Reference edition

Excerpta Valesiana, recensuit Jacques Moreau, edizionem correctiorem curavit Velizar Velkov, Lipsiae 1968 (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana).

The second part of the Excerpta Valesiana is entitled De adventu Odoachar regis Cyrorum et Erulorum in Italiam, et quodam modo rex Theodericus eum fuerit persecutus (or, more simply, Item ex libris chronicorum inter cetera) and recounts events from the beginning of the emperor Julius Nepos’ reign in AD 474 to the death of Theoderic in AD 526.  Events from the Italian kingdom are presented in chronological order, but are occasionally interrupted by notices related to the eastern empire.

Besides Cassiodorus, Jordanes, and—for the years through AD 508—Ennodius, the ‘Anonymus Valesianus’ is without doubt our most important source for Theoderic’s reign in Italy: the anonymous compiler has attempted to present a sort of biography of Theoderic that shows little historical sense, but that nevertheless strives to produce precise chronological, topographical, and prosopographical accounts.  The part concerning Theoderic begins at chapter 42 (this actually contains incorrect information, indicating Walamir as the Gothic king’s father instead of Theodemir) and continues to the end of the work, which concludes with a description of the king’s death and the ascension of his grandson Athalaric to the throne.  There is no mention of the subsequent history of the Gothic kingdom, though the fact that one can discern a stance hostile to the Amals in the final part of the work suggests that it was composed after the kingdom’s dissolution.

The work focuses principally on Theoderic’s reign in Italy, though it makes some allusions to the pre-Italian phase: for example, the ‘Anonymus Valesianus’ is the only source—apart from Ennodius—to mention the young Theoderic’s operation on behalf of the emperor Zeno against the usurper Basiliscus (par. 42).  The work describes the Amal king’s origin, his relationships with Byzantium and the Roman Senate, and his building and religious policies, among other anecdotes.  The narration, however, displays an obvious fracture: while the reign of Theoderic is presented in a clearly positive light through paragraph 79, a decidedly less encomiastic stance towards the king is taken from this point until the final three years of his reign (indeed, paragraph 79 begins with the assertion, Igitur rex Theodericus inlitteratus erat et sic obruto sensu).  This led Moreau to propose that the work has two different authors, one who describes the first phase of Theoderic’s reign, and another who describes the subsequent years, but does not hesitate to criticize the policies of the king.  Even so, linguistic and historical studies have convincingly demonstrated the unity of the text (on the former see Adams, but with the warnings of Bracke; on the latter see, e.g. Barnish and Tönnies): the clear and decisive change in tone need not be attributed to a different author, but can be explained as a split judgment on the part of the anonymous compiler that was intended to signal clearly his divergent assessments of, on the one hand, the king’s political actions and, on the other, his religious attitudes, which ultimately led to a conflict between the senatorial faction and Byzantium (Koenig). [S. Rota; tr. C. L. Caterine].