earlier one, any more than we can accept the pos- sibiliQ of arrioing at the name Jor the Gothic the judge from Celtic, in a way in which tl~is possible for rciks. ,Such an obseruation, otherwise trivial in itsel_r, .rerues to characteriie the methodr Visigoth: arid Limits of the Blnctional compariso~~.This yields historical insighls which appb to the in- dividual case in question: along with new con- monarchy or sideratio~uconcerning rcx-rciks, an ar~qument i.s de~eloped againrt tlie opinion tliat Atizanaric's ,judgeship was olle of a lower rank than genuine J'udgeship. kingship, before which tiie GotIiZC clii@-for whateuer reasoz -- was supposed io haue draron back infear. This makes his judgeship look more A study in like an 'i~utitutionalized magisiracy', exercising rgal power for a set term, than a mere ethnic dignip. Further, the compariron estab1khe.r that the comparative Celtic, as well as tlie Gothic, judqechip was pouibly held in dual,fashio~z,or could be held tltat history wq, bcfore the period under o6,seruaiion; howeuer, the pairs to be dealt with here do 1101 represent afly 'Dioscurian' doi~blechiefdom but rather pairs of chieftains riualling each olher. The archaic ex- perience may serue i~ithis instarice o~ilyas a model fol- siiaping lhe traditio~i.

Finally, it is recognized - and thir co111d well be our most importa~~tfinding- that the judgeship is limiled, not onb in time but also in territoly: il 7he declcion to risk an attempt atfunctional com- had valid ,jurisdictiot~ o~zbi~zside the tribal ler- parison between two historicaljgures ouer a period ritoiy ilself. It follow.s ,from t1zi.r that the judge's of more tlian ,four hu~zdredyears proceded from duties comprised dej2nse of the fatlierland as well epmological considerations of uarious types, but as the execution ofjudgmenl.r. was Jirst suggested by the contrast between Atl~a- iflotzg with the 'external' compnrison among naric und as they are portrayed in , Cells, und Clieruscan~,an 'it~lernal'fuzc- modern historical literature. As in the Gase of the in- tional comparisotr is drawn zcitliin ,/ozi~tI~-ce~it~~~~~ stitutional analogv of thejudge of lhe Got11.r with Gotliic coizrlitutional history. In so doit~g, lize tlie vergobreto~ cf the , there exists no possibilip is opened jor reconstrzrcling the family historical relatioluhip between the lfe histories oJ leadership oJ tiie three generations bej6ol-e the two Germanic chieftains, in the sense that Alaric. 7-/ie?z, within Golhic 1,-adition, we are Athanaric cannot haue been injuenced to act as he able to arriue at the l-i~litz~qund instilzitional did by the stoiy of Arrn~iiu.~,nor can we assume a function of the 'wisdom', whicli both lhe C;othicized direcl depe~zdence of the later institution on l11e Decaetzeus nnd Tl~eoderic,as well as ilthanaric

Journal of Medieval Histoi-y i (1973)' 239-278. 0 So! himelj and hi.r predecessors, exercised. This was so tliat it is possible for Athanaric both to bc ,followed by the deuelopment of' the Gothic jt~dgeship thc Visigothic founding and to takc as the 'central' imtilution of a changing and con- liis placc in tlie succcssion of Ostrogotliic srantly diuidi~ip.aristoa-atic sociely. Particularly in . Tlic liistorian, to be sure, must makc ulew ojfthis, it would seem apprqPriate to raise the tlic ncccssary distincticns; at tlic ramc timc, possibilily that lhe method of fuiätional compari.roo Iic can givc imprcrsivc substancc to thc his- could be used lo ouercome the irolation of hlrtorical toricai significancc of that Gothic cliicftain motiues, act.~,and institutions, artd therebypermil us (Schmidt 1941 :418). to penetrate ,further in10 an area where history .4thararic was a Visigotli or rather Ter- establirhes contact with social sciences deali~~gwith ving;z in spitc of this, Heinrich Sybcl wantcd tlze present and oriented towards the,future. Here it to bcgin tlie totality cf Gothic constitutional will be necessaql ro ask qwstionr about general liistory witli him(1881:178). Dietrich Claude, phenomena which only recentb zere deicribed und the most rccent writer to take a stand on this nnabied as 'pro1oQpe.r' (Graus 1971 :38-44) sii@jcct, sccs him as tlie first rcpresentativc of Gothic institutions "about whom wc find out morc than Iiis namc" (1971 :I 1). In any Tlrerc arc two diffcrcnt Or

thcir dissimilaritics of contcnt. Amniianus rcports tlic rcception ancl deatlr of Atlianaric &Iarcellinus, howcvcr, did riet claim tliat in Constantinoplc as if it wcre a matter of Atlianaric was made to swcar to Iiis fatlicr coursc: hc obscrvcs no contradiction hetwccn iieucr to cntcr tlic - and ilrus tlic way tlic suhject of liis history was acting to make a vow to him whicli Iic later hrokc at in 369 ancl in 381. tlic cnd of his lifc. Instead, wc rcad iliat tlic Thc sourccs do not recorcl tlie namc of Gothic cliicf was hound hy an cspcci;illy Ailianaric's fatlicr, and all ciforts to cliscovcr scvere oatli und that a patcrnal order had it musi remain mcre liypothcscs. Somc of tlic forbidden liim to sct foot on Roman soil. It carlicr conjccturcs Iiad no cvidcncc wliat- was for this rcason tliat hc declincd in 369 to socver behind tliern, hut tlic possihility rcccnt- go io mect on Roman tcrritory. His ly suggcstcd by Rcinliard \Veriskus (1973a: rcfusal was acccptcd, witli tlic rcsult tliat thc 13-4) appcars to hc a rathcr likely onc, sincc peacc was concluclccl on a hoat ancliorcd in it can bc supported: a good 1.atin sourcc rc- tlic niiddlc of thc Danuhc. Only a fcw lincs ports that tlic Goth Ariaric was forccd to givc aftcr tclling us tliis fact, Ammianus (27.5.9) Iiis son as a liostage, in order to confirm tlic trcaty (/'ocdi~s)of 332. Ariaric is licre tlcsig- \-cycd elscwlicrc, too, tliat thcy wcre not cvcn natcd as king (rex) (Mommscn 1892a:lO). ofcqual rank. As long as Alaviv is in evidence, Wliatevcr tliat word may signify in this con- appcars to be merely onc of his tcxt, it is acccptablc evidence tliat rtriaric associates. Only wlien Alaviv disappears was tlic niost eniincnt Goth of liis time. docs Fritigern emerge as cliief; even then, he FIc iiiay actually Iiave been tlic suprcmc must still Iiecd tlic wislies of otlier Gothic commandcr in tlic defensive war a~ainstthc leadcrs as bcforc (31.4.1 and 8.5.5). Othcr Romans. Tlic Ostrogotliic Origo, lioweuer, pairs, such as Sucridus and Colias (Vetters rcfcrs to a Gotliic double kingship at this time 1954-57), or tlie Ostrogotliic Alathcus and undcr Ariaric and Aoric (Mommscn 1882: Safrax, Iiiay be described esscntially in ac- 67). In doing so, it alludes to a governmental cordance with thc two principlcs offunctional form whicli mucli Indo-European evidencc sclcction (Mommsen 1882:93), althougli it is corifirms as Iiaving bccn both ancient and possible that still otlicr roles and tasks camc widesprcad (Birkhan 1970:207-10; Mucli their way (Wcnskus 1961:478-81). 1967:480--92; MTcnskus1961 :321-2). Tlie Vi- Fitting the two Gothic chicfs Ariaric and sigotliic usage of thc fourth century, Iiow- Aoric into tlic designated groups of two cvcr, may wcll liavc taken tlie archaic nonctlieless causcs some diificulty. The way dual riilcrsliip only as a traditional, tribal their names correspond to cacli other in niodcl. In spite of a scries of known pairs of alliteration and rhythm would appear to Icaders, the oldcr arrangcmcnt appcars to draw them into tlie area of such 'Dioscurian' liavc becn sacrificed to a ncrz- political pairs as Anibri and Assi, Rapt and Raus, rcality, namcly a hicrarcliy of aristocratic Ebbo and Aggo, Hengist ancl Horsa, or Ibor families with a monarcliical leader - but onc and Aio. These are good reprcsentatives of thc witli a stipulated term of oifice - at thc arcliaic doublc kingdom form whicli was par- summit. Rcfcrenccs to Atlianaric ancl Frit- ticularly favored among tlie Vandal neighbors igern, Alaviv and Fritigern, Eriulf and of thc Goths. Of Course, thc equivalcnce of , Winguric and 'another chicf', do not Ariaric and Aoric to a 'Dioscurian'group docs involve common leadcrs of a Single group but not quitc clicck out, for tlieir namcs are rather 'pairs of opposites' in botli a political tlie correct names of historically documented and territorial scnse.8 In othcr words, thc persoris, whilc in tlie otlier cases it is liardly two figurcs clcvated to leadership consist a matter of individual names at all but rather either of exponents of inimical political vicws, in most cases of ancicnt appellations of tribal as Athanaric and Fritigern, or of leadcrs of functions and liistorical evcnts (Birkhan allicd bands, like Alaviv and Fritigern. 1970:207-10; Courtois 1964:390-2). In con- Shere is also evidence that the functions of trast to thcse, thc names Ariaric and Aoric, ilthanaric and Fritigcrn corrcsponded to apart from tlieir alliteration and rhythm, territorial jurisdictions and wcre tlius scpar- also follow the principle of variation wliereby ated in space from cach otlier (Klein 1960: a family rclationship is exprcsscd and fre- 46) .9 Apart from tliis, Ammianus Marcellinus qucntly, when in such emphatic form - makcs it clear that hc docs not view Alaviv think, for examplc of Heribrand, Hildebrand and Fritigern as dual lcaders of a singlc and Hadubrand - it is that of grandfather, governmental unit. The impression is con- fathcr and son. It is also wortli noting that Gotliic Iiistory itsclf would limit tlie institu- in his son, iithanaric, an anti-Roman polit- tion of doublc kingsliip mcrcly to Ariaric and ical outlook. It is known tliat Athanaric not Aoric. Thcsc two ha\:e a singlc prcdccessor in only understood tliis to include rcpelling the Vidigoia and a singlc succcssor in Gebcric, Romans in onc of thcir offensive wars - as 130th of thosc namcs being mcntioncd and liis putatiuc grandfatlier ilriaric had done - handecl down, of coursc, bccausc of tlicir bnt also that lic sought to countcr Rornaniza- placc in military cvcnts. Just as Vidigoia is tion ancl the accoinpariying intcrnal crisis of said to Iravc led the unitcd nation against thc thc Gotlis through a bloody persccution ofthe of (Mommsen 1882: Christians among them in 369-72 (Tliomp- 65, 104), Gcbcric appcars siniilarly to have son 1966:94-102). Thc first organized per- bccn thc suprcme commamder conqucring sccution of tliis type Iiad already taken placc tlic , who generations later recallcd in 348, whcn Wulfila and liis followers wcre this dcecl as a basic rcason for tlicir retrcat forced to Aee from a "juclgc of thc Gotlis wlio out of Spain beforc the Gothic onslauglit was blaspliemous and witliout religion". (Mommscn 1882:87-8, 100). Therc is much wliicli implics that Aoric is Thus it can bc surmiscd tliat Ariaric and mcant hcre; his activities against the Cliris- Aoric wcre fathcr ancl son. Atlianaric's namc, tians ivould then reprcscnt thc otlier com- which stands in the sainc rclationsliip to poncnts of tlie traditional policy of tliis fam- those of tlicse two Gothic princes as tlieir ily (Strcitbcrg 1908:xvii). Tlic son of Con- namcs stand to cach othcr, along witli his stantine, Constantius 11, grantcd asyluni institutional position and liis pcrsoiial rank, to tlic refugcc Gotlis and scttled tlicm in niakes it additionally probable tlrat 11c was the rnountains of Mocsia in present-day the son of Aoric, tlius complcting tlic analogy , where thcir descendents wcrc still of Hcribrand, Hildcbrand, and Hadubrand living pcacefully two hundrcd years latcr mcntioned abovc. Accordingly, this grcat (Tliompson 1966 :96-7) Atlianaric can hardly dccd of father and son, that of lcading tlic have succccdcd to tlic judgcsliip before 364 defensive war against tlie Romans and guar- and thus cannot have been thc persecutor anteeing tlic pcacc witli a hostagc, would of \\'ulfila in 348, since his death in 381 in haue preservcd tlic archaic model of doublc Constantinople is mcntioned as hcin~un- kingsliip for Gotliic liistory. According to this cxpected, which implics tliat hc was not linc of thought, Aoric would liavc comc in particularly old (Thompson 1966:43, n. 4). 332 to Constantinoplc, whcre tlic cmperor Tlic fact that the highcst honors and posi- had him honorcd with the statue mcntioned tions of autliority arc hereditary even in an abovc. In spite of tliis, and lrcrc wc are again aristocratically organized society, if not al- on surc grourid, Athanaric's fatlicr did not ways following in a dircct linc of desceut, ovcrcomc his liatrcd of all tliings Roman, or nccds no cxhaustive dcmonstration. In the it may liave bcen that Iic grcw to hclicve that case of thc Visigoths during the fourth tlic Roman world prcscnted an cxtremc ccntury tliis proccss is cxpressly attcsted to thrcat to tlic traditional tribal striicturc of the (Claudc 1971:66--20). But it scems likcly Gotlis. At some point in time, probably after tliat witli this type of supremc position, rcturning homc following Constantinc's death which appcars only in exceptional sitnations in 337, tlic Gotliic prince undcrtook to instill and then as a judgcship, onc close relative would not be allo~ccdto follow hard upon more positive cvidcncc which servcs as tlic another owing to fear that kingsliip miglit be hasis for cstablishing Iiistorical fact. It has renewed. Thus surely belonged to bcen positivcly estahlishcd concerning Atha- anothcr family, probably to one in compcti- naric tliat hc was a judge (iudex: 6l~aorq<), tion with Ariaric's (Mommsen 1882:87). If (Claudc 1971 :12; Tliompson 1966:45), and imprcssions do not deceivc, defensc against that lic himself differentiated bctwecn this cxternai and intcrnal tlrreats was thc corncr- judgesliip - to spcak of this as Iris 'judicial stonc of the policy reprcsentcd hy Ariaric, officc' weakens tlie govcrning cliaractcr of the Aoric, and Athanaric-aposturc which would rank - and any kingship, whatcvcr wc may agrec witli neitlrer the aggressive war against understand by the lattcr tcrm (Tlicmistios, tlie Sarmatians nor that against the Vandals. Oratio, 10.134 D). The institutional positicn Evcn if tliis assumption may go a bit far, the of Athanaric is determincd in a manner quite first documented judgc of thc Gotlis could uniquc for that timc, even thougli its Gotliic still be thc fathcr of Athanaric, or in other namc has not survivcd. It is attcsted to words, Aoric, in wliich case Ariaric's 'king- independently by many contemporaries, ship' should also he considered as a judgeship. Christian and pagan, in hoth tlic and Tlie thrce alliterative namc variations of Grcek languagcs. This fact is significant as Ariaric, Aoric, and Atlianaric are joined by a means of allaying thc suspicion tliat tlie a fourtli alliteration in Alaric. Of liim it is judgcship of Atlianaric was pcrhaps mcrely known tfiat he was a mcmber ofthe renowncd the literary offspring of Biblical languagc, Balt clan and tliat Iic establislied tlie Gothic which in tlic 'Judge' of Israel actually kingdom whose traditions wcre carried on by lianded down a closely corresponding func- the southern Frencli and later the Spanisli tion (Xoth 1950). kingdom (R/Iommsen 1882:96). Wc do not, Evcry attempt to write about Atlianaric howcver, know the namcs of Iiis forebears, in must takc Ammianus Marccllinus and Tlic- spite of tlie fact that tlic Balts must have been mistios togctlier as tlic starting point. Am- an extrcmcly ancient family evcn at that mianus Marcellinus, the military man and time, one to wliicli (according to tlie Os- convinced Roman patriot froni Asia Minor, strogotbic Origo) rulership of the Balts ovcr concludcs liis history of witli thc thc Visigoths was just as natural as that ofthe catastrophe of 378 (Secck 1894:1848).Thc- Amals over tlic (Mommscn 1882: mistios, leading politician in Constantinople, 64, 78). We could well comc to thc con- pliilosoplicr, instructor of princcs and govern- clusion, thercforc, tliat Ariaric, Aoric, and mental spokcsman for thc castcrn half of tlic Athanaric rcprcsentcd tliree consccutivc gen- Empire, gives up-to-date interpretations of erations of thc Balts, although this says imperial policies in a serics of so-called nothing about tlie cxact degree of thcir I'anegyrics. A man of many skills and mucli rclationship to Alaric (Wcnskus 1973a: 13-4). learning, ncvcr obsequious, lic endured sev- Hypotheses - or cven outright speculations eral changcs of regimc. His conception of - may he necessary in ordcr to exliaust all kingship and rulcrship takes its oricntation possibilitics of discovcring carlier realitics. from Dio Chrysostom, which also makes bim Tlicy are permissible as long as we rcmain intercsting because Cassiodorus, too, makcs alvarc of their essential differencc from that use of Dio's cxpericnce with tlie trihal Systems of tlie nortli in constructing and the first to bring this admittcdly difficult expariding Iiis Iiistory of tlie Gotlis (Stcge- speecli fragment back into its proper context, mann 1934: 1671 ; Mommscn 1882 :xxxi). since he recogiiizcd in Atlianaric's words his Tiius Thcmistios is quite awarc of distinctions pridc in thc dignity of Iiis own officc (1971 : I'ctwecn tlic onc ßa~ihsu;, the emperor of 12). What Athanaric's judgeship was in tlic Oikuinenc, wlio rnlcs all and is respon- rcality can ccrtainly best he arrived at from sihlc for all, and the ßa~lhsi;, thc kings of a carcful interprctation of tliesc lines. particular tribal groups and jurisclictions, as Cassiodorus compiled for Amalaswintha liis cxamplcs fiom Grcck mytliology show an abbrcviated Amal genealogy and ascribed (Sccck 1894: 1848) .I0 A fcw months after thc a wcll-tlionght-out catalog of virtucs to conclusion of pcacc in tlic summcr of 369 mcmbers of thc dynasty. The founding act of Tlicmistios was obligcd to prescnt in Con- Hamal, the Amal qpw; ~iiwvupo;, corre- stantinople, bcforc Valens, tlie rcasons for thc sponded with the charisma of tlie dynasty imperial dccision which led to tlie cvcnt he (felicitas). Tlie succession of rulers' virtues had ohserved as an eyc-witness (Thcmistios, after this bccomcs increasingly 'rationalistic' Oratio 10. 132 D). His cncrgetic- from generation to generation and must havc ally Supports tlie policy of peaccful com- tlins gaincd in value in tlie eyes of that promise, sincc tlic emperor is responsible for Roman writer. At the end of the series all mankind and tlius also for tlie barharians, Tlicodoric thc Great; Iic "shincs in wisdom and he must prcscrvc and protcct thcm like a (saflientia)" (Mommsen 1894b:330). The rarc spccics of animal (Stra~ib1972:204-5). Same Cassiodorus also composcd the Getish- Tlie Orator spcaks of dificult struggles to Tliracian 'prclude' to tlie Histoy oj the acliicl:~the pcacc wliich was finally negotiat- Coth, in which a certain 'wisc man' named ed in a boat on tlie River Danubc (Tlrcmis- Dccaeneus assumes a position of great pro- tios, Oratio 10. 132 D; Ammianus 27.5.9). Hc minence. In following Iiis advice, the Goths knows that Athariaricrcfuscd to bcaddrcssed as wage successful wars; he tcaclies tlieni pliil- ßaoi?.~~;,on tlic grounds tliat he prefcrred osophy and exercises a sacral function wliich, thc designation of judgc, sincc the lattcr in spitc of his being appointed by a king, personificd wisdom (uo

authority - altliough for a limited tiinc -~ wliicli once tlicir ancicnt sacral king (thizldans - ßauiheuq - rex) had exerciscd. 11 It follows from tliis tliat Atlianaric did not fear bcing addresscd as thiudat~r,but ratlicr Iiis rcfusal to hc callcd a king was specifically an ol?jection to bcing addrcssccl as rex, whicli Iic must liavc understood in tlie sensc of reiks. At tlic time of liis discussion with Figure 2. Gothic (7) golden bclt-buckle. Trcasurr of Vaicns, tlie Goth was not mercly a powcrful Sziligy-Somly6, , iiboin 400 A.D. 1-eiks (pronoiinccd 'rix'), hut hc also pos- sessed thc ruling mandatc of thc judgc, Saint dcscribcs most bricfly and limited in timc hui morc cxtcnsivc, which Iic clearly thc miglit of thc fcarcd Gothic chicf owed to his 'wisdom', namely to liis spccial wlicn lic calls Iiim - quitc in tlie stylc of political capability and to tlic influcnce of Cassiodorus later - "&Idgc of thc kings (iudex tradition (Tliompson 1966 :44-7; Volpc 1957 : refum) " (Lle Spirilzi Satzclo 1 . prol. 17). 39--40 witli n. 44). Valcns, wlio could not Thc autliority of a non-royal dignitary spcak Grcck and tlicrefore miist havc wcl- over 'kings' appcars to rcqiiire thc paradox comcd ilic Gotli in Laiin, would have uscd of an unroyal king. This makcs scnsc, the word 7ex (also pronounccd 'rix') (Wolfram Iiowever, wlien it is recallccl tliat tlic ancicnt 1967 :40-5, 711-85j.12 In spite of their closc- royal title could bc cxtended to trihal rulcrs ncss to tlic Grcek world, tlie Gotlis wcrc of non-royal rank. Diplomatie soiirces of the prohably familiar witli cnoiigh of tlre Latin pcriod around 500 bcar unmistakcahlc wit- tcrms of state uscd hy officials to understand ness to thc cquivalence of ilic Latin 7ex with basic institutional designations (Wolfram thc Gotliic reiks, spccifically in tlic modcl 1967:36-40; Sclimidt 1941 :235). For still sensc of a 'great king' or onc ruling a wliolc anothcr rcason, Atlianaric could not claim ctlinic group (Wolfram 1970 and 1967 :'0--5). to be a lhiudam-rex--ßau~X~u<:tlic Gotlis of 'Ihe Bihlc translation of T'Vulfila, M-hich he Iiis timc knew tliat tlic solc posscssors of this complcicd ahout 350, and ancicnt Iiistorio- titlc werc tlic sacral kings of tlieir pcoplc in graplicrs of tlic period, also give cvidence of the past, Christ, and thc empcrors of tlicir tliis equivalcncc, but tliey apply it at a much own timc (Claudc 1971:28; Wcnskus 1961: lower lcvcl of rank. Eicn at tbat timc, rex 28'-5). Onc coiild cvcn claim that, although coulcl ccrtainly signify thc 'grcat king', but Tlicmistios cliose tlic ßa~lh~u;designation thc term applied jnst as well to the reiks, thc for liim, Atlianaric in 369 did not sec himsclf as confrontcd witli any problcms in hcing bindingly for all Gotlis, liad ovcrcome liis regardccl as a Ihiudans. liniitations and joincd in supporting the Still morc tlian rex, tlic Grcck word Roman cfforts for pcacc. His conclusion ---. ßacri?.~u: spans a range of mcaning in liow mucli morc thc Romans thcmsclves arc whicli tlie possibilitics may contradict or cvcn callcd upon to Support tlic cmpcror's policy canccl cacli otlicr. It was uscd to clesignatc if cvcn tlic favor it -- follows vcry thc universal Roman imperalor just as wcll as naturally. Such a clever and skilful intcr- ctlinic kings down to the rex-reiks Ic\:el of prctation of Athanai-ic's motives, lio~vcvcr, tribal cliicfs (M'olfram 1967:33-56). Tliis would Iiav-c becn unablc to acliic\:c tliis efrcct, ambiguity, whicli scems absurd in tlic in- wliicli tlic context of tlic spcccli demands stitutional arca, can funclionalb liave only outright, if tlic cyc-witncss had simply i~i- onc common dcnominator: hotli tlie em- vcntcd it hcforc otlier cyc-witncsscs. Thcrcforc pwor of tlic oi~oupevilancl thc kings rcprc- wc must acccpt thc forniulation oftlic Roman scnting tlic smallcst tribal units ai-c in cxactly 'governmcnt spokcsman' as genuine. the saiiic way thc Domini rarum witli autlior- Tlic abovc in no way contradicts tlic vicw itative jurisdiction, cach in Iris 'province'.]~ that Athanaric had originally inlicritcd tlic Tlicmistios, wlio, as prcviously mcntioncd ruling mandate of a reiks ovei- tlic tribal (sec notc IO), borrowcd cxamples from Grcek subdivision of Iiis father. As judgc of tlic ancicnt and ewn mythical history from Dio Visigotlis, Iiowc\-er, Iic was rcsponsiblc for thc Clrrysostom to back up his thcory, was well cntirc tribal union and coiiid not pcrmit any aware of tlic differc~itia~ionsbctwecn prin- diminrition of Iiis positioil. In this capacity ccly, monarcliical, and impcrial autliority. hc Icd tlic tribc in waging war, concludecl In tlic famous passagc concerning Atlianaric pcacc for thc Visigotlis with the Romans, he gavc a formally corrcct \:ersion of tlic and gavc ordcrs to carry out tlic scntcnces dc- cliscussion of thc form of addrcss, and in using cidcd on by thc rcst of tlic magnatcs against his royal tcrm, ßacrth~ug,hc pro\:idcd an tlic Gotliic Cliristians, a function which cxccllcnt cxamplc to illustrate his thcory. implics in addition to jiidicial autliority a Sincc Iic was able to citc tlic rcjcction ofsuch conccrn with rcligious dutics and rccalls once a titlc by Athanaric, it was possihlc for Iiim nioi-c thc old thiuda7u (C1311dc 1971 :13-4, 17; to placc tlic wisc judgc of the Gotlis as an Wolfram 1970:4-8; Tliompson 1966:46, individual Person appropriatcly into thc 60-3). comprclicnsivc world rulcd ovcr pcacefully i\mmianus Marcellinus, tlic secnild state by thc imperial ßa~iheu:. \.\!itii this, tiic witncss for Athanaric's judgcsliip, gcncrally tension bctwccn thc empcror of tlic world uses iudex strictly according to the ter- and tlic kings of thc pcoplcs - madc to sccm minological Standard which followcd Dio- so irreconcilablc by Caligula's famous out- cletian's administrative rcforms (Joncs 1964: biiist (Suctonius, Calipla 22) -- was rcmovcd. 49). In othcr words, this appcllation was In the inlerpretatio Graeco-lioma7ta of tlic suitcd to thc high civilian ofiicial of a pliilosophcr Tlicmistios tlic potential tribal pro\~incc, to bc dificrcntiatcd from thc ß~uih~ug,wtio for purposes of his negotia- military officcr in chargc tlicrc, tlic . 7'0 tions could not allow himsclf to be scen as a be surc, Ammianus, who was in the Roman rex--reiks if lic wishecl to spcak succcssfnlly and inilitary liimsclf; docs not always stick elscwherc to thc oficial terminology - peoplc dcsignatcd him, tlicrefore, must have neitlicr for tribal nor even for Roman con\:cycd somctliing concerning tliis position matters (17.12.21, 29.4.5). But it secms quitc in comma~idof the tribal aririy during war- likely tliat sucli 'inexactncss' rcflccts thc time and must have distinguishcd him as reality tliat tlic division of powcr put into commandcr-in-chief. Thc fact that Wulfila effect by Diocletian was not valid at all for avoids such an expression docs not weakcn tlic tribal units and was not effectiue every- this assuinption, for his dislikc of tlic warlike whcre within thc Empire citlicr. It may also spirit of Iiis compatriots is wcll known. Tliis is bc that this diffcrentiation liad already bccn belicucd to be tIic reason wliy he did not eliminatcd in many placcs, in contrast witli translatc tlic Books oJ Kin&? into Gotliic the Center of the Empire, at different points (Strcitbcrg, 1908:xx). In spitc of tliis, from in time rcaching as far back as tlie fourth his Bible translation a conccpt can bc ccntury.14 inferrcd whicli, on tlie onc hand, unites Biblical influence on thc iudex terminology, witliin itself thc pagan-cliarismatic elements on the othcr hand, may be rulcd out, in spite of both tlic leadership of a warrior band and of tlie fact that the Book of Judges in particular of suprcmc tribal command in wagiiig war, provides striking parallels witli Athanaric's while, on tlic othcr hand, it is documcntcd judgesliip (1:l). The Vulgate, of coursc, by a well differcntiatcd word family. This derivcs its vocabulary from the linguistic conccpt is exprcssed by tlie word *dranhtins, usage of its own pcriod ratlier than vice thc significancc of which should not bc. versa. The Greck biblical languagc ob- undcrestimated for tlie study of Gcrmanic litcrates tlic not uncommon distinction constitutional dcvelopmcnts, as D. H. Grcen bctween ~pisq;as a judge wlio establishes has sliown at length (1963:269ff). Cnfor- rulcs and Si~aosqqas an cxccutivc oflicial tunately, *drauhti?ü maiuly covcrs tlic military (Kittel 1938:944). Only tlie fornicr dcsig- function of thc Gothic iudex, leavinc asidc Iiis nation finds a translation in the Gothic religious and above all ,judicial dutics Biblc, wliicli uscs for tliis purpose a ward (Claude 1971 :13). Morcovcr, *drauhtim borrowed from the Greck. For KPLT~S, means ilic head of a comitatus, whcreas thc wliich occurs vcry scldom in the Xew judgc of tlic Gotlis Comes very closc to an Testament, M'ulfila uses staun, wliich means 'institutionalized magistracy'. The Gotliic both 'court' and 'judgment', as well as word,fiauja is even less capable of expressing 'judgc'. Tlie derivation of tliis ambiguous thc function of judgesliip, since it dcsignatcs expression from the Greek word, osoa, is the lord and proprietor of a family or clan in transparent (Feist 1939:431; Streitberg 1910: the truc sense of thc dominus-tison6~~;.Also 129-30). at that timefi-auja as a title was so compl'eiely The etymology of tlie biblical Gotliic u~icncumbcredhy any limitations tliat it was judicial titles in no way docs justice to thc readily used for thc name of Christ thc Lord scope of Atbanaric's powcr, and little can (Grcen 1965:19-55; Claudc 1951 :17-8). be made of staua wben one examincs thc Etymologically, kindins or head of tlic kin contexts in which this word is used. Atliana- does not seem appropriatc eitlier. However, ric's military functions occupy the foreground tlie word translatcs qycpwv, wliicli of contemporary intercst in him. The way liis uscd to designatc tlic uel;~ol>retos,and whicli is IVulfila's title for Pontius Pilatc, who notably the words uscd in military affairs, condemncd Jcsns Christ, thc "tribal king of are limited to tlic Gothic. For geographical thc Jews", just as Atlianaric was a iudex regum reasons, this borrowing could not have taken (Thompson 1966:43, n. 1). Thus it might be place until the Goths were around the Black safe to arrive at the provisional conclusion Sea, and thus not until rclativcly late. The that kindins was the Gotliic equivalent of the connotations of reiks appear to agrec re- iudex Gothorum (Streitberg 1910:73). markably well witli tliose of tlie earlier Considerations of this type are not un- Ccltic form, hotli in its mcaning of 'king' or important and accord wcll with tlie con- 'chicf' and in that of being 'sich', 'powcrful' clusions reached years ago in another (Birklian 1970:154, 393). As a king's titlc, connection by M7alter Schiesinger (1963; the word is met only in Gothic and may be 1968). The presentation of etymological- inferrcd to liave existcd only in thc East scmantic evidence, however, must be ex- . Here the concept, panded to deal witli tlic function of tlic 'king's title', must not be interpreted too Visigotliic judgcship; and a functional com- narrowly; an analogy must bc assumcd with parison may bc of help Iierc, if suitahle the furtlier devclopment and specialization analogies are evident. of the peculiarly West Germanic word A number of important concepts in tlie kuning (M'olfram 1970 :6). Gotliic language come from the Celtic. Tlic A certain infusion of Celtic folkways in thc names of primarily East Germanic cliicftains of tlic Bastarns, an East Ger- and warriors rcpcat in their numerous com- manic tribc known to liavc inhabited the binations of the word stem reiks, rix, rig, eastern Balkan area, bcginning in tlic sccond ric(h)us, the Celtic name styles of tlie time ccntury B.C., is liardly doubted any longcr bcfore tlie birth of Christ, and they also today; Iiowevcr, it rcmains diffictilt to stand in closc relationship to tlie realm of determinc just wliat was taken over from the institutional. Tlie origin of the Gotliic the Celts and consequcntly to wliat extcnt stcm word, the much-citcd reiks, from thc the Basrarns playcd the carliest possihlc rolc Ccltic is proven; tlic correlates ofdcsignations of mcdiators bctwcen tlie Celts and Goths sliowing sometliing like a lord-vassal rela- (Scardigli 1973 50;Wenskus 1973b:88-90) .I5 tionsliip, such as andbahts (helper, deacon, Elements common esclusively to the Goths liturgist) and magus (youth, squire), also and Celts would certainly spcak for tlie esis- dcrive from the samc sourcc. The words tcncc ofsucli mediation and therchy strength- andbaht and andbahti (office) relate to one cn tlic thcories wliich asscrt a strong Celtic another as reiks docs to reiki (kingdom, element in tlie Bastarns. The rcnowned rulership). These and a series of othcr Cel- Celtic cliief of Cacsar's Bellum yallicum, ticisms Support the assumption that tlie who represents onc unit in the aristocratic Goths once possessed strong Celtic models structure of the tribc, corresponds in many (Scardigli 1973:30-7, Wenskus 1961:337, ways to tlic Gothic reiks of the fourth- 419). ccntury sources. To be surc, it is likcly that Many Celtic words appear botli in Gothic hcrc wc are dcaling witli an institutional type and in otlicr, but not all, Gerrnanic lan- wliich Comes up cvcrywhere in the Indo- guages. Some important Cclticisms, Iiowevcr, European arca and bcyond it, so that tlic Figurc 3. Goldcn nccklacc u:ith Roman' Celtic and Gothic moiifs. Trcasurc of Szilicy-Somiyb, Romania, ahout 400 A.D.

functional comparison is quitc casy herc, and altliough wbat is said or implicd by thosc it is prcciscly for tbis rcason it is not par- who hold tlie officc or by forcign commcn- ticularly rewarding historically. tators may makc thc directly opposite point. Thc case of the judgcsliip appcars to be As a partial royal power, limited in duration, otherwisc. Altliough a tribal arrangement of tlic judgeship in tlic timcs of transformation tliis kind llas also bccn ficqucntly attcstcd of tribal units rcprescnts such a special to,i6 it docs not appear quitc so often as the phcnomcnon that its appcarancc among a reiks, since it alrcady rcprcscnts the product varicty of pcoples simply dcmands a func- of a complex process. In tlic coursc of its tional comparison. development, an original, sacral kingsliip, 130th Caesar and the only sliglitly youagcr generally ovcr a small arca, has bccomc Strabo dcscribe a Ccltic dignitary wlio is differcntiated into its sevcral functions; at thc clectcd as tlie cliief exccutivc for a year, tliat samc timc, thc institutions rcsponsible for is, for a limitcd timc, and cxerciscs powcr tliesc functions Iiavc gained jurisdiction ovcr ovcr lifc and dcath (uitae necisque potestai) larger groups of pcople. The tendcncy of tliis Cacsar rcfcrs to this institution only aaong ,jndgeship is toward thc nominal restoration thc Haeduans, but Strabo picturcs it as one ancl material rc-crcation of tlic old kingsliip, cornmon to tlie Cclts in gcncral - somcthing furtficr attcsted to by inscriptions on coins TIiis timc tlie tlireat looms most real, sincc and monuments (Hcichclhcim 1958 : 1543-4). now the institution mosi naturally to hc Tlie cpigrapliic sourccs prcscnt thc name of suspccicd of coniaining monarchical potcn- the dignitary in dual form, from wliich tialities appcars to bc falling into tlic pos- onc can assume that the liighcst position scssion of one family. It gocs witliout saying of rulcrship was filled hy two men. Caesar tliat Cacsar supportcd ihr anti-monarcliical rcports, at any rate, that this institution (mqc- party; hoiic\:cr, lic was forcccl to appcar istratus) hacl heen represented since ancient pcrsonally at tlic appointcd spot to makc ihc timcs (antiquitu) by a singlc clccted officc- decision, sincc tlic uergobretos was not allowcd liolder in cacli instancc. In tlie ßellum gal- to lcauc his native tcrritory during his tcrni licum, tlic summus magistratz~s of thc Hae- of officc. The Celtic uergobretos, wliosc namc duans is mentioncd twicc. From tlic iirst signifies rouglily 'cxccutor oftlrc judgenicnts', passage, wliicli dcals with events during thc was ohuiously a judgc hiit not onc witli ycar of thc Helvetian War, we lcarn about exclusivcly civil dutics (\Ycisgcrbcr 1969: tlic official designatcd as the uergobretos and 69-70 against Hciclicllicim 1958:1543). Stra- about tlic duration and type of his chicfly bo calls liim also thc ilyepov and diflcrcn- judicial duties (1.16.5-6). tiates Iiim from tlie o~px~qyo;,who is Tlie prohlcm of tlic uergobretos conccrncd rcsponsible for waging war but is similarly Caesar, Iio\veucr, not only at tlie onsci of Iiis clcctrd (Geografily 4.4.3. C 197) Ritiial Gallic advcnturc; lic also liad to dcal witli it forins and sacral dutics arc part of rccordecl at its end, in thc ycar of Alcsia (7.32ff, 37, tradition for thc Ccliic as wcll as tlic Gothic 55, 67). Tliis timc his rcport is much morc jiidgeship (Heicliclhcim 1958:1543-4; Claudc detailed, sincc tlic Situation appeared to hc 1971 :13-6); tlic Iioldcrs of botli officcs Ira\:c extrcmely dangerous. Tlie absolute powcr, wagcd war tlirougli rcprcscntativcs and sub- cven tliough limited in duration, is of ropal ordinatc con~mandcrs but ncver appear origin; Cacsar himsclf calls it regia potestas. themselvcs in what is undcrtakcn outside In stepping down frorn Iiis officc, Iiowcuer, their borders.'7 Pcrhaps tlic clistinction madc the uergobretos liad transgrcsscd against tlic by Strabo ex eventit can bc undcrstood tliis aristocratic 'Cliartcr' of tlic Haccluans and way: tlie old royal powcr was cliviclccl in a

liad liis brotlicr clcctcd as his succcssor; way wliicli assigncd tlic Icadcrsliip - cliicfly to prevcnt this, tlie party fiicndly to thc of hands of warrior followcrs - in offcnsix-c Romans liad dcfcndcd itsclf by clccting an warfare to tlic o~px~ilyog,wliilc tlrc qyepwv opponcnt to thc samc officc. Caesar sces him- in a icry general way was rcsponsihlc for sclf confronted witli tlic old dangcr which Iic maintaining tlic pcacc and safety oftlic 14-hole lias repcateclly liad to ward off since tlic tribal unii, thai is, for taking carc of dcfcnsc invasions of the Hclvetians (1.3) ancl Ario- against internal ancl cxtcl-nal cncmics, dutics vistus (1.31-54), that is, thc restoration of dcriving from sacral kingshil) and con- kingship among tlie Hacduans: thcir tradit- scqucntly dutics to wliicli tlic ritual and ional prestige ancl the chanccs whicli thcir sacral oncs incntioncd werc joinccl. 'I3ic cconomic position and institutional cx- cvcnts wliicli prcccdc tlic elcvation of \'er- pcricncc offcrcd tlicm could rcsult in a pan- cingctorix as tiic Gallic GTpaTqyo; in the Gallic kirigdom ai any time (1.31 7.63). Ixttlc againsi Cacsai- bring sliarply to mind, tliercforc, thc almost contemporaneous con- possibility of interpretation, one could con- flict 01-er tlic ueqobretos of tlie Hacduans cludc tliat tliesc passages convcy the inter- (Caesar 7.37-9; Grenier 1945 :180). Apart pietatio Romana for tlie institutional ticing of froni tliis, tlic uerxobretos prcfcrrcd by Caesar a Gothic judgc to tlie trihal territory, thc finds iiothing morc urgcnt to do tlian to Gutthiuda (Streitberg 1910:51). In tliis, we inakc military prcparations for joining TJcr- may wcll sec tlie first institutionalization of cingctorix and dcscrting Cacsar. Thc position tlic cquation, patria uel gens Gothorum: whicli of orpa?qyoC is also naturally a re~iapotestar came to full development with tlic Visigothic at tlic timc, altliougli in tlic casc ofthe statc in Spain (M701fram1967 :70) it has alrcady bccn scparatcd from tlic ju- Wlicii, Iiowcver, Atlianaric's judgcship dicial power -- a diffcrcntiation in whicli tlic liad cxpircd, lic was frec to lcavc thc land of local aristocrats and tlic Romans must have tlie Goths. During the coursc of Iiis attempt Iiad tlic grcatcst ii~tercst. to hold hack the in a fortificd position -- Bctwcen tlie judgcsliip of Atlianaric and an cffort markcd by licroic but vain sacrificc thc alrcady four liundrcd ycars older Gallic on Iiis part - tlic forccs of tlic Goths institution astonisliingly fcw diffcrecces tlius dcsertcd him (Ammianus 31.3.8). After tliat cxist. Both institutions unitcd tlie 'cxccution timc, Iie was no longer ajudge (Claude 1971 : ofjudgmcnts' witli tlic suprcmc command in 13 and 15), and in a manner similar to tliat wars wliiclr werc quite ccrtainly of a defcn- ofother lcadcrs ofVisigothic and Ostrogotliic sive nature foi- tlic simple reason tliat tlie bands, Athanaric can now attempt to lead a officelioldcrs could not 1ca\-e thcir tribal rctreat from dangcr, seeking refugc in Roman icrritory during tlieir tcrm of scrvicc. Tlie tcrritory-. Hc givcs this plan up, Iiowevcr, douhlc arca of dutics is documcntcd for wlien lic hears of thc difficulties which thc Athanaric. i\s a mattcr of fact, tlie iiiilitary Roma~sliad made for tlic Ostrogothic group responsibilitics of tlic uergo6reto.r can also he around \'Vitlicric, Alatlieus and Safiax. For dcmonstrated, altliougli tliey reccde into the tliis rcason, lic is said to havc witlidrawn background sincc tlic suprcmc command in accompanied by Iiis followers into Canca- tlic battlc against Cacsar wcnt to Vercingc- land, tliat is, he left Gothic tcrritory in torix of tlic ilrverni, whilc tlic summus ma~q- another direction. At any rate, even thc islralus along with lris Hacduans lost tlic wcakcncd power of Athanaric was sufficient traditional Icadersliip position (deiecti prin- in itsclf for an altcrnativc solution, tliat of cipalu) (Cacsar 7.63). conqucring by force the Sarmatian Cauca- We rccall tliat Ammianus Marcellinus land in prcsent-day Tra~isylvania (Vulpe cleals iri two placcs witli tlie rcfusal of Atlia- 1957 :39-40; Sclimidt 19+1:404). But Atha- naric to mect Empcror Valens on Roman naric did not organize eitlicr his planned soil for purposes of conclucling pcacc. After fliglit into tlic Roman Empirc or tlic retreat tlic dctailed treatmcnt of Iiis motil-e, which inio tlic Carpatliians as judgc of the Goths. is traccd back to an oath as well as io thc Rathcr, he acted as reilis of a subdivision and command of liis fatlier (27.5.9), we read asfratqa of liis 'house' (following). Finally, Iic at anotlier point that Athanaric liad bccn could not maintain liimsclf cven in liis placc caiiscd religione ncvcr to trcad Roman soil of retreat altliougli hc yicldcd to no ctternal (31.4.13). M'iiliout dcsiring to cxliaust evcry forccs hut was dri\:en out by liis own peoplc. Tlicreafter, as frauja, he took liis diminished agency of an clection and who had sufficicnt following into the Roman Empire (Schmidt Support from prc-institutional bands of war- 1941:418) and died in Constantinoplc; no riors. doubt he would have broken his uow if lie For this reason, rcprcscntatives of tlic first had bcen bound personally by liis fatlier and family of tlic Visigotlis were continually call- not by the nature of his position at thc timc. cd upon to fill it. Great conccrn on thc part Perliaps the words of Athanaric wliich are of tlie aristocracy, liowcver, for maintaining rccorded in the work of Jordancs are furtlier, its own policy served as a countcrweight to if only indirect, evidcnce for thc correctncss tliis. Tlic largcr tlic warrior bands wcrc of this interpretation. Although strongly which guarantced greater succcss to their stereotyped, tlic words attribiited to Atha- ovcrall Icader, thc grcater was tlie danger naric at tlie timc of his entry into Constan- thrcatcning tlic aristocratic tribal order, tinoplc betray a ccrtain rcgrct at tlie obstinacy rvliich Iiad arisen at tlie cxpcnsc both of tlic of his earlicr resistancc against Romc. Tliis political significancc of tlic old royal family is not I he spcccli of a man who has hrokcn liis and of the kcc groups (mediocres) helolc tlir vow, but rather tliat of a man returned to nobility. private lifc wlio brcatlics a sigli of rclief tliat Tlicrefore thc 'plcbiscitary' acts of mcm- his burdcn of responsibility has bccn removcd bcrs of royal familics Iiad to bc resisted; (Mommsen 1882 :95). on thc otlicr liand, only mcn such as Ar- Undcr tlie pressurc of external as well as in- minius and Atlianaric posscsscd tlic neccs- ternal thrcats against tlic traditional structurc sary prestigc and cliarisma, in otlicr words, of socicty, ctlinic units witli small tcrritories the 'wisdom'. to crcdibly organize rcsistancc

transform themselvcs - first of all by furtlier against tlie Rornans or to punisli disloyal disintegration. A confrontation witli a largc meml>crs ofthc tribc. Consequently, tlicy Iiad and powerful neighboring statc, which tlie to be sclected for somc kind of officc that rc- Mediterranean Empire of Romc was for created royal power for a pcriod of timc, but Gauls, Cheruscans, and Gotlis alike, hrings it still had to he possiblc to remo\-c tlicm for out mobility and social diKcri:ntiatioii within failurc or, still morc, for too grcat success, the sub-trihal units which dcstroy the polit- lest tlie institutional insurancc against a ical cmbodiment of the 'small arca', tlie -- to lasting kingsliip crumblc. It is certainly usc the Gothic word - thiudaru-kingship. Tlic the casc tliat only sonic form of kingsliip was threat from outside, Iioweuer, demands in a position to kcep a peoplc - tliat is tlic nonetheless tlie pres<:rvation of the power, tzomen gentis - togethcr during the drastic tlie jurisdiction of which is expanded, on one changcs brouglit about by the migration of liarid, to include all branches of tlie greatcr pcoples. In a comparablc institutional trans- tribe or nation but contracted, on thc otlier formation, not only AI-minius and his family hand, by territorial aiid temporal limits. This - tlius tlic nucleus of traditional aiitliority is tlie way thc institution of the judgcship among the tribc - but also tlic Clieruscans arosr in the case of the Goths in thc Danuhc themsclvcs wcnt to picccs as a gens. By region, an office witli duties which could only bringing facts such as tlicsc into confron- bc performed by sorneonc who attained thc tation, it is possiblc tliat catcgories in thc position tlirough the institutional legitimizing social scicnccs can be dcrived whiclr make thc paradox possil->lctilat it is the historian 11. 3) ~hcrcthis passagc is understood as "lirince of tlic monarchically rulrd part of thc Visigoths". 'i'hc ivho can separate cvcnts from tllcii. con- interpi-etatioiiofit~yKöpkc(185<):112) isnotenti,.cly straints in spacc and tiinc, in ordcr 10 prescnt cicar; howvcverl that aiithor asseinhlcs a convincing tllem as functional arid icstitutional proto. c01Iccti0n of Grcck-Latiii-Gothic titlcs of riilcrshil>. Scc also Schmidt 1941:213-6 and Thompson 1966: type" 11ici.c spccifically as typcs of citlicr tllc 44...6, laller reiccts cvidcncc for claii dcstruction and disapl~carancc. . of tribal units bcforr Alaric's tiine". biit is iiot verv convinciiiz in or of tlicir transformaiion into morc durablc doingso. 5 i'acitils, Annalei 2.88, on Arminius. i\mmianus social-poliiical ciititics. In doing so, it miglit .Mai.ccllinus. 27.5.10. on Atlianaric. be possiblc to mect tlie cliallcngc of Pcter 6 Thrmistios, Oralio 15. 190 D, Ammiantis Mar- Munz (1969) - tliat it is up to mcdicvalists to cellilius~27.5.10. 7 clciclop catcgoi-ics for making dccisions Thc rconomic dcpeirdcncc of tlir Visigotlis oii tradr with the Raman Empirc is givcii hy Ammianus r\:hicli M-illmakc it possiblc for pcople of tlie Marcelliiius (27.5.7) as still a main rcason for the Tliird \\'orlcl to soften tlic otiicrivisc liarsh faci thai thc Visigotlis wantcd to concludr peace in cKccts of confrontation bctwccn a largc-statc V-...?6<1 Mobc Sure. in thc 1iteratui.c thc vioi predomin- form and tribal units, or evcn to sliapc it atc that Ariaric and :\oric wcre doiiblc kings. Sec ci-cativcly (T,i:olfram 1912:4/0-5) Claudr 197 1 :16-7, Tliompsoii 1966:54; Schmidt 1941 :239_244--6' 403 and 422. 9 Eacli of thc two kings of thc Ebiironcs i-iilcd a scparatr tcrritory; scr Wenskus 1C161 :322. '0 Scr l'hcmistios. Ornlio 10. 132 i\; und Sti-aub 1972:201-6 in thc samc conncctioii. Strcitbcrg 1910:76 (kiini). 110- 1 (reikr)? 148 1 1sidoi.c placrs thc cvent in the yeas 407 of tlie (Ihiiidons) ; Sclimidt 1941 244; Claudr 1971 : 15-20; Spariisli cra' which bcgins in 38 R.C.; as \vcll as in thc i'hompsori 1966:41--8. Iii Gothic. to bc stirc. tlierc is lifth yeai- of tlie rcign of Valcns, ir-hich is calculatcd as no dcsignation of ~.uIershipwhich dirives from ki~ni. bcginniiig on 28 March 364. Scc Joiics 1971 :931. I 0ii thc othrr hand' kitidins would be thc closest wo~ildiike to cspress rny thanks to I'rofessor Henry ctymologically to thc rcprescntative of a clan (*kind. ;\. Myers. 1)iliartmcni of Histoi-)Tand I'oliticai Sci- gern): sec Iicist 1939:311, 316; IVenskus 1961 :326-7. cncc. l,f.ladis«n C;allcgc, rot. traiislating this articlc in- .4s kindirir bccame scmaiitically scpai-ared from to Enqlish. *kind and signiiics qjepov. it is just as possiblc ihat 2 It is a Fact tliat tlie c:~liiiicconnotation '\'isigotb' reib camc to rcplacc it via the samc routc. At all cun onl: hr traced hack to Cassiodorus, ivhcrcss thc cvcnts. M'ulfila uses leih in a \Gay that significs thc contcmi,oi-ai-v soui-ces iaround 400':, somk. of cithci- hcads of,Jcwish clans and thc Eldcrs in Jcrusalcm: n'' o V.Scc ~achmann3970:121-8 und scc Grccii 1963:317 witli n. 4. Wu:ncr 1967:23.5-53. 1 0ii ihr linguistic knowlcdge of Empcror 3 l'hcmistios~~i.lio was prrsent diiring tlie ncgotia- Valens: scc Xas1 1948:2136. tions bctwcrn Valcns and Atl~aiiar-icas an cinissary 13 On tlic prol>lcms rclated to this question, thc of thr Senatc at Constantinoplc. must Iiave sccn thc author cvrricd on an extensive and vcry informative Gotliic cliief: scc Stcgemann 1911:1616; Straiib 1972: coircspondencc ~4thWultcr (2olfai.t of Toi-oiito, 203. Kaimilnd F. Kaindl (1891:305-6) had alrcady fiom ii,lioin a trcatment of thc subjcct is forlhcomin~. siii-miscd tliat Ammiaiius .Marccllinus obtained Staitin~poiliis for tlie discussion arc offcrcd by? kno\vlcdge of important dctails from b1,liindcric; who among othcrr' l,Iommscn 1894h:.537. on tlie topic of was a suboi-dinatr lcadcr under Athaiiaric axainst thr do»tinurl doro,>iniis. Hinns snd latcr hcld Roman posts afliigli oficcr rank. 34 On thc ci-osion iii tlic fifth aiid sistli centurics 4 'l'acit~is.il>znaler 11.16; follo~iinghini. TYcnskus of thc sepai-ation of Iiowers cstahlislicd by Diocletian; 1961 :423' on Arminiiis. Accoi-din: to Zosimos 1.34.3_ scc IVolfi-am 1967:44-50. Athaiiaric was rrzvro; rou BZOL).ELOV iow XKUSWV 15 Por cxamplc' thc fear that thc sky xvould fall zpxoiv icvovg- a foi.mi~lation iu-hich is fiirther down arouiid tlirm durinx a great storm is common Ln siipportcd by tlie sarnr author. 4.25.2: sceJoncs 1971 : Cclts. Rastarns, and Goths: sce Hclm 193/:39-40; 60.5 iiiidcr tlic hcading ''fodiri-rs'. Sybcl (1881 :204) Dillori aiid Chadwick 1967:17. Wcriskus {1973b:89) raiscs justifird ol,jcctioiis against Jlalin (1885:.1 witli cxlxrsscd liimsclf vcry :uai-dcdly ori tlic Ccltic Iicritagc of thc Bestui-ns; biit Meciichcn-I-lrlfcri (1 1162 : ,joncs, A.H.h'l. 15171. 'l'lir prnsopogi-uphy of tlir liiicr 174--7) undcrscorcs tlicir Cclticity. Roman Empire, 1 260-3515. Carnbridgc. 16 Comparc: foi- cxurnplc Koth 1950 (on It~de\ I(aind1. R. F. 189 1. Wo fand dcr erste Zusaiiirnciistoß Isniel); Weinstock 11131 (oii thc Oscan !lleciid dcs Haeduan i:er~obrelo~'siibordiiiates. sec Caesar 1.16.5 Hunncneinfalls. 371 n. Chr. Siidostforscliun~eii aird 18.10. 19:34-51. Köpkc: R. 1859. Die Anfänac des Köiiigtiims bei den Gothen. Berlin. 1.eiischau. Th. 1<11?.Hannibal. Rcalcncyclopädic der classischcn .Aitri.tnmswiscnscl>aft. 7.2:2:318-51. Literature Stuttgart. h4acnchen-Helfcii, D. 1962. Ein iinbraclitctes Xeugiiis Birkhan: H. 1970. Germaiien und Kelten bis zum für das Kclteiituin dci- Bastiii-iiei,. Bciträgc zur Auspllg dcr Römcrzcit. Sitzungsbcrichte der Aka- Samcnforschiiiig 13 :I 74-75. dcmie dcr Wissciischaftcn \\'icii 272. Mommscn, Th. (~d.)1882. ,Jordancs' Gctica. h4GH Borst, A. 1973. Lehciisformen in, Miticlalt<:r. Frank- Auctorcs Antiquissirni 553--200. Bcrlin. furt. .Mornrnscn, Th. jed.) 1892a. i2~ioiiymusValcsiantis. Claindc, D. 1971. Adel, Kirchc und Königtum im 14GH Auciores Aiitiquissiiiii 9: 1-1 1. Bcrlin. \Vest~~tenreicli.Vorträge iiiid Forschungei~.Soii- i\lommsei~~'l'h. (cd.) 189213. Coiisillaria Constaii- dcrband 8. tinonolitaiia. 381. h4GH ;\i~ctoies antiouissiiiii 9: Courtois: C. 1964. Lcs Vandalcs ei I'Afriquc. Sccond 199-247. Bcrliii. cdition. Paris. Mommseii, 'Yb. (cd.i 1894a. Isidoriis. Hisioria Gotlio- Dalinl 1:. 1885. Die Könige der Gcrmancii' 4. Sccond rum. M~HAlctorcs hntiquissimil 1 :241-304. Uer- edition. Lcipzig. lin. Dillon, 'vl. and X. Cliadwick. 1967. 'I'hc Celtic rcalms. Mornrnscn: Th. (ed.) 1894b. Cassiodorus, Variae. Xcw hmcrican Library. IcwYork. .MGH Auctorcs antiquissiini I?. Ucrlin. Dü\\.cl, K. 1973. Athaiiarich. Rcallcxikon dcr %er- hluch, R. 1967. Dic Germaniii dcs 7'acitus. Third inaiiischcn Altertumskiindc, 1 :463-1. Bcrlin. edition. Hcidclbet.g. Elii-enbcrg, V. 1931. Sufctcn. Rcalciicyclopädic der Miinz' P. 1969. Thc concept of tlic rniddlc agcs as u classischcii Alieitums\r.isscnschaTi, 4. \ 1543-51. sociological catcgory. Tlic \Jictoria Univcrsity of Slultgait. Wcl1iiigton:l-16. Wcllingtoii. Feist‘ S. 1939. Vcrglcicliendcs Wörterbuch der go- Xagl, A. 1948. Valcns. Realcncyclopädie dcr clas- tisclicn Spruchc. Third cdition. Lcidcn. sischcri r\lterturnswissenscI~aft~7. :\ 2:2097137. Graus, F. 1971. Struktur und Geschichte. Vorträgr Wicii. und I~orschungcn~Sonderbaiid 7. Soth. M. 1950. Ilas Amt dcs 'Richters Israel'. In: Frst- Giecn' D.H. 1965. Tbc Carolinciaii lord. Cambricl:~. schriit Alficd Bertliolet, 401--17. Tübiiigeii. Grenier' :I.1945. Lcs C;aulois. Paris. Patsch_ C. 1928. Beiträgr zur Völkcrkiii~devon Süd- Hachrnann, R. 1070. Dic Goiin und Skandinavicn. curopa, 3.1. Sitzoiigsbcrichtr der Akadcmic dci- Qucllen und Forscliii~igcnzur Spracli- und Kultur- W-issenschaftcnWieii 208.2. geschichtc dcr ~crmanisclienVölker. Xcuc Folgc31. Scai-digli, P. 1973. Ilic Goten. Sprachc und Iiiiltur. Heichclheini~ 1958. Vcrgobrctos. Realcncyclopädic A,Iünchen. der classisclien hltertumswisscnschafi, 8. A 2: 1544- Schlcsinger, W. 1963. Über gerinanischo Hccrkö~iig- .i.Si~ittgart. turn. Bcitiägc zur dcutsclieil VerfassuiigsgcscI>icI~tc Helm, K. 1937. Altgermanisclir Rcligionsgcschichtc; dcs iblittcialters 153-~87.Göttingcii. (.- L.0i.d arid 2.1. Heidclbcr:. followcr in Gcriiianic instiiiitional Iiistory. In: Loi-d- Heuss, i\. 1944. Zur Entwickliing des Irnpcrium des ship 2nd cominiinity in mcdic\,al Europc: I:. L.. römisclicn Obci-beamten. Zeitschrift für Rcchts- Chaycite (cd.); 64-98. Ycw York' 1968.) gcscliichic, Romanistische Abtciluiig 6457-133. Schmidt, L. 1941. Dir Ostgermaiien. Sccoiid edition. Joiics, A.H.M. 1964. Tlie latcr Rornaii Enipirc' 1. München. Osiot.d. Sceck, 0. 1894. hinmiantis h~iarccllinus. Rcalcn- cyclopädie der classischcn i\ltcrtums\i.issrnichaft. 1.2:1845-52. Stuttgart. Seeck. 0. 1896. Athanaricus. Realencvclopädie. . der classischen Altcrtumswiss<:nschaft,2.2: 1934ff. Sintt- gart. Stegemann, M'. 1934. Tliemistios. Realencyclopädic dcr classischen ,\ltertrimswissenscliaft~ 5. A 2: 1642- 80. Stuttgart. Stein. E. 1959. Histoirc du Has-Emnire.. . I. Second cdition. Paris. Strauh, J. 1972. Die Wirkung der Sicderlagc hci ~\driano»el auf dic Diskussion über das Ger- mancnprohlem in der spätrömischen Literatur. In: Rcgcniratio Imperii, 195-220. Daimstadt. Streitberg. I\'.1908. 1910. Ilic gotische Bihcl. 2 "01s. Gcrmanischc Bibliothek, 2.3. Heidelherg. Sybcl, H. 1881. Dic Entstehung des dcutsclien König- tums. Frankfurt. Thompson, E.A. 1965. l'hc early Gcrmans. Orford. 'ihompson, E.A. 1966. Thc Visigoths in thc time of Ulfila. Oxford. Vetters. H. 1950. Daciv ripensis. Akademie der Wisrcnschaften Wien. Schrifteii der Balkaiikom- mi~sioii~Antiquarische Ahtcihing, 11. I. Vcttcrs, H. 1954-7. Sucridas und Colias. Vjcsnik za arheolo~ijui Iiistoriju dalmatinsku 56-9.2:127-30. Split. Vulpe. K. 1957. Le vallum de la Moldavie inferieure et Ic 'mur' d'Atlianaric. 's-Gravenhagc. Waqncr. X. 1967. Gctica. Quellen und Forschunqcn ., . .- U zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der - schcn Völkcr, Scuc Folge 22. Weinstock. S. 193 1. Mcddix. Rcalcncvclopädie dcr

gart. Wcisgcrbcr, L. 1969. Dic Sprache der 1:cstlaiidkcltcii. In: Rhciiana Germano-Celrica, 11-85. Wenskus3 R. 1961. Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Köln. \ienskus, R. 1964. Hcincrkungcn zum Thunginus der Lcx Salica. In: Festschrift Percy Ernst Schramm, 1, 2 17-36. Wiesbadeii. Wciiskus2 R. 1973a. Halthen. Reallesikon der ger- manischen Altcrtumskundc, 2:13-4. Bcrlin. Wenskus, R. l973h. Bastarneii. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskiinde, 2:88-90. Berlin. Wolfram, H. 1967. Intitulatio I. Mitieilungcn des Instituts für östcrrcichische Geschichtsforschung, Suppl. 21. Wien. \\'\'olfram, H. 1970. Thc shaping of the early medieval kingdom. Viator 1 :I-20. Wolfram. H. 1972. Die Aktualität dcr mittclaltcr- lichcn Geschichte. In: Fcstschrift M'althei Kraus. 458-476. Wicii.