as intended for a female ruler. We do not know the Gothic word for regina. We do find in the Wulfila Bible the term “ragineis,” meaning “adviser” (βουλευτής), and the verb “raginon”—which is not far from the Latin rego, regens.5 And while it is unlikely that there was a connection between this word and the Latin regina, it is remarkable that the primary function that the sources unanimously recognize in the queens of this period is their role as advisers to their husbands. They are widely acknowledged as providers of consilium.6 But in the world of the tribes, queens were generally not rulers in their own right, and they did not display public political power.
An understanding of Amalasuintha’s political agency is a necessary first step for constructing a biography of the queen, because it provides an important key for interpreting the sources, as well as a cornerstone for the reconstruction of her life at the court of Ravenna. Amalasuintha’s ruling activity and her political ambitions shaped the depiction of her in our sources, including the attribution of masculine characteristics that became an integral part of her image as a woman in power in the Gothic kingdom. An exploration of her political agency necessarily begins with an examination of the status quaestionis on Amalasuintha’s juridical status, and with a careful look at juridical lexicon of our primary sources, including the terminology of mater regens, domina and regina. To what extent was the daughter of Theoderic entitled to rule over Italy?
The “Strong Amal”: A Masculine Woman
The personality of Amalasuintha (or Amalaswintha/Amalasuentha), the daughter of Theoderic, “ruler of the people” (*þeudō + *rika), seems to be reflected in her Gothic name: *amala- “Amalo” (strenuus, industrius) + *swinþō “strong.”7 If this etymology of her name is correct, we may wonder whether the name reflected Theoderic’s wishes for his daughter, and also whether our authors were aware of this coincidence. There is no direct reference or allusion to this combination, nor are there puns on words—which Latin and Greek authors usually employ—when characterizing Amalasuintha. Nonetheless, it is remarkable how the voices of our authors are unanimous in celebrating her strong personality. When referring to her political achievements at the palace, Cassiodorus noted her determination and strong temperament, in particular firmitas animi and fortitudo animi.8 Even Gregory of Tours’s admittedly dubious description of Amalasuintha’s rebellious nature rested on an idea of a strong female character.
“Masculinity” is probably the main characteristic that Procopius and Cassiodorus attribute to Amalasuintha when describing her activity as regent. In one of several anecdotes in his narrative, Procopius tells an ominous story of a progressively collapsing mosaic of Theoderic, located in the marketplace of the city of Naples. According to his account, the disintegration of this image predicted the deaths of the Amal rulers, and ultimately forecast the end of the Ostrogothic kingdom:
At this time it so happened that the following event took place in Naples. There was in the marketplace an image of Theoderic, the ruler of the Goths, made of mosaic stones that were exceedingly small and tinted with nearly every colour. At one time during the life of Theoderic it happened that the head in this image broke apart, the arrangement of the stones being spontaneously disrupted, and it came to pass that Theoderic then immediately finished his life. Eight years later the stones forming the belly of the picture fell apart suddenly, and Athalaric, the grandson of Theoderic, immediately died. After the passage of a short time, the stones about the genitals fell to the ground, and Amalasuintha, the child of Theoderic, passed from the world. Now these things had already happened as described. But when the Goths began the siege of Rome, as chance would have it the part of the picture from the thighs to the tips of the feet were ruined, and so the whole image disappeared from the wall.9
In this process of deterioration, which symbolizes the progressive disintegration of the Ostrogothic kingdom, Amalasuintha’s fate is associated with the “male side” of her father, who is iconographically and symbolically the caput. While the disintegration of the head and body of the mosaic of Theoderic foretold, respectively, his own death and that of his grandson Athalaric, Amalasuintha’s demise was predicted by the falling to the ground of the mosaic stones “about the genitals” or the groin (αἱ περὶ τὰ αἰδοῖα ψηφῖδες).10 And it is remarkable that the name of Theodahad is not even included in this story, as though he were not a member of the family and the coregent of the queen, and as if his death had not affected Gothic power. The reader does not need to lend credibility to this anecdote to see the relationship between the “sexual” element of this image and several other references made by the same author about Amalasuintha’s masculinity.
From the very beginning of his work, Procopius attributed to Amalasuintha the best Roman virtues and highlighted her masculine nature, particularly when describing the tough, decisive action she had to take in the difficult environment of the palace of Ravenna. His wording is intriguing: on those occasions when Amalasuintha shows her strength, Procopius describes her as (acting like) a man; when she shows fear or loses heart, she is a woman. Recent studies have shown that in the Gothic War Procopius makes purposeful use of the virtue of valor (ἀνδρεία) in eulogizing or in diminishing the kings.11 Of the members of the Amal family, Procopius shows us the virtue of valor recognized in Theoderic and Amalasuintha, sought after in Athalaric, and fully denied to Theodahad, who is ἄνανδρος “by nature.” When summing up her activity as regent, he writes: “Amalasuintha, as guardian of her child, administered the government, and she proved to be endowed with wisdom and regard for justice (ξυνέσεως καὶ δικαιοσύνης) in the highest degree, displaying to a great extent the masculine temperament (τῆς δὲ φύσεως ἐς ἄγαν τὸ ἀρρενωπὸν ἐνδεικνυμένη).”12 Procopius credits Amalasuintha with Platonic and canonical virtues that he had previously attributed to Theoderic (δικαιοσύνη, ξυνέσις, and ἀνδρεία)13 and even writes that “the woman (ἡ γυνή) had the strictest regard for every kind of virtue.”14 When describing the attempts of the Goths to remove Amalasuintha from her palace, Procopius considers her a female man (ἡ ἄνθρωπος), and he also specifies that she “neither became frightened at the plotting of the Goths nor did she, as a woman (οἷα γυνὴ), weakly give way.”15 Yet later, when Amalasuintha realized the ineffectiveness of her strategy and began to lose hope, Procopius refers to her as a woman (ἡ γυνή) who, “being unable to endure these things any longer,” devised the plan to leave Italy for Constantinople.16 The only exception to this masculine-strength/feminine-weakness rhetoric occurs in an episode in which Amalasuintha, the woman, called her cousin Theodahad to answer for his scandalous appropriation of property. When he was proven guilty, she ordered the restitution of the properties to the Tuscan landowners. A careful reading of the text, however, makes clear that Procopius’s word choice is intentional. Theodahad is referenced not by name but only as the man (ὁ ἄνθρωπος), who felt that he had been outraged by the woman (ἡ γυνή).17 Procopius purposely offers this contrast of genders to further underscore the reasons for Theodahad’s grudge against Amalasuintha—a grudge that would shortly afterward have disastrous consequences for the queen.
In the Secret History, Procopius uses precisely the same wording when praising Amalasuintha for possessing those qualities that he believed Theodora lacked: “Theodora considered that the woman (ἡ γυνὴ) [i.e., Amalasuintha] was of noble ancestry and a queen, very impressive to look upon, and swift at devising plans to get what she wanted; also, she felt threatened by the woman’s magnificence and exceptionally manly bearing (διαφερόντως ἀρρενωπόν).”18 This time the gendered lexicon is blended in a striking combination synthesizing all the statements that Procopius had made in the Gothic War. Theodora, Procopius suggests, simply could not tolerate this mix of qualities; she “aims to destroy all masculine virtues, even when they appear in women,”
