Religious Diversity 519
of the surviving buildings (the fact that they were easily converted for use by
the orthodox is suggestive), although specialists have discerned subtle hints
of their heterodox origins in their iconographic programmes—faint echoes of
non-Nicene Christianity in tesserae. Yet what is striking is not the radical differ-
ence between orthodox and ‘Arian’ iconography but its similarity.84 The ‘Arian
Baptistery’ itself was built in direct imitation of its orthodox counterpart and
the baptismal rites that would have been practised there in the Ostrogothic
period were also, as far as we can tell, practically identical to those of the
orthodox.85 Indeed in Italy as well as in North Africa and elsewhere there are
simply no detectable differences between ‘Arian’ and Nicene church construc-
tion whatsoever.86 The fact that ‘Arians’ and Catholics were happy enough
to take over each other’s buildings, often leaving the decorative programmes
largely intact, also suggests that there was no fundamental incompatibility, at
least architecturally and artistically, between the two churches.87 On the other
hand, language may have distinguished the eccelsia of the Goths from that of
the Catholics. Theoderic’s church could have used the vernacular (Gothic)
although a number of Gothic writers also wrote in Latin. There may have also
been differences in the liturgical calendar of the Gothic church as well.88
The ascension of Justin I, the end of the Acacian schism in 519, and the even-
tual rise to power of Justinian signal a shift in Catholic attitudes to Gothic het-
erodoxy (and possibly of Theoderic’s attitude towards the organized Catholic
establishment in Italy). As Brian Croke highlighted almost thirty years ago, it
was only in the second and third decades of the 6th century that it became
obvious to Romans in the east “that a Gothic kingdom was not part of the
Roman Empire”, and so “agitation began for unification once more under a
Roman emperor”.89 Anti-Arianism and the defence of orthodoxy emerged as
key elements of Justinian’s renovatio ideology, which was in turn mobilized to
justify and endorse his attempts to conquer Africa and Italy. In sharp contrast
to the writings of Gelasius, Cassiodorus, and Ennodius referred to above in the
84 Ward-Perkins, “Archaeology and Iconography”, p. 271 states that despite subtle stylistic
differences, the underlying iconography in the ‘Arian’ and ‘Catholic’ baptisteries are iden-
tical. See also Bockmann, Non-Archeology of Arianism, pp. 210–12.
85 Wood, “Merely an Ideology?”, pp. 250–1; Deliyannis, Ravenna, pp. 178–9.
86 Bockmann, “Non-Archeology of Arianism”, p. 217.
87 Ward-Perkins, “Archaeology and Iconography”, p. 267.
88 Berndt/Steinacher, “The ecclesia legis Gothorum and the Role of ‘Arianism’ in Ostorogothic
Italy”, pp. 225–7.
89 Croke, “A.D. 476”, p. 86.