rhetorical flourishes and praise common to the panegyrical genre, including the four canonical virtues (these were also employed in the mid-fourth-century Julian’s oration to Empress Eusebia).20 Cassiodorus used these same motifs in a panegyric that unfortunately survives only in fragments. Here he writes of his queen, very likely Amalasuintha (the first part of the sentence is lost): “… surpasses all the kingdoms, you are known to be in command of yourself (dinosceris potens tui). Now, if you are compared with your own customs (propriis moribus), then you are easily surpassed by the noble part of [your] soul (ab insigni animae parte superaris), you who by the beauty of your body (pulchritudine corporis) transcend all mortal things.”21
While Procopius offered an image of Amalasuintha as a male character whose ambitious personality eventually roused the jealousy of Theodora, Cassiodorus eulogized the queen in a similar way, with the same combination of Roman virtues and a masculine temperament, in the letters Variae 11.1 and 10.4.22 The letter-panegyric Variae 11.1, also discussed above, is written in Cassiodorus’s name, and Variae 10.4 contains the newly elected Theodahad’s praises of his coregent. In both cases, the eulogies of Amalasuintha mostly concern her regency for Athalaric. Cassiodorus attributed to her the most significant political virtues that could be claimed for a Roman ruler: aequitas, pietas, benignitas, fortitudo, animi firmitas, sapientia, prudentia, constantia. The letter-panegyric itself is structured on the four canonical virtues,23 the same ones that Procopius attributed to Amalasuintha, along with political virtues and wisdom in government (the same virtues he previously attributed to Theoderic). Once again, Cassiodorus’s representation is similar to Procopius’s. Toward the conclusion of his letter-panegyric, Cassiodorus recognized in Amalasuintha the entire list of virtues, especially the sapiential and the moral ones, which were rhetorically attributed to her ancestors: felicitas, patientia, mansuetudo, aequitas, forma, castitas, fides, and sapientia:
The form of the declamation demands that I should compare the parade of past empresses with her recent case. But how could these feminine examples suffice for one who surpasses all the praise given to men? If the royal band of her ancestors were to look on this woman, they would soon see their glory reflected, as in a clear mirror. For Amalus was distinguished for his good fortune, Ostrogotha for his patience, Athala for mercy, Winitarius for justice, Hunimund for beauty, Thorismuth for chastity, Walamer for good faith, Theudimer for his sense of duty, her glorious father, as you have seen, for his wisdom. Assuredly, all these would here individually recognise their own qualities; but they would happily admit that these were surpassed, since one man’s glory cannot rightly equate itself with a throng of virtues. Think what their joy would be in such an heir, one who can transcend the merits of them all.24
Cassiodorus deliberately claims the superiority of Amalasuintha to the men of her family, going back to her male ancestry. This was, after all, the appropriate way to justify her exercise of royal power in the Gothic world, where tradition demanded male rulers but where Amalasuintha was ruling like a king. Her power found legitimacy in that of her ancestors.25 To an audience of Roman senators, the alternative to the comparison with the men of her family would be not the Amal queens but rather, as Cassiodorus observed, the empresses. Cassiodorus in his panegyric claims that a comparison between his domina and the empresses could not do justice to the former: “But how could these feminine examples (exempla feminea) suffice for one who surpasses all the praise given to men (virorum laus)?”26 In reality, any comparison with recent empresses or especially with Theodora would have been inappropriate and certainly politically dangerous. The letter rhetorically suggests that Amalasuintha’s qualities are less attributable to her Amal ancestors than to her nature. The use of the term “sexus” to signify both Amalasuintha’s motherhood and her courageous regency for Athalaric is especially important: “Behold, by God’s favour, our fortunate mistress has achieved the glory of both sexes (uterque sexus): for she has both borne us a glorious king, and has secured a spreading empire by the courage of her soul (animi fortitudine).”27 Just one year later, Cassiodorus would return to this point, writing in the name of Theodahad to celebrate Amalasuintha as the glory of her ancestors for her successful regency during her son’s minority: “She, who ruled alone with her little son … not only brought praise to her ancestors, but also dignified the human race.”28
The masculine attributes ascribed to Amalasuintha in his letters may find some explanation in the letter’s intended audience: they were both addressed to the Senate. The idea of female rulership was not entirely alien to the Senate, because unlike Gothic queens, Roman empresses could have a degree of recognized political power. But even so, at that time the senatorial audience required justification for a female rulership. Ascribing masculine qualities to the female ruler may have helped Cassiodorus present Amalasuintha’s case: after all, rulers like Galla Placidia, to whom Amalasuintha is compared in this panegyric, had gone down in history as weak and feminine.29 In her study of the letter Variae 11.1, Fauvinet-Ranson fairly observes: “Amalasuintha is a woman, but she reigns as a man: Cassiodorus, like Procopius, presents a uirago, a woman-man, without the pejorative nuance we associate with this word, since in his eyes Amalasuintha, far from being a femme manquée, is fully a woman.”30
A woman, yes; and if not an empress, then perhaps a female king. In describing her virtues, Cassiodorus emphasized the Roman model that shaped the education of the princess and influenced her personality. Indeed, when one year later Cassiodorus, writing in the name of Theodahad, celebrated Amalasuintha, he acknowledged this education together with her sapientia, iustitia, and firmitas.31 The virtues listed in the letter-panegyric were previously attributed to Theoderic by Cassiodorus, perhaps representing what one scholar described as “Amal ungendered qualities transferred from the father/king to his daughter/regina.”32 Theodahad announces that his kingdom would benefit from the experience of such a sapientissima domina;33 by that time Amalasuintha had gained much experience at the palace, first at the side of Theoderic, and later as regent for her son. Cassiodorus represents her as distinguished by her composure and her meditative and silent attitude in public, and remarkable for her determination and incorruptibility.34 Her education included not only fluency in three languages, Greek, Latin, and Gothic, but also literature, which was the primary instrument for learning the wisdom of the ancients (veterum prudentia). With her political wisdom, she follows in the footsteps of her father Theoderic (sapientia, ut iam vidistis, inclitus pater).35
On the whole, the references to “masculinity” by both Procopius and Cassiodorus are meant to invoke Amalasuintha’s strong performance in the role of regent in a kingdom where only a man was entitled to rule and where terms such as vir (man) and mulier (woman) were believed to be derived respectively from virtus (strength) and mollities (softness). Amalasuintha could be called a virago, literally an ‘heroic maid,’ because she ‘acts like a man’ (vir + agere).36 Not coincidentally, both authors acknowledge in Amalasuintha the same virtues they attributed to her father. These virtues and her ability in government made her an ideal ruler in the Roman style.
While Roman Italy and the empire recognized the possibility of female power and the regency, this was not the case for a conservative Gothic leadership unfamiliar with the exercise of female power at such a level. Lacking antecedents, the best way to represent a woman in power in the post-Roman kingdoms of that period was probably the masculine characterization of Amalasuintha. Exceptional bravery in women could be characterized as masculine: Gregory of Tours would years later use the adverb “viriliter” to characterize two exceptional proofs of bravery by queens: that of Brunhild, who armed herself like a man to prevent a war, and her daughter Ingund, who in Spain resisted her mother-in-law’s pressure to abandon her Catholic faith for Arianism.37 But Amalasuintha’s strong nature, courage, and skill in government were never enough to compensate for the “weakness” represented by her female status. Jordanes understood Amalasuintha’s female sex as the main reason she eventually decided to join Theodahad to her rule: she “feared she might be despised
