ostrogothic cities

8/15/2019 Ostrogothic Cities

1/26

For use by the Author only | © 2016 Koninklijke Brill NV

A Companion toOstrogothic Italy

Edited by

Jonathan J. Arnold

M. Shane Bjornlie

Kristina Sessa

|


2/26


Contents

Foreword List of Figures

List of Contributors

1 Introduction 1

Jonathan J. Arnold, M. Shane Bjornlie, and Kristina Sessa

The State

2 The Ostrogothic Kingdom: Ideologies and Transitions 17

Gerda Heydemann

3 Governmental Administration 47

M. Shane Bjornlie

4 Ostrogothic Provinces: Administration and Ideology 73

Jonathan J. Arnold

5 Ostrogothic Cities 98

Federico Marazzi

6 The Senate at Rome in Ostrogothic Italy 121

Christine Radtki

7 The Law 147

Sean Laffferty

8 The Ostrogothic Military 173

Guy Halsall

Culture and Society

9 Goths and Gothic Identity in the Ostrogothic Kingdom 203

Brian Swain


3/26


10 Urban Life and Culture 234

Deborah M. Deliyannis

11 Landowning and Labour in the Rural Economy 263Cam Grey

12 The Heroine and the Historian: Procopius of Caesarea on the

Troubled Reign of Queen Amalasuentha 296

Kate Cooper

13 Intellectual Culture and Literary Practices 316

Natalia Lozovsky

14 Art and Architecture 350

Mark J. Johnson

15 Barbarizing the Bel Paese: Environmental History in Ostrogothic

Italy 390

Paolo Squatriti

Religion

16 The Roman Church and its Bishops 425

Kristina Sessa

17 Bishops, Ecclesiastical Institutions, and the Ostrogothic Regime 451

Rita Lizzi Testa

18 Mapping the Church and Asceticism in Ostrogothic Italy 480

Rita Lizzi Testa

19 Religious Diversity 503

Samuel Cohen

Glossary of Select Sources 533Index 542


4/26

© , , | ./_


Ostrogothic Cities

Federico Marazzi*

Cities in Late Roman Italy: A Problem beyond the Ostrogoths

To take the concept of ‘Ostrogothic cities’ in a literal sense, there would be verylittle to report. The Ostrogoths (perhaps with only one exception, in Trento,

discussed later in the chapter) founded no cities, nor can any feature of thecities they occupied during the period of their rule in Italy be recognized asdistinctly ‘Ostrogothic’, unless we consider the slight number of churches dedi-cated to the Arian Christian communities. This quite simply means that thereis no way to speak about specically Ostrogothic cities, and that a more prof-itable discussion must focus on the nature of Italian cities during the periodof Ostrogothic rule. As is well known, this period spans little less than half acentury, that is to say from Theoderic’s defeat of Odovacer in 493 to the rst

years of the Gothic War between the Byzantines and the Ostrogoths. This warbegan in 535 and offcially ended in 554, but in relation to this topic this chap-ter will consider 540 as the nal date, which corresponds to the moment whenBelisarius’ army conquered Ravenna and ended the regular functioning of theadministrative system of the Ostrogothic kingdom as it had worked duringthe previous decades.

It would be a mischaracterization of the period to underestimate the scaleof the Gothic government’s interest in cities. The main written source forthis period, the so-called Variae collected by Casssiodorus, provide us witha great deal of information about the attention that King Theoderic and hisimmediate successors lavished on the cities located within the boundaries oftheir kingdom. Italy was presumably the most densely and uniformly urban-ized territory of the former Roman Empire. The density of its urban network

was perhaps matched only by that existing in some provinces of the easternMediterranean such as Syria and Palestine, since even in Anatolia and Egyptthere were vast, scarcely populated areas with few or no cities at all.

* I wish to express my deep gratitude to Shane Bjornlie for his extensive revision of my text.

Tate, Giustiniano, pp. 683–717.

Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis; Tabata, Città dell’Italia.


5/26


When the Ostrogoths entered the Italian peninsula, most of the towns thathad ourished in classical times were still alive, although few of them couldshow much of their past splendour. Cities were expensive projects. Their devel-

opment and maintenance had been possible in the number and size we ndin Italy primarily because cities enjoyed a long-standing privileged conditioncreated by the dominant political status that Rome had established for Italianregions since Augustus. Low taxation, an abundant ow of spoils from militarycampaigns, and the possibility of selling Italian products at very favourableprices were factors that lasted for more than two centuries. These factors gavenearly all urban communities in Italy (and particularly their most prominentcitizens) the opportunity to reinvest wealth in ambitious building programmes

that would be visible in both public and private spaces. As is well known, things began to change during the 3rd century due to sev-eral concomitant factors. Military expansion ceased and so ended the ow of

war booty; Italy slowly began to lose its political primacy to provincial territo-ries; and eventually the pressure of barbarians on the borders of the empirediverted more and more resources towards the needs of the army and thebureaucracy that supported it. One of the consequences of all this was thatlocal communities faced reduced budgets due to the growing scal pressures.In turn the exactions of the central government progressively eroded the dis-cretionary monies that had previously been available to city councils. To be alocal magistrate gradually became a heavy burden, reducing the former pres-tige derived from the possibility of investing locally collected resources in thekind of public works that beneted urban populations and made them proudto be part of an affuent community. The disappearance of inscriptions com-memorating public works sponsored by local magistrates in the course of the3rd century speaks to this change more than anything. For the same reasons,imperial patronage of public buildings also diminished. Perhaps the fact that

emperors, in general, no longer came from Italian families contributed to a dis-inclination to invest in the improvement of the cities of Italy. The preference ofemperors for their natal origins is shown, for example, in the case of buildingserected by Septimius Severus in the towns of Libya.

By the end of the 3rd century some Italian cities bore evident marks ofmaterial decay, due not just to the lack of newly constructed buildings, butmore to growing diffculties in the maintenance of existing ones. The radicalreforms of the Roman state enacted by Diocletian and Constantine between

the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th became entrenched as

Marazzi, “Cadavera urbium”, pp. 33–66.

Baratte, Tunisia e Libia.


6/26


the new state of afffairs in late antique cities. Local curiae remained responsiblefor tax collection in their territories, while the central government determinedthe scal assessment for which each city was annually responsible. At the same

time the administrative subdivision of imperial territories, which includedtransforming the old regiones of the Italian peninsula into provinces, almostautomatically selected which cities would receive the primary attention of thecentral government and which would be capable of making substantial invest-ments in public works. Cities that hosted imperial residences, the seats ofpraetorian prefects and their deputies, and eventually the chief towns of eachprovince would become the only places (together with Rome) that remainedthe focus of imperial attention and could hope for subventions for the main-

tenance of buildings and public spaces. The other cities and their councilscould basically rely only on the good will of locals ( potentes and patroni ) whohad enough inuence with the central government to act as representatives oflocal communities for the purpose of securing tax reductions or funds assignedto specic projects, such as the restoration of damaged or decayed buildingsand spaces. These people usually had held high-ranking offces in the imperialadministration and were tied to a given town either as native citizens or asnew landowners with economic interests in a town’s territory, and who wouldbe personally inclined to advocate on behalf of the local community. VariousItalian cities have yielded statues, inscribed statue bases or inscriptions cele-brating these benefactors who in Late Antiquity (as opposed to earlier periods)did not derive from the ranks of the local curia. Sometimes these potentes canbe identied with provincial governors who occasionally assisted cities withintheir competence, often following some serious natural disaster such as a oodor earthquake, in order to restore a public building, road or bridge. It shouldalso be added that a number of Italian cities during the 3rd century, althoughmostly limited to the northern part of the peninsula, looked to their defence

by erecting walls that enclosed some portion of their built areas. This, too,afffected both the availability of resources previously allocated to the mainte-nance of civil infrastructure and the survival of buildings left outside the walls.

During the 5th century things began to deteriorate seriously owing to grow-ing political instability in the western empire, the direct impact of barbarianmilitary expeditions, and the economic crisis caused by the progressive loss

Cecconi, La città e l’impero, pp. 354–58 and 365–6. Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall , 104–36.

Complete references to these types of artifacts found in Italy can be obtained by browsing

through the database provided by the “Last Statues of Antiquity” project, created by the

University of Oxford (http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/).


7/26


of the provinces (and their respective tax revenues). This last factor becameparticularly evident when Africa was lost to the Vandals in the years after 430.

Archaeological evidence indicates the widespread decay of urban infrastruc-

ture for this period. It is also important that much of the surviving resourcesavailable to wealthy benefactors was either diverted to the embellishment oflavish private houses or invested in a new kind of public patronage: the con-struction of Christian churches. The church itself became a new and impor-tant player within the urban environment, investing its money not simply inthe provision of spaces for worship, but also in the creation of residences forbishops and clergy and of a number of subsidiary buildings such as the hos-pitals, guest houses and cellars deemed necessary for the display of the chari-

table activities that beneted the urban population. All this suggests that two diffferent kinds of problems impacted Italian citiesduring Late Antiquity: rst, deep changes in the administrative structure of theempire, and second, the economic conditions of the western provinces, whichbecame particularly severe in the course of the 5th century. When consideringthe conditions of late antique Italian cities, it becomes necessary to considerboth the transformation of the cultural and institutional setting of Italy andthe economic changes to the nances of the state that afffected the whole ofItalian society. Notwithstanding a general picture of decline, growth in thenumber of episcopal sees in Italy during the 5th century demonstrates thattowns were neither dead nor deserted by their populations. In fact the very roleof the bishop was predicated on the needs of the urban community. The prom-inent social role obtained by the church from the late 4th and during the 5thcentury captured many of the private resources still available for investment inurban settings. In addition, the material decline of towns could still elicit directresponse from the imperial government in the form of a wide number of mea-sures taken in order to protect derelict public buildings from improper use.

Imperial authority sought to preserve not only pagan temples, whose functionas places of worship had been banned since the end of the 4th century, butalso public buildings and spaces that were considered potentially exposed to

Ward-Perkins, Fall of Rome, pp. 33–62.

Brogiolo/Possenti, “L’età gota in Italia settentrionale”, pp. 257–96; Brogiolo, Le origini della

città medievale, pp. 33–76.

Baldini Lippolis, L’architettura residenziale, pp. 102–34; Marano, “Domus in qua manebatepiscopus”, pp. 97–130.

Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall , pp. 369–99.

Janvier, La legislation du Bas-Empire Romain; Heijmans, “La place des monuments pub-

lics”, pp. 25–41.


8/26


spoliation or squatting. The laws issued to this efffect represent the largest legis-lative corpus dealing with the protection of historical heritage before the mod-ern era. Much of this legislation concerned Rome, but some also applied to the

urban fabric more generally. One may dispute whether these measures hadany real efffect in preventing the reappropriation of old and derelict buildingsand spaces or whether they simply exposed the impotence of state authoritiesto even slow these processes. Whatever the interpretation, extant laws attestthat enough building projects occurred in Italian cities during the 5th centuryto justify dangerous and laborious activities such as dismantling edices andtransporting harvested materials. Seen from another point of view, these arealso signs that cityscapes were subject to dramatic changes that afffected much

of what had survived from the past.

Italian Cities from the Perspective of the Ostrogothic Government

This is the situation that Theoderic encountered upon reaching Italy in 491.Nevertheless, it is evident that Theoderic recognized cities as the backboneof an administrative system in which cities and their populations helped tocontrol a wider landscape of territories. As it has been recently pointed out,the Variae of Cassiodorus include some forty cities among the addresseesof the letters sent by central offces in Ravenna. In most of these letters, theking or his offcials addressed themselves to particular individuals or groups ofpeople who appear as privileged representatives of the local population. Thesefall into four main categories: curiales, possessores, honorati , and defensores.

This picture corresponds more or less to the period that precedes the arrivalof the Ostrogoths. Cities had local magistrates, who sat in the curia and wereresponsible for administration and, more importantly, for tax collection on

behalf of the central government. They were appointed to do so by virtue ofhaving enough wealth and reputation to ensure that their obligations wouldbe properly fullled. This meant that they were usually possessores, but notall possessores were necessarily enrolled in thecuria. The honorati were alsolocal notables, but these were exempt from curial obligations because they hadheld posts of some importance in the central administration or because theyhad been personally granted this privilege by the king (apparently along withhonorary senatorial rank). Curiales andhonorati do not necessarily comprise

two distinct groups. The honorati were at times former members of thecuria and the title may be used synonymously for curiales. Although not directly

Tabata, Città dell’Italia, pp. 43–5.


9/26


involved in the management of city afffairs, the honorati were nonethelessinuential. Needless to say, there was considerable overlap between honorati,curiales, and possessores. More importantly, the Ostrogothic state followed

previous imperial administrative behaviours by governing not only throughthese three classes, but also through other actors capable of reinforcing per-sonal ties between the central government and local community. Bishopshad played this role during the later empire and clearly continued to do sounder Ostrogothic rule, but this administrative picture of Italian cities wouldbe incomplete without mention of two other offces, one of which originatedin the late empire, the other an innovation of Theoderic himself. The rst, thedefensor civitatis, was chosen by the consensus of the curiales, possessores, and

honorati , although this appointment also required the approval of the praeto-rian prefect. The functions of the defensor were primarily judicial, but he wasalso involved in the crucial supervision of the gesta municipalia, the register

where all business concerning rights over landed properties were recorded,thus where the tax rolls and lists of taxpayers were maintained. Second,the comes civitatis was a Gothic offcer appointed directly by the king whoheld the military command over the city, and when a Gothic population waspresent, acted as a judge in legal cases involving Goths. In southern Italy(especially Sicily), which lacked settlements of Ostrogoths, the comes hadresponsibility over the military command of the entire province. The roles ofboth the defensor and thecomes reect the tendency towards a closer controlof local communities by central power.

This quick overview illustrates the fact that the arrival of the Ostrogoths didnot produce dramatic changes in the criteria that had generated the cultureof town administration in the late empire. Quite the opposite; the peacefulconditions that Italy enjoyed during the decades of Theoderic’s rule helpedto consolidate the system. The only real innovation was the appointment in

some cities of a Gothic military commander, although even this has a potentialparallel in the late imperial military administration of frontier provinces. Onthe other hand, it has been demonstrated recently and conclusively that theaccommodation of the Ostrogoths on Italian territory consisted of the transferof actual land (and not simply of tax revenues) whose portions were drawnfrom the properties of Roman owners (or conscated from former supportersof Odovacer) where Goths settled within the territorial boundaries of urban

Laniado, Recherches sur les notables municipaux, pp. 181–5; Cecconi, La città e l’impero.

Porena, L’insediamento degli Ostrogoti , pp. 39–57; Tabata, Città dell’Italia, pp. 71–95.

Porena, L’insediamento degli Ostrogoti , pp. 107–111.


10/26


centres. This implies once again that Theoderic depended heavily upon theregular functioning of city councils, which (under the supervision of the prae-torian praefectura) determined the success of the whole system that had inte-

grated the Goths within a city-based framework.Nevertheless, the practical approach taken by Theoderic to maintain thecity-based administrative system inherited from the empire relied on a rmideological foundation. Within a strongly centralized system, cities were boththe most expedient and the most effcient mechanism for solidifying the unityof the Ostrogothic kingdom. But for Theoderic, cities also represented the idealcontext in which to engineer confraternity between Romans and Goths. It wasin cities that the newcomers could display their skills in preserving the pres-

tigious traditions of the Roman Empire, thereby demonstrating their masteryof those traditions and legitimizing the place in history they had claimed byinstalling themselves at the heart of the former empire. From this perspec-tive, cities were the stage where the king performed the role of the restorerof the decus (beauty) anddecor (dignity) of civilized life. Cassiodorus’Variae and a number of inscriptions bear witness to the display of the king’s personalmunicence towards urban spaces and also to his sollicitudo (care) that everyurban community should acknowledge its obligation to contribute to the samegoal. A recent and detailed survey of the Variae made by Valérie Fauvinet-Ranson offfers a full picture of the vast range of matters Theoderic dealt withconcerning construction, reconstruction, conservation, appropriate use, andmanagement of buildings, walls, roads, and other kinds of public spaces withincities. What appears particularly remarkable is that Goths were involved inthis task as well as Romans. For instance, between 506 and 511 a letter sent“to all Goths and Romans” required that they collect from their elds all thestones that could be considered useful for the repair of city walls (Variae 1.28).From approximately the same period the Gothic count Suna was ordered to

ascertain the provenance of marble blocks destined for the repair of city walls(Variae 2.7), while another letter required the vir spectabilis Tancila to locate astatue stolen in the city of Como (Variae 2.35).

Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand how and where the Ostrogothssettled within the cities. No reference to this is given in written sources, nordoes archaeological evidence provide useful positive information. The clos-est available data are found in the Formula comitivae Gothorum per singulas

Porena, L’insediamento degli Ostrogoti . See Halsall in this volume for a more detailed dis-

cussion of the debate over the terms of accommodation.

Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, pp. 47–195 and 303–77.



11/26


civitates (“Formula regarding the appointment of the count of the Goths ineach city”, Variae 7.3) and some passages of the so-called Laus Liberii (Variae 2.16), which reports the praise given by Theoderic when, around 510, he cel-

ebrated the great work of the patrician Liberius to ensure the peaceful settle-ment of the Goths following their arrival in Italy. In short, both texts makeevident the fact that Romans and Goths lived side by side in towns. A potentialsource of problems, it was expected that mutual respect and respect for civili-tas would mediate trouble. This attitude, evident in the Laus Liberii , was anessential piece of political ideology that celebrated the force of law and theinterdependence of both peoples. The Variae acknowledge the judicial con-troversies that could arise between Goths and Romans (both with respect to

property rights and various crimes committed between the two peoples) and ineach circumstance, cities were the stage where legal disputes would have beenresolved. It bears emphasizing that the city was the place where the two peoples

would have met and where terms of cohabitation would have been forged.

Programme versus Propaganda in the Cities of Ostrogothic Italy

But what kind of framework would cities actually have provided for the king’splans? Reuse of buildings and materials, displacement of building materialsfrom one place to another, concessions to individuals for the use of buildingsand spaces contrary to their traditional purposes, and the commencementof the restoration of existing buildings: these are topics treated by the Variae concerning the material condition of cities. It is apparent that the emphasisplaced on urban dignity had to do mainly with the preservation and adapta-tion of existing fabric. The preservation and, where necessary, the restorationof the antique dignitas of urban fabric was in fact a key element of the govern-mental ideology disseminated by central authority to its offcials throughoutthe kingdom.

From this point of view, Theoderic acted exactly in the same way the Romanimperial government had done in the previous century. In an interesting essay

written some twenty years ago, Cristina La Rocca asked whether the texts refer-ring to the public works of the Gothic government had been realized in actualprojects, and more precisely, in an actual renewal of Italian cities. She even-tually came to the conclusion that most of what the sources report should be

Porena, L’insediamento degli Ostrogoti , 17–33.

Bjornlie, Politics and Tradition, pp. 227–30 and 240–48.

La Rocca, “Una prudente maschera ‘antiqua’ ”, pp. 451–515.


12/26


interpreted as well-orchestrated propaganda, the aim of which was to showthat the king was in fact capable of acting exactly as his predecessors had inorder to keep cities alive and functioning. Nonetheless, the propaganda should

not be interpreted as an actual campaign of urban revitalization. Rather, theefffort seems oriented toward restoring dignity to the role of cities and theirstructures by repairing the damages inicted to them by time and lack of main-tenance. The intent was to transform into ‘antique’ and ‘venerable’ what hadbecome old and decaying. From this perspective, ‘antique’ became paradoxi-cally synonymous with ‘modern’, since antiquity was a timeless value for whichany sensible government should take care. La Rocca’s reading of Theoderic’surban policy is essentially correct. The ‘Indian summer’ of Theodric’s reign

could not have addressed anything more substantial than a careful selectionof projects that would preserve existing fabric. The limited nancial resourcesavailable for such undertakings simply could not accommodate directingattention to the immense architectural patrimony which virtually every Italiancity had inherited from the height of the empire.

Nevertheless, it would be inaccurate to underestimate the importance of what Theoderic did accomplish in the urban setting. Initiatives to safeguard

urban decor not only characterized the reign of Theoderic, but also continuedafter his death. The Variae keep account of this until the years when Justiniandeclared war against the Ostrogoths. Although certainly inuenced by Romanoffcials, such as Liberius and Cassiodorus, who played prominent roles in thekingdom’s administration, the urban programme under discussion had to beshared by Theoderic in order to account for the prominence that it receivesin the sources. Based on the diversity of projects described, it seems clear thattowns still functioned as the vital organs in a body politic that emulated theclassical urban lifestyle. Hence, the Variae attest measures for the upkeep of

walls, sewers, theatres, baths, statues, and aqueducts. Given the common prac-

tice of reusing derelict urban structures in the period more generally, it shouldcome as little surprise that the Variae describe cases that grant individuals theright to occupy, readapt and even dismantle buildings no longer consideredpracticable for public purposes. In other words, the measured pragmatism andexibility of this urban programme is more interesting than the ideologicalframework upon which it was based. As should be expected, Rome receivedthe most prominent attention. Since the rst years of the 6th century up to theend of Theoderic’s reign, a number of measures were taken to provide fund-

ing for Rome’s maintenance and to keep active a number of offces to providefor that maintenance. However, by the time of the Gothic War, Cassiodorus

Fauvinet-Ranson, Decor civitatis, pp. 227–55.


13/26


(then in charge of the praetorian prefecture) described the limits of the urbanprogramme with a candour scarcely seen elsewhere. Cassiodorus admits thatRome’s vast size and the grandeur of its buildings resembled oversized gar-

ments worn on a body that had become emaciated (Variae 11.39). It had to beadmitted, in his words, that much of the inherited legacy of monuments andedices was no longer necessary to actual city life.

Cassiodorus’ thoughts appear to mark a sharp contrast in comparison toeffforts made toward the upkeep of cities. But upon consideration the contrastis not as contradictory as it may seem. Cassiodorus, coming to terms with real-ity, did not deprive the endeavours undertaken under Theoderic of the valueof their intentions. Urban civilization had to be kept alive despite the problems

posed by contemporary conditions, and propaganda had a real function in thiscontext—not as a mask to conceal reality, but as a statement of principles that would guide offcials in undertaking effforts to reclaim something of the classi-

cal urban culture. Just a small percentage of Italian towns is mentioned in the corpus of off-

cial letters collected in the Variae, and such a representation would preventdenitive conclusions about actual urban conditions. The archaeological evi-dence by itself seems to show that the negative trend of the 5th century hadnot changed. Cassiodorus indicates that the maintenance of Rome was a greatchallenge for the Ostrogothic government. Much of this diffculty resultedfrom the disproportion between the quantity of urban fabric surviving fromthe past, the resources readily available for restoration projects, and the short-age of manpower, which made many urban projects unsustainable in the longterm. It is diffcult to say (but reasonable to suspect) whether these realitiesmight have played a greater role in changing the strategy of Ostrogothic rule,particularly in the 530s after Theoderic’s death, and when the political anddynastic fortunes of the kingdom had been called into question.

But it is also legitimate to consider whether the centrality of towns to Italiansocial life was recognized by the entire population under Ostrogothic rule.Unfortunately, it is not known how and where exactly Goths settled. Cities

were certainly privileged loci for contacts with the Romans, but it is not pos-sible to reconstruct how many Goths preferred urban as opposed to rural life.Gian Pietro Brogiolo has pointed out that some of the prominent late Romanfortresses discovered by archaeologists on the Italian side of the Alps were stillfunctional during the Ostrogothic period. Some of them, such as Monte Barro

(situated north of Milan near the eastern end of the lake of Come), were more


Brogiolo, “Dwellings and Settlement”, pp. 114–17.


14/26


than simply a military stronghold. They hosted buildings that could be used asresidences for the Gothic commander and as housing for the local garrison. Itis diffcult to say whether the Gothic commander lived there permanently or

preferred a nearby town where he might have owned an urban residence. But itis to be expected that he would have spent a good deal of time with his soldiersand servants. Permanent residence is clearly suggested by the archaeologicalevidence, which includes an extensive area protected by a walled enclosure atthe top of the mountain that was suitable for grazing pigs, cows, and horses.Monte Barro, although quite exceptional in its size, is not an isolated case andit raises the question of where the Ostrogothic elite (whose primary task wascommanding the military forces of the kingdom) had established its regular

headquarters. Perhaps, rather than taking part in local city life, they mighthave preferred direct contact with the capital and the king’s court.Romans and especially their elite had traditionally deep ties with city life,

but there has been a debate about the possibility that, despite offcial encour-agement, many of its members at the beginning of the 6th century would havepreferred the countryside and the release from urban habits. Once again, thediscussion has been invigorated by a letter from Cassiodorus (Variae 8.31). Ina letter addressed in 526 or 527 to the governor of Lucania-Bruttium, King

Athalaric reprimanded the curiales and possessores who preferred to dwellin their country estates in disregard of the cities to which they had beenassigned. The city, states Athalaric, is the cradle of civilization, where peoplemeet to peacefully settle disputes and where the traditional intellectual andcultural life was preserved. People who lived in towns were like peaceful birds,

which ocked in order to live harmoniously, whereas those who preferred thecountryside adopted the attitude of predatory birds. The lack of interest in citylife is portrayed as a serious danger to the rest of society as a whole. ClaudeLepelley, who has provided perhaps the best commentary for this text, says

that Cassiodorus’ letter should be read together with an edict issued by theroyal chancery more or less in the same period (Variae 9.2). There the kingcensures the fact that members of city councils were often the targets of abusefrom state offcials, Romans, and Goths. Indeed this situation appears to havecompelled many of them to sell their properties in order to repay the debtsimposed on them by the corrupt practices of the administration of the centralgovernment. According to Athalaric (and Cassiodorus, who wrote the text),

Brogiolo/Gelichi, Nuove ricerche, pp. 22–31.

For an overview on Calabrian cities in Late Antiquity: Raimondo, “Le città dei Bruttii”,

pp. 519–98.

Lepelley, “La survie de l’idée de cité republicaine”, pp. 71–84.


15/26


the disturbance caused by illegal practices against important members of theurban population could endanger the health of the whole body of the state.

As stressed by Lepelley, problems of this kind had been quite common since

at least the 4th century and were the efffect of changes to the organization of thescal levy introduced by Diocletian and Constantine. By the 6th century morethan two centuries had passed since the municipal (and scal) system of theearlier empire had been replaced. The various problems caused by the imple-mentation of the new system in the late 3rd and early 4th century had neverbeen completely resolved. Ostrogothic Italy used essentially the same systemand it is somewhat surprising, at least in view of the encumbrances associated

with this system, that municipal councils could be found functioning at all in

the second quarter of the 6th century. Of course, as Lepelley reminds us, citycouncils were not comprised of people of equal social position and the tasksrequired of them would not have been equally burdensome for each member.Those who could count on inuential ties with the central government, suchas honorati , would inevitably nd ways to manage and even prot from theobligations expected of them.

The structural inequality among the various actors paradoxically helpedthe system to survive and cope with its contradictions. But the price paid wasexactly what Cassiodorus stressed in the two letters mentioned above: citiesgenerally lacked the power to negotiate their relationship with central gov-ernment within a exible and open political, institutional, and scal frame-

work. A tightly hierarchical and centralized state structure imposed conditionsfrom above, making demands mainly to meet the needs of the army andbureaucracy, and room for negotiation was limited to individual interactionsdependent on personal prestige. With reduced local funds and little room forcollective bargaining with the central government, it is unsurprising that elites

would be hard pressed to view cities as attractive environments in which to

spend time and invest effforts and resources. More than anything, these factorsexplain why municipal life declined throughout Late Antiquity, especially inthe West where general economic conditions worsened visibly from the rsthalf of the 5th century. But this was not enough to suppress completely theexistence of cities. Central administration relied upon cities, and efffectivepropaganda was necessary in order to show that, despite what one could seein everyday life, the state went to great lengths to preserve the wellfare andspirit of urban communities. As Cassiodorus recalled, cities incarnated the

very essence of civilized Roman life and to advertise programmes that could

Bjornlie, “Law, ethnicity and taxes”, pp. 150–3.

Dubouloz, “Acception et défense”, pp. 53–74.


16/26


here and there sustain their dignity and role would ameliorate the realities thatItalian cities experienced in the 6th century. As La Rocca has wittily remarked,one could say that “in order to make everything change, everything had to look

as if it was all the same.”This picture implies that, where possible, the Ostrogothic governmentmade (or at least claimed to have made) all possible effforts to keep the decus ofItalian cities alive. Of course the rst place where the efffects of this attention

would have been displayed was the seat of royal power, where the king resided.Four letters of the Variae (1.6, 3.9, 3.10, 5.8) disclose how Theoderic had repeat-edly ordered that marbles, stones, and other building materials should betransported to Ravenna where they would have been reused for the restoration

of existing buildings or the erection of new ones. The opening sentence of let-ter 1.6 claries what Theoderic had in mind. It states that it was the obligationof the prince to contribute “to the enhancement of the State with the embel-lishment of its palaces, obtained through new building endeavors”. In thiscase, the king had ordered the prefect of Rome to send to Ravenna marmorarii

peritissimi , that is to say craftsmen specialized in the handling of marble, who would restore a basilica dedicated to Hercules. On another occasion, the king

asks that columns and other precious stonework should be sent to the capitalfrom other Italian cities (including Rome) because he had become aware oftheir disuse. To avoid misunderstandings, he stated that to raise new buildings

was as important as preserving old ones, for which reason modern construc-tion should not be made through the mutilation of those already in existence(Variae 3.9). But this stipulation could be circumvented if buildings had fallenirrecoverably into ruin and their materials abandoned to evoke nothing butsorrow and nostalgia for past grandeur. In such a case, it was appropriate forthe king to make all possible effforts so that “forgotten beauty” could be appre-ciated again as ancient splendour. The rhetoric of these letters conceals the

pursuit of a very practical purpose and, at the same time, reveals that there was a clear awareness of the long-term decay to which many cities had been

subjected.The upkeep of the historical heritage represented a considerable challenge.

Everything around Italian cities spoke of the “past splendor” of the Empire’szenith when Italy had enjoyed a privileged scal regime that had allowedlocal communities and their most affuent members to invest resources in the“great beauty” of their cities. However, the monumentality of the past eventu-

ally became an unsustainable burden. Local councils of the 6th century had

La Rocca, “Una prudente maschera ‘Antiqua’ ”, p. 466.

Dubouloz, “Acception et défense”, pp. 53–74.


17/26


little or nothing to invest and their notables had little incentive to contributetheir own resources. The state could not lavish support on every city in needof repairs and choices had to be made about which projects to privilege. In a

letter written possibly between 523 and 526 (Variae 5.9) Theoderic ordered the possessores of Feltre (modern northern Veneto) to render their contributionto the construction of a new city in the nearby area of Trento by building aportion of the new city’s walls with the use of the king’s own treasury (domusdivina). It is interesting that the request does not address the city council ofFeltre, but the wealthier members of the local community. It is equally remark-able that the central government apparently could not affford the cost of the

whole operation and opted to distribute the expense among people who, in

addition to their ‘civic’ obligations, were considered capable of lending moneyand manpower. Unfortunately, it is not possible to locate the settlement thatcorresponds to the new ‘city’ and so it is not possible to speculate on the actualnature and size of the new foundation. Nonetheless, this case illustrates howcities constituted a crucial part of the political ideology of the kingdom, whiletheir promotion depended on a more complex range of factors than a mereassertion of ideological principles.

On the other hand, the evidence also makes it clear that effforts were espe-cially made in favour of those cities such as Rome and Ravenna, whose repu-tation was directly linked to the king’s name. Although it is diffcult to assessthe efffectiveness of the attention dedicated to Rome and its proportionalityto the needs of the urban populace, Ravenna was an easier environment tomanage. It was far smaller and had enjoyed the privilege of being a capitalof the (now declining) western empire for more than a century. Ravenna hadtherefore been the consistent concern of emperors and their offcials, albeit

The quote given by the 7th century anonymous author of the Cosmographia (the so-called Anonymus Ravennate) regarding the existence of a city named Theodericopolis, presum-

ably located in the Alpine region of Raetia, remains a mystery, since it is never mentioned

by sources contemporary with Theoderic. However, it is possible that if such a city ever

existed it might have been some kind of military outpost towards the northern frontier of

the Gothic kingdom, something similar in size (but not necessarily in terms of monumen-

tal grandiosity) to the city of Iustiniana Prima founded by Justinian in southern Serbia,

near to his birthplace. The possible foundation of a new city baptized in the name of theking shows once again Theoderic’s interest in portraying himself as a typical Roman ruler,

capable of spreading civilization through the dissemination of new urban settlements.

See Saitta, La civilitas di Teodorico, p. 117; see also Arce, “La fundación de nuevas ciudades”,

pp. 31–62.


18/26


excepting the second half of the 5th century. In Ravenna it would have beenmuch easier for the king to transform propaganda into reality and to presentthe city as a mirror to his own prestige.

Some years ago Ian Wood remarked that “there is next to nothing that canbe identied as being specically Gothic in the architecture and architecturaldecoration of Theoderic’s Ravenna”. The single reasonable exception is thedecorative frieze that runs around the top of the mausoleum, the ornamentof which can unquestionably be paralleled to Germanic metalwork. Fromthis point of view, it would seem that the scanty evidence still legible fromTheoderic’s building activity in Ravenna describes a mimesis with both hispredecessors on the western imperial throne and with his contemporaries

holding power in Constantinople. The complex of the Arian cathedral and itsbaptistery must have looked very similar to that of the Orthodox community,both in terms of its architecture and its iconography. Even more interesting is

what can be said about the original iconography of the palace church dedi-cated to Jesus Christ (dedicated to Saint Martin after the fall of the Ostrogothsand then renamed Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in the early Middle Ages). The build-ing suggests a careful imitation of previous examples of imperial patronagefound in Ravenna (mainly the churches of the Holy Cross and of San GiovanniEvangelista built by Galla Placidia and her son Valentinian ), with emphasison the relationship between the ruler and the celestial powers and on the ruler’srole as acting intermediary between heaven and earth. The use of sculptedmaterials ordered from Constantinople for its decoration testies to the blend-ing of old imperial western iconography with a studied interest in the archi-tectural tastes displayed in what was the contemporary solium imperii. Withthis in mind, it should be remembered that the construction of the church ofSan Vitale (and likewise the famous mosaic panels portraying Justinian andTheodora), typically associated with the decades after the Byzantine recovery

of Italy, in fact commenced under bishops Ecclesius and Victor between thethird and the fourth decade of the 6th century.

In other words, it can be assumed without fear of straying too far from real-ity that Ravenna served not as the capital of ‘barbarians’, but rather the site

where an Ostrogothic king had been able to attain the supreme power, dignity,and splendour that had once belonged to Roman emperors. Whether or not

Gelichi, “Ravenna, ascesa e declino”, pp. 109–34; Augenti, Palatia; Cirelli, Ravenna, pp.51–140; David, La basilica di Santa Croce.

Wood, “Theoderic’s Monuments”, p. 250.

Wood, “Theoderic’s Monuments”, pp. 255–60.

Cirelli, Ravenna, pp. 98–100.


19/26


this belief was entirely shared by Theoderic’s Roman contemporaries (par-ticularly the Roman inhabitants of Ravenna) cannot be said with certainty.Nevertheless, the king made every possible efffort to impress them with a dis-

play of power that was infused with his personality, but which also communi-cated seamless continuity with the imperial past.

The Invisible Guest: Church and City in Ostrogothic Italy

Theoderic’s building programme in Ravenna indicates a distinct interest inchurch building. Nonetheless, one of the most striking features of the Variae

is the absence of reference to the king’s activities on behalf of church main-tenance or building. This omission has been explained by noting the king’scautious attitude towards religious matters. Given that he and his people were

Arian Christians, it may be that he did not wish to (or could not) act as Romanemperors had done by favouring the Nicene church. In fact all churchesin Ravenna bearing some direct relationship with him pertain either to thepalatial compound or to the place prepared for his burial. The Arian cathedralmust have been supported by and associated with the king, but there is noclear evidence for his patronage of building activities concerning the erectionof other Arian churches in Ravenna or elsewhere. On the one hand, as ThomasBrown noted, one can also detect a clear abatement in the construction of newNicene churches at Ravenna during Theoderic’s reign. On the other, thereis no indication that an anti-Nicene policy had caused any hindrance to theconstruction of new churches. Renewed interest in church building at Romeduring this period is indicated by the erection of the two churches of S StefanoRotondo (in the second half of the 5th century) and Cosmas e Damian(under pope Felix in the late 520s).

It then seems that bishops and churchmen could maintain the prominentspiritual, political, and economic position gained during the 4th and 5th cen-turies, thus representing one of the major players within contemporary Italiansociety. At the dawn of the 6th century a bishop could be found in almostevery Italian city. The Italian diocesan network had become well developed

Bjornlie, Politics, pp. 248–49.

Azzara, Teoderico, pp. 67–73. However, see Lizzi Testa, Chapter 16, in this volume for analternative interpretation of Theoderic’s relationship with the Nicene churches.

Brown, “Role of Arianism”, pp. 423–42.

Pietri, “Aristocrazie e clero”, pp. 287–310.

Otranto, “Civitates propriis”, pp. 33–43.


20/26


between the late 4th and the rst half of the 5th century. Giorgio Otrantohas calculated that by 450 some 250 episcopal bishoprics were active, with aremarkable disproportion between the Italia Suburbicaria (central—southern

Italy), which contained about 75 per cent of Italian bishoprics, and the Italia Annonaria (the Po Valley and the Alpine region). It is well known that theItalian peninsula had been more densely urbanized from earliest antiquity,

with Greek and Phoenician colonies and the rise of Etruscan urban centrespre-dating the rise of Rome and its municipia. By contrast, nearly all townsof northern Italy had been created by the Romans from the 2nd century

with Rome’s expansion beyond the Apennines. Since most late antique dio-ceses in Italy are attested only incidentally in the sources, it is impossible to say

whether Otranto’s estimation can be considered representative of steady dioc-esan development or whether these bishoprics were only intermittently active.The signatures of bishops from the three synods at Rome between 499

and 502, although presumably not representing the entire body of the ItalianNicene church, provide a good indication for the territorial distribution ofepiscopal sees. With some exceptions, the signatures name bishops comingfrom central and southern Italy, which vary between 65 and 76 bishops foreach meeting. Not every bishopric is attested consistently, although it is pos-sible to enumerate a total of 120 attested bishoprics. The survey of sources dat-ing between Theoderic’s conquest and the end of the Gothic Wars made byTabata increases this gure to 171 bishoprics.

The difffusion of bishoprics in late antique Italy clearly demonstrates thatcities had not lost their central function as administrative centres. Comparingthis picture with evidence for problems faced by cities in this period revealsthe transformation process experienced by the Italian urban network fromanother perspective. It is quite apparent that every episcopal see (even thesmaller ones) was an entity dependent on a rm economic foundation. Money

was required to support the bishop and clergy, for the maintenance of churchesand other functional buildings, and for the management of all the charitableactivities in the urban setting. This distribution of church resources to fourtypes of expenditure—bishop, clergy, buildings, and charity—the so-calledquadripartitus, is commonly attributed to Gelasius , whose episcopacy atRome (492–96) corresponded with the early years of Theoderic’s reign. In ear-lier years there had been much contention (mainly in Rome) about whether

Lizzi Testa, Chapter 17 in this volume, presents an extensive discussion of the diocesean

networks in Ostrogothic Italy.

Otranto, Per una storia dell’Italia tardoantica Cristiana, pp. 93–6.



21/26


individual benefactors should have any residual rights over how propertiesthey had donated to the church should be used by bishops and other church-men. Regulations issued by Gelasius have been considered a response to

donors’ ability to interfere with church administration through the arrogationinto the bishop’s hands of the ultimate power to decide, by a clear set of rules,how to use available resources. The protracted and violent conicts betweenGelasius’ successor Symmachus and his opponent Lawrence were caused bythe wish of a powerful faction within the Senate of Rome to reverse Gelasius’policy and to establish at Rome a bishop who would prove more receptive tothe inuence of Roman aristocrats over the administration of the sizeablepatrimony that the see of Rome had accumulated over nearly two centuries

since Constantine began favouring Christianity. Struggles between the sup-porters of the two candidates, and the attendant disruption caused in Rome,occasioned the only instance in which Theoderic intervened in afffairs of theNicene church. Theoderic mediated between the two factions, attempting toameliorate heated passions, although it is interesting that at some stage hesided with the Laurentian faction, which claimed Symmachus had squanderedepiscopal nances. Symmachus apparently favoured the ‘Gelasian’ method foradministrating church patrimonies. The schism indicates that the matter ofchurch nances could not be left entirely in the bishop’s hands and that thoselike the members of the Roman aristocracy who had acted as benefactors tothe church, should not have been deprived of an active role in the manage-ment of their donations. The church was clearly the focus of political conten-tion because of its nances, and at Rome the conict was particularly heatedbecause it was the wealthiest of the Italian bishoprics.

However, a provincial Italian city like Canosa (Canusium, the main centre oflate antique Apulia), reveals more or less the same picture. In the later yearsof Ostrogothic rule its bishop Sabinus (perhaps since 514, but certainly from

531 to 552) acted not only as the most prominent local political gure, but alsoas the most dynamic patron of city decor and invested conspicuous amountsof money in the renewal of Canosa’s urban landscape. Of course he inter-preted his role from a particularly Christian perspective and, as demonstratedby recent archaeological investigation, his effforts focused on the constructionof new churches and a number of non-ritual buildings directly connected with

Cessi, “Lo scisma laurenziano”, pp. 1–229; Pietri, “Le Sénat, le peuple chrétien”, pp. 122–40;

Pietri, “Aristocratie et société cléricale”, pp. 417–67; Marazzi, I “Patrimonia” , pp. 47–78.

Volpe, “Architecture”, pp. 131–68; Volpe, “Venerabilis vir restaurator ”, pp. 23–52.


22/26


them. Nevertheless, it is impressive how quickly he brought to completion the works he had planned, including an extremely elaborate construction, the tet-

raconch church of San Leucio—the architecture of which nds parallels in

a number of similar buildings in the eastern Mediterranean (between Syria,Greece, and Macedonia) and is comparable to the Milanese church of SaintLawrence built at the end of the 4th century under imperial patronage.

Although gifted with a charismatic personality that may have helped him gain widespread support for his endeavours, it should be remembered that Sabinus was still the bishop of a middling town of southern Italy, something that makes

his achievements even more remarkable.Evidence for building programmes undertaken by local churches indicates

that despite a prolonged process of economic transformation a good deal ofresources remained that could be invested in urban environment. Of coursethese resources now rested in hands quite diffferent in social and cultural termsfrom those that had contributed to the classical foundation of many Italian cit-ies. Much had changed by the 6th century and the stage was now occupied byactors whose inuence on the urban scene depended on power derived fromsources outside the traditional dynamics of municipal institutions.

The so-called ‘Indian summer’ of Theoderic’s reign lasted too short (thespan of barely two generations) to allow the full fruition of some aspects ofurban development outlined in these pages. It is impossible to say whetherin the long term Gothic aristocrats would have played a more active role inurban life and whether they would have conformed to late Roman customsin the patronage of urban buildings, spaces, and churches. As previously men-tioned, there is little evidence for their interaction with cities and this couldcontribute to notions that they might not have been deeply interested in urbanactivities. However, it is clear that the central government actively urged localcommunities to maintain and improve cities. Much of what can be read, for

example, in Cassiodorus’ letters can be interpreted as propaganda when com-pared with the archaeological record of many Italian cities at the dawn ofthe 6th century. Then again, it is diffcult to say what the results would havebeen had the Ostrogoths had more time to consolidate their position beforethe showdown with the eastern empire. What is true is that when Justinianordered that public buildings of Rome should be repaired and maintained in554 with his Pragmatic Sanction (section 25) he referred to damage done not by

Giuliani, “Modicazioni dei quadri urbani”, pp. 129–66; Giuliani/Leone/Volpe, “L’area

sacra di San Giovanni”, pp. 731–42.

Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals, pp. 129–48; D’Alessio/Gallocchio/Manganelli/

Pensabene, “La basilica di San Leucio”, pp. 677–85.


23/26


the neglect of the Goths, but by the consequences of the war he had unleashedover Italy. Whatever the results of the attention given to cities in Italy byTheoederic and his successors, they had surely been obliterated by an incarna-

tion of the same empire whose traditions and example the king had held sohigh during his reign.

Bibliography

Secondary Literature

Arce, J., “La fundación de nuevas ciudades en el Imperio romano tardío: de Diocleciano

a Justiniano (s. –)”, in G. Ripoll/J.M. Gurt (eds.), Sedes regiae (ann. 400–800),Barcelona 2000, pp. 31–62.

Augenti, A. (ed.), Palatia. Palazzi imperiali tra Ravenna e Bisanzio, Ferrara 2002.

Azzara, C., Teoderico. Storia e mito di un re barbaro, Bologna 2013.

Baldini Lippolis, I., L’architettura residenziale nelle città tardoantiche, Roma 2005.

Baratte, J.F., Tunisia e Libia. L’Africa settentrionale in epoca romana, Milano 2014 (origi-

nally published in German as Die Römer in Tunisia und Lybia. Nordafrika in

Römischer Zeit , Mainz 2012).

Bjornlie, S., Politics and Tradition between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople. A Study

of Cassiodorus and the Variae, 527–554, Cambridge 2012.

———, “Law, Ethnicity and Taxes in Ostrogothic Italy: A Case for Continuity,

Adaptation and Departure”, Early Medieval Europe 22.2 (2014), 138–69.

Brogiolo, G.P./Gelichi, S., Nuove ricerche sui castelli altomedievali in Italia settentrionale,

Firenze 1996.

Brogiolo, G.P./Possenti, E., “L’età gota in Italia settentrionale, nella transizione tra tarda

antichità e alto medioevo”, in P. Delogu (ed.), Le invasioni barbariche nel meridione

dell’impero: Visigoti, Vandali, Ostrogoti , Soveria Mannelli 2001, pp. 257–96.

Brogiolo, G.P., “Dwellings and Settlement in Gothic Italy”, in S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi

(eds.),The Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century. An Ethnographic

Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 113–42.

———, Le origini della città medievale, Mantova 2011.

Brown, T.S., “The Role of Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy: The Evidence from Ravenna”, in

S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.), The Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the

Sixth Century. An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 423–42.

Cecconi, G.A., “Honorati, possessores, curiales: competenze istituzionali e gerarchie di

rango nell’età tardoantica”, in R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), Le trasformazioni delle élites nell’etàtardoantica, Rome 2006, pp. 41–64.

Coates-Stephens, “La committenza edilizia bizantina”, pp. 299–316.


24/26


———, La città e l’impero. Una storia del mondo romano dalle origini a Teodosio il

Grande, Rome 2009.

Cessi, R., “Lo scisma laurenziano e le origini della dottrina politica della Chiesa di

Roma”, Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 42 (1919), 1–229.Cirelli, E., Ravenna. Archeologia di una città, Firenze 2008.

Coates-Stephens, R., “La committenza edilizia bizantina a Roma dopo la riconquista”,

in A. Augenti (ed.), Le città italiane tra la tarda antichità e l’alto medioevo, Firenze

2006, pp. 299–316.

D’Alessio, A./Gallocchio, E./Manganelli, L./Pensabene, P., “La basilica di San Leucio a

Canosa di Puglia. Fasi edilizie, apparati musivi, necropolis”, in A. Coscarella/P. De

Santis (eds.), Martiri, santi, patroni. Per un’archeologia della devozione. Atti

Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Cristiana, Cosenza 2012, pp. 677–85.David, M. (ed.), La basilica di Santa Croce. Nuovi contributi per Ravenna tardoantica,

Ravenna 2013.

Dubouloz, J., “Acception et défense des loca publica, d’après les Variae de Cassiodore.

Un point de vue juridique sur les cités d’Italie au siècle”, in M. Ghilardi/C.J.

Goddard/P. Porena (eds.), Les cités de l’Italie tardo-antique ( – siècle).

Institutions, économie, société, culture et religion, Rome/Paris 2006, pp. 53–74.

Fauvinet-Ranson, V., Decor civitatis, decor Italiae. Monuments, travaux publics et spec-

tacles au siècle d’après les Variae de Cassiodore, Bari 2006.

Gelichi, S., “Ravenna, ascesa e declino di una capital”, in G. Ripoll/J.M. Gurt (eds.), Sedes

regiae (ann. 400–800), Barcelona 2000, pp. 109–34.

Giuliani, R., “Modicazioni dei quadri urbani e formazione di nuovi modelli di edilizia

abitativa nelle città dell’Apulia tardoantica. Il contributo delle tecniche costruttive”,

in G. Volpe/R. Giuliani (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti urbani in Italia Meridionale fra

tardoantico e altomedioevo, Bari 2010, pp. 129–66.

Giuliani, R./Leone, D./Volpe, G., “L’area sacra di San Giovanni a Canosa di Puglia dalla

tarda antichità al medioevo”, in A. Coscarella/P. De Santis (eds.), Martiri, santi,

patroni. Per un’archeologia della devozione. Atti X Congresso Nazionale di ArcheologiaCristiana, Cosenza 2012, pp. 731–42.

Hejimans, M., “La place des monuments publics du Haut-Empire dans les villes de la

Gaule méridionale Durant l’Antiquité Tardive (- siècles)”, Gallia 63 (2006),

25–41.

Janvier, Y., La legislation du Bas-Empire Romain sur les edices publics, Aix-en-Provence

1969.

Krautheimer, R., Tre capitali cristiane. Topograa e politica, Torino 1987 (originally pub-

lished in English as Three Christian Capitals. Topography and Politics, Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London 1983).

La Rocca, C., “Una prudente maschera ‘antiqua’. La politica edilizia di Teoderico”, in

Teoderico il Grande e i Goti d’Italia, Spoleto 1993, pp. 451–515.


25/26


Laniado, A., Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans l’Empire protobyzantin,

Paris 2002.

Lepelley, C., “La survie de l’idée de cité republicaine en Italie au début du siècle,

dans un édit d’Athalaric rédigé par Cassiodore (Variae, X, 2)”, in C. Lepelley (ed.), La n de la cité antique et le début de la cité médiévale. De la n du siècle à

l’avenement de Charlemagne, Bari 1996, pp. 71–84.

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford 2001.

Marano, Y.A., “Domus in qua manebat episcopus: Episcopal Residences in Northern

Italy during Late Antiquity (4th to 6th centuries )”, in L. Lavan/L. Özgenel/

A. Sarantis (eds.), Housing in Late Antiquity. From Palaces to Shops, Leiden 2007,

pp. 97–130.

Marazzi, F., I “Patrimonia Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae” nel Lazio (secoli –). Strutturaamministrativa e prassi gestionali , Rome 1998.

———, “Cadavera urbium, nuove capitali e Roma Aeterna: l’identità urbana in Italia

fra crisi, rinascita e propaganda (secoli –)”, in J.U. Krause/C. Witschel (eds.), Die

Stadt in der Spätantike: Niedergang oder Wandel? , Stuttgart 2006, pp. 33–66.

Otranto, G., Per una storia dell’Italia tardoantica cristiana, Bari 2009.

———, “Civitates propriis destitutae rectoribus: città, giurisdizione e territorio dioce-

sano nel secolo”, in G. Volpe/R. Giuliani (eds.), Paesaggi e insediamenti urbani in

Italia Meridionale fra tardoantico e altomedioevo, Bari 2010, pp. 33–43.

Pietri, C., “Le Sénat, le peuple chrétien et les partis du cirque à Rome sous le pape

Symmaque (498–514)”, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 78 (1966), 122–40.

———, “Aristocratie et société cléricale dans l’Italie chrétienne au temps d’Odoacre

et de Théodoric”, Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Antiquité 93.1 (1981),

417–67.

———, “Aristocrazia e clero al tempo di Odoacre e di Teoderico”, in A. Carile (ed.),

Storia di Ravenna, vol. 2.1: Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana. Territorio, economia e

società, Venezia 1991, pp. 287–310.

Porena, P., L’insediamento degli Ostrogoti in Italia, Roma 2012.

Raimondo, C., “Le città dei Bruttii fra tarda Antichità e Altomedioevo: nuove osser-

vazioni sulla base delle fonti archeologiche”, in A. Augenti (ed.), Le città italiane tra

la tarda antichità e l’alto medioevo, Firenze 2006, pp. 519–98.

Saitta, B., La civilitas di Teodorico. Rigore amministrativo, “tolleranza” religiosa e recu-

pero dell’antico nell’Italia ostrogota, Rome 1993.

Tabata, K., Città dell’Italia nel secolo d.C., Rome 2013.

Tate, G., Giustiniano. Il tentativo di rifondazione dell’Impero, Rome 2006 (originally pub-

lished in French as Justinien. L’épopée de l’Empire d’Orient [527–565], Paris 2004). Volpe, G., “Architecture and Church Power in Late Antiquity: Canosa and San Giusto

(Apulia)”, in L. Lavan/L. Özgenel/A. Sarantis (eds.), Housing in Late Antiquity.

From Palaces to Shops, Leiden 2007, pp. 131–68.


26/26

———, “Venerabilis vir restaurator ecclesiarum”, in L. Bertoldi Lenoci (ed.), Canosa.

Ricerche storiche 2007, Martina Franca 2008, pp. 23–52.

Ward-Perkins, B., The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford 2005.

Wood, I., Theoderic’s Monuments in Ravenna, in S.J.B. Barnish/F. Marazzi (eds.),The Ostrogoths, from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century. An Ethnographic

Perspective, Woodbridge 2007, pp. 249–78.

ostrogothic cities

Documents