Page:1909historyofdec04gibbuoft.djvu/633

 APPENDIX 565 But if Goths were excluded from the civil posts, it was exactly the reverse in the case of military posts. Here it was the Eomans who were excluded. The army was entirely Gothic ; no Roman was liable to military service, and the officers were naturally Goths. But although the old Roman troops and their organisation have disappeared, it has been shown by Mommsen that Theodoric's military arrangements were based in many respects on arrangements which had existed in Italy under Im- perial rule in the fifth century. What about the highest military command, that of Master of Soldiers ? Under Odovacar we hear of Masters of Soldiers, but under Ostro- gothic rule no such commander is mentioned. The generals of Theodoric are not de- scribed by this title. In the long list of the formulae of the various offices which existed at this period (in the Variae of Cassiodorus), the Mastership of Soldiers does not appear, and this cannot be explained as an oversight. Yet the office had not ceased to exist, for we find in a letter of Cassiodorus the mention of an officialis magistri militum (subaltern of the M.M.). The solution is, as Mommsen has shown with characteristic acuteness, that Theodoric was himself the Magister Militum. He had received that title (m. m. praesentalis) from Zeno, ten years before he conquered Italy ; he bore it when he conquered Italy, and he continued to retain it while he ruled Italy. It is intelligible that he did not designate himself by this title, because his powers as ruler of Italy far exceeded those of the most powerful magister mili- tum ; but this does not mean that he gave the office up. It explains why the title was never given to any of his generals. The matter is illustrated by certain measures taken after his death. His grandson and successor Athalaric was out of the question as a commander of the army, and Amalasuntha appointed a Gothic warrior Tuluin and Liberius a Roman (then praetorian praefect of Gaul) to be patricii praesentales. This remarkable appointment involved two deviations from existing rules. It gave the rank of Patricius to Tuluin, who as a Goth was excluded from that order, and it gave a military command to Liberius, who as a Roman was excluded from such an office. The office, though under this modified title, was simply that of mag. mil. praes.j but the circumstance that the title was modified is significant and illustrates the fact that the office of mag. mil. had become closely united to that of king through the long tenure of it by Theodoric. It need hardly be said that the Goths were excluded from the Roman Senate. The Senate continued to exist and to perform the same functions that it had performed throughout the fifth century. Unlike the Senate of Constantinople it was formally re- cognised as a sovran body though it had no political power. Theodoric writes to it (Var. 2, 2, 4) parent nobiscum reipublicae debetis admissum. The Senate, like the Emperor, could leges constituere. Theodoric's position as deputy governor of the Emperor, Italy's position as part of the Empire, are shown by the maintenance of the Imperial sovran rights in coinage and in legislation. Theodoric did not claim the right of coining except in subordina- tion to the Emperor. The silver coins of his reign show Anastasius (Dominus Noster Anastasius) on the obverse, and on the reverse Theodoric's monogram with the legend Invicta Roma. Nor did he claim the right of making laws. Procopius expressly states that neither Theodoric nor any of the Gothic rulers enacted a law. This in- volves the principle that the right of legislation was the supreme prerogative of the Emperor. Between this statement and the fact that ordinances of Theodoric exist there is no formal contradiction. None of these ordinances are leges, they are only edicta. To make a lex was the exclusive right of the Emperor, but many high officials could issue an edictum. Thus formally the rule of Theodoric is contrasted in this respect with the Western kingdoms which did not depend on Constantinople. The Ostrogothic king issues edicts, the contemporary Burgundian enacts mansurae in aevum leges. But was this difference between the right of the Emperor and that of the king merely formal ? Did it mean no more than the difference of a name ? Theodoric certainly promulgated what Cassiodorus calls edicta generalia, laws which did not concern special cases but were of a general application, permanently valid and which if enacted by the Emperor would have been leges. But it is to be remembered that the highest officials of the Empire, especially the praetorian prefect, could issue an edictum generate provided it did not run counter to any existing law. This was an important distinction. It amounted to this, that the praetorian prefect could modify