276
Notes to pages 108–112
93 See, for example, AL R 296 [S.291], 310 [S.305] (dwarfs); AL R 315 [S.310] (hunchbacks); AL R 300 [S.295], 329 [S.324], 361 [S.356] (ugly people); AL R 338 [S.333], 357 [S.352], 364 [S.359] (beautiful people). NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
1 The two best discussions of Vandal foreign policy are Clover (1967) and Gil Egea (1997), both of which are largely restricted to the reign of Geiseric. On diplomacy and foreign relations in general in this period, see esp. Blockley (1992) on eastern foreign policies and Gillett (2003) on the west, with the bibliographies therein. 2 Procopius, BV II.14.20 on the shipyard at Misuas in Carthage. 3 Prosper 413.1342 a.440; Hyd., Chron. 304.16. Lem. 120; Cassiodorus, Chron. 1235. Salvian, DGD VI.12 describes the impact of the Vandal raids on Sicily and Sardinia in apocalyptic terms: ‘they have devastated and overthrown cities’. In the light of Salvian’s haphazard information on events overseas, the details need not be taken too seriously, but the impact of the early attacks on the islands was evidently felt widely. 4 Leo, Ep. III.1. On the date of this letter, see Courtois (1955), p. 191. Nov. Val. I.2. The date of the novella is uncertain, but is perhaps best suited to the immediate aftermath of the Vandal attack. Cf. Clover (1967), p. 69. 5 Hyd., Chron. 304.16, Lem. 120; Isidore, Hist. 75. 6 Nov. Val. 9.1. Nov. Val. 5.1 (issued on March 3, 440) offers Greek merchants refuge in Rome ‘during these critical times’. 7 Nov. Val. 9. This legislation came on the back of a law of March 440 (Nov. Val. 6.1.) which substantially tightened the procedures of military recruitment. Aetius’ recall is mentioned in Chron. Gall. 452 a.440. 8 Cassiodorus, Variae I.4. The date of this heroism is not completely clear. Evidently it either preceded the signing of the treaty of 442 or post-dated the sack of Rome in 455 (Vandal raids on Sicily and Bruttii are not known between these dates, and are unlikely to have happened for reasons outlined in the text). Ruggini (1980), pp. 497–8 prefers the earlier date; Clover (1967), p. 71, n.1. prefers the later. 9 Naples: the inscription is preserved as CIL X.1409. For recent discussion of it and the defences see Christie (2003), pp. 346–7, and Arthur (2002), pp. 34–8. Terracina: Christie and Rushworth (1988), arguing from historical as well as archaeological grounds that the Vandal threat of the early 440s provides the best context for the construction (and thus challenging the traditional Byzantine dating of the wall circuit). 10 Priscus, Fr. 9.4 [= Theoph. AM 5942]. Prosper 413.1342 names Areobindus, Ansila and Germanus as the leaders of the expedition. 11 Theoph. AM 5941 provides the details of the expedition. For likely sources compare Blockley, I. p. 381, n.20, and Clover (1967), pp. 83–4, who