¹ Momigliano, Arnaldo, ‘La caduta senza rumore di un impero nel 476 d.C.,’ Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, 3 (1973) 397–418, following Wes, M. A., Das Ende des Kaisertums im Westen des römischen Reiches (1967).Google Scholar

² O'Donnell, J. J., ‘The Inspiration for Augustine's De civitate Dei,’ Augustinian Studies 10 (1979) 75–79; cf. my ‘The Demise of Paganism,’ Traditio 35 (1979) 45-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ The views of R. P. C. Hanson on Salvian (Vigiliae Christianae 26 [1972] 277–78) mark a real advance, but a general reappraisal is urgently needed.Google Scholar

⁴ For a hint of what is possible, see Dagens, C., Saint Grégoire le Grand (1977) 129: ‘Ainsi se trouve établi … un trait d'union entre la rhétorique pastorale et la morale chrétienne: une telle liaison porte en elle le développement ultérieur de cette culture chrétienne qui ne sépare pas la théorie de la pratique, ni la science de l'expérience.’ Google Scholar

⁵ O'Donnell, J. J., Cassiodorus (1979) [hereafter cited simply as Cassiodorus].Google Scholar

⁶ Scholarly study on Liberius to date comprises chiefly three bald prosopographical articles: RE 13 (1927) 94-98, s.v. Liberius² ; Sundwall, J., Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Römertums (1919, repr. 1975) 133–36; and The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 2 (1980) 677-81. (I am grateful to J. R. Martindale for providing me with an advance copy of this last item.) Google Scholar

⁷ Matthews, J. F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364-425 (1975), esp. 1-12 on otium. Google Scholar

⁸ Stein, E., Opera minora selecta (1968) 386–400.Google Scholar

⁹ Kaegi, W., Byzantium and the Decline of Rome (1968), exploded the myth that Constantinople had been utterly heedless of the West's fate, but he could not deny that the aid that came was woefully inadequate.Google Scholar

¹⁰ He was still alive in 554 (Justinian, , Novellae App. VII [13 Aug. 554]), but died not long afterward, just short of his ninetieth birthday (CIL 11.382), and he must have been at least in his 20s by the early 490s, when he served under Odovacer (Cassiodorus, , Variae 2.16.2).Google Scholar

¹¹ Liberius' only known relative in the aristocracy was Avienus, cos. 502 (Ennodius, , Ep. 9.7.2: ‘cum parente vestro domno Liberio’), who was brought up in Liguria (Ennodius, , Ep. 9.32.3). But it has also been suggested that a Liberius mentioned by Gregory the Great (Dialogi 4.53) may have been a relative of our subject; what has hitherto gone unnoticed is that this later Liberius appears in Gregory's work associated with a bishop of Luna in affairs around Genoa, in the early 590s. With these hints at hand, it is interesting to observe that when Liberius' son Venantius was presiding as consul at Rome, under his father's doting eye, in 507 (see below), the newly appointed praefectus urbi was one Constantius, an aristocrat from Liguria lauded by Ennodius (Ep. 2.19.1: ‘non est, ut video, effeta Liguria: nobilitatem pariendi nec in temporum extremitate deposuit’). The name Liberius itself is extremely uncommon among the aristocracy (only three bearers of the name are listed in PLRE 1 and 2, over a period of 260 years); the only other one known in our subject's lifetime comes from Gaul, and is related by marriage to Ennodius (Cass., Variae 4.46; Sundwall, , Abhandlungen 136). I am inclined to doubt the tentative suggestion of Cantarelli, L., Studi Romani e Bizantini (1915) 302, that Liberius was connected with a family of bishops at Ravenna which had also boasted a praetorian prefect under Honorius, long before Liberius was born.Google Scholar

¹² At some point he owned property at Naples, but it was just that property which he parted with to establish a monastery (Greg. Mag., Ep. 9.162, 9.164) — see discussion below.Google Scholar

¹³ CIL 11.382 — discussed below.Google Scholar

¹⁴ As a matter of publicly professed legal fiction, the allegiance of the Ostrogothic regime to the emperors at Constantinople was maintained up to the time of Belisarius' invasion of Italy in 536, when Justinian decided to seek a real Mediterranean hegemony.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cass., Variae 2.16.2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The conflict between Theoderic and Odovacer was far from unique in the fifth century for creating a situation of confused loyalties. When a legitimate emperor appointed a Gothic general to attack a Roman general, who responded by summoning the aid of another barbarian nation (as actually happened in 428: Bury, J. B., Later Roman Empire ² [1958] 1.245), the average citizen may well have asked, ‘Who is the Roman?’ Google Scholar

¹⁷ Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire (1949) 2.54-58.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cass., Variae 2.16.2-3.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Anon. Vales. 12.67-68.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ennodius, , Ep. 9.23.3.Google Scholar

²¹ Ammianus 17.3.Google Scholar

²² Salvian, , De gub. Dei 5.21-23.Google Scholar

²³ Cass., Variae 2.16.4, writing before Ennodius.Google Scholar

²⁴ Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (1964) 250–51.Google Scholar

²⁵ I follow Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire 2.43 on the question of the reduction of other taxes with the introduction of the tertiae ; Jones, , loc. cit., sees the tertiae only as an added burden. W. Goffart's Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418-584 came to hand while the present article was in press. His detailed conclusions will need to be tested, but I have very little difficulty accepting his central thesis: that the tertiae system was mainly a reorganization of the existing tax system, that very little land was confiscated, and that the burden on the Italian landowner did not outweigh the advantages.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ennodius, , Ep. 9.23.5.Google Scholar

²⁷ Variae 2.16.5; I assume that a reference to the tertiae settlement occurs also in Liberius' epitaph: Google Scholar

Ausoniae populis gentiles rite cohortes Google Scholar

disposuit, sanxit foedera, iura dedit. (CIL 11.382, lines 11-12) Google Scholar

PLRE 2.681 refers these lines to an otherwise unattested involvement of Liberius in pacifying Italy after the Pragmatic Sanction of 554 (see below).Google Scholar

²⁸ Momigliano 399–403.Google Scholar

²⁹ Note that despite Theoderic's legal position as imperial deputy, it was the thirtieth anniversary of his accession to the Gothic throne that gave rise to his triumphal visit to Rome (Anon. Vales. 12.67).Google Scholar

³⁰ Caspar, E., Geschichte des Papsttums (1933) 2.88.Google Scholar

³¹ This was the so-called Acacian schism, named after the Constantinopolitan patriarch in 484; cf. Fliche–Martin, , Histoire de l'église 4 (1937) 341–52.Google Scholar

³² On Theoderic's zeal for reconstruction efforts, see my Cassiodorus 83-84, 101-2. On the precise sense of moenia here, see Delia Valle, G., Rendiconti… Napoli n.s. 33 (1958) 167–76.Google Scholar

³³ It was tactful of Theoderic to celebrate this alliance at Rome, a city most sensitive to the dangers of Vandal invasions.Google Scholar

³⁴ Anon. Vales. 12.67-68.Google Scholar

³⁵ The patriciate under the Ostrogoths was generally conferred upon retiring dignitaries. The elder Cassiodorus also received it upon leaving the praetorian prefecture, while Boethius and the younger Cassiodorus seem to have received it upon laying down the less onerous duties of the consulship.Google Scholar

³⁶ Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire 2.134; see the stemma in Sundwall, , Abhandlungen 130.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cassiodorus 18–20, 260-63.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ennodius, , Epp. 2.26 (Dec. 503), 5.1 (early 506: see below), 6.12 (early 508, addressed to Liberius and four other senators), and 8.22 (fall 510). None of these letters reveals more about Liberius than that Ennodius thought his friendship worth cultivating.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ennodius, , Ep. 5.1, who may exaggerate Liberius' restraint and fairness.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The date is controversial because the papal collections seem to date the letter to 499 (JK 752); but Sundwall (Abhandlungen 34, 77) followed by Caspar (Geschichte des Papsttums 2.118) rightly saw that the MSS of Ennodius provide a surer basis for dating the letter to 506.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Fliche–Martin 4.494.Google Scholar

⁴² Ennodius, , Ep. 9.23.7; Vita Caesarii Arelat. 2.10. Some of Liberius' offspring survived long enough to erect a monument to the father no earlier than 554/555: CIL 11.382.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. the case of Boethius' two sons, co-consuls under doting paternal supervision in 522 (De cons. phil. 2.3). On the consulship in this period: Mommsen, , Gesammelte Schriften (1910) 6.363–87.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Matthews, J. F., Western Aristocracies 13, 384.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ennodius, , Epp. 4.9 and 5.22 are the only other documentary references to Venantius of which I know, but both date from before his consulship.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The same office was conferred, for perhaps the same reasons, on two other undistinguished consuls of Ostrogothic Italy: Vettius Agorius Basilius Mavortius (cos. 527) and Flavius Anicius Faustus Albinus Basilius (cos. 541).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cass., Variae 2.15-16.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cass., Variae 2.16.6.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cass., Variae 2.15.4.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Jordanes, , Getica 303, described the intent and effect of Theoderic's dynastic politics: ‘nec fuit in parte occidua gens, quae Theoderico, dum adviveret, aut amicitia aut subiectione non deserviret.’ Google Scholar

⁵¹ On Gemellus: Cass., Variae 3.16-17 (Gemellus‘ appointment as vicar in 508); 3.32 and 3.41 (letters of 510 showing Gemellus was chief Gothic representative in Gaul at this time); and 3.18, 4.12, 4.19, 4.21 (other letters probably written before Liberius’ appointment). Avitus, , Ep. 35, shows Gemellus remained in Gaul under Liberius, at least for a time.Google Scholar

⁵² Liberius' actual appointment may date to 510, in which case the delay mentioned in Ennodius, Ep. 8.22, would refer to a postponed departure for Gaul. By late 511 or early 512 (Ennodius, , Ep. 9.23), he appears to have been in Gaul and to have returned briefly to Italy. By early 512 (Ennodius, , Ep. 9.29), we hear of him back in Gaul, apparently to stay.Google Scholar

⁵³ Vita Caesarii Arelat. 2.12-14.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Theoderic's attachment of southern Gaul to his domains was represented to the Gauls as the restoration of Roman rule. Cass., Variae 3.17.1: ‘… Romanae consuetudini, cui estis post longa tempora restituti…. Atque ideo in antiquam libertatem deo praestante revocati vestimini moribus togatis, exuite barbariem, abicite mentium crudelitatem, quia sub aequitate nostri temporis non vos decet vivere moribus alienis.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ennodius, , Ep. 9.23.6.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Langgärtner, G., Die Gallienpolitik der Päpste im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert (1964) 116.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See the letters to Gemellus cited n. 51.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Malnory, A., Saint Césaire, Évêque d'Arles (1894) 113, wished to date Liberius‘ appointment no earlier than 513/14, but Sundwall's dating of Ennodius’ works (Abhandlungen 1-83) rules out this argument.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See, again, the evidence of Ennodius cited n. 52.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Cass., Variae 3.41, provisioning troops ‘ad castella super Druentiam constituta’; Malnory 131-33.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Avitus, , Ep. 35.Google Scholar

⁶² Ennodius, , Ep. 9.29 (early 512).Google Scholar

⁶³ Malnory, 130.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Vita Apollinaris episcopi Valentinensis (MGH, Ser. Rer. Mer. 3) 10.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Vita Caesarii Arelatensis in Caesarius, Opera Omnia (ed. Morin, G.) 2.296-345.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Malnory, 132–33.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Vita Caes. 2.10-12, whence all the following quotations.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The time which must have elapsed in the fetching of Caesarius suggests a naturalistic explanation for the miracle: that the wound was less serious than it was perceived to be, and that the recovery was as much psychological as physical.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Some time must have elapsed in the summoning of the family.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Might the use of the ‘vulgar’ word caballus also reflect the oral source of the narrative?.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. notes 68-69 above.Google Scholar

⁷² Vita Caes. 2.13-15, whence ail the following quotations.Google Scholar

⁷³ It is an unanswerable question whether Agretia or the hagiographer was the first to be impressed by the parallel case in the gospel.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ It is the merit of Schurr, V., Die Trinitätslehre des Boethius im Lichte der ‘skythischen Kontroversen’ (1935), to have demonstrated that Boethius‘ theological tractates were directly connected to the pressing ecclesiastical controversies of the day. But Boethius’ writings are still ‘theology in the closet,’ so to speak, several degrees removed from real life. Perhaps this separation of intellect from spirit is the best explanation of the apparently un-Christian contents of the De consolatione philosophiae. Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Greg. Mag., Epp. 9.162, 9.164 (MGH ed.). Both letters date from June 599. The first directs the local commander of Naples to end, or at least to limit, his levies on the monastery for able-bodied men to be murorum vigiliae; the second is the result of a petition from the monastery's abbot concerning the will of a wealthy lady named Rustica, who is elsewhere recorded to have founded a convent in Naples (Greg. Mag., Ep. 3.58). I conclude that Liberius' monastery must have been in, or just outside, Naples. Schmitt, A., Erbe und Auftrag 45 (1969) 498–502, wanted to locate Liberius' monastery at Alatri, based on his reading of Gregory's Dialogi. But that site is too far from Naples to enable us to make any useful sense of the first two letters just mentioned.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Greg. Mag., Dial. 2.35.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The foundation probably occurred before 535, when Liberius left Italy, not to return for almost twenty years.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Compare the similar case of Cassiodorus, whose monastery, I now argue, was probably founded in the 530s: Cassiodorus 189–93.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Riché, P., Education et culture dans l'occident barbare ³ (1972) 140–45.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cassiodorus, , Inst. 1.29.2; one of the churches at Vivarium was apparently named after Martin of Tours: Courcelle, P., Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome 55 (1938) 259–307.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Cf. Cass., Variae 11.1.16-17.Google Scholar

⁸² Op. cit. , 144.Google Scholar

⁸³ A view not fully excised even by Chadwick, O., John Cassian (1950) 14–15.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cf. Brown, P. R. L., Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 21 (1970) 56–72; or Brown, , Augustine of Hippo (1967) 346-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁵ Rousseau, P., Ascetics, Authority, and the Church (1978), sketches the outline of a non-polemical solution to the problem, but his principal attention is elsewhere, so much remains undone.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ The concept of grace does not loom large in Cassian; see the word-indexes to his works in the SC editions.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cassian, , Inst. 4.39-43: perfection is something which can be attained by humans sine ullo labore. Compare Cassian's stages of humility (Inst. 4.39) with Benedict's (Reg. Ben. 7), to see the transformation of an eastern idea under western (Augustinian) influence.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The safest place to study Augustine's mature ideas on grace is in the earlier comparatively un-polemical De spiritu et littera. Had the Gaulish church possessed the analysis of Augustine's thought on this issue made by Portalié, E., A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine (1960), 177–229, there might very well have been no semi-Pelagian controversy.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Caesarius' whole collection of monastic directives (Opera Omnia [ed. Morin, ] 2.101-55) would repay further study.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Caesarius, , Ep. 1.2 (Morin 2.131).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Statuta (Morin 2.101-24) 25, 40, 50; the whole tone of these documents reflects this attitude.Google Scholar

⁹² Ep. 2.2 (Morin 2.135).Google Scholar

⁹³ Morin 2.154.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ For a fuller elaboration of this complex of ideas, see the last chapters of Cochrane, C. N., Christianity and Classical Culture (1944).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Cf. again Caesarius, in the passages cited n. 91.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Reg. Magistri 1, on gyrovagues, reflected (copied?) in Reg. Ben. 1; note also that stabilitas is one of the three formal vows of the Benedictine life (Reg. Ben. 58).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Cassian, a transitional figure, may be responsible for fixing western attention on the cenobitic ideal: Chadwick, , John Cassian 51–52, etc. But note the arguments of Ladner, G., The Idea of Reform (1959) 378-85, alleging a dominant Augustinian influence also in this area.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Cf. Reg. Ben. 4: ‘Bonum aliquid in se cum viderit, Deo applicet non sibi. Malum vero semper a se factum sciat et sibi reputet.’ The notion is a commonplace in Augustine, e.g., Sermo 96.2.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Hence the significance of the uti / frui distinction in Augustine's thought: De doct. christ. 1.4.4, intimately tied to the pilgrimage motif which would dominate the De civitate Dei. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Failure to observe this process of redefinition limits the usefulness of F. Paschoud's study of patriotism at this period, Roma Aeterna (1967).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Op. cit. , 130.Google Scholar

¹⁰² The conciliar acts are printed in Caesarius, , Opera omnia (ed. Morin, ) 2.66-78.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Morin 2.70.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Only in reporting the results of their deliberations to the pope did Caesarius apparently claim that bishops were among the lingering souces of error (Morin 2.67, lines 12-17). The conciliar acts themselves seem to reflect a less hotly controversial situation.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Morin 2.77.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Morin 2.68-69, Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Morin 2.77.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Morin 2.78.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Cass., Variae 8.6-7.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Cass., Variae 11.1.16.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Cass., Variae 8.9-10.Google Scholar

¹¹² Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire 2.117.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Malnory 160 points out the decay of Gothic defense of Gaul in the 530s.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ In dating Liberius' appointment as military commander, I follow Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 6.447 f., and Sundwall, Abhandlungen 262, against Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire 2.263 and PLRE 2.679. I find absurd the logical consequence of Stein's argument: that the supreme military commander of the Ostrogoths (Stein sees Liberius as Tuluin's successor) would be sent on a diplomatic mission to Constantinople very shortly after his appointment to command.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Cass., Variae 11.1.16.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ John II, Ep. ad senatores (ACO 4.2.206-10; Mansi 8.803-6; PL 66.20-24). See Caspar, , Geschichte des Papsttums 2.217-20.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ The recipients of the Pope's letter, in order, were Avienus, Cassiodorus, Liberius, Severinus (probably not related to Boethius: Sundwall, , Abhandlungen 156–57), Fidelis (from Milan), Avitus (from Aquileia), Opilio, Joannes (father of Pope Vigilius), Silverius (otherwise unknown), Clementinus (from Naples?), and Ampelius (background unknown).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Procopius, , B.G. 1.4.12-20. It appears that Justinian was attempting to deal with Theodahad separately, as a powerful magnate in Tuscany, without having heard of Theodahad's elevation.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Procopius, , B.G. 1.4.21.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Procopius, , B.G. 1.4.24: <image>. The embassy is also mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De caerimoniis 1.87: Liberius was received with the protocol due a praetorian prefect..+The+embassy+is+also+mentioned+by+Constantine+Porphyrogenitus,+De+caerimoniis+1.87:+Liberius+was+received+with+the+protocol+due+a+praetorian+prefect.>Google Scholar

¹²¹ Boethius, , De cons. phil. 1.4.Google Scholar

¹²² From the time of Symmachus' visit to Constantinople in 500 (Sundwall, , Abhandlungen 160) to the extended visit by Boethius' granddaughter Rusticiana in the 590s (Greg. Mag., Ep. 2.27 [MGH ed.] et saep.). Cf. my Cassiodorus 131-76.Google Scholar

¹²³ Stein, , Histoire du Bas-Empire 2.389-91; Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (1972) 274–75.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ This appointment probably was made in 538/39, but the evidence cannot be precisely dated.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Procopius, , Anecdota 29.2, makes the point that Pelagius and Liberius were close friends: <image>..>Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Procopius, , Anecdota 27.17-19, corroborated in part by Liberatus, Breviarium 23 (ed. Schwartz, ; ACO 2.5.138-40).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Procopius, , Anecdota 29.1.11, is the source for the events surrounding the end of Liberius' term as prefect.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Does <image> indicate that Procopius' evidence is incomplete here ?.+indicate+that+Procopius'+evidence+is+incomplete+here+?.>Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Procopius, , Anecdota 29.8-9.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Fliche – Martin 4.457-62.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Momigliano, A., Proceedings of the British Academy 41 (1955) 207–45; Momigliano's view on Cassiodorus' involvement in this movement is to be corrected: Cassiodorus 271-72. Note that Liberius sided with Justinian on the ‘Three Chapters’ and was publicly involved in both the Council of Constantinople and the Pragmatic Sanction; Cassiodorus was apparently on the other side of the theological controversy and not involved in any of the public affairs of the period.Google Scholar

¹³² On the lingering hellenism of Sicily, see Finley, M. I., Ancient Sicily (1968) 166, 177-78.Google Scholar

¹³³ Procopius, , B.G. 3.36.6, 3.37.26-28.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Procopius, , B.G. 3.39.7: <image>..>Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Procopius, , B.G. 3.40.12-17.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Procopius, , B.G. 3.40.18.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Procopius, , B.G. 4.24.1.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Jordanes, , Getica 303.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ E. Stein's effort (Histoire du Bas-Empire 2.820-21) to date Liberius' Spanish expedition to 552 is strained and unconvincing. Jordanes almost certainly wrote in 551, while Liberius must have been back in Constantinople by late 552 or early 553 (as his participation in the Council of Constantinople of May 553 shows).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Jordanes, , Romana 385, claims Liberius and Artabanes came to Sicily together. Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Much remains obscure about the course of events leading up to and surrounding this council. A full study would prove rewarding.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Liberius' friend Pelagius, the future pope, was at first opposed to Justinian's policies but later changed sides abruptly: Stein, , Histoire du Bas-Empire 2.669-75.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ ACO 4.1.27-28; Mansi 9.197-99. Liberius was also the leader of the delegation which reported to the council on May 9 the results of visits to Vigilius on May 1 and 7. On the first occasion, the delegation seems to have included the general Belisarius and the Roman patrician Cethegus.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ ACO 4.1.28; Mansi 9.198 (alternate version).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Corpus Iuris Civilis, Novellae App. VII.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Prag. Sanct. 27: ‘Sed etiam ad Italiam provinciam eundi eis, et ibi quantum voluerit tempus commorandi pro reparandis possessionibus aperimus licentiam.’ Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Prag. Sanct. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Maximus (cos. 523) had been a favorite of Theodahad and married a Gothic princess (Cass., Variae 10.11-12); Sundwall, , Abhandlungen 140, followed Mommsen in the unnecessary and unlikely belief that Maximus held some kind of military command under Theodahad. What is known is that he was mistrusted by Belisarius (Procopius, , B.G. 1.25) and was eventually murdered by the Goths (Proc., B.G. 4.34).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ CIL 11.382, apparently from a sizeable tomb.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ For ter senis lustris, the eyewitness transcriptions give: teredenis tris, terdenos tris, ter denis et lustris, and ter denis lustris. Cantarelli, L., Studi Romani e Bizantini (1915) 299–300, attempted unpersuasively to dispute the emendation.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ On the interpretation of this passage, see n. 27.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Greg. Mag., Dial. 4.53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵³ Cassiodorus 257–58.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ This paper was first presented in summary form at Bryn Mawr College (October 12, 1979), to which audience I am grateful for useful questions and criticisms.Google Scholar