THEODORIC
576
THEODORIC
recipient of a Latin translation of the "Planisphere"
of Ptolemy made by Herman the Dalmatian. In
philosophy he adopted the Platonic explanation of
reahty and the ultra-realistic theory of universals.
He was influenced also by neo-Pythagorean principles.
Nevertheless, he did not, as was formerly contended,
go the length of professing explicit pantheism ; he did
not identify Divinity with reality. He did, indeed,
maintain that Divinity is a form of essence (forma
essendi) in all things; but, as Baumker has shown
(Archiv f. Gesch. der Phil., X, 138) we are to under-
stand this phrase in a theistic sense. For, while it
necessarily implies the existence of a Divine some-
thing in all things, it does not imply the identity
of the essence of God with the individual essences
of things. In his exposition of the first chapters of
Genesis (De Sex Dierum Operibus) he attempts
to reconcile the Mosaic account of creation with
the Platonic exjilanation of the origin of the
universe.
Clerval, Les fcoles de Chartres {Paris, 1895), 169 sqq.; de WuLF, Hist, of Medieval Phil., tr. Coffey (New Vork, 1909), 182 sqq.: Baumker in Archii< f. Gesch. der Phil.. X: Turner. Hist, of Philosophy (Boston, 1903), 294.
William Turner.
Theodoric the Great, King of the Ostrogoths, b. A. D. 454 (?); d. 26 Aug., 526. He was an illegitimati- son of Theodomir, of the royal Ostrogothic family I'f Amali. When eight years old Theodoric was brought as a hostage to the Court of Constantinople. Here lie learned to comprehend the education given by ancient civilization. At eighteen he was allowed to retmn home and became the leader of a great horde of his countrymen, whose increasing numbers drove them to seek now lands. As King of the Ostrogoths he was sometimes an ally, .sometimes an enemy, of the em- perors. The inconsistencies of his policy may prob- ably be explained by his having as rival another Theodoric, called Strabo (squint-eyed), who was able to influence the Court of Constantinople against him. When Strabo died in 481, Theodoric the Great re- ceived from the Emperor Zeno the titles of patricius and magister mililum, and in 484 was appointed consul.
Theodoric was now compelled to set out with his own people to conquer new territory. The course to be pursued was suggested by the Emperor Zeno. The Ostrogoths were to expel the usurper Odoacer, and thus the emperor thought to be rid of dangerous neighbours. In 488 Theodoric started on the march with his own peoi)le and a large number of Rugians. In 489 he defeated Odoacer on the Nonsa, later at Verona, and in 490 on the Adige. He then besieged him in Ravenna and forced him to surrender in 493. Theodoric promised Odoacer both life and freedom, but murdered him at a banquet fearing perhaps that he might revolt again.
Theodoric's mastery of Italy being thus established, he at once showed his appreciation of the ancient cul- ture and political organization of the Empire, claim- ing to be its vicegerent and restorer in Western Europe. His efforts in this capacity were faithfully seconded by his minister Cassiodorus. Proud of his Gothic nationality, Theodoric, unlike the earlier barbarian emperors, believed it possible to reconcile Roman and Germanic interests. His peo- ple seemed to him equal to the Romans in antiquity of descent and military renown, and he realized that his power rested solely on Gothic prowess. Appar- ently his kingdom was a continuation of the Roman Empire; in reality his policy was in direct and funda- mental contradiction to the Roman conception, by which all national individuality was to be lost in the State as a whole. This theory of government which Bought to suppress nationalities was opposed by Theo- doric: he had a profound respect for national inde- pendence, and had repeatedly taken up arms to main- tain it.
Among his many schemes was a great project to
combine in one harmonious system, around the shores
of the Mediterranean, all the conflicting barbarian
nations, and for this reason he repeatedly aided the
Prankish king Clovis against the Alamanni and Visi-
goths. He based his authority to carry out this wide
policy not on his office as vicegerent of the Eastern
Emperor, but, as he said, on the leges gentium. The
precise degree of his dependence on the Byzantine
Empire is not known: he certainly recognized its suz-
erainty and desired to maintain friendly relations with
Constantinople. Still, the "Variae" of Cassiodorus,
a collection of documents of the reign of Theodoric,
shows that he firmly believed the Western Empire to
be continued in his person. The many intermar-
riages between his family and the royal families of
Street ih Ravenna, showino the Palace of Theodoric
other Germanic kingdoms W'ere undoubtedly intended to prepare the way for the predominance of his dynasty in the West. Yet his supremacy was a divided one: to the Goths he was the king; to the Romans the patrician. Both nations were ruled by their own laws. The Edictum Theodorici of 512 was intended to introduce some degree of uniformity into the criminal law. All Theodoric's decrees, including this code, were in their language very conciliatory towards the Romans: the Roman population was to consider Gothic supremacy the guarantee of its se- curity and prosperity.
In reality Theodoric's reign appeared to bring once more a Golden Age to the sorely-tried peninsula. Experts in well-boring were brought from Africa to help restore the cultivation of the waterless country where the woods had been cut down; and swamps were drained. Books of magic and theatres were for- bidden, edicts were issued for the protection of an- cient monuments. Roman literature once more flourished in Italy: its most brilliant representative was Boethius, who was able to combine the lofty ideals of Cliristianity with the dignity of the ancient philosophy. While tolerating the Cathohc Church, Theodoric considered himself the protector of Arian- ism; accordingly he sought to intervene dijilomatically in favour of the Arians who were being persecuted by Justinian I. Nevertheless he allnwod complete free- dom to the Catholic Church, at least .so far as dogma was concerned, though he considered himself entitled to appoint a pope, or to act as arbitrator in the schism between Symmachus and Laurentiiis, and in general to bring any ecclesiastic to judgment. This ssime king who had come to Italy as the emperor's repre- sentative should not, at the end of his reign, have used such barbarous cruelty in suppressing that Roman national revolt againt Gothic rule in which the opposition of the Homan Church to .Vrianism led the pope, Constantinople, and the educated laity to
