138 Radtki
Rome and Constantinople, Theoderic’s political situation had changed, though
not necessarily as a consequence of the schism’s resolution, as it has been
argued traditionally.110 Rather, a coincidence of several external and internal
factors led to the dreadful development that ended in the death of two famous
members of the senatorial elite and the mistreatment of a pope.111
In 522, the patrician Albinus was accused of exchanging treasonable com-
munication with the eastern court by Cyprianus,112 a court official at Ravenna
who had risen to office through an earlier military career and had made his
way through civil service in the college of tribuni et notarii before becoming
a referendarius.113 Boethius decided to provide legal defence for Albinus and
soon after found himself accused of treason. Thus, the main conflict arose
between Boethius and Cyprianus. Boethius’ failure to inform on Albinus would
not have caused such turmoil on its own, but his rash declaration for Albinus
and his accusation that Cyprianus had lied—undertaken without consider-
ation of his position at Theoderic’s court and his colleagues’ willingness to
support him—escalated the conflict. As a result, Boethius was arrested in 523,
tried in Pavia, imprisoned near Milan, and put to death in 524. His father-in-
law, Symmachus, shared the same sad fate in 525 for his attempt to defend
Boethius.114 As Schäfer has suggested, a tacit but important element of this
conflict was the rivalry for public honour that existed between a member of
the old elite (Boethius) and a member of the ‘newcomers’ (Cyprianus), who
felt threatened and was able to activate similarly neglected members of the
ordo senatorius to act as witnesses for the prosecution. Following Boethius’
own words, the “false witnesses” included Cyprianus’ brother Opilio,115 a cer-
tain Basilius,116 and Gaudentius.117 Presumably all three were dismissed from
positions at the royal court sometime before the trial. Moreover, members
of the old traditional families (including possibly even Boethius, who clearly
110 On this see Kötter, Zwischen Kaisern und Aposteln, passim.
111 For an exposition of the most important factors (among them Theoderic’s diplomatic
position, inner ecclesiastical conflicts and the emperor Justin’s policy against Arian
Christians) see Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy”, pp. 416ff.
112 PLRE II, pp. 332f.
113 Bjornlie, Politics, p. 139; Schäfer, Der weströmische Senat, p. 55; on the position of referen-
darius see Cassiodorus, Variae 8.21.4, ed. Mommsen.
114 Procopius, De Bellis Libri 1.5.32–39, ed. Haury/Wirth; Anonymus Valesianus 87 and 92,
ed. König.
115 PLRE II, p. 808.
116 PLRE II, pp. 215f.
117 PLRE II, p. 495. Boethius, Philosophiae Consolatio 1.4.26, ed. Bieler; Anonymus Valesianus
86, ed. König.