¹ Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Bury, J.B., ed. (London, 1896–1900). vol. 4. ch. 38Google Scholar. “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West,” 162f.; in the edition of the Decline and Fall by Womersley, David (London, 1994Google Scholar), the passage appears at pages 510–1. Chapters 1–38 were published together in 1781. The principal focus of eighteenth-century discussion were Edward Gibbon's chapters 15 and 16 of the Decline and Fall (chapters 1–16 were printed as the work's first installment in 1776), where the negative impact of Christianity on the Roman empire is merely suggested. See also Gibbon's Vindication, published in 1794 by his friend, John, Lord Sheffield; further, Decline and Fall, Chapter 20, on “Theory and Practice of Passive Obedience”; “Distribution of the Spiritual and Temporal Powers”; Chapter 21, on “Toleration of paganism.” On the “General Observations,” see Craddock, Patricia, Edward Gibbon, Luminous Historian (Baltimore 1989), 8ffGoogle Scholar; Ghosh, P.R., “Gibbon Observed,” Journal of Roman Studies, 81 (1991), 132–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I thank David Potter for drawing my attention to the date of Gibbon's “General observations.”

² Augustine's influence on later ages, though often indirect, was pervasive. See Marrou, H. I., Saint Auguslin et l'Augustinisme (Paris 1959), 147ffGoogle Scholar; see also Arquillière, H.-X., L'augustinisme politique. Essai sur la formation des théories politiques du moyen âge (Paris 1934Google Scholar). See also, more specifically for the late antique period, Ralph Mathisen, W., “For Specialists Only: The Reception of Augustine and His Teachings in Fifth-Century Gaul,” in Lienhard, J. T., Muller, Earl C., and Teske, Roland J., eds., Collectanea Augustiniana. Augustine: Presbyter Factus Sum (New York 1993), 29–41Google Scholar.

³ On the rising power and influence of bishops in the later fourth and early fifth centuries, see Brown, Peter, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire (Madison 1992), 89–117Google Scholar.

⁴ Augustine, , De ciritate dei (hereafter City of God) Dombart, B. and Kalb, A., eds., 14:1–2Google Scholar (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina [hereafter CCSL], vol. 14, 1–2Turnholt, 1955,) 2, 21Google Scholar: “Non omnem coetum multiudinis sed coetum iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatum.”

⁵ Augustine, , City of God 19, 21Google Scholar.

⁶ Augustine, . City of God 19, 24Google Scholar. “Si autem populus non isto sed alio definiatur modo, velut si dicatur, populus est coetus multitudinis rationalis rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus, profecto. ut videatur qualis quisque populus sit, illa sunt intuenda quae diligit. Quaecumque tamen diligat. si coetus … eorum quae diligit concordi communione sociatus est, non absurde populus nuncupatur: tanto utique melior. quanto in melioribus. tanto deterior, quanto est in deterioribus concors.”

⁷ Lubido dominationis. Sallust, , Catiline 2.2Google Scholar. cited in City of God 2.14; cupido gloriae, Sallust, , Catiline 7, 3Google Scholar, cited in City of God 5.12: cf. Vergil, . Aeneid 6, 823Google Scholar, laudumque immensa cupido, cited in City of God 3.16. See also, on the Roman desire for praise, City of God 3, 18, and, on the Romans' just reward in this world. City of God 5.18–19. where the themes of love of praise and ambition for domination, taken from Vergil and Sallust are recapitulated; 14, 16: “Quis enim facile dixerit, quid vocetur libido dominandi, quam tamen plurimum valere in tyrannorum animis etiam civilia bella testantur?”

⁸ As a result, pagan Rome could not be differentiated in any decisive fashion from other earlier states, such as the four empires of Daniel which loomed so large in Christian historical thinking of late antiquity, see Momigliano, A.. “Daniele e la teoria greca della successione degli imperi,” Rendiconti Accademia dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Serie VIII, XXXV:3–4 (1980), 157–62Google Scholar (now in Settimo Contribute alla Storia degli Studi Classici e del mondo Antico (Rome 1984), 297–304Google Scholar. For a useful discussion of the providential role of Rome in fourth century Christian thought (with which Augustine did not agree, see note 24 below), see Koch-Peters, D., Ansichten des Orosius zur Geschichte seiner Zeit (Frankfurt 1984), 39–83Google Scholar.

⁹ Cf. Augustine, , City of God 18, 2Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Augustine, , City of God 5, 24Google Scholar on Christian emperors; Markus, R. A.. “Refusing to Bless the State: Prophetic Church and Secular State,” in his Sacred and Secular. Studies on Augustine and Latin Christianity (London 1994), no. 4Google Scholar, reviewing his earlier work; see also his, “Saint Augustine's Views on the ‘Just War,’ ibid., no. 5. From the immense literature about Augustine's view of Rome, I cite merely two important items. Theodor E, Mommsen, “Orosius and Augustine,” in his Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Eugene F. Rice, ed. (Ithaca 1959), 325–48; Thraede, Klaus, “Das antike Rom in Augustins De civitate dei.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 20 (1977), 90–148Google Scholar. On Cosmas Indicopleustes. see MacCormack, Sabine, “Christ and Empire, Time and Ceremonial in Sixth-Century Byzantium and Beyond,” Byzantion, 52 (1982), 287–309 at p. 295Google Scholar.

¹¹ Augustine, , City of God 18.2Google Scholar on Assyria, Sicyon, Athens, and Rome, mentioning Varro and Sallust as points of reference regarding the glory that was acquired by these different polities.

¹² On the “falling away” (defectus) of the individual as both an individual and a social act (societas peccati), see Augustine, , City of God 14.13Google Scholar. in particular: “Spontaneus est autem iste defectus. quoniam. si voluntas in amore superioris inmutabilis boni. a quo inlustrabatur ut videret et accendebatur ut amaret. stabilis permaneret, non inde ad sibi placendum averteretur et ex hoc tenebresceret et frigesceret, ut vel illa crederet verum dixisse serpentem, vel ille Dei mandato uxoris praeponeret voluntatem putaretque se venialiter transgressorem esse praecepti, si vitae suae sociam non desereret etiam in societate peccati.”

¹³ Augustine, , City of God 14. 11Google Scholar: “A parte scilicet inferiore illius humanae copulae incipiens ut gradatim perveniret ad totum, non existimans virum facile credulum nec errando posse decipi, sed dum alieno cedit errori. Sicut enim Aaron erranti populo ad idolum fabricandum non consensit inductus. sed cessit obstrictus, nec Salomonem credibile est errore putasse idolis esse serviendum, sed blanditiis femineis ad illa sacrilega fuisse compulsum: ita credendum est illum virum suae feminae. uni unum. hominem homini, coniugem coniugi, ad dei legem transgrediendam non tamquam verum loquenti credidisse seductum. sed sociali necessitudine paruisse.’ The expression “sociali necessitudine” is unique in Augustine, although he used “necessitudo” alone in other contexts. Despite its uniqueness, however, the expression captures a set of meanings which Augustine discusses elsewhere. A parallel description of Adam's and Solomon's involvement with woman and sin appears in Augustine, . De genesi ad litteram 11, 42Google Scholar J. Zycha, ed. (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum [hereafter CSEL], vol. 28:1) Vienna 1894Google Scholar). The City of God passage is discussed in an excellent article byBabcock, W. S., “Augustine on Sin and Moral Agency,” Journal of Religious Ethics, 16 (1988). 28–55. at 41Google Scholarff.

¹⁴ Cicero, , De officiis III, 7, 34Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Cicero, , De officiis 1, 18. 59Google Scholar: “Sed in his omnibus officiis tribuendis videndum erit, quid cuique maxime necesse sit, et quid quisque vel sine nobis aut possit consequi aut non possit. Ita non iidem erunt necessitudinum gradus qui temporum; suntque officia. quae aliis magis quam aliis debeantur.” For the context, see Dyck, Andrew R., A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis (Ann Arbor, 1996)Google Scholar. ad loc. and 3–8, 18–18.

¹⁶ Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, quaestio, 30. See the excellent introduction to this work by A. A. Mutzenbecher in his edition of CCSL. vol. 44A (Turnholt. 1975Google Scholar); on use and enjoyment (uti, frui) see further. Augustine, . De doctrina Christiana (CCSL 32) 1, 3, 3Google Scholarff.

¹⁷ Augustine, , City of God 11, 25Google Scholar; 15.7: “Boni quippe ad hoc utuntur mundi ut fruantur Deo; mali autem contra, ut fruantur mundo. uti volunt Deo.” See also, on good and bad “use.” Retractationes (CCSL 57) 22,2.

¹⁸ Cicero, , De officiis 1, 43, 153–4Google Scholar; 44.158; Augustine, , City of God 19, 5Google Scholar: “Quod autem socialem vitam volunt esse sapientis, nos multo amplius adprobamus. Nam unde ista Dei civitas. de qua huius operis ecce iam undevicensimum librum versamus in manibus. vel inchoaretur exortu vel progrederetur excursu vel adprehenderet debitos fines, si non esset socialis vita sanctorum?” See also, City of God 19, 3; 17.

¹⁹ Necessitudines temporales, De sermone domini in monte 1, 15, 40 (Patrologia Latina [hereafter PL] 34, 1249).

²⁰ Augustine. De ordine (CCSL 29) 1.29.51: “Si quid mihi amoris, si quid necessitudinis debetis … boni estote!” See also, De vera religione (CCSL 32) 46, 88–89, on carnales necessitudines and temporales necessitudines: City of God 14, 18 (kinship); note especially the passage 14, 1: “Diximus iam superioribus libris ad humanum genus non solum naturae similitudine sociandum, verum etiam quadam cognationis necessitudine in unitatem concordem pacis vinculo conligandum ex homine uno Deum voluisse homines instituere, neque hoc genus fuisse in singulis quibusque moriturum, nisi duo primi, quorum creatus unus est ex nullo, altera ex illo, id inoboedientia meruissent, a quibus admissum est tam grande peccatum, ut in deterius eo natura mutaretur humana. etiam in posteros obligatione peccati et mortis necessitate transmissa.” City of God 15,16 discusses the role of necessitudo (kinship) in primitive and developed human society. For the meanings of necessitudo in the Theodosian Code, see 2.25,1, referring to kin groups; 4,4,2, the emperor and his circle, necessitudines; 6,4,2, constraint; 8,4,7. kinsmen; 8,18,6, kinsmen; 9,7,8, kinship; 9,42.9, degrees of kinship; 12.1,49, kinship; 12,1,122, proximity other than blood relationship; see also. Tacitus, , Annals 3, 29Google Scholar; de Zulueta, F., The Institutes of Gaius [hereafter Gaius] (Oxford, 1946), 3, 24Google Scholar.

²¹ Augustine, , De bono coniugali 11, 12Google Scholar (Patrologia Latina [hereafter PL] vol. 40, 382) ordinatio creatoris et ordo creaturae; 9,9 (PL 40, 380) societas amicalis; cf. 1.1 (PL 40, 373), amicalis quaedam et germana coniunctio.

²² De bono coniugali 21, 25 (PL 40, 390); further, Schmaus, M., Die psychologische Trinitätslehre des heiligen Augustinus (Münster, 1927), especially 230ff.Google Scholar, 264ff.; with Miles, Margert, Augustine on the Body (Ann Arbor 1979), 41–77Google Scholar. Augustine, , City of God 14, 19 and 21Google Scholar; P. Brown, Sexuality and Society in the Fifth Century AD: Augustine and Julian of Eclanum, in Gabba, E., ed. Tria Corda. Scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano (Como 1983), 49–70Google Scholar, and his The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York, 1988), ch. 19Google Scholar.

²³ Augustine, , De bono coniugali 2,2Google Scholar (PL 40. 373): “nec nunc opus est ut scrutemur. et in ea quaestione definitam sententiam proferamus, under primorum hominum proles posset existere, quos benedixerat Deus, dicens, Crescite et multiplicamini, et implete terram. si non pecassent; cum mortis conditionem corpora eorum peccando meruerint, nec esse concubitus nisi mortalium corporum possit. Plures enim de hac re sententiae diversaeque existiterunt: see also City of God 14,26.

²⁴ Augustine, , City of God 19,16Google Scholar: “Quia igitur hominis domus initium sive particula debet esse civitatis … satis apparet esse consequens, ut ad pacem civicam pax domestica referatur”; City of God 15. 16, line 84: “Copulatio igitur maris et feminae, quantum adtinet ad genus mortalium. quoddam seminarium est civitatis”; with Cicero, , De officiis 1, 17, 54Google Scholar: “nam cum sit hoc natura commune animantium, ut habeant libidinem procreandi, prima societas in ipso coniugio est. proxima in liberis, deinde una domus, communia omnia; id autem est principium urbis et quasi seminarium rei publicae.” For City of God 15,16, cf. Shaw, Brent, “The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine,” Past and Present, 115 (1987). 3–51, at 11Google Scholar.

²⁵ Compare note 8 above. G. Bonner, Libido and concupiscentia in St. Augustine, . Studia Patristica, VI (Berlin 1962), 303–14Google Scholar.

²⁶ Augustine, , City of God 5,24Google Scholar: “Felices eos [the Christian emperors] dicimus si iuste imperarant”; on the judge in court. City of God 19,6; Augustine's own activity as judge and mediator, Possidius, Life of Augustine; Pellegrino, M., ed., Vita di San Agostino (Edizioni Paoline Alba. 1955), 19Google Scholar; Waldstein, Wolfgang, “Zur Stellung der episcopalis audientia im spatrömischen Prozess,” Festschrift für Max Kaser zum 70. Geburtstag, Medicus, D. and Seiler, H. H., eds. (Munich 1976), 533–56Google Scholar; Hartmann, Wilfried, “Der Bischof als Richter nach den kirchenrechtlichen Quellen des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts,” in La Giustizia nell' alto Medioevo, secoli 5–8. Settimane di studio del centra italiano di studi sull' alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 1995), 805–42Google Scholar; James, Edward. “Beati pacifici: Bishops and the Law in Sixth-Century Gaul.” in Bossy, John, ed. Disputes and Settle-ments: Law and Human Relations in the West (Cambridge 1983), 25–46Google Scholar; note page 45 on the differences between Frankish and Visigothic practice.

²⁷ Augustine, . Sermo 9,4Google Scholar (PL 38, 79): “Nos. fratres, pericula vestra intuemur, non voluntates vestras attendimus: nam et medicus si voluntatem aegri attendat. numquam illum curat. Quod non est faciendum, non fiat: quod prohibet Deus non fiat. Qui Deo credit, ab ipso audit quod dicimus. Certe melius erat quibusdam nolentibus corrigi. ut vel huc non veniremus, si ista dicturi eramus; vel quia iam venimus non ea diceremus.” (I thank Charles Witke for discussing the translation of this passage with me.) See also Augustine De bono coniugali 14.161–5,17 (PL 40, 384–5); City of God 14,18. On ecclesiastical endeavours to control sin through the imposition of penitence, see Göllner, Emil, “Analekten zur Bussgeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts,” Römische Quartalschrift 36 (1928). 235–98Google Scholar. The new moral code being expounded in Christian teaching also had an impact on imperial legislation regarding marriage and family, see Biondi, B.. Il diritto romano cristiano (Milan. 1952–1954). vol. II. chs. 19–23Google Scholar; Gaudemet, J., “Tendances nouvelles de la legislation familiale au IVè siècle.” Antiquitas, 29 (1978). 187–206Google Scholar, reprinted in his Église et Société en Occident au Moyen Age (London. 1984).

²⁸ City of God 5.26: “Non quievit iustissimis et misericordissimis legibus adversus impios laboranti ecclesiae subvenire. … Simulacra gentilium ubique evertenda praecepit.” See the important essay by Lamirande, E., Church, State and Toleration. An Intriguing Change of Mind in Augustine. (The Saint Augustine Lecture) (Villanova, 1974Google Scholar); see also Morgenstern, Frank, “Die Kaisergesetze gegen die Donatisten in Nordafrika (Mitte 4.Jh. bis 429) im Zusammenhang mit dem antidonatistischen Wirken des Augustinus von Hippo.“ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Rom. Abt., 110 (1993). 103–23Google Scholar. Brown, Peter, Authority and the Sacred. Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman World (Cambridge 1995), ch. 2Google Scholar. points out that the rigour of the law was rarely enforced.

²⁹ Bonorum malorumque permixtio: see e.g. Sermo 223 (PL 38. 1092).

³⁰ On the Collatio, see Wenger, L., Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (Vienna. 1953). 545–8Google Scholar. I have not been able to see Barone-Adesi, G., L'età della “Lex Dei” (Naples 1992Google Scholar), who, according to Waldstein, Wolfgang. “Ius naturale im nachklassischen römischen Recht und bei Justinian.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stifiung für Rechtsgeschichte Rom. Abt., 111 (1994), 1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar at note 14, suggests that the Collatio derives from a Jewish environment and dates to the reign of Diocletian. See also Rogers, Leonard Victor, The Jews in Lute Ancient Rome, Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Diaspora (Leiden, 1995Google Scholar). I thank Hagith Sivan for drawing my attention to this work. Initially, no major theoretical modification appeared to be required in the scope of Roman legislation because Christian moral precepts converged with earlier philosophical teaching which had found expression in Roman law. See, for instance, on aequitas. Biondi, I, 107–12; 11, 28–43; III, 384–7; on natural law, Ernst Levy. Natural law in Roman thought. Studia et documenta historiae et iuris. 15 (1949), 1–23Google Scholar.

³¹ Mosaiearum et Romanarum legum collatio. Hyamson, M., ed. (London 1913Google Scholar). title 15. citing Deuteronomy 18,10–14.

³² Vernay, E., “Note sur le changement de style dans les constitutions impériales de Diocletien à Constantin,” Études d'histoire juridique offertes á Paul Frederic Girard, II (Paris 1913), 263–74Google Scholar; F. Wieacker, “Vulgarismus und Klassizismus im Recht der Spätantike.” Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. hist. Kl. (1955-1953); idem, Allgemeine Zustände und Rechtszustände gegen Ende des weströmischen Reiches. lus Medii Aevi, I:2a (Milan 1963), 38 ff.

³³ Thelamon, Francoise, Païens et Chrétiens au IVe siècle. L'apport de l'Histoire ecclésiastique de Rufin d'Aquilée (Paris, 1981), pt. IIIGoogle Scholar. on divine interventions in history, whether punitive or favourable; on Salvian, an exegete of divine punishment, see Badewien, Jan. Geschichtstheologie und Sozialkritik im Werk Salvians von Marseille (Göttingen, 1980Google Scholar).

³⁴ The distinction did not escape the jurists, see Biondi, B.. Il diritto romano-cristiano (Milan, 1952–1954). vol. II. 305–26Google Scholar; also 44 ff.; vol. III. 421 ff.; on intention in Roman law, see Kaser, Max. Das römische Privatrecht. Erster Abschnitt (München, 1971). 234–46Google Scholar; Zweiler Abschnitt (Munchen. 1975). 82–91Google Scholar.

³⁵ Actresses: Theodosiani libri XVI, Krueger, P. and Mommsen, T., eds. (Berlin. 1905), 15.7.1Google Scholar; 2; 4; 8; 9; 10 (hereafter Theodosian Code): Theodosian Code 15.7,12: portraits of performers in pantomimes and of actors.

³⁶ Theodosian Code 16.5.41: “Licet crimina soleat poena purgare. nos tamen pravas hominum voluntates admonitione paenitentiae volumus emendare.” Codex Justinianus (in Kruger, Paul, ed., Corpus luris Civilis, vol. II (Berlin, 1872)Google Scholar [hereafter Codex Justinianus] 1.1,3: see also Theodosian Code 16,1,2, of 380 ordering Christians to follow the faith of St. Peter, and threatening recalcitrants with imperial punishment and celestial vengeance.

³⁷ Krueger, G., “Die Fürsorgetätigkeit der vorkonstantinischen Kirchen,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 55, Kanonistische Abteilung, 24 (1935), 113–40Google Scholar; see especially, on the public and juridical impact of Christian charity, 133 ff.

³⁸ Augustine, , Ep. 98,1Google Scholar (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum [hereafter CSEL]) 34,2, p. 520: Baptismi salutaris esse virtute … ut semel generatus per aliorum carnalem voluptatem, cum semel regeneratus fuerit per aliorum spiritalem voluntatem. See the discussion of this letter by Lynch, Joseph H. in Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton. 1986), 128ff.Google Scholar

³⁹ On the evolution of the ritual of baptism, see Hugh Riley, M., Christian Initiation; A Comparative Study of the Interpretation of the Baptismal Liturgy in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ambrose of Milan (Washington D.C., 1974Google Scholar): on the earliest mention of baptismal sponsors of adults by Hippolytus of Rome (Apostolic Tradition 16), see Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, 36 ff.; Dujarier, Michel, Le parrainage des adultes aux trois premiers sièctes de l'Église; récherche historique sur l'évolution des garanties et des étapes catéchumenales avant 313 (Paris, 1962), 197ff.Google Scholar; Burnish, R. F., “The Role of the Godfather in the East in the Fourth Century,” Studia Patristica, 17:2 (1979 (1982), 558–64Google Scholar; Corblet, J., Histoire dogmatique, liturgique et archéologique du sacrement de Baptème, II (Paris, 1882) 111ff.Google Scholar is still useful.

⁴⁰ Tertullian, , de baptismo 18,4–5Google Scholar; cf. Origen, , Contra Celsum 3,51Google Scholar; Dionysius, Ps., De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia II,2,1–8Google Scholar; cf. II,3,4 (Patrologia Graeca 3, 393–7; 400f. ) describes the entire ritual of baptism and the role of the sponsor in it, as carried out in his day; regarding the terminology of adoption in baptism, note the expression in II,2,7, col. 396C, to refer to the font. Note, along with Tertullian's opinion, the evidence on infant baptism in the early church collected by Jeremias, Joachim, Infant Baptism in the Early Church (Philadelphia, 1962Google Scholar).

⁴¹ Council of Elvira, Canon 24. “Eo quod eorum minime sit cognita vita,” in Vives, José, ed. Concilios Visigoticos (Barcelona, 1963), 6Google Scholar.

⁴² M. Dujarier. Le parrainage des adultes, 53f.; for the baptismal sponsor as “pater” in the Penitential of Theodore, see P. W. Finsterwalder, Die Canones Theodori Cantuariensis, p. 275, section VII.69; p. 317, section IV, 8. The Liber sacramentorum Gellonensis (A. Dumas, ed., CCSL 159) refers to godparents as “qui eos suscepturi sunt” [from the font], see sections 706; 709. The alternative rite in this sacramentary uses this same terminology along with patrini and matrini, see section 2226 and 2232 (2324 uses “patrini qui eos suscepturi sunt”).

⁴³ Codex Justinianus 5,4,26.2: “Ea videlicet persona omnimodo ad nuptias venire prohibenda, quam aliquis, sive alumna sit sive non, a sacrosancto suscepit baptismate, cum nihil aliud sic inducere potest paternam adfectionem et iustam nuptiarum prohibitionem, quam huiusmodi nexus, per quern deo mediante animae eorum copulae sunt.”

⁴⁴ J. H. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship. 235 ff.; see also Patlagean, E., “Christianisation et parentes rituelles: le domaine de Byzance,” Annales ESC, 33:3 (1978), 625–36Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Paul, , Sententiae, 2,19,4Google Scholar (in Baviera, J., ed., Fontes luris Romani Antejustiniani, vol. 2 (Florence, 1968), 345Google Scholar): “Adoptiva cognatio impedit nuptias inter parentes ac liberos omnimodo. inter fratres eatenus quatenus capitis minutio non intervenit”; Buckland, . A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (Oxford, 1921). 105f.Google Scholar; Corbett, P. E., The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1930), 47–48Google Scholar; Zulueta, , Gains 11,30–31Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Augustine. Epistulae (CSEL 34) 98,2, on rebirth; Contra Faustum 3.3 (CSEL 25,1. p. 264 f.), on adoption.

⁴⁷ Augustine, , Contra Faustum 3,3Google Scholar (CSEL 25.1, p. 264): “Ut fratres Christi secundum modum nostrum faceret, adoptavit. iste itaque modus … ut filii eius essemus. adoptio vocatur”; further on, Augustine draws the parallel of human adoption.

⁴⁸ J. H. Lynch, ‘Godparents and Kinship, 219–42. on prohibitions of marriage between individuals related by spiritual kinship, and 242 ff., on the laws of King Ine laying down compensation to be awarded for the murder of a spiritual son or father. See further, on the impact of ecclesiastical concerns on secular legislation involving marriage. Goody, Jack. The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983), ch. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also pages 68 ff. and 204 ff., on “strategies of heirship.” Throughout the book, Goody argues that the church, by prohibiting or restricting existing modes of succession (especially by adoption), augmented its own economic resources (especially 45 ff.; 75; 123f.; 196 ff.). It must be said by way of qualification, however, that this outcome does not appear to have been the result of a deliberate policy on the part of late Roman and early medieval ecclesiastics. One of the points being made in this essay is that the manner in which individuals conceive and orchestrate their role in society does indeed have economic consequences, but at the same time these economic consequences do not necessarily dominate or even condition a given individual's actions and self-perception. In the wills being considered below, it was the future of their souls that motivated donors to make gifts to the church, not the idea that the church should become wealthy. For a fundamental corrective to Goody's argument, see Jussen, Bernhard, Patenschaft und Adoption imfrühen Mittelalter (Göttingen, 1991Google Scholar). See also, Klingshirn, William, Caesarius of Arles. The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Arles (Cambridge, 1994), 195f.Google Scholar, 199f. Finally, Herlihy, “Church Property on the European Continent 701–1200,” Speculum, 36 (1961), 81–105Google Scholar (and his The Social History of Italy and Western Europe, 700–1500 (London, 1978), ch. V)Google Scholar. demonstrates that the wealth of the church was not as extensive as might be thought, if one pays too exclusive an attention to the bequests left to it.

⁴⁹ Theodosian Code 4,1. The Breviary of Alaric continued to be consulted in Frankish Gaul until the ninth century and beyond, while in Spain, it was superceded by the Liber Iudiciorum, which in turn gave rise to the Fuero Juzgo; Gaudemet, J., “Le Bréviaire d' Alaric et les Épitômes,” in his La formation du droit canonique médiéval (London, 1980), vol. IGoogle Scholar; see also note 76 below.

⁵⁰ Liber Iudiciorum (in Zeumer, Karolus, ed., Leges Visigothorum (Berlin, 1902)), 4,2,17Google Scholar: “Quemque non hereditabit producta lux celi, qualiter morte contractum inprobisa ditabit portio mundi? Quave etiam ratione adgreditur viventium iura, cui vicinius fuit, mortem adisse quam vitam? Sicque naufragus in medio lucis angustias mox genitales exiit, mox fatales relapsus est in tenebras. Ut ergo et proximis parentibus ad successionem huius aditus reseretur, et ipsa defuncti vita conprobetur. si vere clara sit vita, adque hanc ipsam licet parvi temporis vitam comitetur eterne participatio vite, non aliter in utroque sexu hereditatem capiet que nascitur, nisi post nativitatis ortum et sacri baptismatis gratiam consequatur et decem dierum spatiis vixisse probetur: ut successoris patris vel matris persona, que per hunc parvulum terrene cupit hereditatis adquirere commoda, ante morituro eterne mansionis preparet vitam et ita demum adsequatur vivens cum rebus labentibus terram. Sicque salutari commerico. dum hereditat ille celum, hereditat iste solum; dum illi providentur celestia, isti permittantur adire terrena; dumque adsequitur ille vitalia, conquirat iste caduca: ut etsi defunctus terrenum ius non potuit possidere. terreno saltim emtum iure celeste lucrum valeat obtinere.” From the Liber ludiciorum, a recension of this law passed into the Fuero Juzgo, where also the baby that died had to be baptized if legacies were to be claimed from it, see Fuero Juzgo en Latin y Castellano cotejado con los … codices por la Real Academia Espanola (Madrid, 1815)Google Scholar, lib.4, tit. 3, 17 (cf. 18), and, in the Spanish version, lib. #4, tit. 2, 18 (cf. 19). Further on the tradition of the Liber ludiciorum, Lopez, Yolanda Garcia. “La traditión del Liber ludiciorum: una revisión.” in De la antiguedad al medievo. Siglos IV-VIII. III Congreso de Estudios Medievales (Fundación Sánchez-Albornoz, 1993), 381–415Google Scholar: Collins, Roger, “‘Sicut lex Gothorum continet’: Law and Charters in Ninth- and Tenth-Century Leon and Catalonia,” English Historical Review, 396 (1985). 489–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Visigothic Law and Regional Custom in Disputes in Early Medieval Spain, in Wendy Davies and Fouracre, Paul, eds. The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1986), 85–104Google Scholar. For “salutare commercium,” a possible liturgical allusion, cf. the Spanish mass for Maundy Thursday, Férotin, Marius, Le Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum et les manuscrits mozarabes (Paris. 1912), 238Google Scholar: “O admirabile, Christe, tuum comercium,” words occurring, as in the law, in a context of antitheses of positives and negatives.

⁵¹ Augustine, , City of God 1, 35Google Scholar, with Funkenstein, Amos, Heilsplan und natürliche Entwicklung. Gegenwartsbeslimmung im Geschichtsdenken des Mittelalters (Munich, 1965), 36ff.Google Scholar; Markus, R. A., Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine (Cambridge, 1970), ch. 4Google Scholar.

⁵² On the legal implications, Krueger, G., Die Rechtsstellung der vorkonstantinischen Kitchen (Stuttgart, 1935Google Scholar; Amsterdam, 1961), 146ff.; see also Countryman, L. Wm., The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accommodations (New York, 1980Google Scholar); Ramsey, Boniface, “Almsgiving in the Latin Church: The Late Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries,” Theological Studies, 43 (1982), 226–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ Bruck, E. F., Kirchenväter und soziales Erbrecht (Berlin, 1956), 76ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 100 ff. See also, Gould, Graham, “Basil of Caesarea and the Problem of the Wealth of Monasteries,” in Sheils, W. J. and Wood, Diana, eds. The Church and Wealth (Oxford, 1987), 15–24Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Augustine, , Sermo 9,13,21Google Scholar (PL 38, 90 f.); Sermo 38,4,6–7;9 (PL 38,237–9).

⁵⁵ Augustine, , Sermo 86,10,11Google Scholar (PL 38,528): “Filium amististi: non ergo amisisti sed praemisisti. … Mittatur ergo illi quo praecessit ille: ad rem suam venire non potest, res eius ad eum ire potest. Vide cum quo sit. Si in palatio militaret filius tuus, et amicus imperatoris fieret, et diceret tibi, vende ibi partem meam et mitte mihi: numquid invenires quid responderes? modo cum imperatore omnium imperatorum. et cum rege omnium regum … est filius tuus: mitte illi. Non dico necessarium habet ipse: dominus ipsius, apud quern est filius tuus, eget in terra.”

⁵⁶ Augustine, . Sermo de disciplina Christiana 8,8Google Scholar (CCSL 46, p. 216).

⁵⁷ Augustine, _Sermo 355 (PL 39,1571 f.) “Si quis … irascitur in filium suum et moriens exhaeredat eum, si viveret non eum placarem? Non ei filium suum reconciliare deberem? Quomodo ergo cum filio suo volo ut habeat pacem. cuius appeto haereditatem? Sed plane, si faciat quod saepe hortatus sum, unum filium habet, putet Christum alterum; duos filios habet, putet Christum tertium: decem habet, Christum undeciumum faciat, et suscipio.” Januarius, as is clear from this sermon, was a member of Augustine's monastic community. While Januarius' children, a son and a daughter, are mentioned in the sermon, his wife is not; perhaps she had died. This kind of situation was envisaged in Theodosian Code 8,18,6 of 379 AD, where fathers whose wives have died are prevented from alienating the property of their children.

⁵⁸ Caesarius Sermo 60 (CCSL 103, p. 263); W. Klingshirn. Caesarius of Arles (1994). 186 ff. Salvian, . Ad ecclesiam (Halm, C., ed. Berlin. 1877), VII:36–39Google Scholar, informs those who refuse to make Christ an heir that they in turn will be excluded from the inheritance of Christ: “Non habebis cum Christo partem. quem despexisti: cum his habebis quos ei praetulisti”; cf. Bruck, Soziales Erbrecht, 105 ff.. On the influence of Augustine and its limitations in early medieval Gaul, see Ganz, David, “The Ideology of Sharing: Apostolic Community and Ecclesiastical Property in the Early Middle Ages,” in Davies, Wendy and Fouracre, Paul. eds., Property and Power in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge. 1995), 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ Champlin, Edward, Final Judgment. Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills 200 B.C.-A.D.250 (Princeton, 1991), 15, 21f.Google Scholar, 112 ff.; See also, on community settlements of disputes arising from inheritance, Traianos Gagos and van Minnen, Peter, Settling a Dispute. Toward a Legal Anthropology of Late Antique Egypt (Ann Arbor, 1994), 38 ff., 46Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Buckland, W., A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge, 1921), 324–29Google Scholar, on the querela inofficiosi testamenti and the querela inofficiosi donationis.

⁶¹ Constantine's law, Theodosian Code 16,2,4 with Gaudemet, J., “La legislation religieuse de Constantin,” Révue d'histoire de l'église de France. 33 (1947), 25–61, at 41–43Google Scholar, reprinted in his Église et Société au Moyen Age (London, 1980Google Scholar); on the Lex Falcidia, which guaranteed the heir one quarter of an estate, once debts and funerary expenses had been deducted, see Institutes II, 23; Code of Justinian 6,50; Zulueta, , Gaius II, 112f.Google Scholar; 117; Buckland, Textbook, 342 f.; Kaser, Max, Das römische Privatrecht, vol. 1 (Munich, 1971), 756–7Google Scholar and vol. 2 (Munich 1975), 561–2 (with full citations of sources); on pious bequests in general, Biondi, B., Il diritto romano cristiano (Milan, 1952–1954), vol. I, 391–2 and vol. II, 207Google Scholar.

⁶² Theodosian Code 16,2,20, 370 AD, prohibiting clerics and continentes from approaching widows and wards (pupillae) for purposes of acquiring legacies. The problem of legacy hunting (captatio) in itself was not new, see Champlin, Final Judgments, 87 ff.

⁶³ Theodosian Code 16,2,27.

⁶⁴ Theodosian Code 16,2,28.

⁶⁵ Theodosian Code 5,3, also in Codex Iustinianus 1,3,20.

⁶⁶ Novel of Marcian (in Meyer, P., ed., Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, vol.II of Theodosiani Libri XVI (Berlin 1905Google Scholar)) 5, reiterated, but without the preamble mentioning the testament of Hypatia, , in Codex Justinianus 1,2,13Google Scholar: see further Justinian, , Novellae (Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. III (Berlin, 1972)), 123.37–40Google Scholar of 545 AD, once more protecting the rights of next of kin.

⁶⁷ The interpretatio from the Breviary of Marie is printed in Leges Novellae (see preceding note). See also the edition of the Breviary by Haenel, G., Lex Romano Visigothorum (Leipzig, 1849), 305Google Scholar: “Sanctiomonalibus, viduis, diaconissis omnibusque religiosis matronis hac lege permittitur, ut seu testamento, seu fideicommisso, seu per nuncupationem, seu per codicillos vel quibuslibet aliis scripturis, quod voluerint, ecclesiae, episcopis, presbyteris vel diaconibus et omnibus clericis relinquendi habeant potestatem. Et si voluerint heredibus suis quoscunque post eorum obitum substituere, habeant potestatem.”

⁶⁸ Codex Justinianus 1,3,45, 530 AD: “.”

⁶⁹ Codex Justinianus 1,3,48.1. 531 AD: “Si quis ad declinandam legem Falcidiam, cum desiderat totam suam substantiam pro redemptione captivorum relinquere, eos ipsos captivos scripsent heredes, ne videatur quasi incertis personis heredibus institutis iudicium suum oppugnandum reliquisse, sancimus huius talem institutionem pietatis intuitu valere et non esse respuendam.”

⁷⁰ Codex Justinianus 1,3,48,4: “Licentia omnimodo danda … et actionem movere et debita exigere, ut in captivos vel in aegrotantes consumantur. si enim heredum eis et ius et nomen dedimus, sine Falcidiae tamen legis emolumento, necesse est eos et debita exigere et creditoribus respondere.” I take the phrase “sine Falcidiae tamen legis emolumento” to mean that once the testator's heirs, that is, the next of kin who would inherit in case of intestasy are not protected by the Falcidian law which ensured that they would at the very least receive an unencumbered quarter of the inheritance (that is, the testator's debts had to be paid before the Falcidian quarter was assigned to heirs), these next of kin cannot be made responsible for the testator's debts. Justinian's innovation consisted of abrogating, in cases where pious bequests were at issue, the Falcidian quarter to which heirs were normally entitled. Such bequests now overruled the Lex Falcidia not only with regard to the quarter that had been assigned to heirs but also with regard to the prior payment of testator's debts. As a result, the captivi and aegrotantes became responsible for testator's debts without being able to appeal to the Lex Falcidia (“sine Falcidiae tamen legis emolumento”) which arranged for debts to be paid before inheritances were distributed.

⁷¹ Justinian, , Novellae 131, 12Google Scholar: “Si autem heres quae ad pias causas relicta sunt non impleverit, dicens relictam substantiam non sufficere ad ista, praecipimus omni Falcidia vacante quicquid invenitur in tali substantia proficere provisione sanctissimi locorum episcopi ad caasas quibus relictum est.”

The Greek text makes clear that the heir will not benefit by the Falcidian quarter:

⁷² Codex Justinianus 1,2,15:

On the the early evolution of the idea of Christ or the poor as heirs, see Bruck, E., Kirchenväter und soziales Erbrecht (Berlin, 1957), chs. 1–2Google Scholar: also. Brown, Peter, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, 1992), 89–103Google Scholar.

⁷³ Codex Justinianus 1,2,25, 530 AD. Novellae 131,9 returns to the question of bequests to Christ and the saints. Novellae 131,10 regulates gifts for the construction of oratories and similar matters, while Novellae 131,11 returns to legacies left to the poor and captives.

⁷⁴ For the priority of the voluntas of testators over the form of a written document, see especially Theodosian Code 2.24,1 (321 AD) with the interpretation from the Breviary ofAlaric.

⁷⁵ Paul, Sentences (reproduced in the Breviary of Alaric, see Haenel, G.. Lex Romana Visigothorum) 4.3.3Google Scholar (also in Baviera, J.. ed.. Fontes luris Romani Antejustiniani, II (Florence. 1968), 4,3,2 p. 374Google Scholar): “Lex Falcidia itemque Senatus Consultum Pegasianum deducto omni aere alieno deorumque donis quartam residuae hereditatis ad heredem voluit pertinere.” On gifts to the gods, see Buckland, W. W., A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (Cambridge. 1926). 289Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Interpretatio of Paul, . Sentences 4,3.2Google Scholar (from Breviary of Alaric): “Lex Falcidia similiter et Pegasianum Senatus Consultum facta hereditarii debiti ratione et separatis his quas in honorem dei ecclesiis relinquuntur, quartam hereditatis ex omnibus ad scriptum heredem censuit pertinere.”

⁷⁷ On the circulation of the Breviary of Alaric in Spain and Gaul, see Codigo de Alarico II. Fragmentos de la “Lex Romana” de los Visigodos conservados en un codice palimpsesto de la Catedral de León, with introduction by de Cardenas, F. and Fita, F.. and epilogue by Gil, M. Rodriguez (León, 1991), xiiiff.Google Scholar, 451 ff.: McCormick, Michael. “An Unknown Seventh-Century Manuscript of the Lex Romana Visigothorum,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law (N.S.), 6 (1976), 1–13Google Scholar; Llopis, Felipe Mateu, “El titulo X ‘De Thesauris’ Codicis Theodosiani Liber X del palimpsesto de León ‘Legis Romanae Visigothorum fragmenta.’ Comentario,” Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, 183 (1986), 271–77Google Scholar; Wood, Ian, “The Code in Merovingian Gaul,” in Harries, Jill and Wood, Ian, eds. The Theodosian Code. Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity (London, 1993), 161–77Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Liber ludiciorum 4.5,1 with Zeumer's note ad loc.

⁷⁹ Liber ludiciorum 4,5,1 (pp. 196–7, Zeumer): “Exheredare autem filios aut nepotes licet pro levi culpa inlicitum iam dictis parentibus erit, flagellandi tamen et corripiendi eos, quamdiu sunt in familia constituti, tam avo quam avie, seu patri quam matri potestas manebit.” This view corresponds closely to the situation obtaining in the society described by Augustine in his sermons, see Shaw, Brent, “The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine,” Past and Present, 115 (1987), 3–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also de Valdeavellano, Luis G., “Lacuota de libre dispositión en el derecho hereditario de León y Castilla en la alta edad media,” in his Estudios Medievales de Derecho Privado (Seville, 1977), 323–63Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Liber ludiciorum 4,5,2; 5,2,4.

⁸¹ Gil, J., ed. Miscelanea Wisigothica (Seville, 1972), 94Google Scholar, cf. 81. See also page 93, line 73, where a wife is granted freedom to dispose of her dowry as she wishes—a right abrogated in Liber ludiciorum 4,5,2; 5,2,4. A new edition of the Visigothic formulae (adding to their number) is by López, Angel Canellas, Diplomatica Hispano-Visigoda (Zaragoza, 1979)Google Scholar, see number 23 for the above mentioned notary's model of a will; see also numbers 78 and 90, which are models for wills in which husband and wife leave their estate to each other with no mention of pious bequests. In number 28, on the other hand, Bishop Vicentius of Huesca declares, “Te, sancta ecclesia Oscensis … in omni omnino re, tam quod de paternis quam de maternis munusculis mihi provenit, heredem te instituto, heresque mea ut sis decerno. Ceteri cetereve persone exheredes mihi sunt tote.” This will was written by the deacon Stephen, his son. Its terms resemble those in the wills of some Frankish bishops, see note 83 below. For Saint Vincent as a bishop's heir, see Grau, Josep Corell-Ferran, “L'epitafi de Justinià, bisbe de València (ca. 493–548),” Analecta Sacra Tarraconensia, 68 (1995), 5–15Google Scholar.

⁸² Morin, D. G., “Le testament de S. Césaire d'Arles et la critique de M. Bruno Krusch,” Révue Benedictine, 16 (1899), 97–112Google Scholar, with an edition of the will of Caesarius; regarding Caesarius' intentions as expressed in his will, see Klingshirn, William, Caesarius of Arles. The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul (Cambridge, 1994), 252Google Scholarff. For the will of Remigius of Reims, see Jones, A.H.M., Grierson, P., and Crook, J. A., “The Authenticity of the ‘Testamentum S. Remigii,’” Révue beige de philologie et d'histoire, 35 (1957), 1–18Google Scholar; the two versions of the text are in Krusch, B., ed. Vita Sancti Remigii (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum III) (Berlin, 1896), 336–47Google Scholar. Nonn, Ulrich, “Merowingische Testamente. Studien zum Fortleben einer römischen Urkundenform im Frankenreich,” Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde, 18 (1972), 1–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lemarignier, Jean François, “Les actes de droit privé de Saint-Bertin au haut moyen âge. Survivances et déclin du droit romain dans la pratique franque,” in his Revue Internationale des droits de l'antiquité, 5 (1950), 35–72Google Scholar. See also, Spreckelmeyer, G., “Zur rechtlichen Funktion frühmittelalterlicher Testamente,” in Classen, Peter, ed. Recht und Schrift im Mittelalter (Vorträge und Forschungen, 23 (Sigmaringen, 1977), 91–113Google Scholar), and, in more general terms, Classen, P., Kaiserreskript und Königsurkunde. Diplomatische Studien zum Problem der Kontinuität zwischen Altertum und Mittelalater (Thessaloniki, 1977)Google Scholar.

⁸³ The wills of Berthramnus and Hadoin of Le Mans were published by Pardessus, J. M., Diplomata, chartae, epistolae, leges aliaque instrumenta ad res gallo-francicas spectantia, vol. I (Paris. 1843). no. 230. pp. 197–215Google Scholar. Berthramnus. page 198:” Quandoego, suprascriptus Bertrannus peccator. ex rebus humanis excessero, debitumve naturae tempus explevero. tune tu, sacrosancta ecclesia Coenomanica. una cum sancta ac venerabili basilica domni Petri et Pauli apostolorum. quam in conspectu civitatis. opere meo. pro defensione civitatis vel ad salubritatem populi aedificavi, haeredes mihi estote, haeredesque meos vos esse constituo ac jubeo, caeterive exhaeredes sint toti (vol. 2 [Paris. 1849], no. 300, 69–71.) Hadoin, page 69: “Sanus, Deo propitio, mente et corpore. sanoque consilio metuens casum humanae fragilitatis … tu sacrosancta ecclesia venerabilis Cenomannis haeres mea esto, haeredemque meam te esse constituo.” I have not been able to consult the more recent edition by Busson, G. and Ledru, A.. Actus pontificum Cennomanis in urbe degentium (Le Mans. 1901)Google Scholar. For Vicentius of Huesca, see note 81 above.

⁸⁴ Pardessus, Diplomata II, no. 452. pp. 255–8. at p. 257Google Scholar: “Item, pro remedium anemae meae, vel ex demandacione bonae recordationis fili mei Deorovaldi. villam cui vocabulum est Latiniaco sita in territurio Meldinse. cum campis. colonecis ad eadem pertinentes, cum pratis, pascuis, silvis, vel in omni jure et termino suo, quia in portione supramemorati filii mei Deorovaldi obvenit cum omni integritate baselicae Sancti Sinfuriani ubi sepulturam habere dinuscitur pro requiem eius dari praecipio.”

⁸⁵ Cf. note 55 above. For another somewhat unusual will, also by a woman, see Guerout, J., “Le testament de Sainte Fare. Materiaux pour l'etude et l'edition critique de ce document.” Revue des études écclesiastiques, 60:3–4 (1965). 761–821Google Scholar, with an edition of the will of Burgundofara, who divides her “portio” of the family property between her monastery and her siblings.

⁸⁶ On Roman philanthropic gifts, see Edward Champlin. Final Judgements, ch. 8; see also, for examples of testaments bequeathing such gifts, Arangio-Ruiz, V., ed. Fonles luris Romani Antejustiniani III. Negotia (Florence, 1972), numbers 53–55 (pp. 163–9)Google Scholar, number 66 (pp. 193–8), of c. 570 AD. For land willed to an Egyptian monastery for the rest of the testator's soul and forgiveness of his sins, see Miller, Timothy S.. The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire (Baltimore, 1985)Google ScholarPubMed.

⁸⁷ Pardessus, , Diplomata I, 81; 136; 197; II,69Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Pardessus, Diplomata II, 173–4Google Scholar: “eleemosyna extinguit peccatum.” This is a sentiment with which Augustine would not have agreed (see City of God 21, 22). Further, Pikhaus, D., “La vie, la mort et l'au delà dans les inscriptions latines paléochrétiennes,” Studia Patristica, 15 (Berlin 1984), 233–7Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ For early evidence, see Bovini, Giuseppe, La Proprietà ecclesiastica e la condizione giuridica delta Chiesa precostantiniana (Milan, 1948)Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Brown, Peter, The Cult of the Saints. Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago, 1981), 3ffGoogle Scholar.; MacCormack, S., “Loca Sancta: The Organization of Sacred Topography in Late Antiquity,” in Ousterhout, R., ed. The Blessings of Pilgrimage (Urbana, 1990), 16Google Scholarf. See further, Gouillou, A., Regionalisme et independance dans l'empire byzantin au VIIè siècle (Rome, 1969), 272–7Google Scholar, inscription by bishop John of Ravenna of 731 AD, recording his gift of landed property to the monks of San Apollinare, effective on the date of his death: “Iohannes almus pontifex … qui cura pervigili aeterni premia regni fidus ut possideat aegenorum agmina praecant liminibus sacris, hoc sibi monumentum locavit, Apollenari sancto commendans pulvera membra quae surrectura credit, carnis resumpto vigore.”

⁹¹ Joseph H. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship, ch. 8; on the visual representation of networks of kinship, see Schadt, Hermann, Die Darstellungen der Arbores Consanguinitatis und der Arbores Affinitatis. Bildschemata in juristischen Handschriften (Tübingen, 1982)Google Scholar; Patlagean, E., “Une réprésentation byzantine de la parenté et ses origines occidentales,” L'homme. Révue française d'anthropologie, VI (1966), 59–81Google Scholar; for the relevance of such depictions in matters of inheritance, see Theodosian Code 9,42.9.

⁹² See de Clercq, C.. ed. Concilia Galliae (Corpus Christianorum 148A): p. 268Google Scholar, synod of Autun, 561/605 AD, canon 25, an abbot may not have filios de baptismo, nor monks commatres; p. 319, Canones Augustudunenses 5, monks may have no compatres.

⁹³ Mintz, S. W. and Wolf, E. R., “An Analysis of Ritual Co-Parenthood (compadrazgo),” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 6 (1950), 341–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pitt-Rivers, Julian, “Spiritual Kinship in Andalucia,” in his The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar; Nutini, Hugo G. and Bell, Betty, Ritual Kinship. The Structure and Historic Development of the Compadrazgo System in Rural Tlaxcala (Princeton, 1980–1984)Google Scholar. An extended discussion of the workings of spiritual kinship in the Cuzco region of Peru may be found in Bocanegra, Juan Pérez, Ritual, formulario e institución de curas, para administrar a los naturales de este Reyno, los santos Sacramentos … (Lima, 1631), 32Google Scholarf., 59f., 69f.

⁹⁴ Augustine, City of God 19, 5: “Quod autem socialem vitam volunt esse sapientis, multo amplius adprobamus. Nam unde ista Dei civitas … vel inchoaretur exortu vel progrederetur excursu vel adprehenderet debitos fines, si non esset socialis vita sanctorum?"

⁹⁵ Augustine, , Sermo de disciplina Christiana 7, 7 (CCSL 46, p. 214)Google Scholar: “Quomodo enim erit socialis felicitas tua quem torquet felicitas aliena?” Cf Serm. 9,9,13 (PL 38,85): The virtuous person lives, “securus et innocens in dei dilectione et humana societate.”

⁹⁶ City of God 21,15: “Ne quisquam se debet ab isto ad ilium transire confidere nisi cum ibi fuerit ubi temptatio nulla erit”: Sermo 348 (PL 40,1524–26)Google Scholar: Brown, , Augustine of Hippo (London, 1967), 432Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Caesarius, , Sermo 60, 1: 64, 4Google Scholar; 65.2–4 (CCSL 103).

⁹⁸ Codex Justinianus 1,5,4 (407 AD); 1,11,8 (c. 472 AD); also Novellae 109, preface (541 AD): Theodosian Code 16,5,47 (409 AD); Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Spain. Unity in Diversity 400—1000 (London, 1983), 129Google Scholarff. The Jews presented the most intractable difficulty of all to the Christian sense of salus communis; as J. M. Wallace-Hadrill wrote: “The trouble was that Judaism met Christianity half-way: they shared the Old Testament.” See his The Frankish Church (Oxford, 1983), 390CrossRefGoogle Scholarff.; Juster, J., “La condition legale des Juifs sous les rois visigoths,” in Etudes d'histoire juridique offertes à Paul Frédéric Girard (Paris, 1913), 275–335Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Isidore of Seville. Sententiae 3, 51.4 (PL 83, 723); see further Reydellet, Marc, La Royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville (Rome, 1981), 537CrossRefGoogle Scholarff., 554 ff.

¹⁰⁰ Alonso, Cristobal Rodriguez, ed. Las historias … de hidoro de Sevilla (Leon, 1975)Google Scholar, where he comments on the valour and piety of the Goths but mentions no supernatural mission. See also Isidore, Etymologiae 9,3, 1–3, listing kingdoms from Augustine's City of God 18, 2; note Fontaine, J.. Isidore de Séville et la culture dassique dans l'Espagne wisigothique (Paris, 1959), 444Google Scholarf., 459f., 798f., who views Augustine's influence on Isidore as being confined, for the most part, to matters of astronomy and mathematics, “Jamais … d'une manière differente d'une source paienne.” Reydellet, Royauté 514 ff., 572: “Nous assistons a la liquidation définitive de toute transcendance politique … le roi garde seulement un pouvoir de répression des méchants.”

¹⁰¹ Isidore, Etymologiae 7,2,9; Beatus of Liebana, Commentarius in Apocalypsin, Romero-Pose, E., ed. (Rome. 1985)Google Scholar, Prologue to Book II, p. 173.

¹⁰² Isidore. Etymologiae 9,4.5: “Populus est coetus humanae multitudinis iuris consensu et concordi communione sociatus.”

¹⁰³ For Spain, see Albornoz, Claudio Sánchez, Estudios Visigodos (Rome, 1971), 242Google Scholarff; on cooperation of church and state at a time of crisis. Liber Iudiciorum 2,5,19 with Council of Toledo XVI (693 AD), in Vives, Jose, ed. Concilios Visigoticos e Hispano-Romanos (Barcelona, 1963)Google Scholar, canon 10, pp. 511 f: “Quicumque amodo ex nobis vel cunctis Hispaniae populis qualibet meditatione vel studio sacramentum fidei suae quod pro salute patriae gentisque Gothorum statu vel incolumitate regiae potestatis pollicitus est, violaverit … anathema sit in conspectu Spiritus Sancti et martyrum Christi, atque ab ecclesia catholica quam periurio profanaverit efficiatur extraneus.” Cf. Moreno, L. A. Garcia, Prosopografia del reino visigodo de Toledo (Salamanca, 1974), 121Google Scholar. On the “alliance of crown and clergy” in Francia, see Ganz, David, “Bureaucratic Shorthand and Merovingian Learning,” in Wormald, Patrick, Bullough, Donald and Collins, Roger, eds., Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society. Studies presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 1983), 58–75Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Fontaine, Jacques and Hillgarth, J. N., eds. Le septieme siecle: changements et continuités. Actes du Colloque bilatéral franco-britannique tenu au Warburg Institute les 8–9 juillet 1988 (London, 1992)Google Scholar.