164 Lafferty
misconduct.61 Scholars today tend to interpret these kinds of laws not as proof
that there was necessarily more corruption in Late Antiquity than there was
in earlier times, but that emperors were more often prepared to say so in a
bid to appear as hardliners against such governmental corruption.62 But this is
an oversimplification. Heightened concern about judicial corruption reflects
a greater sense of cultural and political crisis, as Theoderic and his successors
struggled to maintain order without the benefit of a comprehensive bureau-
cracy. Thus, while not necessarily a widespread problem, judicial corruption
was nevertheless a serious one. For there was no better measure of a ruler’s
ability to govern than the individuals who were tasked with upholding the law:
a corrupt judge not only undermined the integrity of the entire justice sys-
tem, but called into question the suitability of the king as supreme lawgiver.63
Even if one were inclined to dismiss these sorts of complaints as a matter of
literary convention, the fact that the subject of judicial corruption receives so
much attention in the Edictum Theoderici—a relatively brief document that
is conspicuously devoid of the sort of legal rhetoric found in the Theodosian
Code or Variae—is a strong indicator that it posed a significant problem for
Theoderic’s administration.
To protect against the various dangers posed by a corrupt and negligent
judge, Theoderic relied upon those whose loyalty he had no doubt, but this
was no guarantee against acts of injustice and lawlessness on their part.64
That judges sometimes put their own interests before those of justice was
an unavoidable consequence of the limitations inherent in the Ostrogothic
administration. Like many emperors before him, Theoderic was hard-pressed
to provide effective government at the local level while at the same time
ensuring that local officers did not act in disregard of the central authority.
Theoderic was acutely aware of this inability, but nowhere does he acknowl-
edge the inequity of the fact that judges were first and foremost servants of the
crown, usually expected to fulfil various other administrative responsibilities
in addition to their judicial functions. While they were required to render jus-
tice impartially and equitably as the law demanded, they were equally, if not
more so, obligated to protect the property and privileges of the king. Obviously,
these duties were mutually exclusive, and while in most cases we may presume
61 ET 1–7, 55, 91, 114. For instances of judicial misconduct in the Variae, see e.g. Cassiodorus,
Variae 9.20; 12.2, 3, 6. For the problem of judicial corruption in Ostrogothic Italy,
see Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 3.
62 E.g. Harries, Law and Empire, ch. 8; Pohl, “Perceptions of Barbarian Violence”, pp. 15–26.
63 Hoeflich, “Judicial Misconduct,” pp. 79–104.
64 Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 147–58; Matthews, Western Aristocracies, pp. 355, 386–8.