BOOK REVIEWS 117 Still, quot homines, tot sententiae: I am not one of the less-than-avid readers of Roman comedy that S. hopes for, so this book was not written for me. The above remarks should be taken accordingly. MICHAEL FONTAINE Cornell University * * * The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila.2 By E.A. THOMPSON. Introduction by Michael Kulikowski. London: Duckworth, 2008. Pp. xxiii + 186. Paper, $24.00. ISBN 978–0–7156–3700–5. Thompson’s (T.) Visigoths first appeared in 1966. It was a pioneering study of Gothic society during the important but obscure time from the reign of Constantine I (306–337) to that of Theodosius I (379–395), for most of which the Goths were close associates of the Roman Empire but still outsiders. During this period Ulfila, a Goth of Roman provincial descent, was recruited by the Arian church establishment of Constantinople to support fellow Arian Christians in his homeland, to which end he devised a Gothic alphabet and translated the Bible into Gothic. The 2008 volume, though presented as a second edition, is a reprint of that of 1966, with the addition of an Introduction by Michael Kulikowski (K.) and a translation of the Passion of St. Saba the Goth by John Matthews, first published in Peter Heather and John Matthews, The Goths in the Fourth Century (Liverpool, 1991). The reprint’s hybrid nature is evident in, for example, the lack of pagination of the Introduction (the “K” numbers below are mine), and in the re-useof the original Index,which ignoresnew material. T.’s Visigoths was highly influential. As K. says (p. K2), its originality lay in taking Germani seriously, not as elemental forces but as ordinary people reacting to shifts in their circumstances. T., like many other distinguished historians of his day (e.g., de Ste. Croix, Finley, Hill and Hobsbawm), drew this fruitful approach from Marxist historical materialism. Key elements were T.’s consideration of emerging archaeological evidence, relating to what is now called the “Sîntana de Mureş-Černjachov culture,” and his identification of neglected hagiographical works, such as the Passion of St. Saba, as potential sources of historical information . There has been much work, however, done on the Goths since 1966, one result of which is, ironically, as K. notes (pp. K6–7), a recognition that there were 118 BOOK REVIEWS no “Visigoths” before the 5th century,and thusonly“Goths”“in the time ofUlfila.” The new work was reflected in Heather and Matthews’ Goths, which follows T.’s Visigoths so closely that it may be regarded as its proper second edition. Perhaps too closely: Heather and Matthews also make much of the “Sîntana de Mureş- Černjachov culture” and of Saba. Contra K. (p. K7) I have expressed my doubts as to both the validity of the Passion as evidence for Gothic life, and the “Gothicness” of the Sîntana de Mureş-Černjachov material (in CR 43 (1993)); on the archaeology, see now also Andrew Poulter, in John Drinkwater and Benet Salway, eds., Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected (London, 2007). But Goths contains much valuable material and, supplemented by Heather’s Goths and Romans 332– 489 (Oxford, 1991), may be said to have replaced Visigoths as the standard work in English. So why the reprint? In his Introduction K. expresses grave dissatisfaction with the current state ofearly-Germanic and, in particular, Gothic studies.At fault are two new “interpretative trends” (p. K4). The first, stimulated by the work of Richard Wenskus, is “ethnogenesis”: the contention that there were no permanent Germanic “tribes” or “peoples” engaged in great “migrations,” but only constant “cores of tradition” maintained by small elites, around which various political associations, made up of various ethnic groups, perennially formed, dissolved and re-formed. The second, which K. has elsewhere (JRS 98 (2008) 269) associated with “recentOxonian writers,” is areversion to the model that ethnogenesis was devised to supplant: a vigorous re-statement of the existence and importance of tribal and national identity, and of “migration” and “invasion .” In T.’s Visigoths K. sees a pure spring of historical reconstruction, rising upstream ofwaters now contaminated by such notions. K. also sees T. as an early, albeit unconscious champion of a...
Read full abstract