Summary
**Jordanes** and **Cassiodorus**—two 6th-century historians—compete for legacy in the **Romana** and **Getica**, while **Justinian**’s reign faces a crisis of legitimacy. The 2017 *Journal of Roman Studies* article by **Lieve Van Hoof** and **Peter Van Nuffelen** argues that Jordanes’ **Getica** reflects a **marginalized** perspective, balancing **Cassiodorus’** authority with his own **Moesian** identity. [[~justinian-roman-empire|Justinian’s]] military failures in Italy (540-550) and religious reforms create a **political crisis** that shapes Jordanes’ **ideological ambivalence**. [[~cassiodorus|Cassiodorus]]’s lost *Gothic History* becomes a contested source, with scholars debating Jordanes’ **originality** versus **dependency**. [[~jordanes|Jordanes]]’s **Romana**—a breviary of world history—reveals a **dejected view of Roman power**, contrasting with Cassiodorus’ more **courtly** narrative. [[~byzantine-historiography|Byzantine historiography]] remains a battleground for **political interpretation** and **cultural memory**.
Key Takeaways
- Jordanes’ *Getica* reflects a complex interplay between **courtly ideology** and **marginalized perspective**
- The *Romana* reveals a **dejected view of Roman power** due to Justinian’s military failures
- Scholars debate Jordanes’ **originality** versus **Cassiodorus’ influence**
- Jordanes’ **Moesian identity** challenges the traditional view of historians as court scribes
- The *Getica*’s ideological ambiguity remains a **point of contention** in Byzantine historiography
Balanced Perspective
The article presents a **scholarly debate** over Jordanes’ **originality** versus **Cassiodorus’ influence**, with no definitive resolution. Jordanes’ **Romana** and **Getica** are analyzed as products of **mid-6th-century Constantinople**’s political climate, where **Justinian’s military failures** and **religious reforms** created a **crisis of legitimacy**. [[~cassiodorus|Cassiodorus]]’s *Historia Tripartita* is acknowledged as a key source, but Jordanes’ **explicit distancing** from Cassiodorus’ circle suggests **independent thought**. The **ideological ambiguity** of the *Getica* remains a point of contention among historians.
Optimistic View
**Jordanes** emerges as a unique voice in a fractured empire, offering a **nuanced critique** of Justinian’s policies without fully aligning with Cassiodorus’ courtly narrative. His **Moesian** identity and **literary independence** [[~moesia|Moesia]] challenge the notion of historians as mere **court scribes**. The **Getica**’s ideological ambiguity—neither full reconciliation nor total subjugation of Goths—reflects a **complex reality** of late antiquity. [[~byzantine-crisis|Byzantine crisis]] studies gain new depth by framing Jordanes as a **marginalized intellectual** navigating political and cultural tensions.
Critical View
The **scholarly debate** over Jordanes’ **originality** risks reducing a complex historical figure to a **symbolic battleground** for modern historiographical agendas. The **marginalization** of Jordanes’ **Moesian** identity and **social status** [[~moesia|Moesia]] may obscure the **broader political context** of Justinian’s reign. The **uncertainty** over Jordanes’ **relationship with Cassiodorus** [[~cassiodorus|Cassiodorus]] and the **interpretive flexibility** of the *Getica* could perpetuate **historiographical stagnation** rather than progress.
Source
Originally reported by medievalists.net