Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:07:06.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxation, Land and Barbarian Settlement in the Western Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

S. J. B. Barnish
Get access

Tassazione, terra e insediamento di barbari nell'impero occidentale

In questo articolo viene esaminata la tesi recentemente sostenuta da W. Goffart che i patti di ‘hospitalitas’, per mezzo dei quali molte tribù federate e gruppi di barbari vennero insediati nel territorio Romano, non riguardavano porzioni di reali possedimenti, come in genere viene asserito, ma porzioni di unità fiscali in base alle quali venivano tassati. Viene dimostrato che per le autorità Romane erano possibili tutte e due i tipi di divisione; ma che il primo era del tutto coerente sia con le pratiche Romane tradizionali sia con i problemi politici ed economici dell'Impero occidentale del V secolo. Studiati attentamente, si può constatare che i testi relativi all'insediamento italiano, che Goffart porta a modello, contraddicono la sua interpretazione. Vengono discussi i processi relativi alia suddivisione fisica della proprietà terriera e le sue più ampie implicazioni per l'impero e per gli stati che succedettero, nonchè l'mportante problema della tassazione dei lotti dei barbari.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 54 , November 1986 , pp. 170 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Die germanischen Ansiedlungen und Landtheilung in den Provinzen des römischen Westreiches (Breslau) 197–202, 317–71, 387–414, 486–93, 503–15Google Scholar.

2 Most notably by Lot, F., ‘Du Régime de l'Hospitalite’, Rev. Belge de Phil. et d'Hist. 7 (1928), 975–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Italy and the tertiae tax, see especially Hartmann, L. M., Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter I (Gotha, 1897), 93–7Google Scholar; and, for general problems, Musset, L., The Germanic Invasions, tr. James, E. & James, C. (London, 1975), 214–18Google Scholar.

3 For Visigoths, , Burgundians, , and Alans, , key texts are: Codex Euricianus 276–7, Leges Visigothorum, VIII. 5Google Scholar. 5,. X. 1, 8–9, 16, Leges Burgundionum, 54–5, Chron. Gall. of 452, a. 440, 442–3, Marius Aventicensis, Chron., a. 456, Fredegar, , Chron. II. 46Google Scholar; for Odoacer and the Ostrogoths, , Procopius, , Bell. Goth. I. 1. 2–8, 28Google Scholar, Cassiodorus, , Variae I. 14, 18, II. 16, 17, VII. 3Google Scholar, Ennodius 447 (= Ep. IX. 23). (Procopius will be cited in H. B. Dewing's Loeb edition, the other texts given here in the MGH series.) The most important billeting law is Codex Theodosianus VII. 8. 5Google Scholar.

4 Barbarians & Romans, A.D. 418–584: the Techniques of Accommodation (Princeton, 1980)Google Scholar.

5 Accepted by James, E., Speculum 57 (1982), 885 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and, with reservations, by Demougeot, E., Byz. Zeitschr. 76 (1983), 55–9Google Scholar (reviews). Collins, R., Early Mediaeval Spain (London, 1983), 24 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suspends judgement. Wickham, C., ‘From the Ancient World to Feudalism, Past & Present 103 (1984), 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 21, has just briefly rejected it.

6 Barbarians, 103.

7 de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London, 1981)Google Scholar, app. 3, gives a valuable collection of texts.

8 See Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1973, repr.), 651 ffGoogle Scholar.

9 For this interpretation of controversial evidence, see Johnson, S., Later Roman Britain (London, etc., 1982), 172 f.Google Scholar, Böhner, K., ‘Zur historischen Interpretation der sogennanten Laetengraber’, Jahrb. des Röm.-Germ. Zentralmuseums, Mainz 10 (1963), 139–67Google Scholar, Böhme, H. W., Germanische Grabfunde des 4 bis 5 Jahrhunderts I (Munich, 1974), 200–07Google Scholar. James, E., in Names, Words, and Graves: Early Mediaeval Settlement, ed. Sawyer, P. (Leeds, 1979)Google Scholar, cap. 3, 71–7, doubts much continuity with the early Merovingian settlements. Note also Gunther, R., in Klio 59 (1977), 311–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Wightman, E. M., Gallia Belgica (London, 1985), 249–56Google Scholar.

10 Cf., e.g., Johnson, op. cit., 125 f., 171.

11 Cf. Alcock, L., Arthur's Britain, (Harmondsworth, 1973), 110Google Scholar, on Gildas, De Excidio 23–5; also Thompson, E. A., ‘Gildas and the History of Britain’, Britannia 10 (1979), 216–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gildas is an unreliable source, but his account has here a suggestive, and plausibly technical ring. See further, below (p. 176).

12 Cf. Johnson, op. cit., 181–93; and Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Landscape, ed. Rowley, T. (BAR 6, Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar, especially the papers of C. Taylor, D. Miles, and P. Sawyer. For archaeological traces of federate rural hospites, see Mackreth, D., in Studies in the Romano-British Villa, ed. Todd, M. (Leicester, 1978), 219–22Google Scholar (highly conjectural). But note that even Viking conquerors did not displace the peasantry and rural patterns which they found (Loyn, H., Vikings in Britain (London, 1977), 121 f.Google Scholar).

13 Cf. Pacatus, Pan. Lat. II.22, Themistius, Or. 16. 211 a–b, 34, 22–4, Claudian, In Eutrop. II. 153 ff., 173–237, 274–8, 576 ff. (with Zosimus V. 13); Jones, op. cit., 1099, n. 46, Demougeot, E., in Mélanges W. Seston (Paris, 1974), 143–60Google Scholar, especially 154 ff.

14 Cf. Demougeot, ibid., 150.

15 Malchus, fr. 18, Müller, , FHG IV, 129Google Scholar; cf. ibid., 126, Burns, T. S., The Ostrogoths (Historia, Einzelschriften 36, 1980), 69 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 Cf. Courtois, C., Les Vandales et l'Afrique (Paris, 1955), 279 f.Google Scholar; but Goffart, Barbarians, 68, n., suggests use of public land.

17 This may have been preceded, in both Spain and Africa, by hospitalitas-type agreements; cf. Courtois, op. cit., 57 f., 170 f., 276.

18 Demougeot, Mèlanges Seston, 157, supposes forced dispossesion from Zosimus IV. 59; but this is unconvincing.

19 Cf. Gunther, , Klio 59, 313Google Scholar; and note the settlement of Franks (probably dediticii, but contrast Demougeot, 156) c. 300–50 ‘in desertis Gallicis regionibus’, and of the Alans on ‘deserta rura’ of Valence, a. 440 (Pan. Lat. VI. 6, Chron. Gall. of 452, s.a.). Goffart, Barbarians, 112 f, warns against assuming that agri deserti were always unoccupied.

20 Nov. Val. 5.4, Cassiod., , Var. II. 37Google Scholar; cf. Goffart, , Barbarians, 53, 81 f.Google Scholar, Caput and Colonate (Toronto, 1974), 31–65, 91–8Google Scholar, ‘From Roman Taxation to Mediaeval Seigneurie: Three Notes,’ Speculum 47 (1972), 165–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Cassiod., , Var. IV. 20Google Scholar. Goffart, , Speculum 47, 143Google Scholar, explains this very implausibly.

22 C. Th. XI. 22. 1–3 best illustrate Goffart's theory. But contrast Duncan-Jones, R., reviewing Caput & Colonate, JRS 67 (1977), 203Google Scholar. He cites Valens' rescript of 370/1 (in Abbott, F. & Johnson, A., Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), 500 ff.Google Scholar)

23 On these, see Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City (Oxford, 1946), 149, 330 f.Google Scholar, n. 98.

24 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus 25. 4. 15, Julian, Misopogon 370 D, Liebeschuetz, J., Roman Antioch (Oxford, 1972), 147Google Scholar, n. 6.

25 Cf. above, n. 22.

26 C.Th. IV. 13. 7; cf. XV. 1. 18.

27 C.Th. XV. 1. 32–3, repeated, with interpretatio, in the Breviary of Alaric.

28 Cod. Just. IV. 61. 13; Nov. Theod. 23.1 (a. 443), C.J. XI. 70. 6 (c. 480).

29 Nov.Just. 128. 16.

30 C.Th. XIII. 11. 10.

31 Bell. Goth. I. 1. 2–8, 28.

32 Barbarians, 60–67, 100, 214, n. 18. His approach to Procopius has been criticised as correctly based, but too simplistic, by Cameron, Averil, Procopius and the Sixth Century (London, 1985), 205 f.Google Scholar

33 Barbarians, 69.

34 Bell. Vand. II. 14. 7–10, 39–42.

35 B.G. I. 15. 1.

36 B.G. II. 29. 2, 35.

37 P. Ital. 31. I. 6, ed. Tjäder, J. O., Die Nichtliterarischen Lateinischen Papyri Italians (Lund, 1954–5, Stockholm, 1982)Google Scholar; cf. vol. II, 64, on date.

38 Barbarians, 90.

39 Cf. Gaupp. op. cit., 475.

40 In Imperial Revenue, Expenditure and Monetary Policy in the Fourth Century, ed. King, C. (BAR IS 76, Oxford, 1980), 6 ff.Google Scholar; cf. A. K. Bowman, ibid., 28 f.; but, for doubts, see Wickham, C., Past & Present 103, 11 f.Google Scholar, n. 14.

41 Cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Roman Economy (Oxford, 1974), 83Google Scholar (repr., Antiquity, 33).

42 Jones, Later Roman Empire, 1199, n. 128, deduced from Nov. Val. 5. 4 that the Italian rate in 440 was nearly twice the 6th. c. Egyptian—‘septem solidis per millenas nuper indictis’. On the area of the millena, see Duncan-Jones, R., in Studies in Roman Property, ed. Finley, M. I. (Cambridge, 1976), 172Google Scholar, n. 44, against Goffart, Caput, 113 f., 137 f.

43 Cf. Whittaker, Imperial Revenue, 13 ff.; C.Th. XI.5.2 (western, a. 416). But superindicticia were still separately accounted in the 6th. c.; cf. Var. I. 26, V. 14. The Egyptian tax figure, though, includes supplements; so too, perhaps, despite Jones, the Italian (P. Ital. 2—Church property, but Var. I. 26 shows that this might pay superindicticia).

44 Cf. Whittaker, Imperial Revenue, 13 ff.

45 Cf., e.g., Var. III. 41, for transport. On the ill effects of coemptiones, cf. Ruggini, L. C., Economia e Società nell'Italia Annonaria (Milan, 1961), 222–32Google Scholar, not wholly convincing; contrast Vanags, P., in The Anonymus De Rebus Bellicis, ed. Hassall, M. & Ireland, R. (BAR IS 63, Oxford, 1979), 49 f.Google Scholar

46 For Stilicho's regular troops and federate families, cf. Zosimus V. 34. 2, 35. 5.

47 Note the troubles of Paulinus of Pella, and cf. ? Prosper, Ad Ux. 17–30, PL 51. 611, De Prov. 26–60, 904 ff., ibid., 617 ff.; S. Paulini Epigr. 10–29, CSEL XVI.

48 Chron. II. 46; cf. Lot, , Rev. Belge 7, 990 f.Google Scholar, n. 3, Goffart, Barbarians, 107 and n. 9. Demougeot, , Byz. Zeitschr. 76, 56f.Google Scholar, suggests that the Burgundian agreement was made by the Visigoths, allied with Gallic nobles in revolt against Majorian. Cf. Gaupp, op. cit., 283 f., Martindale, J., Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II (Cambridge, 1980), 523Google Scholar.

49 Cf. Hodges, R. and Whitehouse, D., Mohammed, Charlemagne & the Origins of Europe (London, 1983), 38–53Google Scholar, perhaps overstating the case. I suspect some revival under the Ostrogoths.

50 Cf. Courtois, op. cit., 191, 196.

51 De Gub. Dei VI. 68.

52 Nov. Val. 2; but note P. Ital. 1, for Sicilian rents reaching Italy in 444.

53 Cf. Nov. Val. 1.3, Nov. Maj. 2.

54 Cf. Nov. Val. 6. 2–3; 6. 1,3; 10; 15.

55 Cf. Nov. Val. 9, Nov. Maj. 8.

56 Cf. Courtois, op. cit., 196.

57 Cf. Nov. Val. 33, Nov. Maj. 7.

58 The recently excavated Lucanian villa of S. Giovanni di Ruoti seems to have flourished throughout the 5th. c.; perhaps the result of its inland position, and increased demands on Italian agriculture made by the urban, particularly Roman, markets.

59 Cf. Nov. Val. 15, praef.

60 Cf. above.

61 Procop., B.V. II. 14, 7–10, 15· 55.

62 For a parallel argument, cf. Brunt, P. A., ‘The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution,’ JRS 52 (1962), 82Google Scholar.

63 Cf. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 10, PL 52. 218; 48, ibid., 333.

64 On the prolonged, and often violent opposition of republican gentry to agrarian reform and military taxation, cf. Brunt, , JRS, 52, 79–84Google Scholar. The climax was the savage Perusine War.

65 Cf. Cassiod., Var. II. 17, discussed below. In 399, curials were only too ready to make over civic lands to laeti, perhaps to avoid tax responsibilities (C.Th. XIII. 11. 10).

66 Cf. Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire II (Paris, etc., 1949), 43Google Scholar; but contrast Goffart, Barbarians, 75, n. 35. On senatorial hatred of the praebitio, cf. Matthews, J. F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court (Oxford, 1975), 268 f.Google Scholar, 277.

67 Cf. Procop., B.G. I. 1. 8, and the tertiarum deputatio of Var. II. 16. A tertia is a share of one third only; cf. L. Visig. X. 1. 8. Burns, T. S, A History of the Ostrogoths (Bloomington, 1984), 82Google Scholar, argues that Ostrogothic nobles got half the estate, on the basis of C.Th. VII. 8. 5. 2, and P. Ital. 13. But the billeting law probably refers to domestic accommodation only (cf. Goffart, Barbarians, 40–50); while I suspect that the 6 unciae of a massa (not necessarily an estate of united ownership) mentioned in the papyrus were acquired by normal means.

68 Vitae Patrum Iurensium II. 10.

69 Cf. Cassiod., , Var. IV. 38Google Scholar; but contrast Ennodius 80. 106 ff. (V. Epiphanii), 263. 23 ff. (Pan. Theoderici).

70 Var. I. 14; ‘quod a Cataliensibus inferebatur genere tertiarum, faciat annis singulis in tributaria summa persolvi … quid enim interest, quo nomine possessor inferat, dummodo sine imminutione … exsolvat? ita et illis suspectum tertiarum nomen auferimus et a nostra mansuetudine importunitates competentium summovemus.’ Var. II. 17: ‘pro sorte quam Butilani presbytero … contulimus, nullum debere persolvere fiscalis calculi functionem, sed in ea praestatione quanti se solidi comprehendunt, de tertiarum illationibus vobis noveritis esse relevandos.’ Hartmann, op. cit., 92 f., relates this to treasuries perhaps created for monetary payments to fifth century federates: cf. Malchus, fr. 18, FHG IV. 128, Eustathius, fr. 6, ibid., 142, and the ‘fiscus barbaricus’ of P. Ital. 1.

71 Cf. P. Ital. 2, ignored by Goffart, Barbarians, 75.

72 Ennodius (263. 23 ff.) calls Odoacer a ‘pauper dominus’, needy and extortionate. According to the Anonymus Valesianus (60), Theoderic found only hay in the treasury. Both sources are doubtless biased.

73 Barbarians, 73–80.

74 On Gaul, cf. Thompson, E. A., Romans & Barbarians (Madison, 1982), 28Google Scholar (repr., JRS 46). Despite the lack of evidence, Burns (History of the Ostrogoths, 80 f.) assumes that only senators suffered.

75 See Tanzi, C., ‘Un Papiro Perduto dell'Epoca di Odoacre’, Archeografo Triestino, n.s. 15 (1890), 413–16Google Scholar; but we do not know the reason for the confiscation.

76 Cod. Euric. 277 (= L. Visig. X. 2. 1); but contrast Goffart, Barbarians, 118–21. On the foedus of the Vandals in Spain, cf. Procop., B.V. I. 3. 3.

77 L. Burg. 84. 2; cf. Lot, Rev. Belge 1, 986 ff.

78 L. Burg. 55. 2. 4; cf. Cod. Euric. 276.

79 On partnership, cf. Thomas, J., Textbook of Roman Law (Amsterdam, etc., 1976), 300–4Google Scholar; on co-ownership (a rather obscure practice), ibid., 323–6.

80 cf. Wickham, C., Early Mediaeval Italy (London, 1981), 116, 121 f.Google Scholar

81 Cf. Gaius, Inst. III. 154 a–b; Buckland, W., A Textbook of Roman Law3 (Cambridge, 1966), 404, 513Google Scholar.

82 Cf. Patlagèan, E., Pauvreté Économique et Pauvreté Sociale à Byzance (La Haye, Paris, 1977), 255–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Signs of the practice in the west are Ambrose, Sermo 8 in Ps. 118, PL 14. 1319, Minucius Felix, Oct. 31·8, C.Th. III. 1· 6, a. 391, repeated, with interpretation, in the Breviary of Alaric. According to Levy, E., West Roman Vulgar Law (Philadelphia, 1951), 67 ff.Google Scholar, the law had come to admit the possibility of plural, though not equal rights of dominium.

83 Eucharisticum 498–507.

84 Var. VII. 3.

85 Cf. L. Burg. 49. 1–3, L. Rom. Burg. 17. 4–5, 30. 2–4, 47; Lot, , Rev. Belge 7, 996 f.Google Scholar, n. 5.

86 L. Burg. 38· 5; on MS B6, cf. L. de Salis, MGH Leges II. 1, p. 14, although he prefers ‘consistentibus’ to ‘consortibus’.

87 Cf. L. Vis. V. 7. 2, VIII. 5. 2, 5, X. 1. 6–7, 3. 5, 14; King, P. D., Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom (Cambridge, 1972), 207Google Scholar and nn. 1, 4.

88 L. Vis. VIII. 5. 5; cf. King, loc. cit. Gaupp, op. cit., 394 f., and Ensslin, W., Theoderich der Grosse (Munich, 1947), 94Google Scholar, warn against a general identification of consortes and hospites.

89 Cf. L. Vis. X. 3. 5; contrast Goffart's interpretation, Barbarians, 239. Note the use of sors in the title of X. 1. 7.

90 Cf. Gaupp. op. cit., 326, 400, Levy, op. cit., 84.

91 Cf, e.g., J. T. Smith, in Todd, op. cit., cap. 8, H. M. Green, ibid., 114 f. This is reflected in rural architecture from Britain to Switzerland, at least into the 3rd. c.

92 Cf. Patlagèan, op. cit., 255–60.

93 Hist. Rom. XV. 7; Hist. Persec. I. 14; cf. Courtois, op. cit., 192 f., 212, Stein, op. cit., II. 50.

94 Cf. Arthur, P., in Papers in Italian Archaeology IV. iv, ed. Malone, C. and Stoddart, S. (BAR IS 248, Oxford, 1985), 250 f., 255 f.Google Scholar, Fulford, M., ‘Carthage, Overseas Trade and the Political Economy, c. A.D. 400–700,’ Reading Mediaeval Studies 6 (1980), 68–80Google Scholar.

95 Cf. R. J. Buck, ‘S. Giovanni di Ruoti,’ Class. Views 1982, 255 f.

96 Cf. Stein, op. cit., II. 42–5, Chastagnol, A., Le Sènat Romain sous le Règne d'Odoacre (Bonn, 1966)Google Scholar; on the inscriptions, Chastagnol, cap. 2, but cf. Cameron, A. and Schauer, D., ‘The Last Consul,’ JRS 72 (1982), 144 f.Google Scholar, on dating problems.

97 Cf. above, n. 69.

98 Cf. Matthews, op. cit., 274–83. 6th. c. senatorial sources still reflect this hostility to Stilicho: cf. Cassiod., Chron., a. 402, Jordanes, Getica 154 ff.

99 Cf. Malalas, , Chron. XV. 0 94Google Scholar; Anonymus Valesianus 53, 57; but the Senate had given diplomatic aid to Odoacer also (Malchus, fr. 10).

100 Ennod., 263. 51; cf. Anon. Val. 56.

101 Cf. P. Ital. 31. I. 6, and Var. I. 14.

102 Ennod, . 447 (Ep. IX. 23Google Scholar). It is curious that he refers to the Romans as ‘superati’—perhaps a slip indicating the feelings which really underlay the settlement!

103 Var. II. 16.

104 Cf. Ensslin, op. cit., 94.

105 Barbarians, 72 f., and n. 31.

106 Cf. above, p. 178, on the theoretical integrity of estates so allotted.

107 Cf., e.g., Gaupp, op. cit., 474 f., Lot, , Rev. Belge 7, 1006Google Scholar.

108 Barbarians, 52, 89 ff.; Ed. Theod. 126 f., on which cf. Goffart, Speculum 47, 174. This code is sometimes argued to be Visigothic, but Goffart is probably right in assuming it to be Ostrogothic. On supply-warrants, cf., also, Gaupp, op. cit., 81 ff.

109 Romulus is sometimes identified with the former emperor. If so, then the gift may have renewed the income of 6000 solidi awarded him by Odoacer (Anon. Val. 38). Note that, in P. Ital. 10–11, Odoacer grants an income of 690 solidi through the conveyance of actual estates with that revenue; but pittacia and deputatio are not mentioned.

110 Var. II. 37; cf. above.

111 L. Burg. 54. 1.

112 Ibid., 79. 1.

113 Cf. Thes. Ling. Lat. V. 625, for overlap on the appointment of persons.

114 Var. V. 26—note, addressed to all the Goths of Picenum and Samnium; V. 27, to the saio Guduin.

115 Barbarians, 82—8; cf. Mommsen, , ‘Ostgotische Studien,’ Neues Archiv 24 (1884), 499 n. 3Google Scholar.

116 Disliking the construction, Stein, E. would here read ‘faciant’ (Rhein. Mus. 74 (1925), 387 f.Google Scholar); but Goffart rightly sees no syntactical necessity, ‘faciat’ is also consistent with Cassiodorus' style; ‘commoneo’ often introduces a substantive clause of purpose, and such clauses can have the same subject as the main verb. Cf. Var. I. 34, V. 26; VIII. 20. 1; Skahill, B., The Syntax of the Variae of Cassiodorus, (Diss., Cathol. Univ. America, Washington, 1934), 236 ffGoogle Scholar.

117 Barbarians, 85 f., n. 53. Against Ibid., 84, Procopius' silence on millenarii carries no weight, as he tells us nothing of the Gothic chain of command. On Vandal millenarii, perhaps non-military, cf. Courtois, op. cit., 217.

118 Cf. Lot, Rev. Beige 7, 1003.

119 Cf. V. 27: ‘… si … res expectet exercitus …’, but this is not conclusive.

120 In Var. II. 17, a sors is held by the priest Butila. His case may be exceptional; but we should, perhaps see the sors simply as illustrating the status of the holder as a free member of a warrior tribe collectively bound to military service. Contrast the donative of Starcedius, , in Var. V. 36Google Scholar.

121 Contrast Goffart, Barbarians, 84.

122 Cf. Mommsen, , Neues Archiv 24, 501Google Scholar, and index to the MGH Jordanes, 186.

123 Get. 89, 146, 264, 270; cf. Malchus, , fr. 17 (FHG IV.124Google Scholar).

124 A theme of the Getica is the disastrous results for Rome when federates were cheated of their subsidies. Heremod, in Beowulf, well illustrates the effects of stinginess for a Germanic noble.

125 Cf. L. Traube's index to the MGH ed., s.v.

126 Cf. O'Donnell, J., Cassiodorus (Berkeley, etc., 1979), 188Google Scholar, n. 12—‘a literary stutter’.

127 Does ‘multiplicent’ refer to the number or the value of donatives?

128 Cited above, n. 70.

129 Thus Goffart, Barbarians, 84.

130 Ibid., cap. 7; with p. 177, contrast Wickham, op. cit., 29, 66. On the highly obscure Liburian tertiatores (used by Goffart, 189–205), cf. Ibid., 153. Cf., also, Bognetti, G. P., L'Età Longobarda (Milan, 1966–1968), II. 135 ff.Google Scholar, III. 126f, IV. 67 f. (e.g.).

131 On this, see Bierbrauer, V., Die Ostgotische Grab-und schatzfunde in Italien (Spoleto, 1975), 25–41, 209–12Google Scholar; and below pp. 185–6. Goffart (74, n. 33) dismisses the question as irrelevant!

132 Rev. Belge 1, 994 f.

133 The Long-Haired Kings (London, 1962), 30–3, 48Google Scholar. They may have started to migrate to Spain before the Frankish attack (Collins, op. cit., 34 f). On the early mobility of federated Vandals, cf. Courtois, op. cit., 57 f. Still, the Visigoths had over two generations in Aquitania.

134 Barbarians, 206, 221.

135 Note Böhme's comparison, op. cit., II. 207, n. 951, with the Ostrogoths. But if, as James supposes, their settlements were short-lived, this would support Lot.

136 Cf. Claud., , In Eutrop. II. 194–210, 275 fGoogle Scholar.

137 Cf. Courtois, op. cit., 218–21, 279 f.

138 Cf. Brown, T. S., Gentlemen and Officers (British School at Rome, 1984), cap. 5Google Scholar.

139 For training, cf. Var. V. 23, Ennod. 263. 83–6; for reviews, Var. V. 26–7, with which compare the Frankish weapon-show in Tur., Greg., Lib. Hist. II. 27Google Scholar.

140 Cf. Collins, R., in Visigothic Spain: New Approaches (ed. James, E., Oxford, 1980), 199 fGoogle Scholar. on the Meseta cemeteries.

141 Cf. Thompson, op. cit., cap. 2 (repr., JRS 46); contrast Wallace-Hadrill, op. cit., 26–9 (criticised by Thompson, 251–7), and the sensible remarks of Bachrach, B., ‘Barbarian Settlement in Southern Gaul,’ Traditio 25 (1969), 354–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the north, cf. Johnson, op. cit., 172.

142 For the ‘ala Getica’, see Claud., , In Eutrop. II. 176Google Scholar; for Phrygia's prosperity, Ibid., 269 ff.; but Zosimus V. 13 shows the Goths exploiting social discontent.

143 Op. cit., 32–8. The Vandals seem now to have been little feared. There is no clear evidence for the non-garrison settlement near Rome and in Campania supposed by Mommsen, Neues Archiv 24,500 (cf. Ensslin, op. cit. 92). In general, it is striking how texts, place-names, and archaeology confirm each other. On Gothic numbers, see Hannestad, K., ‘La Guerre Gothique de Procope,’ Classica et Mediaevalia 21 (1960), 155–68Google Scholar.

144 B.G. II. 7. 29, 10. 1, 17. 1 ff. II. 25. 9 may have a similar implication.

145 Ibid., II. 29. 5.

146 Ibid. II. 11. 2, 20; 28. 29.

147 On these, cf. Jones, Later Roman Empire, 653 f. C. Th. VII. 15. If. links gentiles and African terrae limitanei; but Nov. Theod. 24. 2 distinguishes federates and limitanei. It also shows the latter as supplied with both lands and annonae. Cf. Var. II. 5, III. 41, for the supply of annonae, including grain, to Gothic garrisons.

148 The 5th. c. Norican fliehburgen may be comparable. On these, cf. Alföldy, G., Noricum (London and Boston, 1974), 216–20Google Scholar.

149 Procop., B.G. II. 28. 31. Note CIL V. 7414, a. 541, from Dertona.

150 Cf. de Ste. Croix, op. cit., 247 ff., Gunther, , Klio 59, 311 fGoogle Scholar.

151 The Barbarian West3 (London, 1967), 116Google Scholar; but contrast the list of Battisti, C., Settimane del Centro di Studio Ital. sull'Alto Medioevo 3, 642 f.Google Scholar, n. 3.

152 Cf. Levy, op. cit., 124 f.

153 Cf. L. Burg. 13, 31, 54. 2, 67; L. Vis. X. 1, 6–7, 9, 13; X. 3. 2 (?= Cod. Eur. 274).

154 Cf. Bonnet, C., Archeologia Medievale 10 (1983), 283 f.Google Scholar, 289–92.

155 Cf. Var. II.21, 32–3, Vita Hilari, Acta Sand., Mai III. 471 ff. Theoderic's settlement of Alamanni may have involved reclamation: cf. Ennod. 263. 72 f. (the text may need emendation).

156 Cf. Var. IV. 39, V. 12, VIII. 23, X. 4, Procop., , B.G. I. 3. 2–4, 4. 1Google Scholar.

157 Var. VIII. 10, 25.

158 Cf. Procop., , B.G. I. 15. 1–2Google Scholar.

159 Var. V. 36.

160 P. Ital. 13.

161 Bell. Vand. I. 8. 12.

162 Cf. James, in Names, Words & Graves, 81 ff. The Ostrogoths have left no such cemeteries, but the social implications of this are unclear—cf. Bierbrauer, op. cit. 61 ff.

163 Cf. Cod. Eur. 310–11 (= L. Vis. V. 3. 1–2), L. Vis. V. 3–4. (For the late kingdom, cf. L. Vis. IX. 2. 9.)

164 On the Ostrogoths, cf. Burns, History, 81, assuming without evidence that chieftain-retainer settlement was the only sort involved. His claim that, in the Po valley, major allotments were divided among family farming units called condamae is wholly unsupported by Var. V. 10–11, which he cites. On Visigoths and Burgundians, cf. Thompson, op. cit., 51 f. (repr., Historia 12). For a later parallel, cf. Sawyer, P., Kings & Vikings (London, etc., 1982), 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but the Viking nobles did not dominate the countryside—cf. Loyn, op. cit., 131 ff.

165 Cf. King, op. cit., 206, on L. Vis. VIII. 3. 15–16, 4. 16–17, X. 3. 2; but sortes are not mentioned, and it is doubtful if these leges antiquae were meant for Goths alone. The Meseta graves are bad evidence for Gothic villages. But note the plurals of Cod. Eur. 276.

166 L. Burg. 38. 5; cf. above, n. 86.

167 L. Burg. 57; contrast the larger share of freemen. For other interpretations of this tertia, cf. De Salis, , MGH Leges II. 1Google Scholar, ad loc.

168 Cf. Procop., , B.G. I. 27. 27 fGoogle Scholar.

169 Ibid., I. 11. 28; cf. Var. I. 4, VII. 18, for supply.

170 Cf. Var. V. 23.

171 Cf. Hannestad, , Class, et Med. 21, 162Google Scholar.

172 Contrast Jord., Get. 300, an expedition of 500 horse, 2,000 foot only.

173 For rural co-operation, cf. Wickham, op. cit., 98.

174 Ennod. 263. 62.

175 Lot, Thus, Rev. Belge 7, 996 f.Google Scholar; but cf. Musset, op. cit., 173 f., for problems. Goffart, Barbarians, app. E, sees it as originally denoting a member of a military following.

176 L. Burg. 1. 1 (note also 51. 1, 78). While sortes, like other goods, were now divisible among sons, these laws suggest a custom of family ownership, starting to decay.

177 This practice is suggested for the Lombards by Ed. Rothari 167.

178 At first, the Romans may have kept half the land, and all mancipia: cf. Gaupp, op. cit., 325 ff. The Visigoths received 2/3 of enclosed woodland, at least: cf. King, op. cit., 205, n. 2.

179 Rev. Belge 7, 977–86.

180 Barbarians, cap. 5, esp. 132–54. He is probably right in taking mancipia to denote coloni as well as slaves.

181 E.g., how do we know plain ‘terrae’ to have come to about half the units? Interesting evidence, if so, for peasant owners and untied tenants. How did the lands of political offenders come so neatly to a third?

182 Op. cit., 206, n. 5. Note also the possible need of faramanni to settle their kin.

183 Cf. Vit., Victor, Hist. Persec. I. 2Google Scholar, Prosper, , PL 51. 618Google Scholar, Ennod. 80. 136–77, Vita Caesarii I. 37–8, L. Burg. 56, Schmidt, L., Geschichte der Deutschen Stamme I (Berlin, 1910), 405, 408Google Scholar. L. Burg. 57 may imply that some were too poor to provide for their freedmen.

184 C. Th. VII. 13. 16 (western).

185 Cf. Ruggini, op. cit., 429–7, though her figures for the north-central estates are very conjectural.

186 Var. III. 52 gives an amusing account of their work. If iuga, etc., were far from wholly abstract, the known census records made in such units will have helped them to relate land and value, when deciding which properties to allot.

187 Cf. Ruggini, op. cit., 434 ff., on P. Ital. 8. II. 14–111. 2; Castagnetti, A., L'Organizzazione del Territorio Rurale nel Medioevo (Turin, 1979), 171–5Google Scholar.

188 With Burns, , Historia, Einzelchr. 36, 81 f.Google Scholar, rather misleadingly citing P. Ital. 13, contrast Lécrivain, Ch., ‘Le Partage Oncial du fundus Romain,’ MÉFR 5 (1885), 15 ffGoogle Scholar.

189 Cf. Castagnetti, op. cit., 174, but citing only an 11th. c. text.

190 Levy, op. cit., 84 supposes division to have been made by the hospites, at first co-owners pro indiviso; but this conflicts with the praise of Liberius. Cf., though, Gaupp, op. cit., 326, 400, on the Visigoths and Burgundians.

191 The 2 properties of P. Ital. 31, guaranteed free ‘a sorte barbari’ may have totalled only 7 iugera. Cf. Ruggini, op. cit., 431, Tjäder, ed. cit., II. 67.

192 On this in general, cf. Burns, History, 82 f., 126 f.; but he shows too little caution in use of Ed. Theod., which does not deal specifically with hospitalitas problems, rather with the usual troubles of the late Roman countryside.

193 Cf. Var. V. 14, 33.

194 Sermo 10, PL 52. 218.

195 Cf. L. Burg. 54. 3, L. Vis. VIII. 5. 5, X. 1. 8–9, Cod. Eur. 276, Var. VII. 3, quoted above; King, op. cit., 207, n. 1.

196 L. Burg. 55; cf. the demonstratio finium required by Cod. Eur. 276.

197 Cf., in general, Procop., , B.G. I. 2. 5, 8Google Scholar, III. 21. 6, no doubt biased. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 48, PL 52. 333, gives an interesting contrast: ‘Ecce qui ejiciunt vicinos, qui expellunt hospites’. The political situation in earlier 5th. c. Italy was very different.

198 Cf. Var. II. 13, V. 26, VIII. 26 (mistitled); for Faenza, VIII. 27.

199 De Cons. Phil. I, pr. iv.

200 Ennod., 60 (Ep. II. 23Google Scholar); cf. Burns, History, 82 f., in fact a guess. 270, 280–2 (Ep. VI. 5, 13–14) may also be examples.

201 Var. VIII. 28. Perhaps they were claimed as bondsmen, being unable to produce proof of their ownership of the land.

202 Barbarians, 93–5.

203 Cf., e.g., C.J. VIII. 4, C.Th. IV. 8. 5.

204 Barbarians, cap. 6, not wholly convincing.

205 Op. cit., 197 ff.

206 L. Burg. 54. 1, 55. 2; cf. Gaupp, op. cit., 324 f.

207 Cf. Goffart, Barbarians, 40, 164 ff.

208 Ibid., 91 ff., 226, Thibault, , ‘L'Impôt Directe dans les Royaumes des Ostrogoths, etc.,’ Nouv. Rev. Hist. du Droit 25–6 (1901–1902), 698–728, 32–48Google Scholar, especially 700–12, 34 ff.

209 Cf. Procop., , B.V. I. 5. 14Google Scholar; Fulford, Reading Med. Stud.6, 75, perhaps underestimating both taxation and official expenditure by the Vandals.

210 ‘tertias Romanorum ab illis, qui occupatas tenent, auferant, et Romanis … restituant, ut nihil fisco debeat deperire’: cf. King, op. cit., 65 ff., against Thibault, , NRHD 26, 34 ff.Google Scholar, arguing that the Romans may still have been expected to pay tax on land usurped from them illegally.

211 L. Rom. Burg. 40 is the sole reference to the Burgundian land-tax; but cf. Thibault, , NRHD 26, 43 ff.Google Scholar, on L. Burg. 79. 1. Fredegar II. 46 may indicate ineffectiveness of their taxation.

212 But does the phrase ‘quolibet titulo praedia quaesiverunt' (V. 14) include the acquisition of sortes?’

213 Cf. Goffart, Barbarians, 91.

214 Cf. Var. VI. 24, VIII. 26; Goffart, Barbarians, 92, Thibault, , NRHD 25, 703Google Scholar.

215 Contrast Goffart, Ibid., 92, n. 67, Thibault, Ibid., 702.

216 Ibid., 700 ff., cf. Goffart, 226, Lot, , Rev. Belge 7, 989Google Scholar, on soldiers.

217 Orosius VII. 41 may give slight support, and cf. above, n. 102.

218 Hence, perhaps, L. Vis. X. 1.8, the apparent right of the king to bestow property on Goths from Roman tertiae. Goffart, 121 ff., uses his tax-share theory to interpret. Note Demougeot's review, Byz. Zeitschr. 76, 56 ff., on the 5th. c. politics of the federate kingdoms.

219 On these exemptions, cf. Goffart, Caput, 53–60, and note Nov. Theod. 24. 4, on those applied to agri limitanei; but 24. 2 sharply distinguishes the respective privileges of federates and limitanei.

220 Wickham, op. cit., 21; cf. cundem, Past and Present 103, 20, 23, 25.

221 Cf. eundem, Past and Present 103, 20, King, op. cit., cap. 3, Thompson, E. A., The Goths in Spain (Oxford, 1969), 118–31, 139–47, 210–16Google Scholar.

222 Cf. Collins, op. cit., 144; but note his view (109, 142), that Visigothic administration was always rudimentary. The point needs more argument than it gets.

223 Barbarians, 93–102, 113 f., 153 ff., 228 f.

224 Cf. Ibid., 126, on the effect on the Visigoths, and 228 f., on their legacy to the Franks.

225 For the effects of alienation on the Merovingians, cf. Wallace-Hadrill, Long-Haired Kings, 13 f., 67 f. (note the immunity of lands so awarded); on the Northumbrian kings, Charles-Edwards, T., in Mediaeval Settlement, ed. Sawyer, P. (London, 1976), 183 fGoogle Scholar. (note the tendency of awards to become hereditary).

226 Cf. Charles-Edwards, Ibid., 181–4, 187.

227 Op. cit., 218.

228 Cf. Böhme, op. cit., I. 201 f.

229 Cf., e.g., Ammianus Marcellinus 28. 5. 15, 31. 9. 4, Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Occ., 42. 46–53, C. Th. XIII. 11. 10, Nov. Severi 2. 1, de Ste. Croix, op. cit., 247, Tjäder, op. cit., I. 472 f.

230 Their warrior traditions may have had some similarity. On 1st-3rd c. northern provincial weapon-graves, cf. De Laet, S. and Van Doorselaer, A. in Saalburg Jahrbuch 20 (1962), 54–61Google Scholar, 21 (1963–4), 26–31; but Wightman, op. cit., 262, doubts continuity.

231 Cf. Tur., Greg., Lib. Hist. II. 9Google Scholar ad fin., 40–2.

232 Cf. Musset, op. cit., 74 ff., on their 5th. c. activities. Without the use made of them by Aegidius and Paulus, the Visigoths might have overrun them, rather than the reverse.

233 Cf. Ibid., 63–6, 198 f. (not wholly reliable in detail).

234 Cf. Procop., , B.G. I. 2. 6–19Google Scholar, probably rather tendentious.

235 Cf. Schmidt, L., ‘Die Letzten Ostgoten,’ Zeitschr. für Schweiz. Gesch. 3 (1923), 451Google Scholar—one example as late as the 11th. c. The Burgundian law-code of Gundobad was still being used in the reign of Louis the Pious.

236 Cf. Musset, op. cit., 227 ff., James, in Names, Words and Graves, 60–4, 77–85.

237 I must thank Bryan Ward-Perkins for his advice on this article. He is not, of course, responsible for its views or errors.