¹ Cf. Cameron, Alan and Schauer, D., ‘The Last Consul: Basilius and his Diptych’, JRS 72 (1982), 126–45, 138 f.Google Scholar, for a positive estimate of senatorial wealth and activity under the Ostrogoths. On the control of offices and administrative policy by the fifth century nobility, cf., e.g., Stein, E., Histoire du Bos-Empire I (Bruges, 1959), 337–7Google Scholar, Matthews, J. F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364–425 (Oxford, 1975), 357–62Google Scholar.

² Cf. Wickham, C., Early Mediaeval Italy (London, 1981), 15–19, 27Google Scholar, Brown, T. S., Gentlemen and Officers (British School at Rome, 1984), chap. 2, esp. 25 ffGoogle Scholar, Brown, P., Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine (London, 1972), 232 ff.Google Scholar

³ Cf, e.g., Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964), 527–32, 540 ff.Google Scholar, 545–59. Illustres: the praetorian prefects of Italy and Gaul, prefect of Rome, magister officiorum, quaestor palatii, comites sacrarum largitionum, priuatarum and patrimonii. The prefecture of Gaul was in abeyance from 476–50; the comitiva patrimonii is first attested under Glycerius in 473 (cf. his edict, Haenel, G., Corpus Legum (Leipzig, 1857), 260Google Scholar, also in PL 56, 896 ff.).

⁴ ‘Sidoine Apollinaire et le Sénat de Rome’, Acta Ant. Hung. 26 (1978), 57–70, 58–63Google Scholar.

⁵ Cassiodorus, , Variae III. 33Google Scholar; with Var. IV. 14, formula de his qui referendi sunt in senatu, the procedure used for Armentarius, contrast VI. 11, formula illustratus vacantis; on adlectio, cf. Jones, op. cit., 541. The formulae cannot be dated.

⁶ Var. VII. 37–8; VI. 14; see also Jones n. 16 to p. 530, on Var. VI. 16. 3–4, 12. 4, 15. 2–3, VIII. 17.7.

⁷ Var. IX. 21.5.

⁸ Cod. Theod. XII. 1. 58, 74, Cod. Iust. XII. 1. 11., a. 364, 371, 377, confine status inheritance to post-promotion children; the last, probably interpolated to fit the post-450 conditions, shows that clarissimi could still transmit their status; Digest L. 1. 22. 5 shows the generations; cf. Jones, op. cit., 530 and nn. 17, 19; on clarissimate and spectabilate-giving posts, ibid., 547 ff. Hopkins, K. and Burton, G. in Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, deal at length with the problems of senatorial membership and status transmission in the early empire.

⁹ Cf. P. Ital. (ed. Tjäder, J. O.) 10–11Google Scholar (a. 489), III. 4—Melminius Cassianus v.c, curial magistrate of Ravenna; V. 1, V. 5 f.—Fl. Annianus, decemprimus of Syracuse, both v.c. and vir laudabilis. The Melminii are well attested as a fifth/sixth century Ravenna family, curial, never senatorial in rank. Compare, perhaps, Avitus, , Hom vi, MGH ed., p. 110, 1. 26 fGoogle Scholar; but contrast PLRE II, Alethius 2, genuine clarissimus, and princeps curiae.

¹⁰ Cf. P. Ital. 31; Deichmann, F., Felix Ravenna 3. 5 (1951), 23, n.32Google Scholar.

¹¹ ‘Who Were the Nobility of the Roman Empire?’. Phoenix 28 (1974), 444–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, citing Ammianus, Symmachus, Prudentius and Sidonius. The Gallic evidence is discussed by Harries, J. D., Bishops, Senators, and their Cities in Southern and Central Gaul, A.D. 407–76 (D. Phil Diss., Oxford, 1981, unpublished), 41–84Google Scholar the best and fullest treatment that I know.

¹² Ep. 127. 1.

¹³ Ep. VIII. 8 (tr. Anderson, W. B., Loeb)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Assemblies: Ep. I. 6.4. Spectabiles, and probably clarissimi, as well as illustres, were members of the provincial assemblies, in which the first had the ius sententiae dicendi; cf. Var. VII. 37, Chastagnol, , AAH 26, 61Google Scholar. Initially, at least, decurions were members of the Concilium VII Provinciarum, founded in 418, at Arles; cf. Epistulae Arelatenses Genuinae 8 (MGH Epp. III). Such councils, formal or informal, could play an important political role; cf. Hydatius, , Chron. 163Google Scholar (Tranoy), Sidonius, , Carm. VII. 521–75Google Scholar, Ep. I. 7. 4 f, 10, ?VII.7.2, Ennodius 80. 53, 81 (Vogel, MGH). Arvandus: Sidonius, , Ep. I. 7Google Scholar; but contrast I. 11. 5, on Paeonius, another parvenu.

¹⁵ Prof. Burd. iv. 2, xvi. 9, xiii. 9, xviii. 5, xxii. 21, xxiv. 3 f, xxvi. 3–6, Parentalia iv. 4, ix. 5, xiv. 6, xix. 3, xxx. 2, Epigr. xlv, Gratiarum Actio iv.

¹⁶ Var. I. 41, VI. 21.3–4, 23. 1, VII. 2. 3, 37, VIII. 19. 6, 31.8, XII. 24. 3; note also III. 12. 3, VIII. 16.2.

¹⁷ Cons. Phil. II, pr. iv, III, pr. vi; note also III, pr. ii. For the moral dimension of nobilitas, cf. Valerian of Cimiez, PL 52. 736Google Scholar; and note Edictum Theoderici 59, where nobilitas is left undefined, but is distinct from mere wealth.

¹⁸ Ep. VIII. 3. 2; cf. Ausonius, , Prof. Burd. xxvi. 3–6.Google Scholar

¹⁹ I assume that Theoderic effectively controlled Italian appointments after 490, at latest.

²⁰ Cf. Jones, op. cit., 529.

²¹ Cf. Chastagnol, A., Le Sénat Romain sous le Règne d'Odoacre (Bonn, 1966), 28–44Google Scholar. and Priuli, S., in Epigrafia e Ordine Senatorio I (Tituli, 4 1982), 575–89Google Scholar. Note that Priuli, 587 f., places a number of clarissimi in these inscriptions well back in the 4th c. I have not yet found a detailed justification of this theory and, in any case, it does not directly affect the prosopography of office-holders.

²² JRS 72, 144fGoogle Scholar.

²³ His estimate (Le Sénat, 47) of 300–600 should probably be reduced.

²⁴ Cf. Cameron, Alan, ‘Polyonymy in the Roman Aristocracy’, JRS 75 (1985), 164–82Google Scholar.

²⁵ ‘Grand set’ and ‘power set’: cf. Death and Renewal, 171–5. Examples of senatorial families late or never in the prestige offices would be the Firmini, Cassiodori, Rusticii Helpidii, Liberii; yet these had the tastes and connections of the highest nobiles. For obvious reasons, Gauls seldom reached the consulship or p.u. On the growing 4th–5th c. overlap between court and extra-court careers, see Chastagnol, A., Tituli 4 (1982), 177, 189Google Scholar.

²⁶ Gauls: Avitus, Ecdicius, Aegidius, Syagrius, ?Nepotianus, ?Messianus, Arborius, ?Agrippinus; Italians: ?Litorius, ?Pierius, ?Aemilianus. Aetius, and perhaps Majorian, belong to the fringes of the Italian nobility; Astyrius and Merobaudes represent that of Spain.

²⁷ For Valila, , see PLRE IIGoogle Scholar, s.v. The Liber Pontificalis describes Pope Boniface II (530–2) as a Roman, and son of Sigisbuldus. The general Sigisvultus had Volusianus, bearer of a senatorial name, as his cancellarius at Ravenna; cf. Constantius, , V. Germani 38Google Scholar.

²⁸ Cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Roman Economy (Oxford, 1974), 371 fGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Cf, esp. Var. VI. 1, the consul's formula, VI. 24, VIII. 46.

³⁰ The tables give the impression that this was particularly so in D. This is probably an illusion, due to too narrow a date-range for the Colosseum inscriptions. So too the impression that Odoacer made most use of the great families in relation to his length of reign.

³¹ Sidonius, , Ep. I. 7. 11Google Scholar suggests that the prae. prae. Gall, held office for less than 3 years. I suspect that the average, except, perhaps, in E, was less than 2, but we are ill informed on this.

³² See table 1.

³³ Var. VI. 14.

³⁴ Cf. Var. VI. 11, VIII. 19, but contrast I. 41.

³⁵ Deuterian pupils: Lupicinus, Arator, the son of Eusebius, Partenius, Paterius, Severus, Ambrosius; cf. Ennodius 69, 84–5, 124, 94, 451, 261. Roman recommendations for Partenius, Simplicianus, Pertinax, Beatus, Fidelis, Marcellus, Georgius, Solatius, Ambrosius–225–8, 368–9, 282, 292, 362, 398, 405–6, 416–17, 424–6, 428, 452. Arator, Ambrosius, Fidelis, and possibly Partenius are attested in high office. The perhaps Anician illustris Eugenes may have been another pupil of Deuterius; cf. 213. Simplicianus and Beatus were nobilissimi; Arator a v.c.; Paterius and Severus had consular ancestors; Ambrosius' father was a sublimis; Eusebius a nobilissimus; Lupicinus was nephew of Ennodius, and so of a major Gallo-Italian family; Fidelis' father was a Milanese advocate of high reputation, but non-senatorial (Var. VIII. 19. 5f.).

³⁶ Var. VIII. 12.

³⁷ Var. I. 39, IV. 6, Maximian, , Eleg. I. 25–44, 59–76Google Scholar (student life at Rome), III. 47–94 (? family friendship with Boethius).

³⁸ Ennod. 16.

³⁹ Ennod. 85.

⁴⁰ Cf. Var. VIII. 21, the children of Cyprian; note also IV. 4, where count Senarius began his palatine career ‘In ipso quippe adulescentiae flore’.

⁴¹ Sundwall, J., in his fundamental study Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des Ausgehenden Römertums (Helsinki, 1919), chap. 3Google Scholar, analysed the politics of much of the Gothic period in terms of tension between nobiles and novi homines. To me, these considerations seem at least partly to vitiate his very influential account.

⁴² Tract, xvi, praef. (CSEL, 8).

⁴³ Ennod. 311, 315—they may have been legal partners.

⁴⁴ Var. V. 3–4, De Rossi, , ICUR I. II, p. 113, no. 78Google Scholar; despite the doubts of PLRE II, the identity of these Decorati seems highly probable. Decoratus may also have practised at Ravenna (Ennod., above). For a comparable Spoletan family, see PLRE II, Domitius 4–6.

⁴⁵ CIL V. 6253. As pater urbis, he may have acted as curator civitatis, an office which would usually have belonged to a leading decurion; cf. Jones, , LRE, 726, 755Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Var. I. 3–4, IX. 24–5 Institutiones I, praef., 33. 2 f. The Boethian marriage connection is suggested by the Ordo Generis; its date by the support which both families gave Aetius.

⁴⁷ Var. I. 39; cf. IV. 6.

⁴⁸ Cf. Th. Birt, index nominum to the MGH Claudian, s.v. Manlius and Theodorus.

⁴⁹ Cf. Courcelle, P., ‘Symboles Funéraires du Neo-Platonisme Latin’, RÉA 46 (1944), 65–93, 66–70Google Scholar; she is described as ‘clara genus’ in her epitaph.

⁵⁰ Ennod. 370, 408, 415, 418. Most MS titles and subscriptions give the form Manlius, as does the consular diptych, but a number have Mallius. Spellings with ‘nl’ and ‘ll’ seem virtually interchangeable—cf. il(n)lustris, col(n)latio, etc.; Isidore, , Etymologiae I. xxxii. 8Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Cf. above, n. 35; Procopius, , Wars V. xiv. 5Google Scholar, xx. 19 f., VI. xii. 27 f., 34 f. Belisarius made him prae. prae. Ital.

⁵² Wars V. viii. 19–41.

⁵³ Wars VII. xviii. 20–3, xxii. 20f. VII. xxx. 6, Var. III. 8, 46; we may surmise a successful contest for local influence with the Cassiodori, who were perhaps too busy outside the province.

⁵⁴ Cf. Chastagnol, , Le Sénat, 47, 74–8Google Scholar. But Priuli (above, n. 21) would redate 37 clarissimi to the 4th c. If correct, does the resultant number, 17, reflect diminished clarissimus activity, or is it due to epigraphic chance? For houses, see Guidobaldi, F. in Società Romana e Impero Tardoantico II, ed. Giardina, A. (Rome – Bari, 1982), chap. 4Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Cf. PLRE II, Valentinianus 3, an ex-silentiary who died at Rome in 519, with the retirement rank of illustris.

⁵⁶ E.g. the Mariniani, Barbari Probiani, Palladii. Note Fl. Messius Phoebus Severus, cos. and p.u. in 470, under peculiar circumstances. He was clearly a leading noble, but might easily never have held office. No earlier member of his family is attested in office, or elsewhere, though a grandson may have been a protégé of Ennodius (Damascius, , Vita Isidori (Zintzen) 11, 94–8Google Scholar, Ennod. 451, PLRE II, Severus 15, 19). The Barbari Probiani and Palladii would be eliminated by Priuli.

⁵⁷ See above.

⁵⁸ Cf. P. Ital. 48, B14 a loan to Agapitus, for suffragium for the prefecture. Var. VI. 10–11, formulae for the conferment of honorary appointments suggest both lack of money and a preference for otium as deterrents from active office.

⁵⁹ Cf. Nov. Val. 7. 3, 22; also, for their attempts to increase profits, 1. 3, 7. 1, 32.

⁶⁰ Cf. Expositio Totius Mundi et Gentium lv. In period A, 48 governors are, or may conjecturally be, linked with senatorial families; only 11 reached illustris or consular rank.

⁶¹ Cf. Ward-Perkins, B., From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1984), 22–8Google Scholar.

⁶² Symmachi and Sicily: cf. Symmachus, , Ep. IX. 52Google Scholar; Var. IV. 6. Decii and Campania: cf. CIL X. 6850–1, Var. II. 32–3, Moorhead, J., ‘The Decii under Theoderic’, Historia 33 (1984), 107–15, 110ffGoogle Scholar; Decii, and Gaul, —Sidonius, , Ep. I. 9. 2–6Google Scholar, ?Var. II. 3; Decii and northern Italy—Ennod. 58–9, 279, ?230, 75. Note esp. 279, linking the Decian Albinus with four illustres of strongly north Italian connections. Gelasius, , Ep. 41Google Scholar (Thiel) shows Decian concern for estates in Valeria. Even without the northern weight of Ennodius' evidence, we would still get this impression of a strong northern orientation among the nobiles; but even a Faustus Niger might still have patronage links with Sicily–cf. Ennod. 121.

⁶³ Cf. Barnish, , PBSR 55 (1987), 157–85, esp. 168–72Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Southern churches: cf. Fonseca, C. D., Settimane di Centra di Studio sull'Alto Medioevo 28, 1195 f.Google Scholar, D'Angela, C., Arch. Med. 3 (1976), 475–83Google Scholar, Puglia Paleocristiana III, ed. Quacquarelli, A. (Bari, 1979), 207–15Google Scholar (R. Moreno Cassano), 59f, 68 (M. Cagiano de Azevedo), 163 (D. De Bernardi Ferrero), 412–48 (M. Trinci Cecchelli). Northern mosaic donation inscriptions: cf. Diehl, ILCV 219a 1864–90, Zovatto, P. L., Palladia n.s. 15 (1965), 11Google Scholar, Roberti, M. Mirabella, Aquileia Nostra 38 (1967), 67 ff.Google Scholar, G. Cuscito, ibid., 44 (1973), 127–66, eund., in Scritti Storici in Memoria di P. L. Zovatto, ed. Tagliaferri, A. (Milan, 1972), 237–58Google Scholar, eund., in Cuscito, G. and Galli, L., Parenzo (Milan, 1976), 73 ff., 80 ff.Google Scholar, 87. Note also CIL V. 3100, XI. 2089. Rome and environs are excluded.

⁶⁵ Fifth/sixth century southern epitaphs of these ranks: CIL IX. 1378, 2074, X. 1343, ?1346, 1350, 1355, 1535, 1537, 4500, 4502, 4505, 4630; these are mostly from a restricted area of Campania. Northern: V. 694, ?1658, 3897, 5230, 5414, 5420, 6268, 6398, 6732, XI. ?1707, 1713, 2585, 7587. From Ravenna: XI. 308, 310, 313, 316, 317; cf. III. 2659, 9513, 9515–9, 9527, 9532, ?9540, 14239.8, ILCV 250(3), from Salona. Ravenna and Salona are probably atypical because of their administrative importance. Rome and environs are excluded. Cf. also CIL V. 5415, 6176, XI. 941, epitaphs of barbarians of senatorial rank in the north.

⁶⁶ Cf. Procop., , Wars VI. xxi. 40 ff.Google Scholar, VII. iii. 6 ff., VII. xxii. 2 ff, 20 f.

⁶⁷ Cf. Rutilius, , De Reditu Suo I, 490 ff., 541 ff.Google Scholar, for Gallic nobles taking refuge in early fifth century Italy. For ties between north Italy and Dalmatia, cf. above, 7 on Arator, . Var. V. 14–15Google Scholar and IX. 9 give Severinus, v.i., commissions in Dalmatia; he shares a name with Boethius, and with the Gaul-linked consul of 461—Sidonius, , Ep. I. 11. 10Google Scholar. Note also Harries, 49 f., 218–24.

⁶⁸ Cf. PLRE II, stemmata 15 and 19, with individual entries; the link with Faustus was probably through his wife Cynegia, as one of his sons used the name Ennodius. This may connect the author‘s family with the Spanish house which rose under Theodosius I. (Matthews, 110 ff, 142 ff.). For another Gallic tie with the Anicii, cf. Fortunatus, Venantius, Carm. IV. 5Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Cf. stemma 19; on the Firmini, and on Ennodius' house in general, cf. Twyman, B., ‘Aetius and the Aristocracy’, Historia 19 (1970), 480–93, 485 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ Liberīus was a frequent correspondent and patron of Ennodius and his relatives, and they shared the name Felix.

⁷¹ Relation to Faustus: Ennod. 429; his link with the Venantii Opiliones (cf. CIL V. 3100 for their church at Padua) is suggested by the name of his son, Venantius; the presence with him of an Opilio, v.c.|v.i. at the Council of Orange in 529; and his joint embassy with an Opilio to Byzantium, although the two men quarrelled. Venantius Opilio, the consul of 524, and probable church builder was also a friend of Ennodius, and linked with Faustus Niger (Ennod. 150). Note, though, that both Venantius and Opilio are very common names.

⁷² Cf. PLRE II, Domnulus 1–2, Helpidius 6–7; Helpidius 6 was a frequent correspondent of Ennodius.

⁷³ Epistulae Austrasiacae (MGH Epp. 3), 5–6; cf. 21.

⁷⁴ In Ep. Austrasiacae 19, Theodebert refers to a request from Justinian to send 3000 men to help the patrician Bregantinus, probably Bergantinus, ex com. patr. under Athalaric, and active in the Byzantine cause (Procop. VI. xxi. 41).

⁷⁵ On this, see Collins, R. in Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, ed. Wormald, P. (Oxford, 1983), chap. 1Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Cf. Tur., Greg., Lib. Hist. IV. 42, 44Google Scholar, Diac., Paulus, Hist. Lang. II. 31 f.Google Scholar, III. 1–9. Salonius and Sagittarius have same names as correspondents of Sidonius; Amatus may be linked with Amatius, prefect of Gaul in 425; Mummolus son of Peonius with Paeonius, prefect 456–7.

⁷⁷ Ep. Austr. 25, 38–9, 46; cf. 40–1, Tur., Greg., L. H. X. 2–3Google Scholar. Gregory represents the campaign as a recovery of Theodebert's empire. Italica and Venantius lived partly in Syracuse, and were friends of Pope Gregory.

⁷⁸ Cf. Stroheker, K., Der senatorische Adel im spätantiken Gallien (Tübingen, 1948), 134 f.Google Scholar, attributing this chronology to the decline of Roman education.

⁷⁹ On Ausonius' ancestry and the record of his family, cf. Matthews, 69–87, in some contrast with Hopkins, K., ‘Social Mobility in the Later Roman Empire’, CQ,n.s. 11 (1961), 239–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note Harries, 48, on possible senatorial descent of Iulianus, (Par. XXII)Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Cf. Étienne, R., Bordeaux Antique (Bordeaux, 1962), 371 f.Google Scholar, Petit, P., Libanius et la Vie Muncipale à Antioche (Paris, 1955), 325–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; these families perhaps show a stronger civic loyalty than do the Gallic, and their social and economic positions are only very roughly comparable.

⁸¹ Paulinus, , Euch. 194–219, 290–327Google Scholar.

⁸² Cf. PLRE II, Hesperius 2; the Auxanius of Sidonius, , Ep. 1. 7. 6 f.Google Scholar, and Ausanius of Tur., Greg., Lib. Hist. III. 36Google Scholar, might be Ausonii.

⁸³ Cf. Sidonius, , Ep. I. 7. 11, 11. 5 f.Google Scholar, above, n. 76.

⁸⁴ Cf. K. Stroheker, 91. We should note much devaluation of senatorial ranks among the nobiles addressed by Avitus and Ruricius. Cf. Harries, 54, ‘expression not of office but of nostalgia.’

⁸⁵ Cf. Gillard, F., ‘The Senators of Sixth Century Gaul’, Speculum 54 (1979), 685–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, below.

⁸⁶ Cf. T. S. Brown, 107 f, 194 f., though with reservations, esp. in Chap. 9; Wickham 67–72, 74 ff.

⁸⁷ Cf. Sidonius, , Ep. VII. 9. 14, 17 f.Google Scholar, 24, IV. 25. 2. See Harries, 27–39, 63–9, for reservations.

⁸⁸ Cf. Brown, 34 f., 181 ff.

⁸⁹ Cf. Llewellyn, P., ‘The Roman Clergy during the Laurentian Schism’, Anc. Soc. 8 (1977), 242–75 256 fGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁰ Cf. CIL X. 4163, for Narni; Frend, W. H. C. in Latin Literature of the Fourth Century (London, 1974)Google Scholar, ed. J. W. Binns, 123, for Aeclanum and Beneventum.

⁹¹ ILCV 1. 2, chap. 2; ?add bps. Benignus and Senator of Milan—Ennod. 204–5. Note Ennod. 80. 35, Bonosus, priest of Pavia, ‘tam nobilis sanctitate quam sanguine’—and a Gaul.

⁹² Cf. Moorhead, J. A., The Catholic Episcopate in Ostrogothic Italy (D. Phil. Diss., Liverpool, 1974, unpublished), 186 ff.Google Scholar, on origins. Collins, R., Early Medieval Spain (London, 1983), 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, contrasts the foreign intake of the Spanish episcopate with the Gallic.

⁹³ Cf. Moorhead, 24–31, eund., ‘The Laurentian Schism,’ Church Hist. 47 (1978), 125–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ Ennod. 174, 177 f.

⁹⁵ Ennod. 80. 32–9.

⁹⁶ Cf. Gelasius, , Ep. 38 (Thiel)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Above, n. 3.

⁹⁸ Var. IX. 15–16, on which cf. Duchesne, L., ‘La Succession du Pape Felix IV’, MAH 3 (1883), 240–66Google Scholar, von Harnack, A., ‘Der erste Deutsche Papst und die beiden letzten Dekrete des römischen Senats’, Sitz. Preuss. Akad., 1924, 24–39Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Much late fifth/sixth century papal politics involved senatorial manipulation. Ennod. 49. 134 suggests actual senatorial candidates for the papacy; and cf. von Harnack, above, PLRE II, stemma 25, of Pope Vigilius; but Milik, J. T., ‘La Famiglia di Felice III Papa’, Epigraphica 28. 1 (1966), 140 ff.Google Scholar, indicates one papal dynasty drawn from the lesser nobility.

¹⁰⁰ Ennod. 80.7, 53ff.

¹⁰¹ Ep. II. 1.4.

¹⁰² Cf. Ep. VII. 9. 24, ‘uxor illi de Palladiorum stirpe descendit, qui aut litterarum aut altarium cathedras cum sui ordinis laude tenuerunt’.

¹⁰³ Cf. Ep. VII. 15, recalling two priests from their country estates to their town house and duties at Vienne. On cities and civitates, cf. James, E., The Origins of France (London, 1982), 45–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. Note also Van Dam, R., Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul, 153–6Google Scholar,

¹⁰⁴ Glycerius, above, n. 3; Majorian, , Nov. 11 and 6Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Tract, xiii. 35 (CSEL 68); cf. Jerome, , ep. 66. 3, 108Google Scholar; 4–5, Patlagean, E., Pauvreté Economique el Pauvreté Sociale à Byzance, 152 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. Hopkins, , Death and Renewal, 76 ff., 96 ff.Google Scholar, Garnsey, P. and Saller, R., The Roman Empire (London, 1987), 142–5Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ On this, cf. Arnheim, M. T. W., The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1972), chaps. 3–4, 6–7Google Scholar. Owing to the separation of military and civilian offices and careers, the nobiles could now hold power with less risk to themselves and the emperor than in the early empire, a risk which may formerly have affected their survival (cf. Hopkins, , D and R, 166–70, 175, 196Google Scholar).

¹⁰⁸ Euch. 270 ff, 408–19, 481 f; cf. Celestine, Pope I, in PL 50, 546Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Africa: cf. Ennod. 150, for Opilio; the east: cf. Coll. Avellana 228, for Agapitus; Chron. Paschale, I, p. 623, Dindorf, for Symmachus' house at Constantinople, below, on the eastern marriage of the Boethii. Wickham, 17, sees the effects of imperial disintegration on private revenues as serious.

¹¹⁰ Cf. Barnish, , PBSR 55, 1987, 168–73, 179 fGoogle Scholar.

¹¹¹ Cf. Ward-Perkins, chaps. 3–4, pp. 236–41, Guidobaldi (above n. 54) 230 ff.

¹¹² C.J XII. 2. 1; cf. Jones, , LRE, 529Google Scholar.

¹¹³ 13 consuls in B, 6 in C, 12 in D, 27–9 in E. The withdrawal of competition by monarchs and generals is, of course, another factor. 490 is excluded, as Faustus iunior may well have been nominated by Odoacer.

¹¹⁴ Cf. Var. I. 20, 27, 30–3, III. 39, 51, V. 42, Boethius, , C. Ph. IIIGoogle Scholar, prose iv.

¹¹⁵ Cf. Matthews, chaps. 14–15.

¹¹⁶ Cf. Jahn, O., Berichte Sachs. Gesellsch. der Wissensch., ph.-h.cl. 3 (1851), 348 f.Google Scholar; Boethius, , C. Ph. IIIGoogle Scholar, pr. iv, II, pr. iii. But Boethius' complaint was an old one; cf. Zosimus II. 38, from Eunapius.; Var. III. 39, V. 42, VI. 1, 10.

¹¹⁷ Cf. Cameron, and Schauer, JRS 72, 136 f.Google Scholar, Barnish, , PBSR 55, 1987, 176–9, 180, 182Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Cassiod., Chron., s.a. Asterius' games (Jahn) lasted 3 days, with ‘ludos currusque simul variumque ferarum/certamen’.

¹¹⁹ Cf. Cameron and Schauer, 139–42.

¹²⁰ Note Speciosus, cos. 496, who may never have taken up his office.

¹²¹ Var. II. 2. 3 f.; cf. IX. 23. 4, commending the Decian consuls for their generosity with their property ‘sub moderatione’.

¹²² No known representatives of distinction since Turcius Apronianus 8 (PLRE I), c. 400.

¹²³ Cf. above, n. 58.

¹²⁴ CIL XII. 5336, AÉ 1928, 5.

¹²⁵ Sidonius, , Ep. I. 7. 3, 5Google Scholar; note that Arvandus still felt a proper pride in his official and senatorial rank.

¹²⁶ Cf. Stein II. 43.

¹²⁷ Var. II. 24–5, Nov. Maj. 2. 4.

¹²⁸ Cf. Var. II. 24. 2, V. 14. 1, IX. 2.

¹²⁹ Cf. Brown, 191 ff., 198; Ruggini, L. C., Economia e Società nell'Italia Annonaria (Milan, 1961), 409 ff.Google Scholar; for a later period, Wickham, 104 ff.

¹³⁰ Cf., e.g., Ambrose, , Hexaemeron V. 14, 27Google Scholar, Expos. Ps. cxviii, 6. 32, 8. 5, De Nabuthe 3. 12, 10. 45, Zeno of Verona, Tract. I. v. 8Google Scholar, Chrysologus, Peter, Sermo 48, Var. III. 20, IVGoogle Scholar. 10, 39, V. 12, Procop., , Wars I. iii. 1–5, 29, xi. 7f.Google Scholar, P. Ital. 7, 49; Ruggini, 23–35. The northern bishops usually link such landgrabbing with speculation in grain and other victuals in a regional economy which presumably was stimulated and sometimes depressed by the requirements of court and army. Cf., also, Var. IX. 2, 18.

¹³¹ Cf. Barnish, , PBSR 55, 1987, 169, 175Google Scholar, A. M. Small, ‘Late Antique Settlements in Apulia and Lucania’, forthcoming.

¹³² Cf. Wickham, above, n. 129.

¹³³ His legislation has Augustan echoes, and appeals overtly to Roman tradition. We should, perhaps, see it as, to some extent, an exercise in legitimation and propaganda, its archaizing character corresponding to much in Sidonius' imperial panegyrics; as a response to a real crisis, it would then be doubtful. Glycerius was more up to date, but still less realistic, in ascribing the ills of the empire to episcipal simony!

¹³⁴ Canon xv, ordination of deaconesses. Note Petit, 328 f.: the problems of Libanius' curial friend Agroecus, with a brother and five unmarried sisters.

¹³³ N. Val. 35. 9; contrast the western interpretatio to N. Theod. 4. 14, showing that the latter might provide the former for a poor wife. For the east, N. Justiniani 97. 1, 119. 1 show that the two were expected to be equal, but 97. 1–2 shows pressures for inequality. See further, below.

¹³⁶ N. Sev. 1.

¹³⁷ Cf. Meyer, P. M. and Mommsen, Th., Leges Novellae, LXf., 166Google Scholar, Brandileone, F., Scritti di storia del diritto private Italiano, ed. Ermini, G. (Bologna, 1931), 144 f.Google Scholar, n. 3.

¹³⁸ Ennod. 388. 41–94, epithalamium of Maximus, v.s.: Venus and Cupid deplore the impact of the cult of ‘frigida … virginitas’ on their realm, and retaliate against Maximus, ‘spes unica generis summi’, who has long refused to marry under the influence of a devout mother. Cf. Mathisen, R., ‘Epistolography, Literary Circles & Family Ties in Late Roman Gaul’, TAPA 111 (1981), 95–109, 101Google Scholar on Avitus, , Ep. 52Google Scholar.

¹³⁹ On the general effect of Christianity on fertility in the east, cf. Patlagean, E., Structure Sociale, Famille, Chrétienlé à Byzance (London, 1981), chaps. 8–9Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ Reg. Ben. 59 (cf. 58); Reg. Mag. 91 (pp. 398 ff, De Vogüé); Caesarius, , Epp. II. 6, 8, IIIGoogle Scholar (pp. 139, 142, 150 f, Morin); cf, also Salvian, Ad Ecclesiam III. 6Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ Cf. Dill, S., Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age (London, 1926), 358 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴² Note N. Just. 123. 41, prohibiting the disherison of ungrateful children who enter monasteries.

¹⁴³ Cf, e.g., Hopkins, , Death and Renewal, 235–47Google Scholar; for late antiquity, Jerome, , Ep. 23. 13Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Cf. Humbert, M., Le Rémariage à Rome (Milan, 1972), chap. 3Google Scholar, Lightman, M. and Zeisel, W., ‘Univira: an Example of Continuity and Change in Roman Society’, Church Hist. 46 (1977), 19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Goody, J., The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983), 61 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ In this I have used the stemmata in PLRE I–II and Arnheim; the exception is Fabiola (Jerome, , Ep. 77. 3 f.Google Scholar). (Cf. Jones, , LRE, 970–9Google Scholar on the failures or very limited successes of the Church in moral questions, especially the divorce laws; note also Gaudemet, J., ‘Les Transformations de la Vie Familiale au Bas-Empire et l'influence du Christianisme’, Romanitas 5 (1962), 58–85Google Scholar, Cameron, Averil, JRS 76 (1986), 269Google Scholar, on Goody).

¹⁴⁶ Cf. Jerome, , Ep. 54. 5Google Scholar (also 54. 15), 127. 2, 130. 1 (also 130. 9).

¹⁴⁷ Ausonius' daughter Ausonia may have remarried, to become mother of Paulinus of Pella.

¹⁴⁸ Cf. Aus., , Par. viii–ixGoogle Scholar, Epigr. xl.

¹⁴⁹ The marriage of Melania and Pinianus is a good example; cf. also Tur., Greg., Vita Patrum i. 1, ixGoogle Scholar. 1, xvi. 1, xx. 1, Lib. Hist. I. 47. Sidonius, , Ep. II. 4Google Scholar is interesting on match-making among the nobiles. On legal evidence, see Treggiari, S., Class. Views n.s. 1.1 (1982), 42 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ C.Th. III. 7. 1.

¹⁵¹ N. Anth. 1, N. Marc. 4.

¹⁵² Cf. Corbett, P. E., The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1930), 122 f., 177–82Google Scholar; on the late imperial protection of children's rights, Humbert, chap. 3. iv.

¹⁵³ Literature on the donatio ante nuptias is voluminous, and much about it is uncertain. Cf, inter al., Corbett, 205–10, Humbert, 418 f., 425–41, Kaser, M., Das römische Privatrecht II (Munich, 1959), 134–41Google Scholar, Herlihy, D., ‘The Medieval Marriage Market’, Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1976), 3–27, 5 ffGoogle Scholar. The practice may partly have grown out of betrothal gifts, but N. Just. 123. 37, 39 shows it distinct from sponsalia|arrae. Western cases of the donatio a.n. may be Jerome, , Ep. 127. 2Google Scholar, and the controversy in Sidonius, , Ep. VII. 2. 6–8Google Scholar. Ed. Theoderici 59 suggests that a standard donatio may have been ⅕ of the groom's patrimonium.

¹⁵⁴ C.J. V. 9. 7–8 (a. 478, 528, eastern). Note that married daughters were more likely than married sons to have surviving parents; cf. Saller, R., C. Ph. 82 (1987), 30 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. C.J. V. 27, N. Just. 74, 89, N. Theod. 22. 2. 11.

¹⁵⁶ Cf. Corbett 207; N. Theod. 14. 3 ( = C.J V. 9. 5. 1), with interpretatio.

¹⁵⁷ Hexaemeron V. 58. Note N. Just. 92, prohibiting excessive inter vivos donations by parents to one child at the expense of others.

¹⁵⁸ Cf. Sidonius, , Ep. VII. 2. 6–8Google Scholar, where a young man on the make wins a well dowried bride by pretending to have money himself. Note I. 11.5: Paeonius marries his daughter above her station by giving her a fine dowry. Ennod. 438. 22 ff., a betrothal equal in birth, but not in wealth.

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Herlihy, , MRS 6, 5 ffGoogle Scholar; in Leges Burg. 24. 1–2, 62. 2, dos and donatio nuptialis seem synonymous. Tur., Greg., Lib. Hist. I. 47Google Scholar uses dos to mean bride-price in a Roman context. Isidore, , Etymologiae V. 24. 25 fGoogle Scholar. suggests that decline from the ‘antiquus … ritus’ of mutual purchase to purchase by the husband was associated with a decline in female status.

¹⁶⁰ Cf. Herlihy, D., Medieval Households (Cambridge Mass. & London, 1985), 17–21Google Scholar, revising causes suggested in MRS 6, 10–17. Evidence for sex-ratios is very scanty. In the upper classes, the Ausonian stemma shows 24 females to 28 males.

¹⁶¹ Age of office-holders: cf. Jones, , LRE, 382, 558Google Scholar. Constantine and the nobiles: cf. Arnheim, ch. 2.

¹⁶² V. Melaniae Graeca, 1, 6. Is the family of Avitus of Vienne comparable; cf. his carm. vi, Mathisen, , TAPA 111, 101?Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Above, n. 145.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. Hopkins, K., ‘Age of Roman Girls at Marriage’, Population Studies 18 (1965), 309–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Durry, M., ‘Le Mariage des Filles Impubères à Rome’, CRAI, 1955, 84–91Google Scholar, but Patlagean, , Pauvreté 146Google Scholar, supposes Christian females most often married at 12–16; on the physical effects, see Higgins, V. in San Vincenzo al Volturno, ed. Hodges, R. and Mitchell, J. (BAR IS 252, Oxford, 1985), 115Google Scholar. The younger Melania was married at 13–14. (V. Mel. Gr. 1), Maria, empress of Honorius, at 13 (Ensslin, , P-W XIV. 1712Google Scholar), but Blesilla at 18–19 (Jerome, , Ep. 39. 1Google Scholar). Melania may show the interaction of Christian values with the trauma of early marriage which Plutarch, (Lycurgus and Numa. iv. 1)Google Scholar noted among Roman women. Ausonius, epit. xxxv, ‘in tumulum sedecennis matronae’ implies that a mother at 16 was unusual. Zosimus V. 28 shows that there was some feeling against early marriage and consummation. See now Shaw, B. D., JRS 77 (1987), 30–46Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁵ Cf. Heinzelmann, M. in Famille et Parenté dans l'Occident Médieval, ed. Duby, G. and Le Goff, J. (Rome, 1977), 19–24Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. Brown, 20, 35, 164 f., 183 f.

¹⁶⁷ Cf. Saller, R., ‘Familia, Domus and the Roman Conception of the Family’, Phoenix 38 (1984), 336–65, 348 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Heinzelmann notes the probable effect of the Constitutio Antoniniana.

¹⁶⁸ Cf. Heinzelmann, 24; for Gaul, C. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule VIII (Paris, 1926), 128 ff.Google Scholar; for Italy, the genealogical work of Cassiodorus on his own house, or on the Amals, or, earlier, Jerome, , Ep. 108. 1, 3 f.Google Scholar, Ambrose, , De Nabuthe 13. 54Google Scholar, Exp. Ps. i, 46, Ausonius epig. xlv.

¹⁶⁹ Var. IX. 22. 5. Cf. Mathisen, , TAPA 111, 98 f.Google Scholar, 102 and nn, 16, 27, on loose employment of kinship terms by nobiles.

¹⁷⁰ Cf. Heinzelmann, 21 ff.

¹⁷¹ Cf. Heinzelmann, 23 f.

¹⁷² Cf. Goody, 48–65, 72 ff., chap. 5, Brown, P., Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine (London, 1972), 232Google Scholar. For a general critique of Goody, see Cameron, above, n. 145, Herlihy, D., Medieval Households, 11 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷³ Cf. Garnsey and Saller, 146 f., against Goody. Note, though, Symmachus, Ep. IX. 133, procuring a license for a first-cousin marriage, cf. Var. VII, 46. The requirement must have reduced the number of such marriages.

¹⁷⁴ Cf. Salvian, , Ad Ecc. III. 9 f.Google Scholar, Digest I. 9. 5.

¹⁷⁵ C.J VIII. 47. 10.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. Jolowicz, H. and Nicholas, B., Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law (Oxford, 1972), 471 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Cf. Matthews, 153, 343, 170, PLRE II, Maximus 17, 24–5, Volusianus 1, 3, 5–6.

¹⁷⁸ Ennod. 49. 129–38; the context is the Laurentian schism, perhaps partly caused by aristocratic claims to control the endowments of the titular churches and other Church property. Cf. Harries, 102, on Sidonius, , Ep. III. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁹ Note Herlihy, D., Cities and Society in Medieval Italy (London, 1980) chap. 12, 149–55Google Scholar; outbreaks of bubonic plague stimulated marriages and births in fourteenth-fifteenth century Florence. But the overall demographic trend is likely to have been downwards; cf. Hatcher, J., Plague, Population and the English Economy (London, 1977), 1–73Google Scholar, Razi, Z., Life, Marriage and Death in a Medieval Parish (Cambridge, 1980), 92–135Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁰ Cf. Barnish, , PBSR 55, (1987), 181 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸¹ Justinian, , Sanct. Pragm. 27Google Scholar (CJC III, App. 7) may imply that those Italian senators who chose to attend the court thereby made Constantinople their official residence, and needed permission to reside in Italy.

¹⁸² Cf. Sanct. Pragm. 27; T. S. Brown, 23 f., 27.

¹⁸³ Cf. Pelagius, I, Epp. Arel. Gen. 53Google Scholar; T. S. Brown, 29 f.

¹⁸⁴ In general, on the end of the Senate, cf. T. S. Brown, chap. 2, Stein, E., ‘La Disparition du Sénat de Rome à la Fin du Sixième Siecle’, Bull. Acad. Beige, Cl. des Lettres 5.25 (1939), 308–27Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁵ Cf. Procop., , Wars VII. i. 32Google Scholar, xxi. 14, Anec. xxiv. 9.

¹⁸⁶ Cf. T. S. Brown, 8 ff., 36, 46–58.

¹⁸⁷ Cf. above.

¹⁸⁸ Possible Gothic senators: Arigern, Tuluin; Italians with military experience: Liberius, Constantius, Cyprian; cf. also Var. IX. 23. 3.

¹⁸⁹ Cf. P. Brown, 233.

¹⁹⁰ Cf. Magnus, Gregorius, Reg. Ep. (CCSL) IX. 47, 53, 77, 94–5Google Scholar: Theodorus, vir. mag., maior populi and patronus civitatis, Rusticus v.c, Domitius vir mag., Faustus, vir mag.|vir glor.; all these names are paralleled in the fifth/sixth century Senate.

¹⁹¹ Cf. above, n. 64. Gallic donor inscriptions tend to show nobles and clergy only; cf. CIL XII. 5336–7, AÉ 1928, 5; appendix, p. 186, to Avitus, ed. R. Peiper (MGH).

¹⁹² Cf. T. S. Brown, 77; and note 29 f, senators who ‘may have seen their future as lying at Ravenna’.

¹⁹³ Paulus, , Hist. Lang. II. 12, 25–7, 31–2Google Scholar. Auct. Havn. Extrema 5, Chron. Min. II.

¹⁹⁴ Cf. Clover, F. M. in Excavations at Carthage 1978 VII, ed. Humphrey, J. H. (Ann Arbor, 1982), 12–22Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁵ Cf. Wickham, 36–43, 68 ff., 86 ff.; ? contrast the south, Wickham, 148 ff.

¹⁹⁶ Cf. E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiguiores, no. 342; Löwe, H., Von Cassiodor zu Dante (Berlin, etc., 1973), chap. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Llewellyn, P. A. B., ‘The Popes and the Constitution in the eighth century.’, EHR 101 (1986), 42–67, 55 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹⁷ Cf. Wickham, 39 ff.

¹⁹⁸ Both divisions and persecution may have been the result of their failure to tax: central authority, and good relations with the Romans seemed less important to them. But we do not know just how soon and absolutely non-taxation became the rule.

¹⁹⁹ On Lombard fear of Byzantines, cf. Wallace-Hadrill, J., The Barbarian West³ (London, 1967), 60 ffGoogle Scholar: but note that the Byzantines probably made much use of Lombard rebels and mercenaries.

²⁰⁰ On the role of provincial concilia in preserving upper class values, cf. Sidonius, , Ep. I. 6, VIIGoogle Scholar. 4, Epistulae Arelatenses Genuinae 8 (humana conversatio); for informal contacts, cf. his letters passim, and those of Symmachus, Ruricius, Avitus, Ennodius.

²⁰¹ Cf. Zecchini, G., Aezio (Rome, 1983), 180Google Scholar, Procop., , Wars III. iv. 13Google Scholar.

²⁰² Cf. Clover, F., ‘Geiseric and Attila’, Historia 22 (1973), 104–17Google Scholar, ‘The Family and Early Career of Anicius Olybrius’, ibid. 27 (1978), 169–96.

²⁰³ Cf. T. S. Brown, 34f., 183, Wormald, P., JRS 66 (1976), 225fGoogle Scholar.

²⁰⁴ Cf. Pietri, L., ‘L'ordine senatorio in Gallia del 476 al fine del VI secolo.’, Società Romana e Impero Tardoantico I, ed. Giardina, A. (Rome-Bari, 1986), 307–23, 321 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁰⁵ Cf. Chadwick, H., Boethius (Oxford, 1981), 175ff., 190–202, 248ff.Google Scholar, ‘Pietri, ‘Aristocratie et Société Cléricale dans l'Italie Chrétienne au Temps d'Odoacre et de Theoderic’, MÉFR 93 (1981), 416–67, 442Google Scholar.

²⁰⁶ Ennod. 452. 17, Sidonius, , Ep. VIII. 3Google Scholar (cf. Ennodius' description (85.6, 94.8) of Deuterius as sustainer ‘ruiturae libertatis’.) On fifth/sixth century teaching of rhetoric in Gaul, cf. Riché, P., ‘La Survivance des Écoles Publiques en Gaule au v^e Siècle’, Moyen Age 63 (1957), 420–36Google Scholar.

²⁰⁷ Reg. Ep. XI. 34; cf. Riché, P., Éducation et Culture dans l'Occident Barbare (Paris, 1962), 195–200Google Scholar, Richards, J., Consul of God (London, 1980), 27ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁰⁸ De Actibus, ed. McKinlay, A. (CSEL 72Google Scholar), pp. XXVIII, 1–5, 150ff. Mathisen, , TAPA 111, 102f.Google Scholar, identifies this Parthenius with the nephew of Ennodius and pupil of Deuterius.

²⁰⁹ Cf. Horn, in Ezech. II. 6. 22 f., Reg. Ep. III. 61, XI, 29, Richards, 222–7; for the Christiana|sancta Respublica, cf. Reg. Ep. I. 73, V. 38, VI. 64, IX. 68, XIII. 32, II. 47. Cf, also, T. S. Brown, 145, 156, 176.

²¹⁰ Schiaparelli, L., Codice Diplomatico Longobardo I (Rome, 1929), no. 18 with n. 3, p. 58 fGoogle Scholar. As the convent seems to have got the whole estate, I take Sindelinda to have been the sole surviving child.

²¹¹ Ennod. 57–8, 279 (cf. 230); Boethius, C. Ph. I, pr. iv; Anonymus Valesianus 85 ff., above, n. 62.

²¹² Cf. PLRE II, Senator 3, Ennod. 205, 66.

²¹³ Cf. Bullough, D., ‘Urban Change in Early Medieval Italy: the Example of Pavia’, PBSR 34 (1966), 82–129, 93Google Scholar, on CIL V 6465; PLRE II, Campanianus 1–4; T. S. Brown, 255, Campana, Campanianus.

²¹⁴ Cf. Twyman, , Historia 19, 484 ff.Google Scholar, PLRE II, stemma 19. I suspect the emperor Glycerius, nominee of the Burgundian Gundobad, to have been connected with the Licerii.

²¹⁵ On Romano-Lombard nomenclature, cf. Wickham, 68 f.

²¹⁶ Cf. James, 76 f., 127 f.

²¹⁷ Pardessus, Diplomata, no. 230.

²¹⁸ It is possible that some Gallo-Roman families retained their importance even into the Carolingian era; see Werner, K. F., ‘Important Noble Families in the Time of Charlemagne’, in The Medieval Nobility, ed. Reuter, T. (Amsterdam, etc., 1979), ch. 6, esp. 153–60, 183Google Scholar.

²¹⁹ I must thank Dr. J. D. Harries for advice on this article, and for leave to cite her thesis.