Ostrogothic Cities 107
(then in charge of the praetorian prefecture) described the limits of the urban
programme with a candour scarcely seen elsewhere. Cassiodorus admits that
Rome’s vast size and the grandeur of its buildings resembled oversized gar-
ments worn on a body that had become emaciated (Variae 11.39). It had to be
admitted, in his words, that much of the inherited legacy of monuments and
edifices was no longer necessary to actual city life.
Cassiodorus’ thoughts appear to mark a sharp contrast in comparison to
efforts made toward the upkeep of cities. But upon consideration the contrast
is not as contradictory as it may seem. Cassiodorus, coming to terms with real-
ity, did not deprive the endeavours undertaken under Theoderic of the value
of their intentions. Urban civilization had to be kept alive despite the problems
posed by contemporary conditions, and propaganda had a real function in this
context—not as a mask to conceal reality, but as a statement of principles that
would guide officials in undertaking efforts to reclaim something of the classi-
cal urban culture.
Just a small percentage of Italian towns is mentioned in the corpus of offi-
cial letters collected in the Variae, and such a representation would prevent
definitive conclusions about actual urban conditions. The archaeological evi-
dence by itself seems to show that the negative trend of the 5th century had
not changed. Cassiodorus indicates that the maintenance of Rome was a great
challenge for the Ostrogothic government. Much of this difficulty resulted
from the disproportion between the quantity of urban fabric surviving from
the past, the resources readily available for restoration projects, and the short-
age of manpower, which made many urban projects unsustainable in the long
term. It is difficult to say (but reasonable to suspect) whether these realities
might have played a greater role in changing the strategy of Ostrogothic rule,
particularly in the 530s after Theoderic’s death, and when the political and
dynastic fortunes of the kingdom had been called into question.
But it is also legitimate to consider whether the centrality of towns to Italian
social life was recognized by the entire population under Ostrogothic rule.
Unfortunately, it is not known how and where exactly Goths settled. Cities
were certainly privileged loci for contacts with the Romans, but it is not pos-
sible to reconstruct how many Goths preferred urban as opposed to rural life.24
Gian Pietro Brogiolo has pointed out that some of the prominent late Roman
fortresses discovered by archaeologists on the Italian side of the Alps were still
functional during the Ostrogothic period.25 Some of them, such as Monte Barro
(situated north of Milan near the eastern end of the lake of Come), were more
24 Tabata, Città dell’Italia, pp. 117–24.
25 Brogiolo, “Dwellings and Settlement”, pp. 114–17.