Governmental Administration 55
The Impact of Reduced Administration
The important point to recognize is that fiscal resources budgeted for the mili-
tary and civil service on a more regular basis were not sufficient to support an
administration anywhere near the scale of that in the East. Indeed the differ-
ence between the comparative handful of officials at Theoderic’s court and
the overawing spectacle of the court in the East seems to be manifest in the
literary habit for celebrating rulers. Martial prowess figured as the primary
source of praise for Theoderic in Ennodius’ panegyric, in contrast to a tradi-
tion that typically made the courtly attributes of a ruler complementary to his
excellence in war.39 The contemporary panegyric to Anastasius by Priscian, for
example, builds praise for the emperor first by describing his military cam-
paigns and then by elaborating on the successes of his legal and administrative
accomplishments, which reaches a crescendo in the description of his court
as a home for “associates in the just administration of affairs”, where adorn-
ment in eloquence, learning, and wisdom preserves Roman law.40 Somewhat
later, Corippus would praise the eastern emperor with even greater attention
to the (celestial) qualities of his court.41 It would seem that Ennodius remained
silent in this respect because Theoderic did not fit the model of a ruler who
mediated his authority through the conspicuous drama of a highly elaborated
bureaucracy. In fact rather than sedentary and embedded in urban ritual, as
with the case of the eastern emperor, there are indications that the Ostrogothic
court behaved in an itinerant manner, for which a much-reduced administra-
tive apparatus was an advantage. Smaller officia permitted the Ostrogothic
court to move with ease between royal seats of government, something that a
perspicacious ruler would prefer over leaving a potentially ambitious corps of
personnel to its own devices, equipped as it would have been with the tools of
manipulating the military (through control over money and provisions).
Evidence for the itinerant nature of the Amal court comes from diverse
sources. The Anonymus Valesianus and later Fredegar speak of royal complexes
39 Ennodius, Panegyric to Theoderic 17.78–81, 19.83–86 and 20.87–88, ed. Rohr, in particular,
compares Theoderic to Alexander and Roman commanders of the Republic; cf. Latinus
Pacatus 2.15, on the wisdom displayed by Theodosius in his choice of court attendants,
and Claudius Mamertus 3.16, 3.20, 3.22, on the court of Julian, both in C.E.V. Nixon and
B. Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors, Berkeley 1994; Claudian on the fourth
consulship of Honorius, 122–53, focuses on Honorius’ rearing at court, in M. Platnauer,
Claudian, Loeb Classical Library.
40 Priscian, In Praise of Anastasius, especially 239–53, ed. Coyne.
41 Corippus, In Praise of Justin 1.249, 2.189–199, 2.285–95, 3.70–84, 3.179–87, 3.219–30, 4.90–
130, 4.240–45, 4.365–74, ed. Cameron.