52 Bjornlie
the church could not collect revenues on the scale of the Gothic state, it was
nevertheless the next-largest revenue-collecting institution in Italy and the fig-
ure of 2160 solidi may approximate a level just below the minimum collected by
the state in some provinces. Of course another letter (5.7) concerns the arrears
owed by a manager of estates (a certain Thomas) of the Ostrogothic patrimony
in Apulia to the sum of 10,000 solidi, exceeding by far the amount suggested
for the collection of taxes in Lucania-Bruttium and Liguria. It is worth noting,
however, that letter 5.7 indicates that Thomas had managed to evade payments
for at least several years (indictionibus illa atque illa). A similar letter (5.31)
names individuals who had avoided their tax payments for six years (indictio-
num octavae nonae undecimae primae secundae et quintae decimae), making
it highly unlikely that the 10,000 solidi owed by Thomas represents anything
approximating the upper range of a province’s annual taxes.
Relying on what can be estimated for the taxes owed by Lucania-Bruttium
as the lower range of fiscal revenue received by the government (3000 solidi)
and that of Liguria as the upper range (4500 solidi), and reckoning by eigh-
teen provinces under Ostrogothic control, returns a tentative average estimate
of 67,500 solidi per annum in tax revenues from municipal collections.28 To
put this into perspective the annual tax revenues of the Gothic court probably
amounted to about 940 pounds of gold, only a fraction of the 11,000 pounds
of gold paid by Justinian as a one-time indemnity to the Persian emperor
Chosroes.29 Of this sum probably only two-thirds (45,000 solidi) would have
been available to the Ostrogothic state for the salaries and pensions of civil
servants and military personnel. Whereas the illatio tertia represented a thrice
yearly schedule of tax collection, it also corresponded to the trina illatio, a
computation of the division of municipal revenues, which allotted one-third
of revenues to the maintenance of the civitas where taxes were collected and
surrendered the remaining two-thirds to agents of the Ostrogothic court.30 The
Variae clearly indicate that the urban leadership of Rome (praefectus urbi) and
each civitas (honorati, curiales, and defensores) drew upon a local fiscal budget
28 For Ostrogothic provinces: Barnish, Cassiodorus, p. 204, lists eighteen; this list could be
supplemented after 511 with the acquisition of provinces in transalpine Gaul and Spain,
but Variae 3.40 and 5.39 indicate fiscal exactions in these regions may not have been
regular.
29 Procopius, Wars 1.22, ed. Dewing.
30 On this: Ward-Perkins, Urban Public Building, pp. 22–7; Durliat, “Cité, impôt et integra-
tion”, pp. 153–80; supported by Theodosian Code 4.13.7 and Novella 5.2–4 of Valentinian,
both in C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels, Princeton 1952.