sent the ornaments of empire, the diadem and purple robe, to Constantinople as an acknowledgment of the fact that he did not claim supreme power. Our information as to the actual title assumed by the new ruler is somewhat confused. He does not appear to have called himself king of Italy. His kingship seems to have marked only his relation to his Teutonic followers, among whom he was “king of the Turcilingi,” “king of the Heruli,” and so forth, according to the nationality with which he was dealing. By the Roman inhabitants of Italy he was addressed as “dominus noster,” but his right to exercise power would in their eyes rest, in theory, on his recognition as patricius by the Byzantine Augustus. At the same time he marked his own high pretensions by assuming the prefix Flavius, a reminiscence of the early emperors, to which the barbarian rulers of realms formed out of the Roman state seem to have been peculiarly partial. His internal administration was probably, upon the whole, wise and moderate, though we hear some complaints of financial oppression, and he may be looked upon as a not altogether unworthy predecessor of Theodoric.
In the history of the papacy Odoacer figures as the author of a decree promulgated at the election of Felix II. in 483, forbidding the pope to alienate any of the lands or ornaments of the Roman Church, and threatening any pope who should infringe this edict with anathema. This decree was loudly condemned in a synod held by Pope Symmachus (502) as an unwarrantable interference of the civil power with the concerns of the church.
The chief events in the foreign policy of Odoacer were his Dalmatian and Rugian wars. In the year 480 the ex-emperor Nepos, who ruled Dalmatia, was traitorously assassinated in Diocletian’s palace at Spalato by the counts Viator and Ovida. In the following year Odoacer invaded Dalmatia, slew the murderer Ovida, and reannexed Dalmatia to the Western state. In 487 he appeared as an invader in his own native Danubian lands. War broke out between him and Feletheus, king of the Rugians. Odoacer entered the Rugian territory, defeated Feletheus, and carried him and “his noxious wife” Gisa prisoners to Ravenna. In the following year Frederick, son of the captive king, endeavoured to raise again the fallen fortunes of his house, but was defeated by Onulf, brother of Odoacer, and, being forced to flee, took refuge at the court of Theodoric the Ostrogoth. at Sistova on the lower Danube.
This Rugian war was probably an indirect cause of the fall of Odoacer. His increasing power rendered him too formidable to the Byzantine court, with whom his relations had for some time been growing less friendly. At the same time, Zeno was embarrassed by the formidable neighbourhood of Theodoric and his Ostrogothic warriors, who were almost equally burdensome as enemies or as allies. In these circumstances arose the plan of Theodoric’s invasion of Italy, a plan by whom originated it would be difficult to say. Whether the land when conquered was to be held by the Ostrogoth in full sovereignty, or administered by him as lieutenant of Zeno, is a point upon which our information is ambiguous, and which was perhaps intentionally left vague by the two contracting parties, whose chief anxiety was not to see one another’s faces again. The details of the Ostrogothic invasion of Italy belong properly to the life of Theodoric. It is sufficient to state here that he entered Italy in August 489, defeated Odoacer at the Isontius (Isonzo) on the 28th of August, and at Verona on the 30th of September. Odoacer then shut himself up in Ravenna, and there maintained himself for four years, with one brief gleam of success, during which he emerged from his hiding-place and fought the battle of the Addua (11th August 490), in which he was again defeated. A sally from Ravenna (10th July 491) was again the occasion of a murderous defeat. At length, the famine in Ravenna having become almost intolerable, and the Goths despairing of ever taking the city by assault, negotiations were opened for a compromise (25th February 493). John, archbishop of Ravenna, acted as mediator. It was stipulated that Ravenna should be surrendered, that Odoacer’s life should be spared, and that he and Theodoric should be recognized as joint rulers of the Roman state. The arrangement was evidently a precarious one, and was soon terminated by the treachery of Theodoric. He invited his rival to a banquet in the palace of the Lauretum on the 15th of March, and there slew him with his own hand. “Where is God?” cried Odoacer when he perceived the ambush into which he had fallen. “Thus didst thou deal with my kinsmen,” shouted Theodoric, and clove his rival with the broadsword from shoulder to flank. Onulf, the brother of the murdered king, was shot down while attempting to escape through the palace garden, and Thelan, his son, was not long after put to death by order of the conqueror. Thus perished the whole race of Odoacer.
Literature.—The chief authorities for the life of Odoacer are the so-called “Anonymus Valesii,” generally printed at the end of Ammianus Marcellinus; the Life of Severinus, by Eugippius; the chroniclers, Cassiodorus and “Cuspiniani Anonymus” (both in Roncalli’s collection); and the Byzantine historians, Malchus and John of Antioch. A fragment of the latter historian, unknown when Gibbon wrote, is to be found in the fifth volume of Müller’s Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. There is a thorough investigation of the history of Odoacer in R. Pallmann’s Geschichte der Völkerwanderung, vol. ii. (Weimar, 1864). See also T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vol. iii. (Oxford, 1885). (T. H.)
ODOFREDUS, an Italian jurist of the 13th century. He was
born at Bologna and studied law under Balduinus and Accursius.
After having practised as an advocate both in Italy and France,
he became professor at Bologna in 1228. The commentaries
on Roman law attributed to him are valuable as showing the
growth of the study of law in Italy, and for their biographical
details of the jurists of the 12th and 13th centuries. Odofredus
died at Bologna on the 3rd of December 1265.
Over his name appeared Lecturae in codicem (Lyons, 1480) Lecturae in digestum vetus (Paris, 1504), Summa de libellis formandis (Strassburg, 1510), Lecturae in tres libros (Venice, 1514), and Lecturae in digestum novum (Lyons, 1552).
O’DONNELL, the name of an ancient and powerful Irish
family, lords of Tyrconnel in early times, and the chief rivals
of the O’Neills in Ulster. Like the family of O’Neill (q.v.), that
of O’Donnell was descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages,
king of Ireland at the beginning of the 5th century; the O’Neills, or Cinel[1] Owen, tracing their pedigree to Owen (Eoghan), and the O’Donnells, or Cinel Connell, to Conall Gulban, both sons of Niall. Tyrconnel, the district named after the Cinel Connell, where the O’Donnells held sway, comprised the greater part of the modern county of Donegal except the peninsula of Inishowen; and since it lay conterminous with the territory ruled by the O’Neills of Tyrone, who were continually attempting to assert their supremacy over it, the history of the O’Donnells is for the most part a record of tribal warfare with their powerful neighbours, and of their own efforts to make good their claims to the overlordship of northern Connaught.
The first chieftain of mark in the family was Goffraidh (Godfrey), son of Donnell Mor O’Donnell (d. 1241). Goffraidh, who was “inaugurated” as “The O’Donnell,” i.e. chief of the clan, in 1248, made a successful inroad into Tyrone against Brian O’Neill in 1252. In 1257 he drove the English out of northern Connaught, after a single combat with Maurice Fitzgerald in which both warriors were wounded. O’Donnell while still incapacitated by his wound was summoned by Brian O’Neill to give hostages in token of submission. Carried on a litter at the head of his clan he gave battle to O’Neill, whom he defeated with severe loss in prisoners and cattle; but he died of his wound immediately afterwards near Letterkenny. and was succeeded in the chieftainship by his brother Donnell Oge, who returned from Scotland in time to withstand successfully the demands of O’Neill.
In the 16th century, when the English began to make determined efforts to bring the whole of Ireland under subjection to the crown, the O’Donnells of Tyrconnel played a leading part; co-operating at times with the English, especially when such co-operation appeared to promise triumph over their ancient enemies the O’Neills, at other times joining with the latter against the English authorities.
- ↑ The Cinel, or Kinel, was a group of related clans occupying an extensive district. See P. W. Joyce, A Social History of Ireland (London, 1903), i. 166.
