The Heroine and the Historian 301
Amalasuentha’s enemies found their opportunity. Procopius breezes past the
substance of the conflict, downplaying the evidence that an ongoing struggle
for control was in play. He suggests that they charged Amalasuentha of trying to
poison her son, “to put the boy out of the world as quickly as possible, in order
that she might marry a second husband and with him rule over the Goths and
Italians”.18 But the historian guides the reader away from the poisoning charge
and towards the problem of Athalaric’s upbringing. Rather than trying her for
treason, he suggests, “the notable men among them gathered together, and
coming before Amalasuentha made the charge that their king was not being
educated correctly from their point of view nor to his own advantage”.19 It is
here that Procopius offers a summary of their comments mentioned above on
the contrast between barbarian ‘manliness’ and the ‘cowardly and submissive
spirit’ conferred by literacy. Procopius concludes the passage with a speech in
which the Gothic nobles address Amalasuentha: “Therefore, O Queen... give
to Athalaric some men of his own age to be his companions, who will pass
through the period of youth with him and thus give him an impulse toward
that excellence which is in keeping with the custom of barbarians.”20
Considering the conflict from the point of view of Amalasuentha’s critics,
it is not impossible that the young companions were intended to protect the
boy from attempts on his life. But this is not how Procopius tells the story. To
the contrary, he suggests, it was the wild behaviour of the young soldiers them-
selves that led Athalaric to his downfall: first to drunkenness, and then to ill-
ness and finally death.
Amalasuentha’s Dilemna
By the time her son died in 534, Procopius tells us, Amalasuentha’s conflict
with her challengers had escalated dramatically. The queen had arranged for
three of her most influential enemies to be murdered, and there was every
18 Procopius, Wars 5.2.10: “Γότθοι δὲ αὐτῷ ἐντυχόντες δεινὰ ἐποιοῦντο καὶ τῇ Ἀμαλασούνθῃ
λοιδορούμενοι ἰσχυρίζοντο βούλεσθαι] αὐτὴν τὸν παῖδα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀφανιεῖν ὅτι τάχιστα, ὅπως
αὐτὴ ἑτέρῳ ἀνδρὶ ἐς κοίτην ἐλθοῦσα Γότθων τε καὶ Ἰταλιωτῶν ξὺν αὐτῷ ἄρχοι.”
19 Procopius, Wars 5.2.11: “ξυλλεγέντες τε, ὅσοι δὴ ἐν αὐτοῖς λόγιμοι ἦσαν, καὶ παρὰ τὴν
Ἀμαλασοῦνθαν ἐλθόντες ᾐτιῶντο οὐκ ὀρθῶς σφίσιν οὐδὲ ᾗ ξυμφέρει τὸν βασιλέα παιδεύεσθαι.”
20 Procopius, Wars 5.2.17: “ ‘Οὐκοῦν, ὦ δέσποινα... παιδαγωγοὺς μὲν τούτους χαίρειν τανῦν ἔα, σὺ
δὲ Ἀταλαρίχῳ ὁμοδιαίτους ἥλικάς τινας δίδου, οἵπερ αὐτὸν τὰ ἐς τὴν ἡλικίαν ξυνακμάζοντες ἐς
τὴν ἀρετὴν κατά γε τὸν βάρβαρον νόμον ὁρμήσουσι.’ ” On the rhetoric of Gothic manliness,
see Arnold, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, pp. 133–41.