ferior to
the best of his predecessors, and his popularity grew greatly, both
among Goths and Italians, and this fact (that he was popular with both
nations) was contrary to the ordinary fashion of human affairs. For
generally, as different classes in the State want different things, the
government which pleases one party has to incur the odium of those who
do not belong to it.

"After a reign of thirty-seven years[59] he died, having been a terror
to all his enemies, but leaving a deep regret for his loss in the hearts
of his subjects".

[Footnote 59: Really thirty-two years and a half from the death of
Odovacar, thirty-seven from the descent into Italy, thirty-eight from
Theodoric's departure from Novae.]

So much for the general aspect of Theodoric's rule in Italy. Now let us
consider rather more in detail what was his precise position in that
country. And first as to the title by which he was known. It is
singularly difficult to say what this title was. It is quite clear that
Theodoric never claimed to be Emperor of the West, the successor of
Honorius and Augustulus. But there are grave reasons for doubting
whether he called himself, as has been often stated, "King of Italy". In
the fifth century territorial titles of this kind were, if not
absolutely unknown, at least very uncommon. The various Teutonic rulers
generally took their titles from the nations whom they led to battle,
Gaiseric being "King of the Vandals and Alans", Gundobad, "King of the
Burgundians", Clovis, "King of the Franks", and so forth. Upon the
whole, it seems most probable that Theodoric's full title was "_King of
the Goths and Romans in Italy_" [60] and that the allusion to "Romans" in
his title explains some of the conflict of testimony as to the source
from whence he derived his title of King. It is quite true that a
Teutonic sovereign like Theodoric, sprung from a long line of royal
ancestors, and chosen by the voice of his people to succeed their king,
his father, would not need, and except under circumstances of great
national humiliation would not accept, any grant of the kingly title, as
ruler over his own nation, from the Augustus at New Rome. But when it
came to claiming by the same title the obedience of Romans as well as
Goths, especially in that country which had once been the heart of the
Empire,--Theodoric, King of the Goths, might well be anxious to strain
all the resources of diplomacy in order to obtain from the legitimate