Italy and the East Roman World in the Medieval Mediterranean

Empire, Cities and Elites, 476-1204

Thomas J. MacMaster, Nicholas S.M. Matheou, Thomas J. MacMaster, Nicholas S.M. Matheou

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9781138091313
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351609036
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia mondiale

Italy and the East Roman World in the Medieval Mediterranean addresses the understudied topic of the Italian peninsula's relationship to the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East, across the early and central Middle Ages.

The East Roman world, commonly known by the ahistorical term "Byzantium", is generally imagined as an Eastern Mediterranean empire, with Italy part of the medieval "West". Across 18 individually authored chapters, an introduction and conclusion, this volume makes a different case: for an East Roman world of which Italy forms a crucial part, and an Italian peninsula which is inextricably connected to—and, indeed, includes—regions ruled from Constantinople. Celebrating a scholar whose work has led this field over several decades, Thomas S. Brown, the chapters focus on the general themes of empire, cities and elites, and explore these from the angles of sources and historiography, archaeology, social, political and economic history, and more besides. With contributions from established and early career scholars, elucidating particular issues of scholarship as well as general historical developments, the volume provides both immediate contributions and opens space for a new generation of readers and scholars to a growing field.

Part I
Sources and historiography

1 Cassiodorus and the reluctant provinciales of Dalmatia

In presenting both the efficiency of Gothic rulership and the usefulness of bureaucrats for conducting internal and external relationships, Cassiodorus—one of the most important figures of Gothic administration in sixth-century Italy—introduces in his Variae the political problem of dealing with the various peripheries of the Gothic kingdom. He shows how aware he was of the different characteristics and attitudes of local identities and élites, and of the different rhetorical discourses that were suitable to include them in the management and the administration of the kingdom as a whole entity. At the same time, in addressing the official correspondence from Ravenna, the centre of the kingdom, to functionaries and military officials settled in those peripheries, Cassiodorus is showing us both the main points of Gothic “correction” to local behaviours and the multiple definitions of the resistance to Gothic rule. Those peripheries were variable during time, including territories beyond Italy that were military conquered or annexed, particularly during the reign of Theodoric (493–526): to the west, a portion of Southern Gallia and the Visigothic kingdom; to the north, Raetia and Noricum, and, to the east, the Illyrian provinces of Pannonia, Savia and Dalmatia, from 508 including the city of Sirmio and therefore the control of Pannonia Sirmiensis. The acquisition of these territories was crucial in defining Theodoric’s status as the most successful barbarian king in the West, and in legitimating Gothic power in the former territory of the Western Roman empire, but, at the same time, it was an ephemeral one that revealed the fragility of Gothic domination in these areas: after Theodoric death in 526 and the beginning of Justinian’s campaigns in 537, all those territories were finally lost, leaving Gothic identity connected to Italy only. In transforming the official correspondence of the Gothic kings in his Variae around 540, Cassiodorus was therefore showing how difficult and how compelling it was for Gothic administration to deal with these different territories and how crucial bureaucracy was in organising and in settling local disorder and disputes, performing its patrimony of rhetorical abilities and administrative solutions.

This chapter will discuss the relevance and the characteristics of Dalmatia and its natural resources and élite in Cassiodorus Variae, showing how to dominate Dalmatia and a substantial part of the Illyricum was, at the beginning of the sixth century, a very important practical and symbolic issue that allowed—even for a short time—the definition of the Gothic rulers’ special identity not only as military leaders but especially as keepers of justice and laws through its administrative officers. In the Variae the territory of Dalmatia was represented as a very problematic and slippery one, a land where the provinciales need protection, patronage and control. Detecting Dalmatia’s identity in Cassiodorus’ Variae seems particularly significant, for both the discussed intrinsic characteristics of this crucial sixth-century source and its significance for political communication and languages.¹

The growing interest in the history of Dalmatia from both early medieval historians and archaeologists has substantially improved our knowledge of this crucial territory of the Late Roman Empire. The material and written evidence point out the special development of this region as a frontier between East and West, a land rich in natural resources and as a place where local lay and ecclesiastical élite were able to experiment the strength of their political support for military leaders and also for the independence of their local ecclesiastical institutions.² The jurisdictional and fiscal possession of Dalmatia, especially its coastal part, was a controversial issue: as Jonathan Arnold has recently pointed out, from at least the fifth century this province was contended between the Eastern part of the Roman Empire and the various barbarian leaders in the West, giving birth to an anomalous situation, where political and administrative control was de facto assigned to Ravenna, and so was included in the prefecture of Italy, although formally under East Roman sovereignty.³ The date of late Roman inscriptions in Dalmatia, combining the indictio and the consuls’ names in the West seems good evidence for the fact that Dalmatia considered itself being a part of the Western Empire.⁴

The control of Dalmatia was crucial for various reasons. First Dalmatia was an important military base for gaining both military and political control: disputed as it was between the two parts of the Empire, from the fifth century it became a territory where military leaders managed to shape their own careers and to organise the base for military support, as in the case of the magister militum Dalmatiae, subsequently emperor, Julius Nepos (454–481). The control over this province was therefore considered crucial to dominate the military and royal leadership in the West, as is shown by the continuous effort from the kings in Italy to include its territory under their rule: from Odovacer in 475, followed by Theodoric at the beginning of the sixth century until 535, when Justinian reconquered it to the Eastern Empire. The progress of Theodoric’s power between the years 504–507 included in fact one of the few military campaigns promoted by the Gothic ruler and, although this war was conducted without any particular effort, it allowed Theodoric to increase the territory under his rulership in this area. The Illyricum campaign in fact allowed Theodoric to present himself as the protagonist of the most important reconstruction of the territory of the Western empire in the sixth century. In this perspective the control of the Illyricum, followed—after the battle of Vouillé (507)—by the control of Provence, were important tools to display the extent of Theodoric power in the West and to compete against the most powerful and rival barbarian king, Theodoric’s brother in law, Clovis king of the Franks.

It is therefore interesting to show how Cassiodorus’ Variae deals with these peripheries of Theodoric’s kingdom, defining their own special character and shaping different attitudes and treatments of its dwellers. As an addition, I would also like to offer to Tom—who has dedicated so many illuminating pages to the theme of Gothic rule in Italy and to the cosmopolitan identity of their capital Ravenna—a little contribution on the particular identity of foreigners in Dalmatia and the didactic and institutional role Ravenna, as the capital of the kingdom, maintained to have towards them.

Both the institutional organisation and the territorial boundaries of Dalmatia in this period have been under scholarly scrutiny: under Gothic rule the province was part of the prefecture of Italy (together with Savia and Noricum Mediterraneum). In the Variae until 525/6 the province seems distinct from Savia, although under the government of one comes, under whom two civil administrators were acting separately: Epifanius in Dalmatia and Severinus in Savia (both 507/511). After Theodoric’s death, in 526, Severinus was appointed to Dalmatia, with Count Osuin, suggesting a unification of the two provinces.⁵

As Stéphane Gioanni has recently stressed, the historical in-between position of Dalmatia was the base for the creation of a certain independence of local élites and local clergy, who were profiting of the distance from Ravenna, also at the level of episcopal power, to claim the power of electing their own representatives.⁶ As later revealed by the correspondence of Gregory the Great at the end of the sixth century, local clergy in Dalmatia was trying to avoid the supervision of the church of Rome, as is shown by the conflict between Sabinianus, the bishop of Zadar, and Maximus the bishop of Salona in 597 and 598.⁷

The identity of Dalmatia was certainly connected to the military, to soldiers’ capability to defend the surrounding territory, but also to its natural resources: Dalmatia was a rich land and its mineral resources of iron, gold and silver were well known since Marcus Aurelius’ times, and their extraction and use was carefully organised by the Roman State:⁸ in 507/508 Count Osuin was addressed by Theodoric in a letter where he is admonished to give weapons to the Salonitani milites so they could learn how to use them so “they could learn during peace, what they can perform in war”.⁹ This theme is frequent in Theodoric’s letters on fortifications,¹⁰ and the final section of this letter compares soldiers to young calves learning the art of fighting, and is perfectly coherent to the theme of the exercise of learning that must be done since the time of youth in order to become adults.¹¹ Notably the subject is used by Cassiodorus with increasing frequency after Theodoric’s death and the accession to power of young Athalaric in 526.

Dalmatia is also presented at the centre of disorder and disobedience to Roman rule, and conversely as an exemplary region where every effort is made to perform Theodoric’s right domination and his will of maintaining order in the name of the Roman law: Ianuarius, the bishop of Salona, was insistently asked by Theodoric to fulfil a debt he had with John who provided him with sixty large jars of oil but was not yet paid;¹² Epiphanius vir spectabilis is charged to arrange the petition of a widow for her goods to be settled;¹³ in Savia, Fridibadus, probably a comes, was in charge in 507/511 for controlling the theft of animals, homicides, thieves and abuses that were oppressing the provincials, the curiales and the army;¹⁴ in 526 the count Severinus was sent to Savia to investigate a case of tax evasion and to severely judge all those responsible. On this occasion a detailed list of the various ways this could be performed is presented, picturing the territory as an area of relatively unsubordinated behaviour towards...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of contributors
• Preface and acknowledgments
• Introduction: Italy and the East Roman world, 476–1204
• Part I: Sources and historiography
• Part II: The Exarchate of Ravenna
• Part III: Ravenna after the exarchate
• Part IV: Empire and elites
• Part V: Elites and cities
• The study of empire and cities in the early medieval Mediterranean: Personal reflections and conclusions
• Tom Brown Bibliography
• Index