footnote 51
Prima facie this reads as an acknowledgement of a strong dependency on Cassiodorus. Yet the reference to the difficulty of access to the work and a three-day reading session — sometimes judged absurdly shortFootnote 52 — has led scholars to argue that Jordanes wished to obscure his debt to CassiodorusFootnote 53 or even that the latter did not want Jordanes to summarize his history.Footnote 54
The preface clearly implies the previous acquaintance of Castalius and Jordanes with Cassiodorus. Although scholars have often translated the crucial verb relegi as ‘I read’,Footnote 55 the translation ‘re-read’ is to be preferred, for the analysis of prefixes in Jordanes by Lorenzo Lorenzo shows that relegi does include the idea of repetition.Footnote 56 This implies that Jordanes had had a chance to read Cassiodorus’ Gothic History before Castalius expressed his wish for a summary. Moreover, in order to be able to express this wish, Castalius also must have had previous knowledge of the work.Footnote 57 Given our lack of information about the careers of both men, we cannot know when or where they first encountered the work, but, strikingly, when wishing to read the text again, instead of looking in just any library, Jordanes goes to the house of Cassiodorus himself. The reference to the steward can only imply that Cassiodorus himself had given permission — unless one wishes to suppose that the steward of an aristocratic house took the risk of freely disseminating the intellectual property of his master, only to see it advertised in a preface.
Nevertheless, the preface also conveys the impression of only imperfect access to Cassiodorus’ Gothic History. This can be understood as an attempt by Jordanes to preserve, on the one hand, the status of Cassiodorus as his source and as a much better work (according to the humility expected of late ancient writers) and, on the other, his own status as an independent author. Not incidentally the emphasis on the limited access to Cassiodorus’ Gothic History whilst writing the Getica is followed by an assertion of the use of additional sources. The reference to these other authors is all the more striking as Castalius had asked Jordanes not for a history of the Goths, but for an abbreviation of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History. By relying on Cassiodorus only to a limited extent whilst also integrating other sources, Jordanes strongly suggests he has produced more than an epitome of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History.
The preface of Jordanes’ Getica is, then, deliberately ambiguous: it suggests compliance with the will of the dedicatee and access to the primary source text, but immediately highlights Jordanes’ own input, effectively producing something different from Cassiodorus’ Gothic History, and thus also from what his dedicatee had asked for.
The Romana and the Historia Tripartita
The ambiguous relationship with Cassiodorus just identified in the preface of the Getica resurfaces in Jordanes’ use of the other historiographical works of Cassiodorus. Contrary to what is usually assumed, the Gothic History was not the only historiographical work of Cassiodorus known to Jordanes: he also had access to the Historia Tripartita, a twelve-book compilation of the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoretus, consisting of selections chosen by Cassiodorus and translated by a certain Epiphanius Scholasticus,Footnote 58 and inspired by a similar undertaking in Greek by Theodore Lector (early sixth century). As the following pages show, this has important consequences for our understanding of the relationship between Jordanes and Cassiodorus, as well as for our dating and interpretation of the Historia Tripartita.
In his edition of Jordanes, T. Mommsen, although pointing out that several references to Greek authors in Jordanes’ Getica were probably taken from the Gothic History of Cassiodorus,Footnote 59 not only adduces evidence implying that Jordanes knew Greek, but also suggests that Jordanes used the Church History by Socrates (c. 439–440) in the Romana. Yet, all the passages from Socrates allegedly used by Jordanes were also translated in the Historia Tripartita.Footnote 60 In many cases it is impossible to judge whether the information derives from Socrates’ Church History or from Cassiodorus’ Historia Tripartita, as Jordanes tends to rewrite his sources.Footnote 61 But in three instances, there is clear proof that Jordanes used the Latin compilation rather than Socrates’ original Greek.
First, in Romana 314, Jordanes uses the name form Dominica, in stead of Domnica, for the spouse of the emperor Valens. Only Jordanes and the Historia Tripartita (9.1) share this erroneous form.Footnote 62
A second indication occurs in the next chapter, Romana 315, with Jordanes’ brief notice on Theodosius’ baptism. Contrary to Mommsen's opinion, it cannot derive from Socrates, but came to Jordanes from Sozomen via the Historia Tripartita:
Rom. 315: Veniensque Thessalonica ab Acolio sancto episcopo baptizatus est
HT 9.6: …Thessalonicam venit. Ubi tum in aegritudine incurrisset ab Acolio eius civitatis episcopo baptizatus est.
Soz., HE 7.42–3: … ἧκεν εἰς Θεσσαλονίκην. νόσῳ δὲ περιπεσὼν ἐνταῦθα μυσταγωγοῦντος αὐτὸν Ἀχολίου τοῦ τῇδε ἐπισκόπου ἐμυήθη καὶ ῥᾷον ἔσχεν.
Socr., HE 5.6.2–3, 5: Θεοδόσιος δὲ μετὰ τὰ τρόπαια ἐπὶ τὴν Κωνσταντινούπολιν σπεύδων τὴν Θεσσαλονίκην καταλαμβάνει. Ἐκεῖ τε ἀρρωστίᾳ περιπεσὼν ἀξιωθῆναι τοῦ χριστιανικοῦ βαπτίσματος ἐπεθύμησεν … ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀσμενέστατα ὑπὸ Ἀσχολίου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου βαπτίζεται.
Jordanes has clearly contracted the two sentences of the Historia Tripartita into a single one. Moreover, the Historia Tripartita is an almost literal translation of Sozomen, whereas Socrates’ account is not only rather different, but also more extensive. In addition, Socrates spells the bishop's name as Ascholios, whereas Sozomen has Acholios, a reading giving rise to the Acolius shared by the Historia Tripartita and Jordanes. Unless one wishes to argue that Jordanes also used Sozomen in this passage alone, we have to accept that he had access to the Historia Tripartita.
The third piece of evidence comes from Romana 329, regarding the marriage of Valentinian III and Eudoxia (437):
Rom. 329: celebratis nuptiis ad sua regna cum uxore secessit.
HT 12.13: cum ergo partes munisset hesperias, Constantinopolim venit ad nuptias. Quibus celebratis consulati Isidori et Senatoris uxore sumpta reversus est.
Socr., HE 7.43.3: Ἀσφαλισάμενος οὖν τὰ ἑσπέρια μέρη αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν Κωνσταντινούπολιν παραγίνεται τοῦ γάμου χάριν. Οὗ ἐπιτελεσθέντος ἐν ὑπατείᾳ Ἰσιδώρου καὶ Σινάτορος λαβὼν τὴν γαμετὴν αὖθις ἐπὶ τὰ ἑσπέρια μέρη ἀνέδραμεν.
Mommsen ascribes this passage to an unknown source. Ultimately, however, it clearly derives from Socrates. Although it is conceivable that Jordanes translated the passage directly from Socrates’ Greek, the verbal similarities as well as the concise selection of information offered by Jordanes — who leaves out, for example, the reference to Valentinian's Western realm, mentioned in passing by Cassiodorus, but emphasized by repeated mention in Socrates — are best explained in the same way as the preceding example: Jordanes has contracted two sentences of the Historia Tripartita into a single one.
However brief, the three passages just surveyed show incontrovertible linguistic parallels with the Historia Tripartita.Footnote 63 For these passages at least, reliance on Cassiodorus is the most likely hypothesis, as it not only allows us to explain errors in Jordanes (Rom. 314) and to pinpoint the source for a passage Mommsen could not identify (Rom. 329), but also avoids the unlikely idea that Jordanes used Sozomen for a single passage (Rom. 315). As we have said above, the other instances where Mommsen supposed a use of Socrates all occur in Cassiodorus as well. The most economic hypothesis is that Jordanes never used Socrates directly but relied on Cassiodorus in all of these instances. If so, then Jordanes used passages from Books 8, 9 and 12 of the Historia Tripartita, and this means that he must have had access to the finished work in twelve books.Footnote 64
Jordanes’ use of the finished version of the Historia Tripartita is definitive proof of the suggestion that this work was not only inspired by Cassiodorus’ stay in Constantinople but also written there:Footnote 65 it must have been completed before the publication of Jordanes’ Romana, that is, before the summer of 552. The traditional idea that the Historia Tripartita was a product of Cassiodorus’ return to Italy could never claim any firm evidence and rested on the assumption that the translations of Greek works made at the behest of Cassiodorus reflected the pedagogic and encyclopaedic project developed in Vivarium. This was supposed to reflect his retreat from worldly life and a shift of his interests towards learning, as expressed in the Institutiones, certainly a work of the Vivarium period.Footnote 66 The evidence that we have adduced here, however, shows that Cassiodorus could already count on his trusted translator Epiphanius in Constantinople. If the Historia Tripartita is thus securely situated in the years Cassiodorus spent in Constantinople (c. 540–554), there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that it belongs to the years leading up to the Council of 553, and more particularly in the period of intense negotiation between Justinian and Vigilius of Rome.
Indeed, there is some evidence that the Historia Tripartita rejects the condemnation of the Three Chapters sought by Justinian, the most striking element being the reference to Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of the Three Chapters to be condemned, as ‘father of the whole Church’ (‘totius doctor ecclesiae’).Footnote 67 This tendency of the Historia Tripartita certainly struck early readers, whatever their own views on the matter: around 565, the Historia Tripartita was used by the Carthaginian deacon Liberatus, who clearly shared Cassiodorus’ opposition to the condemnation of the Three Chapters,Footnote 68 whereas some fifty years later, Gregory the Great explicitly thought the Historia Tripartita out of line with orthodoxy as established at the Council of 553.Footnote 69 Clearly, in the Historia Tripartita, Cassiodorus disagreed with Justinian's position. Yet whilst this critical stance is repeated in the Explanation of the Psalms, another work he composed in Constantinople,Footnote 70 Cassiodorus’ rejection of the attack on the Three Chapters was never explicit. Moreover, he also served as an emissary of Vigilius of Rome to two Roman deacons when they refused to follow the papal Iudicatum of 548,Footnote 71 which promoted acquiescence in (a form of) the condemnation of the Three Chapters. We do not know the exact order of these actions and writings, let alone the motivations behind them — did Cassiodorus simply follow the course of Vigilius?Footnote 72 Did he value the unity of the Roman Church above all else? Were there other motives in play? — but it is clear that Cassiodorus, in the Historia Tripartita and other works, as well as through his connections and official functions, took an active part in the ecclesiastical debates preceding the Council of 553. The Historia Tripartita should therefore be dated between 544/5, when the first condemnation of the Three Chapters was made, and 551/552, when Jordanes used it.
The Romana and the Chronica
The points of contact between Jordanes and the Chronica of Cassiodorus are more tentative. The latter ran from Adam to the year 519 and was dedicated to Theodoric. Formally, it is a consular list preceded by a list of Assyrian, Latin and Roman kings. Cassiodorus relied heavily on Jerome's chronicle, as did Jordanes in the Romana. This not only renders it difficult to identify points of contact between both works, it also makes Jordanes’ use of Cassiodorus’ Chronica seem rather peculiar: there was no need for Jordanes to use this text as it did not offer any information he could not find in Jerome. Despite this, there are two instances where the Chronica may be present in the Romana.
In Romana 14, the entry on Semiramis runs as follows:
Hier., Chron. 20 g: Asyriis imperavit uxor Nini Semiramis de qua innumerabilia narrantur, quae et Asiam tenuit et propter inundationes aggeres construxit plurima Babyloniae urbis instaurans.
Cass., Chron. 8–9: Samiramis uxor Nini regnavit ann. XLII. haec Babyloniae muros instaurasse memoratur [non quod condiderat].
Rom. 14: Semiramis uxor Nini annis xlii. Hanc dicunt quasi Babyloniae conditricem, quamvis non legatur quia condidit, sed quia reparavit.
Jerome has Semiramis construct dykes and repair many things at Babylon. A misunderstanding of Jerome's text (maybe a misreading of muros for plurima) generates Cassiodorus’ version in which Semiramis constructs walls. This may, in turn, have produced Jordanes’ idea that Semiramis was virtually the founder of Babylon, as in the ancient imagination a founder constructs the walls of the city. The construction of Jordanes’ sentence (‘Hanc dicunt quasi Babyloniae conditricem’) recalls Cassiodorus’ formulation (‘haec Babyloniae muros instaurasse memoratur’); it would be much more of a jump from Jerome to Jordanes. The disambiguation of instaurasse, which can mean repair or construct, in Jordanes is only necessary if one presumes that Semiramis constructed walls: in the version of Jerome, the meaning of the verb is clear.Footnote 73 Jordanes’ particular version of this entry is best explained by a recourse to Cassiodorus.
The second instance is Romana 267–8, the description of Trajan's reign, where Jordanes’ use of Jerome is identical to that of Cassiodorus, except for the last sentence.Footnote 74 This is a striking coincidence, as both offer only a selection of the many entries for Trajan in Jerome. Moreover, there are specific parallels in remarkable details. Both disregard the first place of Trajan's death, Selinous, and only mention the second of the two options offered by Jerome: Seleucia in Isauria, which is the version of Eutropius, Breviarium 8.5, known to Cassiodorus and Jordanes. But the shared use of Eutropius cannot explain away the following coincidence: Cassiodorus and Jordanes both state that Trajan's bones were ‘in urna aurea conlocata’ (‘put in a golden urn’) instead of Jerome's ‘collata’ (‘gathered’). This is not a variant reading in the manuscript tradition of Jerome, and makes the use of Cassiodorus by Jordanes likely. Nevertheless, Jordanes also used Jerome when writing his entry on Trajan, for he copies from him the fact that Trajan was the only emperor to be buried in the city.Footnote 75
Conclusion: Deliberate Ambiguity
The use of the Historia Tripartita and the Chronica reinforces the ambiguity of Jordanes’ relationship with Cassiodorus. On the one hand, Jordanes’ use of these texts makes it seem more likely that he really did have access to Cassiodorus’ library, as stated in the preface of the Getica. Admittedly, textual contacts do not prove personal contact, but unless one makes unrealistic assumptions about a vast and fast circulation of books in Late Antiquity,Footnote 76 the textual borrowings, especially from the recently completed Historia Tripartita, can only be explained by Jordanes’ acquaintance with Cassiodorus. The personal library of the latter is also the most likely place for Jordanes to have read the Historia Romana of Symmachus the Younger. This work is attested only twice, viz. in the Romana of Jordanes and in the Ordo generis Cassiodororum, brief intellectual biographies of Symmachus, Boethius and Cassiodorus himself, composed by Cassiodorus and addressed to the senator Cethegus.Footnote 77 Interestingly, the Ordo generis was most likely composed in Constantinople.Footnote 78 This coincidence renders it highly likely that it was Cassiodorus who brought Symmachus’ Historia Romana to Constantinople, and that Jordanes consulted it in Cassiodorus’ library:Footnote 79 given that Jordanes only started writing history when he was in Constantinople and that he interrupted the Romana to write the Getica at the request of Castalius, Jordanes can only have accessed these texts in Constantinople.
On the other hand, the references to the Historia Tripartita and the Chronica are perfunctory. If the former adds only minor bits of information at the moment when Jordanes had to make the transition from Jerome to Marcellinus Comes as his source, the use of the latter in the Romana was completely unnecessary as Jerome contained all the material present in the Chronica of Cassiodorus. We can only speculate as to whether this was the result of the conditions of access: did Jordanes, almost accidentally, find the Chronica in the same manuscript as the History of the Goths? But even if this were the case, Jordanes could have acknowledged his dependency and done more with it, had he wished to explicitly honour Cassiodorus.
The new evidence we have adduced does not dispel, but rather enhances, the ambiguity that characterizes the relationship with Cassiodorus outlined in the preface of the Getica. Instead of seeking to explain it away, we should, therefore, fully acknowledge it as a feature of Jordanes’ oeuvre. As we shall argue in Section IV, such ambiguity can be explained if we set it against the social conditions of their relationship. In terms of social background and literary standing, Jordanes was by far the junior partner, unable to match Cassiodorus’ élite origins and literary output. The asymmetrical relationship between the two writers is confirmed by the fact that Cassiodorus awarded Jordanes no more than three days in his library, and that this visit was arranged through his steward rather than by Cassiodorus himself. By contrast, for someone like Jordanes, association with someone of Cassiodorus’ standing may have been an honour. We may well speculate that Castalius intended his request for the Getica as a favour to Jordanes, that is, as a social introduction to a well-known literary figure. In return, Jordanes referred reverentially to Castalius as his dedicatee and paid homage to Cassiodorus as his historiographical source. Yet for all these traces of traditional literary patronage, Jordanes does take care, at every turn, to assert his own authorial personality.
IV JORDANES AND THE ITALIANS IN CONSTANTINOPLE
In recent years, various studies have examined social circles in Justinianic Constantinople. Anthony Kaldellis, for example, has identified dissident circles on the basis of the shared concerns of Procopius and John of Lydia. If this remains speculative, it is clear that the careers of John of Lydia and Marcellinus Comes were shaped by their geographical origin, as noted by Christopher Kelly and Brian Croke. Recently, David Parnell, noticing the long-term stability of the relationship between Justinian's generals and their subordinate commanders, has emphasized the crucial rôle of social networks in the functioning of the imperial army of this period. Shared interests, geographical origin and social network, then, were three important elements shaping relationships in the complex social make-up of sixth-century Constantinople.Footnote 80
Jordanes has often been linked with the group of exiled Italians living in Constantinople after the defeat of the Gothic king Witigis in 540.Footnote 81 In this section, we argue that the evidence suggests that Jordanes was, due to a different social background and his non-Italian origin, only partially integrated in the circles in which Cassiodorus moved. Nevertheless, in the Getica we can detect a confluence of interests. Jordanes thus becomes an interesting case study in how similarities and differences in origin, social status and interests shape a particular relationship.
The Social Circles of Jordanes and Cassiodorus
In his works, Jordanes mentions direct contact with only two persons, namely his two dedicatees, who are elsewhere unattested. As Castalius, the dedicatee of the Getica, and Vigilius, the dedicatee of the Romana, are both addressed by Jordanes as frater, Jordanes suggests that they, like himself, at least at some point, lived a religious life. As a result, Vigilius has sometimes been identified with the Bishop of Rome,Footnote 82 who in this period dwelled in Constantinople. Two facts argue against this. First, the way in which Jordanes addresses Vigilius in the preface to the Romana, as nobilissimus and magnificus, hardly fits such an elevated station in the Church, and rather suggests that Vigilius was a layman of some standing.Footnote 83 Second, one may wonder if Jordanes’ rejection of the theopaschite formula would be compatible with a friendship with the Bishop of Rome who had accepted the formula. Castalius, on the other hand, shares with Jordanes an earlier relationship with the Goths: Jordanes was notary to a Gothic leader called Gunthigis, while Castalius lived close to an undefined Gothic group.Footnote 84
By contrast, the little evidence we have on Cassiodorus in Constantinople shows him interacting there with the very highest Italian élite. Indeed, we see him acting as an intermediary for Bishop Vigilius of Rome in a conflict with two of his deacons, together with the Italian senator Cethegus (c. 548).Footnote 85 The latter had been consul in 504, and had served the Goths but fled to Constantinople in 545. Crucially, Vigilius and Cethegus are named by Procopius as the leaders of the group of exiled Italians in Constantinople who around 550 actively lobbied Justinian to intervene more energetically to pacify the Italian peninsula.Footnote 86 Given his connections to its two key figures, it is highly likely that Cassiodorus was a prominent member of this group. Jordanes, on the other hand, is never linked to them directly. His only connection to the Italians is through Cassiodorus.
Jordanes’ distance from the circle of Cassiodorus can be explained by two factors. First, social difference: Cassiodorus descended from a distinguished Italian family and had served the Ostrogothic kings in the highest administrative positions. He belonged, in other words, to the highest social élite. By contrast, Jordanes had been a notary to a Gothic magister militum, Gunthigis, who is otherwise unknown. The difference in each man's level of literary and linguistic ability, still a proxy for social status in this period, speaks volumes in this respect.
Second, geographical origin: there is strong evidence that Jordanes identified himself with the Gothic groups that had remained in the Balkans after Theodoric had left for Italy in 488. Jordanes gives us a glimpse of his family and career in Get. 266. In the context of describing how the emperor Marcian (450–457) settled various Germanic groups in the Northern Balkans, he states:
The Scyri and Sadagarii and certain Alani with their leader called Candac received Scythia minor and Moesia inferior. Of this Candac, Paria, the begetter of my father Alanoviiamuth, that is my grandfather, was the notary as long as Candac himself lived. To the son of his sister, Gunthigis, who is also called Baza, magister militum, son of Andages, the son of Andela, descending from the stock of the Amals, I, Jordanes, was, in turn, the notary before my conversion, untutored though I was.Footnote 87
Not only the information provided but also the context of the passage is important. Jordanes uses the narrative of Marcian's settlement not only to digress on himself but also to refer to contemporary persons and situations. Indeed, the passage is followed by a brief digression on the Gothi minores, who followed Ulfila into the Empire during the persecutions of the mid-fourth century, describing how they live now (hodieque). It is preceded by reference to three contemporary military commanders of the Roman army from Castra Martis in Dacia ripensis: Blivila, Froila and Bessas. The last one is a well-known figure: according to Procopius, he was ‘a Goth by birth, one of those who had dwelt in Thrace from of old and had not followed Theodoric when he led the Gothic nation thence into Italy’.Footnote 88 Bessas always served the Eastern Roman Empire.Footnote 89 This is also true of Gunthigis, whom Jordanes had served: there were no magistri militum in Ostrogothic Italy, so he must have served the Eastern Roman Empire, probably in the first quarter of the sixth century.Footnote 90 Gunthigis claimed descent from the Amal Andela, and seems to have belonged to a group that distinguished itself from the Ostrogoths of Theodoric by staying behind in Moesia.Footnote 91 The service of both Jordanes’ grandfather and Jordanes himself to members of the same family shows long-term loyalty. Notwithstanding the tendency in scholarship to ascribe to Jordanes time spent in Italy or direct contacts with the Ostrogoths, there is, in fact, not a single hint of this in the available evidence.Footnote 92 On the contrary, the autobiographical passage and the wider context in which it is embedded demonstrate loyalty and service to a Roman military commander of Gothic descent.Footnote 93
Jordanes, then, shared neither social status nor geographical background with Cassiodorus. This, together with Jordanes’ more conservative stance on the Council of Chalcedon, helps us to understand why Jordanes’ relationship with Cassiodorus and the Italians remained ambivalent.
Confluence of Interests
If social status and origin pulled Jordanes and Cassiodorus apart, interests, the third factor we have highlighted above as shaping relationships in sixth-century Constantinople, drew them together. Both had served Gothic leaders descending from the royal line of the Amals, and, by 550, both were hoping for a victory of Justinian in the war against the Ostrogoths. Through three examples, this section explores how Jordanes and Cassiodorus came to espouse similar positions for different reasons. If loyalty to the Empire was natural for Jordanes and many other Balkan Goths, such as Bessas, who had served in Italy against the Ostrogoths, for somebody like Cassiodorus, who had continued to serve the Ostrogoths probably until the capitulation of Witigis in 540, this required a change of stance. As Procopius suggests in the passage quoted above, the Italians were hoping for a return to Italy — a return, one may surmise, to positions of power. But in the eyes of Justinian, their loyalty would be questionable: people like Cassiodorus had served the Gothic king until the end and, as argued above, at least tacitly disagreed with the condemnation of the Three Chapters.Footnote 94
The hope of a return caused Cassiodorus to espouse Eastern perceptions of the Ostrogothic kingdom, in particular regarding the executions of Symmachus and Boethius. This can be seen in the Ordo generis Cassiodororum. As mentioned above, this work was most likely composed in Constantinople, it was addressed to Cethegus, and it contained biographies of Symmachus the Younger and Boethius, besides one of Cassiodorus himself. Both Symmachus and Boethius had been executed by Theodoric in 525 resp. 524, on charges of treason, an act that in the Eastern perception defined the turn of the Gothic king towards tyranny.Footnote 95 Cassiodorus had been the successor of Boethius as magister officiorum after the latter's downfall (523) and may have been regarded as someone who profited from it. By establishing a positive connection between himself and Boethius and Symmachus, Cassiodorus may have sought to align himself with what, by 540 in Constantinople, appeared to be the right side of history.Footnote 96 If the summary we possess reflects the contents accurately, the work also shifted attention away from politics to the safer territory of literature, in line with the self-presentation of Cassiodorus since his arrival in Constantinople.
In his extant work, Jordanes remains silent on Boethius and Symmachus, apart from a reference to Symmachus as the author of a Historia Romana (Get. 83–8). But much later evidence attests the existence of a Life of Boethius by Jordanes. In the early fourteenth century Giovanni Mansionario wrote his Historiae imperiales in Verona. The work started in 27 b.c. and was apparently projected to run until 1313, but was left unfinished when reaching the year 888.Footnote 97 Still unpublished, the work remains of difficult access. Whilst Mansionario relies most of the time on sources that have been preserved (such as the Historia Augusta for imperial history up to Dioclectian), he also mentions works that are now lost, among which is a Life of Boethius composed by Jordanes.Footnote 98 The passages that draw on this source seem well-informed about Symmachus the Younger and the links between Boethius and Cassiodorus. The evidence is late and one cannot draw too many conclusions from it, but such a Life of Boethius, the earliest one to have been composed, would make sense in the context of the construction of Boethius as a martyr for the sake of Rome and orthodoxy.Footnote 99 In particular for Jordanes, who disliked arians (Get. 132) and had served the Eastern Roman Empire, such a hostile depiction of the last years of Theoderic would be unsurprising. Conversely, for Cassiodorus in the Ordo, such an alignment with Eastern views required a shift in attitude.
The second element shared by Jordanes and Cassiodorus is the positive presentation of the Ostrogothic kings and service to them. The composition date of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History, 526–533, suggests that the work was panegyrical: Cassiodorus was serving these kings during this time. This is confirmed by an extant reference in the Variae, where the history is explicitly said to anthologize the successes of the Gothic kings.Footnote 100 As Shane Bjornlie has shown, the Variae also present a positive image of service to the Gothic kings, asserting that ‘palatine service, not just the Amals, preserved a sacred tradition for ethical governance’.Footnote 101 As the Variae refer repeatedly to the Gothic History,Footnote 102 the latter cannot have run counter to that self-presentation. It is therefore likely that the lost Gothic History equally sought to show that Roman service to the Amals was justified and executed with probity. This positive presentation of the Gothic kings and service to them may have been appealing to Jordanes. Indeed, the Getica clearly exalts the achievements of the Goths, and both the Romana and the Getica are clearly concerned with the propriety of serving Gothic leaders. The emperor Zenon (471–492), who sent Theodoric to Italy, is said to have commended ‘the Roman people and the senate’ to Theodoric.Footnote 103 The king is represented as remaining faithful to that command, exhorting the Gothic élite on his death bed to ‘respect their king, love the senate and Roman people and to keep, after God, the emperor of the East always pleased and propitiated’.Footnote 104 Under these conditions, serving the Gothic kings was a natural duty for members of the Roman élite. From this perspective, the emphasis on the ‘fall of the Western Empire’ in both the Romana and Getica, with its calculation of the years since Augustus, acquires additional significance.Footnote 105 Jordanes draws the passage from Marcellinus Comes and it has been argued that the idea of a fall of the Western Empire was part of Justinian's propaganda to justify the conquest of Italy.Footnote 106 This may be true, but in Jordanes the passage also serves another purpose: the absence of a Roman emperor in the West rendered loyal service to the Gothic kings unavoidable.Footnote 107 In fact, one can read Jordanes as suggesting that, after the brutal Odoacer,Footnote 108 the coming of Theodoric on the orders of Zenon already marks a first step in the return of Roman order. Indeed, in the presentation of Jordanes, the murder of Theodoric's daughter Amalasuntha in 535 marks the slide of the Gothic kingdom towards anarchy and the justification of the Roman conquest (Get. 304–6), as it does in that of the continuator of Marcellinus Comes (a. 534), who also supports Justinian's reconquest. It is likely that the emphasis on the justified service to Theodoric in the Getica reflects the tendency of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History, but it is also evident that it would coincide with Jordanes’ own position: after all, Theodoric was a military commander appointed by Zenon, just like his own boss, Gunthigis, was an imperial appointee.
Third and finally, there is the marriage between Matasuntha and Germanus, which Jordanes describes as follows:
Matasuntha, however, his spouse, was joined by the emperor to his cousin Germanus, the patrician. After the death of his father Germanus, a son, also called Germanus, was born from this union, through which the family of the Anicii, joined to the descendants of the Amals, still offers hope for both families, if the Lord permits.Footnote 109
Procopius tells us that this marriage, probably to be dated in 549/550, was part of Justinian's plan to finalize the conquest of Italy.Footnote 110 As we have seen in Section I, Germanus was to be sent there as commander-in-chief, and his marriage with the last scion of Theodoric's dynasty was intended to entice part of the Gothic nobility to side with the Romans. When Germanus died in 550, Justinian did not abandon the plan entirely. Another son of Germanus, Justinian, accompanied by the experienced general John, who was, moreover, married to a daughter of Germanus,Footnote 111 was to take the army to Italy. Internal problems in the army finally led Justinian to appoint the eunuch Narses, who left for Italy in April 551. If one prefers an early date for Jordanes, that is, before the end of March 551, Jordanes had then just finished writing his works. In case of the slightly later date, before June 552, he was still working on them.Footnote 112 Even if it is likely that Jordanes knew that Narses and not the family of Germanus would lead the expedition, he clearly pinned great hopes on the marriage. It is mentioned three times in the Getica (81, 251, 314) and once in the Romana (383). In both works it appears in a prominent position, at the end of the narrative. Moreover, Jordanes seems to have believed in the efficacy of the union, for he states that Totila was greatly relieved by the death of Germanus.Footnote 113 The importance of the marriage to Jordanes, then, is clear. But why is that the case? As mentioned above, Jordanes’ enthusiasm has often been ascribed to the exiled Italians or even Cassiodorus.Footnote 114 Indeed, although the conserved works of Cassiodorus never mention the union, it is clear that it would have been beneficial to him and his fellow exiled Italians: they may have hoped that Matasuntha would remember their loyal service to her grandfather. Yet although Jordanes’ enthusiasm is clearly shared by Cassiodorus, we believe that Jordanes had his own reasons for supporting the marriage. In this respect, it is sometimes stated that Jordanes pleaded for a co-operation between Goths and Romans,Footnote 115 which would tie in with the generally positive representation of the Goths in the Getica. Formulated as a reconciliation of two peoples, this view is too much indebted to a modern focus on peoples as the agents of history, and lifts Jordanes’ concerns to too abstract a level: we have from antiquity no general ‘policy statements’ of this sort. In fact, Jordanes’ description of the marriage of Germanus and Matasuntha as an alliance between the Anicii and the Amals, that is, between two aristocratic, and indeed royal, houses,Footnote 116 points in a different direction. The choice to bind Germanus and Matasuntha together, two scions of ruling families, signalled a willingness to integrate the ruling élites of the Romans and the Goths. If there could be little doubt that this would be on the terms set by Constantinople, such a union could still mean different things to different men. Perhaps primarily intended as a move to split the Goths serving under Totila, who was not an Amal, the marriage raised the prospects of the exiled Italians, many of whom, like Cassiodorus, had served Theodoric. Indeed, with Matasuntha at Germanus’ side, they could hope for a return to positions of power. For Jordanes, the union would replicate on a grander scale the social situation in which he had been raised and to which he had dedicated his professional life: the integration of the Gothic élite into that of the Roman Empire. Moreover, he too had served a descendant of the Amals, which may have added to his enthusiasm.
Conclusion: Convergence of Divergent Backgrounds
This section has argued against the tendency to depict Jordanes as part and parcel of the social network of the exiled Italians living in Constantinople around 550, without rejecting that relationship altogether. A difference in social status and geographical origin helps to understand why his relationship with Cassiodorus remained ambiguous at best. Nevertheless, different careers can produce, at particular moments, a similarity of views and a confluence of interests. Shared service to Amal leaders, and the repositioning necessary for Italian exiles in the years of crisis 550–552, may have caused an Italian senator and a Moesian notary to find each other's views congenial.
CONCLUSION
The scholarly tendency to see the Getica as a form of propaganda, be it for Cassiodorus and the exiled Italians, or for the court, is an example of attempts to understand historiographical texts as expressing the voice of well-established ‘interest groups’. In a similar way, Procopius has sometimes been assumed to speak for the senate, the propertied classes, or the bureaucracy.Footnote 117 Such an approach may pinpoint important views, but for Jordanes it fails to integrate perceived inconsistencies in his oeuvre. Therefore, we have highlighted Jordanes’ unique perspective. Granted, none of the views we have detected in Jordanes is exclusively his: in his political views there are parallels with Procopius and the exiled Italians, whilst Jordanes was obviously not alone in being opposed to the theopaschite formula and, possibly, the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Yet the combination of all these in one oeuvre is unique. Given the lack of evidence for other Moesians or Balkan Goths in Constantinople, we cannot raise Jordanes to the level of a paradigm for a particular group. Nevertheless, the retrieval of his voice, shaped by the crisis of 550–552 as well as a specific social and geographical background, adds to the complexity of social life and opinions in sixth-century Constantinople.
This results in a view of sixth-century society in Constantinople as not just shaped by social differences between well-established figures and groups such as emperor, senate, army and people, as scholars looking at it from a constitutional perspective tend to do.Footnote 118 Looked at from the bottom-up, that is from actual social ties, Constantinopolitan society consisted of many social circles and flexible alliances, that is, clusters of indviduals held together, in the short or long term, by a shared language, origin, interests, social status, religion or any combination of these (and more) factors. As we have seen, Jordanes’ social ties and loyalties were shaped by long-term service and shared geographical origin: he clearly took pride in his Gothic ancestry and his family's service to a descendant of the Amals. But this did not preclude him from entering into contact with Cassiodorus. The complexity we attribute to society in Constantinople may render it much harder for us to study, but as the increasing critique of Justinian after 540 shows, even an emperor might have a hard time managing it.
