156 Lafferty
What is interesting here, and inconsistent with the ancient institution of patria
potestas, is the use of the term parens, which could mean either parent or any
close relation for that matter, and not necessarily pater.28
Though technical precision such as this would have been a concern primarily
for skilled legal experts and theorists, it corresponds to an overall decline in the
standards of artistry and rhetorical flourish characteristic of the Theodosian
Code and the Corpus Iuris Civilis of Justinian. Indeed this was a greatly simpli-
fied law of the towns and countryside of 6th-century Italy, unconcerned with
the traditional niceties of strict classical Roman law, and governed by social
and economic rather than legal considerations. As such, the law remains our
primary point of contact with the realities of day-to-day life experienced, or
perhaps endured, by the average person of Theoderic’s Italy.
Such realities, which were undoubtedly harsh and brutal at times, are mostly
obscured by the smokescreen of Roman civilitas created by Cassiodorus’
selected missives. To begin with, Ostrogothic Italy was a largely rural place
where the vast majority of people scratched out a living through the direct
exploitation of the land.29 Not surprisingly, the bulk of the content of the
Edictum Theoderici deals with the sorts of perennial problems that plague all
agricultural communities, such as the usurpation of land at the hands of pow-
erful magnates (ET 10), the destruction of crops or trees (ET 98), runaway slaves
(ET 80, 84–5, 87), the lack of available manpower (ET 142), a situation made
worse by recurring droughts and famines,30 the overworking of slaves or oxen
of another (ET 150), cattle rustling and wandering livestock (ET 56–8), shifting
boundary markers (ET 104),and malicious neighbours and careless farmhands
(ET 98). The arrival of the Goths created a predictable legacy of boundary
disputes that had to be settled in a timely fashion (ET 10, 47). In an effort to
control the violent men of powerful warlords (disingenuously described as
patrons), the compilers bemoaned that armed war bands were carrying off
property, beating people with clubs or stoning them, and setting fires. Such
offences were strongly condemned and subject to the harshest penalties
(ET 75, 89). The compilers also had an eye to commercial matters, regulating
Severan juristic arguments from the late 3rd century. See Humfress, “Poverty and Roman
Law,” pp. 183–203.
28 On the decline of patria potestas as a viable legal concept in Late Antiquity, see Meyer-
Marthaler, Römisches Recht in Rätien, pp. 131–8; Thomas, “Vitae necisque potestas”,
pp. 499–548; Harris, “The Roman Father’s”, pp. 81–95; Arjava, “Paternal Power”, pp. 147–65;
id., “Survival of Roman Family Law”, pp. 33–51.
29 Lafferty, Law and Society, ch. 5.
30 Cassiodorus, Variae 4.5; 4.7; 10.27; 12.25; 12.28.