308 Cooper
To Procopius, if Amalasuentha’s respect for the classical tradition of learn-
ing made her a wise and just ruler, it was a weakness in a partner. The historian
characterizes Theodahad’s romanitas dismissively as a lack of barbarian man-
liness. According to La Rocca, “For Amalasuentha, romanitas is connected to
her respect for the emperor and for Roman culture... whereas for Theodahad
it becomes, instead, a lack of masculinity: his ignorance of military virtues, his
preference for otium, and his greed show the ‘dark side’ of romanitas as an inca-
pacity for ruling.”49 Ironically, it is largely by drawing on Procopius that mod-
ern scholars have evidenced the high literacy of Amal women by contrast to
the martial culture of the highly militarized Gothic men. Though there may be
some truth to the idea,50 Procopius has shaped how we perceive his material.
But among La Rocca’s most interesting suggestions is the point that unlike
Procopius both Amalasuentha and Cassiodorus saw value rather than weak-
ness in her choice of a partner steeped in the Roman ideal of literacy. Four let-
ters preserved in Cassiodorus’ Variae—two each in the names of Amalasuentha
(10.1 and 10.3) and Theodahad (10.2 and 10.4), respectively51—provide evidence
of a coordinated effort by (or on behalf of ) the two cousins to announce their
new partnership after the death of Athalaric, both to the Roman Senate and to
the emperor Justinian himself.52 The formal statements made at the time of
the alliance present the wisdom and learning of Theodahad as anything but a
sign of weakness or effeminacy. Ostrogothic royal women were known for their
learning53 to be sure, but this did not mean that a man should be illiterate.
Rather, it was a claim to continuity with the classical tradition of the just ruler,
and an echo of the value placed on literacy by Theoderic himself.
Frankforter has warned that the historian’s view of the Gothic queen “as
a pawn in a game played by men”54 erases the historical actor in favour of a
literary heroine. We are encouraged to see her “not as a protagonist in political
maneuvers but as the loser in a private struggle between women for a personal
prize, the love of a powerful man.”55 If Procopius sees Amalasuentha as a wise
49 La Rocca, “Consors Regni”, p. 140; on the opposition between civilitas and manliness see
M.E. Stewart, “Contests Of Andreia”, pp. 21–54, and Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman
Restoration, pp. 121–41.
50 Vitiello, Theodahad, pp. 46–7.
51 La Rocca, “Consors Regni”, pp. 127–43.
52 Krautschick, Cassiodor gives Cassiodorus much credit for the policies (and rhetoric) of
Amalasuentha’s regency and reign. Analysis along the lines opened by La Rocca may
prove valuable in shedding light on the problem of authorship.
53 Vitiello, “Nourished at the Breast of Rome”, pp. 398–412.
54 Frankforter, “Amalasuntha”, pp. 41–57, at p. 42.
55 Frankforter, “Amalasuntha”, p. 42.