Religious Diversity 515
rations of support for a militarily dominant strong-man, however enlightened
he may have been, should be taken with a large grain of salt.62
Of course we would not expect a condemnation of Theoderic’s faith (or any
aspect of his rule) from men deeply implicated in the regime (especially in a
panegyric as in the case of Ennodius).63 But what is so fascinating about the
examples of Gelasius, Cassiodorus, Ennodius, and the authors of Vita Caesarii
is that these men were not tolerant of ‘Arianism’. In fact various examples
from their writings show them to have been resolutely hostile to this arche-
typal heresy.64 Gelasius in particular specifically condemned Arianism in
a number of his letters and tractates,65 and the Liber Pontificalis also claims
that Gelasius composed “duos libros aduersus Arrium.”66 Cassiodorus likewise
attacked the “lunatic rashness of the Arians” in his Expositio Psalmorum.67 All
of these authors, writing during the first decades of Theoderic’s rule, clearly
distinguished between the heresy of ‘Arianism’—a flexible and pejorative her-
esiological category—and the faith of the Ostrogoths.
There was precedent for such a distinction. Not unlike the example of
Judaism discussed above, a certain form of non-Nicene Christianity enjoyed
limited protection in late Roman society. In a western law of 386 promulgated
62 For example, Theoderic is acclaimed thirty times by the attendees of the Roman synod of
499: “Exaudi Christe! Theoderico Vitam!” See “Acta synhodorum habitarum Romae”, ed.
Mommsen, p. 405.
63 Ennodius, Panegyricus, ed. Rohr, p. 18. It should be noted that panegyric appears not to
have been officially commissioned by the Ostrogothic regime and there is no consensus
as to whether it was ever in fact recited to the king (or what he would have made of it).
Rohr’s view that it was given in Rome is based on a misreading of Pan. 22. For the mis-
reading see Schröder, “Ein falsches Argument” and in general: Arnold, Theoderic and the
Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 32–6 and especially n. 108 and 109.
64 “Archetypal heresy” is a phrase borrowed from the Maurice F. Wiles book of that name.
65 Gelasius’ condemnations of ‘Arianism’ are in every case directly linked to the Acacian
schism, not the religion of the Ostrogoths. See Cohen, Heresy, Authority, pp. 192–4.
66 LP, ed. Duchesne, vol. I, p. 255. These books are not mentioned in any other ancient
source according to Duchesne p. 257, n. 14. If these works were actually written, they do
not survive.
67 Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum 54.20, ed. P.G. Walsh, Explanation of the Psalms, 3 vols.,
New York 1990. Ennodius, VE 92, pp. 68–9 has Epiphanius of Pavia refrain from dining
with the Visigothic king Euric for fear of being polluted by his priests, although they are
not called ‘Arian’. And as noted above, the authors of the Vita Caesarii describe the saint
as redeeming hostages to ensure that Christians who had lost their freedom would not
become “perhaps an Arian or a Jew”.