The Law 161
administration to protect property-holders against the open greed of others
and to prevent the anarchy that would have threatened if private individuals
had been permitted to take the law into their own hands.
Judges and Courts
Despite the fact that the justice system was by its nature an imperfect one,
biased in favour of the wealthy and well connected, it was nevertheless a
legitimate system. Where its integrity came under threat was in the actions of
the judges and court officials responsible for putting otherwise abstract rules
into effect. As in the later empire, the courts were administered by the central
administration through provincial governors and their staff, as well as officers
of the local municipalities, including the Roman defensores, duumviri, quin-
quennales, and the ubiquitous decurions, who had the authority to deal with
civil and minor criminal matters. Also at the local level was the bishop’s court
(episcopalis audientia), which had jurisdiction over cases involving ecclesiastic
officials.49 But it is clear from our sources that this was a much simplified and
watered-down version wherein the bulk of cases were dealt with by the pro-
vincial governor irrespective of the type of case or considerations of a person’s
ethnicity or status.50
Outside the courtroom there existed several less-formal (but by no means
less-legal) methods of dispute settlement. Arbitration, or other forms of dispute
resolution such as mediation, negotiation, or self-help, offered an important
alternative to formal litigation, which could be an expensive, unpredictable,
and even risky endeavour. Unfortunately, the law took little notice of these,
and what references we have in the Variae to such informal methods of dispute
resolution reveal no more than one stage in what was, in most cases, a lengthy
and protracted process.51
49 On the functioning of the episcopalis audientia in Late Antiquity, see Rapp, Holy Bishops
in Late Antiquity, pp. 242–52; Lamoreaux, “Episcopal Courts”, pp. 143–67; Harries, Law and
Empire, pp. 191–211; id., “Resolving Disputes”, pp. 68–82; Lenski, “Audientia episcopalis”,
pp. 526–29. The most extensive work is that of Cimma, L’episcopalis.
50 Cassiodorus, Variae 5.14, 6.21; Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 3.
51 E.g. Cassiodorus, Variae 5.29 (the case of the blind veteran Anduit); 5.30 (addressed in
Theoderic’s name to the dux Guduin, this letter concerns the complaint of two Goths,
Costula and Daila, alleging that the addressee has imposed servile tasks (onera servilia)
on them; 8.28 (a letter in Athalaric’s name to Cunigast, vir illustris, that concerns the peti-
tion of the Romans Constantius and Venerius, which alleges that the Goth Tanca had
seized their farm and reduced them to slavery).