48 Bjornlie
for the redistribution of state resources and to exercise justice, the most essen-
tial interface between a government and the governed.4 However consistently
comprehensible the administration attempted to make these functions to the
governed, the means arrogated by the state to exercise fiscal and legal author-
ity nonetheless required constant justification. For this reason the other fun-
damental function of an administration was the production of rhetoric (or an
ideology) by which the governed understood themselves to be justly ruled.5
Day-to-day administrative practices required the accompaniment of a rhetori-
cal presentation of the state that justified the government’s involvement in the
resources and prerogatives of individuals and that explained the allocation of
power visible in the distribution of material resources by the state. It is this
rhetoric produced by the Ostrogothic government that frequently infuses so
much contemporary evidence and makes it difficult to distinguish between
actual administrative practices and ideological pretensions.6 The enormous
cultural value placed on continuity with the past, which late antique govern-
ment recognized, renders locating Ostrogothic administration on the axis
of continuity and decline even more problematic.7 The extent to which the
state voiced the (perhaps antiquarian) governmental principles of imperial
Rome might give the impression of continuing a venerated tradition while
at the same time masking important departures and innovations in regular
practices.8
An example of this last point can be found in the first letter of Cassiodorus’
Variae, by far the most important source for understanding Ostrogothic admin-
istration. In Variae 1.1, addressed to the eastern emperor Anastasius, Theoderic
promises to harmonize his governance of Italy with the traditions of imperium
set on display by the example of the eastern court at Constantinople, “Our
government is an imitation of yours” (regnum nostrum imitatio vestra est).9
The letter suggests a mirroring of the eastern empire by Theoderic’s kingdom
and the scrupulous preservation of a Roman form of government, which also
agrees with a common refrain in Cassiodorus’ collection referring to Italy as
4 For law and justice, see Lafferty in this volume.
5 Cecconi, Governo imperiale, p. 11; for the ideology of the Ostrogothic state see Heydemann in
this volume.
6 As noted, e.g. Barbieri, “La concezione politico-economica”, p. xiv; Colace, “Lessico mone-
tario”, pp. 159–76; De Salvo, “Rifornimenti alimentary”, p. 411; De Salvo, “Politica commercial”,
pp. 99–113; Di Paola, “L’organizzazione”, p. 97; Barnish/Lee/Whitby, “Government”, p. 166.
7 On the rhetoric of the past in late antique government, Maas, John Lydus; Bjornlie, Politics
and Tradition, pp. 216–53.
8 For an excellent study of the production of imperial ideology: Noreña, Imperial Ideals.
9 Cassiodorus, Variae 1.1.3, ed. Mommsen.