The Letters of Cassiodorus
the attainment of absolute historic truth, complete impartiality[43].
Like Hume and like Macaulay Cassiodorus wrote his history with a
purpose. We may describe that purpose as two-fold:
[Footnote 43: My meaning would be better expressed by the useful
German word 'voraussetzungslosigkeit,' freedom from a foregone
conclusion.]
(1) To vindicate the claim of the Goths to rank among the historic
nations of antiquity by bringing them into some sort of connection
with Greece and Rome ('Originem Gothicam historiam fecit esse
Romanam'); and (2) among the Goths, to exalt as highly as possible the
family of the Amals, that family from which Theodoric had sprung, and
to string as many regal names as possible upon the Amal chain
('Evidenter ostendens in decimam septimam progeniem stirpem nos habere
regalem').
I have said that the possession of a purpose like this is unfavourable
to the attainment of absolute historic truth; but the aim which
Cassiodorus proposed to himself was a lofty one, being in fact the
reconciliation of the past and the future of the world by showing to
the outworn Latin race that the new blood which was being poured into
it by the northern nations came, like its own, from a noble ancestry:
and, for us, the labour to which it stimulated him has been full of
profit, since to it we owe something like one half of our knowledge of
the Teutonic ancestors of Modern Europe.
[Sidenote: Confusion between Goths and Getae.]
The much-desired object of 'making the origin of Gothic history Roman'
was effected chiefly by attributing to the Goths all that Cassiodorus
found written in classic authors concerning the Getae or the
Scythians. The confusion between Goths and Getae, though modern
ethnologists are nearly unanimous in pronouncing it to be a confusion
between two utterly different nations, is not one for which
Cassiodorus is responsible, since it had been made at least a hundred
years before his time. When the Emperor Claudius II won his great
victories over the Goths in the middle of the Third Century, he was
hailed rightly enough by the surname of _Gothicus_; but when at the
beginning of the Fifth Century the feeble Emperors Arcadius and
Honorius wished to celebrate a victory which, as they vainly hoped,
had effectually broken the power of the Goths, the words which they
inscribed upon the Arch of Triumph were 'Quod _Getarum_ nationem in
omne aevum docuere extingui.' In the poems of Claudian, and generally
in all the contemporary literature of the time, the regular word for
the countrymen of Alaric is Getae.
[Sidenote: The term Scythian.]
The Greek historians, on the other hand, freely applied the general
term Scythian--as they had done at any time since the Scythian
campaign of Darius Hystaspis--to any barbarian nation living beyond
the Danube and the Cimmerian Bosporus. With these two clues, or
imaginary clues, in his hand, Cassiodorus could traverse a
considerable part of the border-land of classical antiquity. The
battles between the Scythians and the Egyptians, the story of the
Amazons, Telephus son of Hercules and nephew of Priam, the defeat of
Cyrus by Tomyris, and the unsuccessful expedition of Darius--all were
connected with Gothic history by means of that easily stretched word,
Scythia. Then comes Sitalces, King of Thrace, who makes war on
Perdiccas of Macedon; and then, 'in the time of Sylla,' a certain wise
philosopher-king of Dacia, Diceneus by name, in whose character and
history Cassiodorus perhaps outlined his own ideal of wisdom swaying
brute force. With these and similar stories culled from classical
authors Cassiodorus appears to have filled up the interval--which was
to him of absolutely uncertain duration--between the Gothic migration
from the Baltic to the Euxine and their appearance as conquerors and
ravagers in the eastern half of the Roman Empire in the middle of the
third century of the Christian era. Now, soothing as it may have been
to the pride of a Roman subject of Theodoric to be informed that his
master's ancestors had fought at the war of Troy and humbled the pride
of Perdiccas, to a scientific historian these Scytho-Getic histories
culled from Herodotus and Trogus are of little or no value, and his
first step in the process of enquiry is to eliminate them from
'Gothica historia,' thus making it, as far as he can, _not_ 'Romana.'
The question then arises whether there was another truly Gothic
element in the history of Cassiodorus, and if so, what value can be
attached to it. Thus enquiring we soon find, both before and after
this intrusive Scytho-Getic element, matter of quite a different kind,
which has often much of the ring of the true Teutonic _Saga_. It is
reasonable to believe that here Cassiodorus, whose mission it was to
reconcile Roman and Goth, and who could not have achieved this end by
altering the history of the less civilised people out of all
possibility of recognition by its own chieftains and warriors, has
really interwoven in his work some part of the songs and Sagas which
were still current among the older men who had shared the wanderings
of Theodoric. This legendary portion, which Cassiodorus himself
perhaps half despised, as being gathered not from books but from the
lips of rude minstrels, is in fact the only part of his work which has
any scientific value.
[Sidenote: The Amal pedigree.]
In his glorification of the Amal line, Cassiodorus follows more
closely these genuine national traditions than in his history of the
Gothic people. References to Herodotus and Trogus would have been here
obviously out of place, and he accordingly puts before us a pedigree
fashioned on the same model as those which we find in the Saxon
Chronicle, and therefore probably genuine. By genuine of course is
meant a pedigree which was really current and accepted among the
people over whom Theodoric ruled. How many of the links which form it
represent real historical personages is a matter about which we may
almost be said neither to know nor care. We see that it begins in the
approved fashion with 'Non puri homines sed semidei id est Anses[44],'
and that the first of these half-divine ancestors is named _Gaut_,
evidently the eponymous hero of the Gothic people. Some of the later
links--Amal, Ostrogotha, Athal--have the same appearance of names
coined to embody facts of the national consciousness. At the end of
the genealogy appear the undoubtedly historical names of the immediate
ancestors of Theodoric. It is noteworthy that several, in fact the
majority of the names of Kings who figure in early Gothic history, are
not included in this genealogy. While this fact permits us to doubt
whether Cassiodorus has not exaggerated the pre-eminence of the Amal
race in early days, it must be admitted to be also an evidence of the
good faith with which he preserved the national tradition on these
points. Had he been merely inventing, it would have been easy to
include every name of a distinguished Gothic King among the
progenitors of his Sovereign.
[Footnote 44: Jordanes, De Reb. Get. xiii.]
[Sidenote: Abstract by Jordanes.]
Such then was the general purpose of the Gothic History of
Cassiodorus. The book itself has perished--a tantalising loss when we
consider how many treatises from the same pen have been preserved to
us which we could well have spared. But we can speak, as will be seen
from the preceding remarks, with considerable confidence as to its
plan and purpose, because we possess in the well-known treatise of
Jordanes 'On the Origin of the Goths[45]' an abbreviated copy,
executed it is true by a very inferior hand, but still manifestly
preserving some of the features of the original. It will not be
necessary here to go into the difficult question as to the personality
of this writer, which has been debated at considerable length and with
much ingenuity by several German authors[46]. It is enough to say that
Jordanes, who was, according to his own statement, 'agrammatus,' a man
of Gothic descent, a notary, and then a monk[47], on the alleged
request of his friend Castalius, 'compressed the twelve books of
Senator, _de origine actibusque Getarum_, bringing down the history
from olden times to our own days by kings and generations, into one
little pamphlet.' Still, according to his statement, which there can
be little doubt is here thoroughly false, he had the loan of the
Gothic History for only three days from the steward of Cassiodorus,
and wrote chiefly or entirely from his recollection of this hasty
perusal[48]. He says that he added some suitable passages from the
Greek and Latin historians, but his own range of historical reading
was evidently so narrow that we may fairly suspect these additions to
have been of the slenderest possible dimensions. Upon the whole, there
can be little doubt that it is a safe rule to attribute everything
that is good or passable in this little treatise to Cassiodorus, and
everything that is very bad, childish, and absurd in it to Jordanes.
[Footnote 45: 'De Rebus Geticis,' or 'De Gothorum Origine,' is the
name by which this little treatise is usually known. It seems to be
doubtful, however, what title, if any, Jordanes himself prefixed to
it. Mommsen calls it simply 'Getica.']
[Footnote 46: Especially Schirren, 'De Ratione quae inter Jordanem et
Cassiodorum intercedat' (Dorpat, 1858); Sybel, 'De Fontibus Libri
Jordanis' (Berlin, 1838); and Koepke, 'Die Anfaenge des Koenigthums bei
den Gothen' (Berlin, 1859).]
[Footnote 47: _Possibly_ in the end Bishop of Crotona, or a Defensor
of the Roman Church, since we find a Jordanes in each of these
positions; but this is mere guesswork, and to me neither theory seems
probable.]
[Footnote 48: 'Sed ut non mentiar, ad triduanam lectionem
dispensatoris ejus beneficio libros ipsos antehac relegi.'
Notwithstanding the 'ut non mentiar,' most of those who have enquired
into the subject have come to the opinion which is bluntly expressed
by Usener (p. 73), 'Die dreitaegige Frist die Jordanes zur Benutzung
der 12 Buecher gehabt haben will, _ist natuerlich Schwindel_.' Even by
an expert precis-writer a loan of three months would be much more
probably needed for the purpose indicated by Jordanes than one of
three days.]
[Sidenote: Temporary retirement from official life (?).]
The literary labours of Cassiodorus, of which the Gothic History was
one of the fruits, were probably continued for two or three years
after its completion[49]. At least there is reason to believe that he
was not actively engaged in the service of the State during those
terrible years (524 and 525) in which the failing intellect of
Theodoric, goaded almost to madness by Justin's persecution of his
Arian co-religionists, condescended to ignoble measures of
retaliation, which brought him into collision with Senate and Pope,
and in the end tarnished his fame by the judicial murder of Boethius
and Symmachus. It was fortunate indeed for Cassiodorus if he was
during this time, perhaps because of his unwillingness to help the
King to his own hurt, enjoying an interval of literary retirement at
Squillace. His honour must have suffered if he had abetted the
intolerant policy of Theodoric; his life might have been forfeit if he
had openly opposed it.
[Footnote 49: This was probably 521 at latest.]
[Sidenote: Cassiodorus as Master of the Offices, 526.]
Whatever may have been the cause of the temporary obscuration of
Cassiodorus, he was soon again shining in all the splendour of
official dignity; for when Theodoric died, his old and trusted
minister was holding--probably not for the first time in his official
career[50]--the great place of Master of the Offices.
[Footnote 50: The language of Cassiodorus in Var. ix. 24 implies that