07. Barbarian Kingdoms


Uploaded by YaleCourses on 05.04.2012

Transcript:
PAUL FREEDMAN: So last time we spoke about the
collapse of the Roman Empire.
And I didn't quite definitively answer the
question: External force - Internal collapse?
There are other possible explanations: an eminent
historian of the barbarian says that the Roman Empire
committed suicide by accident.
That essentially it was just a political problem.
The wrong people became emperors.
Some bad things happened and one day there
it was, it was gone.
I'm not sure I buy that; I like long-term causes more.
But it is important to emphasize that a lot of this
is contingency and not inevitability.
Historians generally tend to make things look as if they
had to happen.
As if there's sort of long-term things playing out
inevitably.
And the longer or the farther away the historian is from the
period that he or she is studying, the greater that
tendency because the look back is longer.
So in talking about both the Empire and the barbarians, I
want to at least remind you that events could have gone
other ways.
There are lots of long-term tendencies, but we're talking
about a series of factors that are both
immediate and long term.
This is relevant to talking about the barbarians
and who they are.
Which is more of a mystery than it might seem.
Who they are as in, what does it mean to say that someone is
a Visigoth?
How much have I described what that means?
And despite the business about plunder, that's not actually
the only thing they were after.
As we have tried to emphasize, they liked the Roman Empire.
They wanted to share in its advantages, not to destroy it.
We've emphasized accommodation rather than conquest. We've
said that this is the end of a world, not
the end of the world.
It is the end of a certain civilization, perhaps, or
maybe transformation of that civilization, but it's not the
end of civilization.
They're not invaders from outer space.
Where do they come from?
Who are they?
What are these aspects of accommodation?
That's partly what we want to talk about today in discussing
the barbarian kingdoms after the collapse of Rome.
So 476 to 530.
What happens in 530 is that the Eastern Roman Empire
embarks on a reconquest of the West
under the emperor Justinian.
And that will be the subject of our
discussion a week from today.
Any questions in the meanwhile?
Notice that in the Burgundian Code the authors of the code,
the Burgundians, call themselves barbarians.
They distinguish between barbarians and Romans.
Even though they use the word, it's deceptive to think of
barbarians, or tribes, or Germans as if these were
absolute well-defined terms that corresponded to an
absolute well-defined set of realities.
What do we know about these people before
they enter the Empire?
We know something from archaeology.
But as they moved around, as I said they're not nomadic, they
have settlements, but they're not very urban settlements.
They have gravesites.
People who have gravesites with a lot of graves are not
moving around a lot.
So that's one indication.
And the gravesites sometimes have stuff in them, things
buried with them.
And among other things, they show that they had trade with
the Roman Empire because they've got Roman
artifacts in them.
Well, OK.
But we actually don't find out that much about them.
The main written source for pre-invasion, let's call them
Germanic tribes delicately, is Tacitus, the Roman historian
better known, or best known, for his very pessimistic
annals of the history of the Roman Empire.
But also the author of a brief work called Germania about the
German tribes.
For Tacitus, the Germans- that is the peoples living beyond
the Rhine frontier- are both childlike and noble.
They're warlike.
From the Roman point of view, these Barbarians are intent on
invading the Empire and enjoying its riches.
Hence the defensive kinds of frontiers we've talked about.
The Rhine, or in Britain, Hadrian's Wall, which you can
still see in the north of England, not that far from the
Scottish border.
That to guard not against Germans, but Celts, Picts, and
Scots, in particular.
Tacitus portrays the Germans as kind of warlike.
Around the year 100 is his description.
But he never visited Germania.
And if you'd asked him, well, if you're going to write about
them, shouldn't you do some field work?
he'd have looked at you as if you were crazy.
Go there?
Me?
Moi?
You've got to be kidding.
The reason he wrote the work was probably not an
anthropological description of the Germans, but as a way of
berating the Romans.
If you describe people who are virtuous but primitive, you
can use that to castigate your own people.
Rousseau's noble savage where the American Indians are used
to attack supposedly civilized societies is an example.
Or descriptions of the South Seas, some of Herman
Melville's earlier works.
Or Robert Louis Stevenson.
Or Gauguin's paintings.
Contrast a beautiful, natural, simple world far superior to
the fatiguing rat race of what passes for civilization.
So Tacitus' Germans are warlike, concerned with
personal bravery and honor.
They have close family ties.
They're heterosexuals.
They treat their women well.
All of these are supposed to contrast with what Tacitus,
who's a bit of a scold, Tacitus
sees as Roman decadence.
The Romans are given to prostitution.
None of that in the German realms. The Romans are given
to same sex love.
Oh, no, no, no.
The Germans know that that is really evil.
They don't practice divorce, according to Tacitus.
Now this is not--
This is a moralistic rather than an ethnographic treatise.
He does condemn them for certain vices.
The vices typically ascribed to so-called primitive peoples
by the civilized.
They're lazy.
They tend to get drunk.
They quarrel.
They gamble.
In several respects Tacitus, however, describes things that
are true of later German practices visible in the
Burgundian Code, for example.
And that he does not make up for any
particular moralistic purpose.
Two of these things are the comitatus.
The comitatus is the important men surrounding the leader,
his entourage, but his military
entourage, his armed men.
Not just bodyguards, but members of a gang, I guess
would be the closest simile.
People who are loyal to their superior, but who have a
certain amount of autonomy.
They're not just sort of paid, as I said, bodyguards.
They are his followers.
An anachronistic word would be "vassals" anachronistic
because it's not used at this time.
His military followers.
Armed military followers, the comitatus.
Tacitus describes the feud.
Feud between clans.
Feuds are generally characteristic of societies
without a strong central government and with fairly
generous definitions of kinship.
A generous definition of kinship means you know who
your second cousin is, maybe your third cousin, maybe your
third cousin twice removed.
And that cousin is going to consider your interests to be
his or her interests as well.
You might expect your children or parents to support you, but
you probably don't expect your great uncles or second cousins
to do much for you.
So in terms of vengeance, which is also protection, in
other words, I am protected by the fact that if somebody
kills me, my clan will take vengeance on their clan.
In terms of protection and vengeance, extended kinship is
related to a feud and to keeping order in a society
that doesn't have a very powerful central government.
One way of avoiding feuds that killed too many people is
compensation.
And this compensation is mentioned by Tacitus and is
what appears in the Burgundian Code and elsewhere as wergeld.
Wergeld is the money paid in compensation for hurting or
killing someone.
I killed your brother.
We have a drunken brawl.
I don't like the way he describes my mother.
And I kill him.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way things go.
What are you going to do about it?
Are you going to kill me?
Are you going to kill a cousin of mine?
Or maybe you'll accept compensation based on, say,
what kind of guy he was.
Was he a silversmith?
In which case I'm going to have to pay a
huge amount of money.
Or was he just some guy?
Some random guy, random Burgundian?
Or free Burgundian?
Or freed, formerly slave?
All of these are tariffs.
They're sliding scales of compensation.
Tacitus mentions this.
So we're looking at the Burgundian Code, and there are
other barbarian law codes, for clues as to how the society
functioned.
But of course, it's a society that's already
in the Roman Empire.
It looks like before they entered the empire, they lived
in little villages.
They cultivated grain, but they were more cattle-raisers.
They're skilled at iron working.
They also supplemented their income by a spot of raiding
and warfare.
Opportunistic warfare.
Ties of kinship are very important.
When we're talking about a clan, extended kinship group,
we're talking about maybe 50 households.
And we'll see this again.
We'll see this with the Bedouins in
the desert, for example.
Within the clan you're not supposed to feud.
Not supposed to.
Above the clan level is some kind of
confederation or tribe.
And this is where things get kind of difficult, because we
don't really know how one clan considered another clan to be
part of something larger.
That is, we know that the Romans call the people who
defeated them at Adrianople the Visigoths.
"Oh, my gosh.
Here I am.
Adrianople.
The Visigoths are winning.
What am I going to do?"
But who are the Visigoths?
One theory is that they're just groups of people who come
together in contact with the Roman Empire, in part because
the Roman Empire calls them something.
It gives them a name and they develop what's
called fictive kinship.
From a common ancestor.
They invent the notion that they all come from one place
and one ancestor.
This process of sort of fictitious ethnic invention is
called "ethnogenesis." Ethnogenesis means the birth
of an ethnicity.
Rather than some kind of biological fact that you could
confirm with DNA, e.g.--
all Visigoths have some sort of biological thing in common.
These people are not really related, but they invent a
common ancestor.
And this question of who forms a real group remains both
important as a real thing.
For example, American Indian tribes.
There are some whose claims to existence are indisputable.
They have treaties with the United States.
They've had reservations for many years.
But now with the inducements for tribes, the tax free
status, the ability to have casinos and things like that,
there are petitions for tribes to be recognized as such.
And here the question of ethnicity.
Ethnic identification becomes extremely important.
A more sinister and much more widespread modern aspect of
ethnogenesis is precisely the use of the Germanic barbarians
as the origins of the Germans.
It's no accident that in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century, culminating but not limited to the Nazis,
the idea of the Germans as a racial group; as a group with
a common Aryan- with a "y"- ancestry; As manly and as pure
in the sense that Tacitus portrays them becomes a
polemical idea.
A fighting idea.
An invented idea of great force.
Just because something is false, it does not necessarily
lack historical importance.
So the idea of ethnogenesis, of the invention of a group
called the "Visigoths", is one way of
approaching who they are.
On the other hand, there's not a whole lot of evidence that
they're doing this.
There's not a whole lot of evidence that they are
developing this notion of a common ancestor.
Much of the evidence, or seeming
evidence, for that is Roman.
A lot of this ethnogenesis comes from
contact with the Romans.
Certainly peoples who come in contact with those who are
more civilized than they are, and by civilized I mean
peoples who have writing, who live in cities, who have
extensive trade and administration.
The so-called barbarian peoples are going to want to
define themselves against the Romans.
Hence, among other things, many of these invaders are
Arian, with an "i." They use religious difference as part
of their identity.
So they have come into the empire and, as we said last
time, they come into the empire first as allied troops,
as refugees, as federati.
Federati, that is to say armies of the Roman Empire.
They are supported by a system with the bland name of
hospitality.
Hospitality meaning that they're settled on the land of
Romans and they share in the revenue of that land.
That's how the Romans pay them.
They don't pay them cash.
They don't pay them in plunder.
They pay them in a portion of the tax revenue.
So you owe a reasonably powerful but not quite
powerful enough senator in Burgandy.
You settle some friendly Burgundian
troops on your land.
And you give them hospitality, that is to say one third of
the tax revenue that you're collecting for the empire.
Or maybe one third of just your
regular old private revenues.
This is a kind of accommodation then.
It's accommodation that costs money, but it is part of a set
of ways that the Roman elite figures out how to deal with
these invaders.
Collaborate with them.
So the Roman aristocratic land owners and the barbarian war
leaders come to various kinds of accommodation.
Now, the accommodation differs depending on where we're
speaking of.
And now we come to the point of having to describe the
barbarian kingdoms.
I've given you two maps, one of which you're not to show
people who are not in the class.
This one.
The one with the arrows.
Yale University is home to one of the great historians of our
time, Walter Goffart.
And I can't believe that I'm talking about all sorts of
people like Wickham and Goffart in something that's
going to be widely available, but, anyway let me express my
admiration to him, great early Medieval historian who could
certainly run rings around me.
He's retired.
He taught at the University of Toronto.
And among his many works is one that completely destroys
the notion of having invaders with arrows.
This whole idea, like they've got this path; we know where
they are; they come from somewhere.
See up where what is now southern Sweden, Skandia?
A lot of these histories, or what purport to be histories,
say they came from Skandia.
And you can still read in not very old textbooks, oh, the
Visigoths came from Skandia.
And then they went here, and then they went there, and
they're migrating all round.
And you have little arrows that show their progress.
You're not supposed to do that.
I'm not sure what you're supposed to do though, as a
substitute.
And as always with historically misleading
things, once you get rid of the misleading thing, you're
kind of helpless if you're trying to teach this.
So I'm asking you to look at this really closely and not
take it seriously.
I'm asking you to memorize everywhere they went, but not
to tell anybody.
Once they enter the Empire then those arrows start to
make sense.
We know that the Visigoths were in the Balkans at the
time of the battle of Adrianople in 278.
[correction: 378]
We know that they sacked Rome in 410.
We know that they go down to Italy to try to get to the
granaries of North Africa.
We know they discover, "OMG, I can't build a boat," so then
they come up the other side of Italy.
They settle in southern France.
They're kicked out of southern France by the Franks
for the most part.
And they settle in Spain, where the Arabs get them.
Four weeks from now, I think.
So the arrows are not completely deceptive, and
that's why I've given these to you.
And it's hard to tell which arrows apply to which tribes,
so hence map two.
Map two, a lot calmer.
This is the situation in 506.
Why 506?
Because in that year the Franks, whom we're going to be
following more closely, the Merovingian Franks defeat the
Visigoths and start pushing them out of southern France.
So this is a map, I guess, before that defeat.
You see the Visigoths in southern France and
northeastern Spain with the Basques kind
of in between them.
So this is the situation in 500.
There's no more Roman Empire of the West. Or there is a
fictitious Roman Empire of the West. All of these people to
varying degrees--
well, not all of them, most of them-- acknowledge some kind
of suzerainty of Constantinople.
You'll read about Clovis, King of the Franks in the beginning
of the 6th century, who gets some sort of gift from the
emperor Anastasius in Constantinople.
A letter of appointment, some robes, various trinkets, and,
according to Gregory of Tours, the historian of Clovis, the
title of consul And he is very pleased with this.
He dons these robes.
He scatters coins just like a newly appointed emperor.
But is he obeying the emperor Anastasius?
Did the emperor Anastasius start sending orders to him?
Or have any kind of administration?
No.
This is really just symbolic.
We will talk about the relationship between the
Eastern empire and the barbarians, because it's going
to change in the sixth century as the Eastern empire fends
off its opponents and becomes more concerned to take back as
much as possible of the lost Western empire.
In the year 500, the most impressive of these barbarians
would've been the Ostrogoths because they are occupying
Italy, which is the most Roman, the most prosperous,
the most intact economically and culturally of the former
Roman Empire of the West.
The Ostrogoths had been in the--
if you look at the arrows, they had been maybe in the
Crimean area, around the Black Sea.
They came into the Balkans.
They tried to attack Constantinople in the late
fifth century, and they were defeated.
And they were encouraged to move into Italy by the
Byzantine emperor to get rid of Odoacer, that military
leader whose takeover of Italy in 476 is conventionally
understood to be the end of the Roman Empire in the West.
The Ostrogoths had an
impressive ruler named Theodoric.
And they ruled from Ravenna, the old last Roman capital in
northeastern Italy.
And the tomb of Theodoric can still be seen in Ravenna.
Very impressive monument.
Roman education survived in Italy.
It would reach its last flowering with two figures: I
mentioned one of them last time, Boethius and
Cassiodorus.
These are two key figures in the preservation
of classical learning.
Boethuis, not perhaps literally the last person in
the west who knew Greek, but certainly the last person who
tried to make Greek knowledge known to people who could only
read in Latin.
He conceived the project of translating all of Plato and
Aristotle into Latin.
He started by doing a kind of introductory textbook.
Like a lot of great projects, this one was not completed.
In fact, this one barely got off the ground because he was
accused by Theodoric of conspiring with the Byzantine
Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, to overthrow him.
He was imprisoned for a year.
In prison he wrote one of the most magnificent works of
philosophy, of why we are alive and why we die.
The Consolation of Philosophy.
And then he was executed.
Cassiodorus lived to be ninety.
So one of the differences between these two figures of
the last gasp of Roman culture in Italy is Cassiodorus's
relative longevity.
They're both figures of the sixth century.
Boethius dies in the 530s, Cassiodorus much, much later.
Cassiodorus also conceives of a program of education, but it
is more oriented towards Latin learning.
And Cassiodorus in some way is the founder, or at least the
transmitter to us, of the idea of the liberal arts.
Cassiodorus is a religious figure.
Boethius is a Christian and he wrote on Christian topics, but
The Consolation of Philosophy, interestingly enough, is a
stoical work, has very little explicitly about Christianity.
Cassiodorus, on the other hand, is the guy who invented
the idea that monks should copy manuscripts.
That the preserve of culture, the place where it seeks
refuge and is protected in barbarian times, should be
monasteries.
This seems so self-evident to us.
Because if there's one thing we know about monasteries,
it's guys hunched over and writing stuff and the
preservation of learning.
But, in fact, monasteries start out as just
anti-intellectual institutions where you pray and you don't
spend a lot of time reading, let alone
copying, let alone thinking.
You're supposed to have visions.
You're supposed to be inspired.
You're supposed to fast and become ecstatic.
It's Cassiodorus who conceives of this as a contemplative and
learned project.
The liberal arts means here things that are not
immediately practically useful, but that help
illuminate the person seeking after knowledge.
And what kind of knowledge is a person seeking after in the
6th century A.D.?
They're seeking after knowledge of God and knowledge
of the divine.
Why not just read the Bible?
I'm sure many of you have read the Bible or read parts of it.
The Bible is not an immediately evident document
in terms of its view of the world is total, but it's full
of mysteries.
It's full of obscurities.
It's a strange work that requires knowledge and
explication.
Or to celebrate divine services, for example,
requires a certain kind of knowledge.
To know when Easter is.
To know the phases of the moon.
To know what day it is.
These monks, or just anybody out in the countryside, can't
just look at their phone and see what time it is.
There's a need for some practical knowledge, but that
involves abstract concepts like the
movements of the planets.
This is what the liberal arts are and this is what's being
preserved in the Ostrogothic kingdom.
But the fate of Boethius shows you the sort of duality of the
barbarian patronage of culture.
On the one hand, the Ostrogoths in Italy are as
civilized as these groups get.
On the other hand, of course, Boethius is executed.
On the third hand, you didn't have to be a barbarian to
execute people.
After all, Seneca was forced to commit suicide by Nero.
So the fate of intellectuals in the Roman Empire is not
necessarily so much better than the fate of intellectuals
in the barbarian kingdoms.
The thing about the intellectuals in the barbarian
kingdoms is they're very few of them.
Seneca's a great man.
It's too bad that he died.
We could have had more works.
But there were lots of other philosophers.
There were lots of other playwrights.
Boethuis we can say--
Boethius and Cassiodorus, maybe, are the two smartest
people in the sixth century, judging by what they had
access to, what they read, how they wrote.
And that is scary.
If you can say that Isidore of Seville is the smartest man of
the seventh century.
Or Bede and Alcuin are the smartest men
of the eighth century.
It's not just a compliment to them.
If you're rated like the eighteenth best tennis player
in the United States, that's a tremendous accomplishment.
But presumably, there are 200 tennis players who are ranked.
And behind them there are 10,000
very good tennis players.
But what if you were the number one tennis player in
the country, and there was no number four?
No number four through one hundred million.
Tennis would be an endangered game.
It would mean a lot, but supposing nobody followed
tennis anymore?
I don't know enough about antiquated games, but some
medieval game that only five people know how to play.
I could be the fourth ranked.
But here we're not talking about sports,
important though they are.
We're talking about the
fundamental aspects of knowledge.
Theodoric.
Theodoric is a great ruler, but he had a problem that is
typical of many of these barbarian groups: He had to
hold his minority together.
The thing that made Italy the wealthiest, the most
important, the biggest prize for the barbarians, is its
Roman population, its Roman wealth, the preservation of
its cities.
But that also meant that the Ostrogoths were a tiny
proportion of the total population.
He needs to hold them together, but he also needs to
mollify the Romans.
So it's a dangerous place for barbarian rulers.
Odoacer had already been overthrown.
It's too valuable to the Eastern Empire.
And indeed after Theodoric died in 535, very shortly
thereafter the Byzantine Empire, the Eastern Roman
Empire, would invade Italy and devastate it in the course of
conquering it in a twenty years' war.
Now if you look at the map again and turn to North
Africa, you'll see we've got the Vandals in what's now
Tunisia and eastern Algeria.
And then Moorish kingdom and Roman Empire.
Ignore Roman Empire.
I don't know what they're talking about.
Moorish kingdoms, what does that mean?
We don't really know who these people are either.
They're not invaders.
They're desert peoples who have now taken over what was
formerly the Roman Empire, and they're pressing the Vandals.
The Vandals were less accommodating than the
Ostrogoths.
They were more fiercely Arian.
They persecuted the elite of the Roman population,
including the Roman bishops.
But they were very effective rulers.
They had a navy.
They were able to plunder Rome several
times in the 5th century.
But they were beleaguered by these Moorish groups, in other
words native peoples of the North African desert.
And so by 506, their kingdom has shrunk.
They were also a minority in what had been a very populous
part of the Roman Empire.
And they tended to fight among each other.
They had internecine feuds.
And so we're talking about things that are common to many
of these barbarian kingdoms. Disorganization.
Internal fighting.
Alien religious beliefs, particularly the Arian heresy.
And once they've done the plundering, inability really
to start making the economy work very effectively.
The Vandals would be driven out of North Africa, or
obliterated actually, by the Eastern Roman Empire, in the
late 520s, early 530s.
Now I'm not going to go through every one of these,
but I want to give you some examples of accommodation.
Go up to the British Isles.
You'll see it says British kingdoms, that means Celtic
kingdoms whose remnants would later be Wales, Scotland.
And then the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The Anglo-Saxons are
invaders who come from the continent
beginning in the 440s.
This is the first place that Rome abandons.
Here it looks more like a conventional invasion.
The invaders come and the Romans pull back their troops
because they're afraid that Gaul is going to fall next.
And this is an island where the Roman impress, the Roman
impact, was less.
There isn't a large Roman majority and a
small German minority.
There is a Celtic majority that blends with the invaders
or that seeks refuge in these independent British kingdoms,
as they're called on the map, to the west.
We don't know very much about what's going on in Britain at
this time because more than Vandal North Africa, more than
Ostrogothic Italy, the past is obliterated.
There's very little Latin being written.
We have very little knowledge of what is going on.
So this is at one extreme of what might be called
Barbarization verses Roman permanence.
We're going to be talking about the Franks later and
we're going to talk a little bit about the Burgundians in
closing today.
But this leaves really among the
important groups the Visigoths.
The Visigoths, the people who in a way started this with
their invasions of the Balkans in the late 4th century.
In 506 they control much of France, the south and the west
particularly, and are trickling into Spain.
We will be following, in reading Gregory of Tours, the
tremendous success of the Franks against the Visigoths.
And so the Visigoths will be pushed out.
What about the Burgundians?
You've read the Burgundian Code--
anything strike you about it?
Spencer?
Spencer: Mainly it focused on differences between different
classes and emphasized the free men versus the slaves.
Burgundians versus Romans, et cetera.
PROFESSOR: Very status oriented.
STUDENT: I didn't realize there was
so much hair pulling.
PROFESSOR: Yeah, why?
What's that all about?
Yeah?
STUDENT: Well, it talked about the-- in the book it talked
about how long hair became like a status symbol.
PROFESSOR: Yes.
So the question was, what is all this hair pulling?
It's a status symbol.
We'll see that the Merovingian kings wear long hair,
specially long hair.
And when they're finally deposed by the Carolingians,
that hair is cut.
Now of course, all their hair is cut, they're put in
monasteries.
And monks are what's called "tonsured." If they're not
completely bald, they at least are pretty near.
Like many barbarian, so-called barbarian, people, or like
many people period, they're certain signs
of prestige, symbols.
The Burgundian Code is drawn up between 483 and 532.
It's drawn up in different stages.
The Burgundians were closer to [correction: "than"]
the Ostrogoths in degree of Romanization.
They're a group that wants to be Roman, or at least accepted
by the Romans.
They write their own law code in Latin, like the Visigoths,
for example.
They also write a sort of law code for the Roman population.
This law code is aware of disputes between Romans and
Burgundians.
And if each has a different kind of law, then how do you
settle a problem that arises between members of both
communities?
The Burgundian law in itself shows a
lot of Roman influence.
For example, in chapter eighteen you've seen this
title "Of things that happen by chance" and probably didn't
seem very dramatic.
If any animal by chance or any dog by bite causes death to a
man, we order that among Burgundians the ancient rule
of blame be removed henceforth.
This is an interesting question.
If my dog bites you and you die, am I responsible?
Is your brother going to have to kill me?
That's what the Burgundian tradition would have been.
But here they say if it's an accident, then your brother
can't kill me.
This is the difference between -- this is a tricky problem.
Those of you who have the good fortune to go to law school
are going to study this first year: torts.
A tort is a so-called civil wrong as opposed to a crime.
A crime is where I kill you because I want to.
A tort is I leave a roller skate out on the sidewalk, you
trip and die.
I'm not going to be considered in the same league as someone
who poisoned you, but that roller skate
shouldn't be there.
And of course this is a crucial thing.
For example, I've learned, fortunately not from
experience, but from neighbors after Hurricane Irene, that if
a tree in my yard falls on your house, I'm not to blame.
Your insurance is going to have to cover that.
I'm really sorry about that tree.
But if you warned me, "I don't like the look of that
tree in your yard.
It's leaning over like this.
I'm afraid in the next storm it's going to fall in on your
house," and I don't do anything, then my
understanding is that I'm liable for negligence.
This was a present and obvious nuisance.
It was an obvious threat, and my neighbor called my
attention to it.
And I didn't do anything.
So next time it storms and your house is threatened by
somebody else's tree, just as the wind starts to blow go
next door and say, you know, I don't like the look of that
tree on your property.
You better do something.
These are real legal questions.
And they are handled in here with some sophistication.
On the other hand, there is vengeance.
It's OK to practice vengeance.
But there are some limitations.
For example, if I kill you, your relatives can kill me,
but they can't just kill my cousin.
This is sort of individual-directed and not
clan-directed vengeance.
There's a lot of talk about compensation and wergeld for
victims. How much you pay.
Whether you grab them by the hair.
Whether you cut off which finger.
Whether they were free or slave. Whether they were a
skilled artisan or a serf.
I love title ten.
"If anyone kills a slave, barbarian by birth, a trained
house servant or messenger, let him compound 60 solidi.
But 200 solidi if the slave is a skilled goldsmith." 40
solidi for a carpenter, and so forth.
If you cut off someone's arm, it's half of their wergeld.
Wergeld is like murder.
Their murder value.
So I have a murder value of 100 solidi.
Cut off an arm, you've got to pay me 50 solidi.
This seems pretty crude, doesn't it?
How does it strike you?
Yes?
STUDENT: Yeah, it does seem crude, but I think it gives a
solution to something that could cause a total outbreak,
a civil war.
PROFESSOR: It is a maintenance of peace.
And what about victims' compensation?
In the Western legal tradition, if you injure me,
it's a crime against the peace, and the state punishes
the perpetrator.
Only relatively recently has this notions of victims'
rights, victims' compensation, been entered.
Which is like a reversion back to the notion that the crime
really injures not the state or the king or the peace that
we all take for granted, but the
individual who is affected.
But what makes it seem crude is the
specificity of the offenses.
If you look at the Connecticut Criminal Code, it's not quite
so precise about hair pulling.
If anyone seizes a freeman by the hair, the fine is greater
if he's seized with two hands than one.
Maybe that has to do with intent.
One arm might be instinct.
I'm pulling your hair.
But two hands argues of serious intent to do harm.
Or it's more humiliating.
This is a culture in which there's an awful lot of shame
and compensation for public shaming.
A lot of questions of personal status.
In title four about theft, if a slave commits a theft he's
either beaten or killed, end of story.
Freemen, that is to say people who are not slaves, pay fines
and compensation.
It's a violent society.
Course all criminal codes show various forms of violence.
There's a lot of mutilation.
There are a lot of assaults on women.
Compensation for assaults on free women are paid to the
women themselves, but a native freeman who assaults a
maid-servant must pay the master.
Maid-servant, as a slave, is regarded as a commodity.
And then finally, it's a society in which, at least
according to the official law code, men are more valued than
women, or men are less regulated than women.
If a man breaks a marriage, in title thirty four, he's fined
if he goes and runs off with another woman.
If a woman goes off and runs off with another man, she's to
be smothered to death.
On that enlightened note, we'll leave
the Burgundian Code.
And indeed we're going to leave the barbarians only for
a little while.
Next week we're going to talk about the Eastern Roman Empire
and why it survived and even why it flourished.