Early history.
(_Gotones_, later _Gothis_), a Teutonic people who in the 1st century of
the Christian era appear to have inhabited the middle part of the basin
of the Vistula. They were probably the easternmost of the Teutonic
peoples. According to their own traditions as recorded by Jordanes, they
had come originally from the island Scandza, i.e. Skane or Sweden, under
the leadership of a king named Berig, and landed first in a region
called Gothiscandza. Thence they invaded the territories of the Ulmerugi
(the Holmryge of Anglo-Saxon tradition), probably in the neighbourhood
of Rugenwalde in eastern Pomerania, and conquered both them and the
neighbouring Vandals. Under their sixth king Filimer they migrated into
Scythia and settled in a district which they called Oium. The rest of
their early history, as it is given by Jordanes following Cassiodorus,
is due to an erroneous identification of the Goths with the Getae, and
ancient Thracian people.
The credibility of the story of the migration from Sweden has been much
discussed by modern authors. The legend was not peculiar to the Goths,
similar traditions being current among the Langobardi, the Burgundians,
and apparently several other Teutonic nations. It has been observed with
truth that so many populous nations can hardly have sprung from the
Scandinavian peninsula; on the other hand, the existence of these
traditions certainly requires some explanation. Possibly, however, many
of the royal families may have contained an element of Scandinavian
blood, a hypothesis which would well accord with the social conditions
of the migration period, as illustrated, e.g., in _Volsunga Saga_ and in
_Hervarar Saga ok Heiethreks Konungs_. In the case of the Goths a
connexion with Gotland is not unlikely, since it is clear from
archaeological evidence that this island had an extensive trade with the
coasts about the mouth of the Vistula in early times. If, however, there
was any migration at all, one would rather have expected it to have
taken place in the reverse direction. For the origin of the Goths can
hardly be separated from that of the Vandals, whom according to
Procopius they resembled in language and in all other respects. Moreover
the Gepidae, another Teutonic people, who are said to have formerly
inhabited the delta of the Vistula, also appear to have been closely
connected with the Goths. According to Jordanes they participated in the
migration from Scandza.
Apart from a doubtful reference by Pliny to a statement of the early
traveller Pytheas, the first notices we have of the Goths go back to the
first years of the Christian era, at which time they seem to have been
subject to the Marcomannic king Maroboduus. They do not enter into Roman
history, however, until after the beginning of the 3rd century, at which
time they appear to have come in conflict with the emperor Caracalla.
During this century their frontier seems to have been advanced
considerably farther south, and the whole country as far as the lower
Danube was frequently ravaged by them. The emperor Gordianus is called
"victor Gothorum" by Capitolinus, though we have no record of the ground
for the claim, and further conflicts are recorded with his successors,
one of whom, Decius, was slain by the Goths in Moesia. According to
Jordanes the kings of the Goths during these campaigns were Ostrogotha
and afterwards Cniva, the former of whom is praised also in the
Anglo-Saxon poem _Widsith_. The emperor Gallus was forced to pay tribute
to the Goths. By this time they had reached the coasts of the Black Sea,
and during the next twenty years they frequently ravaged the maritime
regions of Asia Minor and Greece. Aurelian is said to have won a victory
over them, but the province of Dacia had to be given up. In the time of
Constantine the Great Thrace and Moesia were again plundered by the
Goths, A.D. 321. Constantine drove them back and concluded peace with
their king Ariaric in 336. From the end of the 3rd century we hear of
subdivisions of the nation called Greutungi, Teruingi, Austrogothi
(Ostrogothi), Visigothi, Taifali, though it is not clear whether these
were all distinct.
Though by this time the Goths had extended their territories far to the
south and east, it must not be assumed that they had evacuated their old
lands on the Vistula. Jordanes records several traditions of their
conflicts with other Teutonic tribes, in particular a victory won by
Ostrogotha over Fastida, king of the Gepidae, and another by Geberic
over Visimar, king of the Vandals, about the end of Constantine's reign,
in consequence of which the Vandals sought and obtained permission to
settle in Pannonia. Geberic was succeeded by the most famous of the
Gothic kings, Hermanaric (Eormenric, Iormunrekr), whose deeds are
recorded in the traditions of all Teutonic nations. According to
Jordanes he conquered the Heruli, the Aestii, the Venedi, and a number
of other tribes who seem to have been settled in the southern part of
Russia. From Anglo-Saxon sources it seems probable that his supremacy
reached westwards as far as Holstein. He was of a cruel disposition, and
is said to have killed his nephews Embrica (Emerca) and Fritla (Fridla)
in order to obtain the great treasure which they possessed. Still more
famous is the story of Suanihilda (Svanhildr), who according to Northern
tradition was his wife and was cruelly put to death on a false charge of
unfaithfulness. An attempt to avenge her death was made by her brothers
Ammius (Hamethir) and Sarus (Sorli) by whom Hermanaric was severely
wounded. To his time belong a number of other heroes whose exploits are
recorded in English and Northern tradition, amongst whom we may mention
Wudga (Vidigoia), Hama and several others, who in _Widsith_ are
represented as defending their country against the Huns in the forest of
the Vistula. Hermanaric committed suicide in his distress at an invasion
of the Huns about A.D. 370, and the portion of the nation called
Ostrogoths then came under Hunnish supremacy. The Visigoths obtained
permission to cross the Danube and settle in Moesia. A large part of the
nation became Christian about this time (see BELOW). The exactions of
the Roman governors, however, soon led to a quarrel, which ended in the
total defeat and death of Valens at Adrianople in the year 378.
(F. G. M. B.)
Later history.
From about 370 the history of the East and West Goths parts asunder, to
be joined together again only incidentally and for a season. The great
mass of the East Goths stayed north of the Danube, and passed under the
overlordship of the Hun. They do not for the present play any important
part in the affairs of the Empire. The great mass of the West Goths
crossed the Danube into the Roman provinces, and there played a most
important part in various characters of alliance and enmity. The great
migration was in 376, when they were allowed to pass as peaceful
settlers under their chief Frithigern. His rival Athanaric seems to have
tried to maintain his party for a while north of the Danube in defiance
of the Huns; but he had presently to follow the example of the great
mass of the nation. The peaceful designs of Frithigern were meanwhile
thwarted by the ill-treatment which the Goths suffered from the Roman
officials, which led first to disputes and then to open war. In 378 the
Goths won the great battle of Adrianople, and after this Theodosius the
Great, the successor of Valens, made terms with them in 381, and the
mass of the Gothic warriors entered the Roman service as _foederati_.
Many of their chiefs were in high favour; but it seems that the orthodox
Theodosius showed more favour to the still remaining heathen party among
the Goths than to the larger part of them who had embraced Arian
Christianity. Athanaric himself came to Constantinople in 381; he was
received with high honours, and had a solemn funeral when he died. His
saying is worth recording, as an example of the effect which Roman
civilization had on the Teutonic mind. "The emperor," he said, "was a
god upon earth, and he who resisted him would have his blood on his own
head."
The death of Theodosius in 395 broke up the union between the West Goths
and the Empire. Dissensions arose between them and the ministers of
Arcadius; the Goths threw off their allegiance, and chose Alaric as
their king. This was a restoration alike of national unity and of
national independence. The royal title had not been borne by their
leaders in the Roman service. Alaric's position is quite different from
that of several Goths in the Roman service, who appear as simple
rebels. He was of the great West Gothic house of the Balthi, or
Bold-men, a house second in nobility only to that of the Amali. His
whole career was taken up with marchings to and fro within the lands,
first of the Eastern, then of the Western empire. The Goths are under
him an independent people under a national king; their independence is
in no way interfered with if the Gothic king, in a moment of peace,
accepts the office and titles of a Roman general. But under Alaric the
Goths make no lasting settlement. In the long tale of intrigue and
warfare between the Goths and the two imperial courts which fills up
this whole time, cessions of territory are offered to the Goths,
provinces are occupied by them, but as yet they do not take root
anywhere; no Western land as yet becomes _Gothia_. Alaric's designs of
settlement seem in his first stage to have still kept east of the
Adriatic, in Illyricum, possibly in Greece. Towards the end of his
career his eyes seem fixed on Africa.
Greece was the scene of his great campaign in 395-96, the second Gothic
invasion of that country. In this campaign the religious position of the
Goths is strongly marked. The Arian appeared as an enemy alike to the
pagan majority and the Catholic minority; but he came surrounded by
monks, and his chief wrath was directed against the heathen temples
(_vide_ G. F. Hertzberg, _Geschichte Griechenlands_, iii. 391). His
Italian campaigns fall into two great divisions, that of 402-3, when he
was driven back by Stilicho, and that of 408-10, after Stilicho's death.
In this second war he thrice besieged Rome (408, 409, 410). The second
time it suited a momentary policy to set up a puppet emperor of his own,
and even to accept a military commission from him. The third time he
sacked the city, the first time since Brennus that Rome had been taken
by an army of utter foreigners. The intricate political and military
details of these campaigns are of less importance in the history of the
Gothic nation than the stage which Alaric's reign marks in the history
of that nation. It stands between two periods of settlement within the
Empire and of service under the Empire. Under Alaric there is no
settlement, and service is quite secondary and precarious; after his
death in 410 the two begin again in new shapes.
Contemporary with the campaigns of Alaric was a barbarian invasion of
Italy, which, according to one view, again brings the East and West
Goths together. The great mass of the East Goths, as has been already
said, became one of the many nations which were under vassalage to the
Huns; but their relation was one merely of vassalage. They remained a
distinct people under kings of their own, kings of the house of the
Amali and of the kindred of Ermanaric (Jordanes, 48). They had to follow
the lead of the Huns in war, but they were also able to carry on wars of
their own; and it has been held that among these separate East Gothic
enterprises we are to place the invasion of Italy in 405 by Radagaisus
(whom R. Pallmann[1] writes Ratiger, and takes him for the chief of the
heathen part of the East Goths). One chronicler, Prosper, makes this
invasion preceded by another in 400, in which Alaric and Radagaisus
appear as partners. The paganism of Radagaisus is certain. The presence
of Goths in his army is certain, but it seems dangerous to infer that
his invasion was a national Gothic enterprise.
Under Ataulphus, the brother-in-law and successor of Alaric, another era
opens, the beginning of enterprises which did in the end lead to the
establishment of a settled Gothic monarchy in the West. The position of
Ataulphus is well marked by the speech put into his mouth by Orosius. He
had at one time dreamed of destroying the Roman power, of turning
_Romania_ into _Gothia_, and putting Ataulphus in the stead of Augustus;
but he had learned that the world could be governed only by the laws of
Rome and he had determined to use the Gothic arms for the support of the
Roman power. And in the confused and contradictory accounts of his
actions (for the story in Jordanes cannot be reconciled with the
accounts in Olympiodorus and the chroniclers), we can see something of
this principle at work throughout. Gaul and Spain were overrun both by
barbarian invaders and by rival emperors. The sword of the Goth was to
win back the last lands for Rome. And, amid many shiftings of
allegiance, Ataulphus seems never to have wholly given up the position
of an ally of the Empire. His marriage with Placidia, the daughter of
the great Theodosius, was taken as the seal of the union between Goth
and Roman, and, had their son Theodosius lived, a dynasty might have
arisen uniting both claims. But the career of Ataulphus was cut short at
Barcelona in 415, by his murder at the hands of another faction of the
Goths. The reign of Sigeric was momentary. Under Wallia in 418 a more
settled state of things was established. The Empire received again, as
the prize of Gothic victories, the Tarraconensis in Spain, and
Novempopulana and the Narbonensis in Gaul. The "second Aquitaine," with
the sea-coast from the mouth of the Garonne to the mouth of the Loire,
became the West Gothic kingdom of Toulouse. The dominion of the Goths
was now strictly Gaulish; their lasting Spanish dominion does not yet
begin.
The reign of the first West Gothic Theodoric (419-451) shows a shifting
state of relations between the Roman and Gothic powers; but, after
defeats and successes both ways, the older relation of alliance against
common enemies was again established. At last Goth and Roman had to join
together against the common enemy of Europe and Christendom, Attila the
Hun. But they met Gothic warriors in his army. By the terms of their
subjection to the Huns, the East Goths came to fight for Attila against
Christendom at Chalons, just as the Servians came to fight for Bajazet
against Christendom at Nicopolis. Theodoric fell in the battle (451).
After this momentary meeting, the history of the East and West Goths
again separates for a while. The kingdom of Toulouse grew within Gaul at
the expense of the Empire, and in Spain at the expense of the Suevi.
Under Euric (466-485) the West Gothic power again became largely a
Spanish power. The kingdom of Toulouse took in nearly all Gaul south of
the Loire and west of the Rhone, with all Spain, except the north-west
corner, which was still held by the Suevi. Provence alone remained to
the Empire. The West Gothic kings largely adopted Roman manners and
culture; but, as they still kept to their original Arian creed, their
rule never became thoroughly acceptable to their Catholic subjects. They
stood, therefore, at a great disadvantage when a new and aggressive
Catholic power appeared in Gaul through the conversion of the Frank
Clovis or Chlodwig. Toulouse was, as in days long after, the seat of an
heretical power, against which the forces of northern Gaul marched as on
a crusade. In 507 the West Gothic king Alaric II. fell before the
Frankish arms at Campus Vogladensis, near Poitiers, and his kingdom, as
a great power north of the Alps, fell with him. That Spain and a
fragment of Gaul still remained to form a West Gothic kingdom was owing
to the intervention of the East Goths under the rule of the greatest man
in Gothic history.
When the Hunnish power broke in pieces on the death of Attila, the East
Goths recovered their full independence. They now entered into relations
with the Empire, and were settled on lands in Pannonia. During the
greater part of the latter half of the 5th century, the East Goths play
in south-eastern Europe nearly the same part which the West Goths played
in the century before. They are seen going to and fro, in every
conceivable relation of friendship and enmity with the Eastern Roman
power, till, just as the West Goths had done before them, they pass from
the East to the West. They are still ruled by kings of the house of the
Amali, and from that house there now steps forward a great figure,
famous alike in history and in romance, in the person of Theodoric, son
of Theodemir. Born about 454, his childhood was spent at Constantinople
as a hostage, where he was carefully educated. The early part of his
life is taken up with various disputes, intrigues and wars within the
Eastern empire, in which he has as his rival another Theodoric, son of
Triarius, and surnamed Strabo. This older but lesser Theodoric seems to
have been the chief, not the king, of that branch of the East Goths
which had settled within the Empire at an earlier time. Theodoric the
Great, as he is sometimes distinguished, is sometimes the friend,
sometimes the enemy, of the Empire. In the former case he is clothed
with various Roman titles and offices, as patrician and consul; but in
all cases alike he remains the national East Gothic king. It was in both
characters together that he set out in 488, by commission from the
emperor Zeno, to recover Italy from Odoacer. By 493 Ravenna was taken;
Odoacer was killed by Theodoric's own hand; and the East Gothic power
was fully established over Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia and the lands to the
north of Italy. In this war the history of the East and West Goths
begins again to unite, if we may accept the witness of one writer that
Theodoric was helped by West Gothic auxiliaries. The two branches of the
nation were soon brought much more closely together, when, through the
overthrow of the West Gothic kingdom of Toulouse, the power of Theodoric
was practically extended over a large part of Gaul and over nearly the
whole of Spain. A time of confusion followed the fall of Alaric II.,
and, as that prince was the son-in-law of Theodoric, the East Gothic
king stepped in as the guardian of his grandson Amalaric, and preserved
for him all his Spanish and a fragment of his Gaulish dominion. Toulouse
passed away to the Frank; but the Goth kept Narbonne and its district,
the land of Septimania--the land which, as the last part of Gaul held by
the Goths, kept the name of _Gothia_ for many ages. While Theodoric
lived, the West Gothic kingdom was practically united to his own
dominion. He seems also to have claimed a kind of protectorate over the
Teutonic powers generally, and indeed to have practically exercised it,
except in the case of the Franks.
The East Gothic dominion was now again as great in extent and far more
splendid than it could have been in the time of Ermanaric. But it was
now of a wholly different character. The dominion of Theodoric was not a
barbarian but a civilized power. His twofold position ran through
everything. He was at once national king of the Goths, and successor,
though without any imperial titles, of the Roman emperors of the West.
The two nations, differing in manners, language and religion, lived side
by side on the soil of Italy; each was ruled according to its own law,
by the prince who was, in his two separate characters, the common
sovereign of both. The picture of Theodoric's rule is drawn for us in
the state papers drawn up in his name and in the names of his successors
by his Roman minister Cassiodorus. The Goths seem to have been thick on
the ground in northern Italy; in the south they formed little more than
garrisons. In Theodoric's theory the Goth was the armed protector of the
peaceful Roman; the Gothic king had the toil of government, while the
Roman consul had the honour. All the forms of the Roman administration
went on, and the Roman polity and Roman culture had great influence on
the Goths themselves. The rule of the prince over two distinct nations
in the same land was necessarily despotic; the old Teutonic freedom was
necessarily lost. Such a system as that which Theodoric established
needed a Theodoric to carry it on. It broke in pieces after his death.
On the death of Theodoric (526) the East and West Goths were again
separated. The few instances in which they are found acting together
after this time are as scattered and incidental as they were before.
Amalaric succeeded to the West Gothic kingdom in Spain and Septimania.
Provence was added to the dominion of the new East Gothic king
Athalaric, the grandson of Theodoric through his daughter Amalasuntha.
The weakness of the East Gothic position in Italy now showed itself. The
long wars of Justinian's reign (535-555) recovered Italy for the Empire,
and the Gothic name died out on Italian soil. The chance of forming a
national state in Italy by the union of Roman and Teutonic elements,
such as those which arose in Gaul, in Spain, and in parts of Italy under
Lombard rule, was thus lost. The East Gothic kingdom was destroyed
before Goths and Italians had at all mingled together. The war of course
made the distinction stronger; under the kings who were chosen for the
purposes of the war national Gothic feeling had revived. The Goths were
now again, if not a wandering people, yet an armed host, no longer the
protectors but the enemies of the Roman people of Italy. The East
Gothic dominion and the East Gothic name wholly passed away. The nation
had followed Theodoric. It is only once or twice after his expedition
that we hear of Goths, or even of Gothic leaders, m the eastern
provinces. From the soil of Italy the nation passed away almost without
a trace, while the next Teutonic conquerors stamped their name on the
two ends of the land, one of which keeps it to this day.
The West Gothic kingdom lasted much longer, and came much nearer to
establishing itself as a national power in the lands which it took in.
But the difference of race and faith between the Arian Goths and the
Catholic Romans of Gaul and Spain influenced the history of the West
Gothic kingdom for a long time. The Arian Goths ruled over Catholic
subjects, and were surrounded by Catholic neighbours. The Franks were
Catholics from their first conversion; the Suevi became Catholics much
earlier than the Goths. The African conquests of Belisarius gave the
Goths of Spain, instead of the Arian Vandals, another Catholic neighbour
in the form of the restored Roman power. The Catholics everywhere
preferred either Roman, Suevian or Frankish rule to that of the
heretical Goths; even the unconquerable mountaineers of Cantabria seem
for a while to have received a Frankish governor. In some other mountain
districts the Roman inhabitants long maintained their independence, and
in 534 a large part of the south of Spain, including the great cities of
Cadiz, Cordova, Seville and New Carthage, was, with the good will of its
Roman inhabitants, reunited to the Empire, which kept some points on the
coast as late as 624. That is to say, the same work which the Empire was
carrying on in Italy against the East Goths was at the same moment
carried on in Spain against the West Goths. But in Italy the whole land
was for a while won back, and the Gothic power passed away for ever. In
Spain the Gothic power outlived the Roman power, but it outlived it only
by itself becoming in some measure Roman. The greatest period of the
Gothic power as such was in the reign of Leovigild (568-586). He
reunited the Gaulish and Spanish parts of the kingdom which had been
parted for a moment; he united the Suevian dominion to his own; he
overcame some of the independent districts, and won back part of the
recovered Roman province in southern Spain. He further established the
power of the crown over the Gothic nobles, who were beginning to grow
into territorial lords. The next reign, that of his son Recared
(586-601), was marked by a change which took away the great hindrance
which had thus far stood in the way of any national union between Goths
and Romans. The king and the greater part of the Gothic people embraced
the Catholic faith. A vast degree of influence now fell into the hands
of the Catholic bishops; the two nations began to unite; the Goths were
gradually romanized and the Gothic language began to go out of use. In
short, the Romance nation and the Romance speech of Spain began to be
formed. The Goths supplied the Teutonic infusion into the Roman mass.
The kingdom, however, still remained a Gothic kingdom. "Gothic," not
"Roman" or "Spanish," is its formal title; only a single late instance
of the use of the formula "regnum Hispaniae" is known. In the first half
of the 7th century that name became for the first time geographically
applicable by the conquest of the still Roman coast of southern Spain.
The Empire was then engaged in the great struggle with the Avars and
Persians, and, now that the Gothic kings were Catholic, the great
objection to their rule on the part of the Roman inhabitants was taken
away. The Gothic nobility still remained a distinct class, and held,
along with the Catholic prelacy, the right of choosing the king. Union
with the Catholic Church was accompanied by the introduction of the
ecclesiastical ceremony of anointing, a change decidedly favourable to
elective rule. The growth of those later ideas which tended again to
favour the hereditary doctrine had not time to grow up in Spain before
the Mahommedan conquest (711). The West Gothic crown therefore remained
elective till the end. The modern Spanish nation is the growth of the
long struggle with the Mussulmans; but it has a direct connexion with
the West Gothic kingdom. We see at once that the Goths hold altogether
a different place in Spanish memory from that which they hold in Italian
memory. In Italy the Goth was but a momentary invader and ruler; the
Teutonic element in Italy comes from other sources. In Spain the Goth
supplies an important element in the modern nation. And that element has
been neither forgotten nor despised. Part of the unconquered region of
northern Spain, the land of Asturia, kept for a while the name of
Gothia, as did the Gothic possessions in Gaul and in Crim. The name of
the people who played so great a part in all southern Europe, and who
actually ruled over so large a part of it has now wholly passed away;
but it is in Spain that its historical impress is to be looked for.
Of Gothic literature in the Gothic language we have the Bible of
Ulfilas, and some other religious writings and fragments (see GOTHIC
LANGUAGE below). Of Gothic legislation in Latin we have the edict of
Theodoric of the year 500, edited by F. Bluhme in the _Monumenta
Germaniae historica_; and the books of _Variae_ of Cassiodorus may pass
as a collection of the state papers of Theodoric and his immediate
successors. Among the West Goths written laws had already been put forth
by Euric. The second Alaric (484-507) put forth a _Breviarium_ of Roman
law for his Roman subjects; but the great collection of West Gothic laws
dates from the later days of the monarchy, being put forth by King
Recceswinth about 654. This code gave occasion to some well-known
comments by Montesquieu and Gibbon, and has been discussed by Savigny
(_Geschichte des romischen Rechts_, ii. 65) and various other writers.
They are printed in the _Monumenta Germaniae, leges_, tome i. (1902). Of
special Gothic histories, besides that of Jordanes, already so often
quoted, there is the Gothic history of Isidore, archbishop of Seville, a
special source of the history of the West Gothic kings down to Svinthala
(621-631). But all the Latin and Greek writers contemporary with the
days of Gothic predominance make their constant contributions. Not for
special facts, but for a general estimate, no writer is more instructive
than Salvian of Marseilles in the 5th century, whose work _De
Gubernatione Dei_ is full of passages contrasting the vices of the
Romans with the virtues of the barbarians, especially of the Goths. In
all such pictures we must allow a good deal for exaggeration both ways,
but there must be a ground-work of truth. The chief virtues which the
Catholic presbyter praises in the Arian Goths are their chastity, their
piety according to their own creed, their tolerance towards the
Catholics under their rule, and their general good treatment of their
Roman subjects. He even ventures to hope that such good people may be
saved, notwithstanding their heresy. All this must have had some
groundwork of truth in the 5th century, but it is not very wonderful if
the later West Goths of Spain had a good deal fallen away from the
doubtless somewhat ideal picture of Salvian. (E. A. F.)
There is now an extensive literature on the Goths, and among the
principal works may be mentioned: T. Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_
(Oxford, 1880-1899); J. Aschbach, _Geschichte der Westgoten_
(Frankfort, 1827); F. Dahn, _Die Konige der Germanen_ (1861-1899); E.
von Wietersheim, _Geschichte der Volkerwanderung_ (1880-1881); R.
Pallmann, _Die Geschichte der Volkerwanderung_ (Gotha, 1863-1864); B.
Rappaport, _Die Einfalle der Goten in das romische Reich_ (Leipzig,
1899), and K. Zeuss, _Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstamme_ (Munich,
1837). Other works which may be consulted are: E. Gibbon, _Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire_, edited by J. B. Bury (1896-1900); H. H.
Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_ (1867); J. B. Bury, _History
of the Later Roman Empire_ (1889); P. Villari, _Le Invasioni
barbariche in Italia_ (Milan, 1901); and F. Martroye, _L'Occident a
l'epoque byzantine: Goths et Vandales_ (Paris, 1903). There is a
popular history of the Goths by H. Bradley in the "Story of the
Nations" series (London, 1888). For the laws see the _Leges_ in Band
I. of the _Monumenta Germaniae historica, leges_ (1902). A.
Helfferich, _Entstehung und Geschichte des Westgotenrechts_ (Berlin,
1858); F. Bluhme, _Zur Textkritik des Westgotenrechts_ (1872); F.
Dahn, _Lex Visigothorum_. _Westgotische Studien_ (Wurzburg, 1874); C.
Rinaudo, _Leggi dei Visigote, studio_ (Turin, 1878); and K. Zeumer,
"Geschichte der westgotischen Gesetzgebung" in the _Neues Archiv der
Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde_. See also the
article on THEODORIC.
_Gothic Language._--Our knowledge of the Gothic language is derived
almost entirely from the fragments of a translation of the Bible which
is believed to have been made by the Arian bishop Wulfila or Ulfilas (d.
383) for the Goths who dwelt on the lower Danube. The MSS. which have
come down to us and which date from the period of Ostrogothic rule in
Italy (489-555) contain the Second Epistle to the Corinthians complete,
together with more or less considerable fragments of the four Gospels
and of all the other Pauline Epistles. The only remains of the Old
Testament are three short fragments of Ezra and Nehemiah. There is also
an incomplete commentary (_skeireins_) on St John's Gospel, a fragment
of a calendar, and two charters (from Naples and Arezzo, the latter now
lost) which contain some Gothic sentences. All these texts are written
in a special character, which is said to have been invented by Wulfila.
It is based chiefly on the uncial Greek alphabet, from which indeed most
of the letters are obviously derived, and several orthographical
peculiarities, e.g. the use of _ai_ for _e_ and _ei_ for _i_ reflect the
Greek pronunciation of the period. Other letters, however, have been
taken over from the Runic and Latin alphabets. Apart from the texts
mentioned above, the only remains of the Gothic language are the proper
names and occasional words which occur in Greek and Latin writings,
together with some notes, including the Gothic alphabet, in a Salzburg
MS. of the 10th century, and two short inscriptions on a torque and a
spear-head, discovered at Buzeo (Walachia) and Kovel (Volhynia)
respectively. The language itself, as might be expected from the date of
Wulfila's translation, is of a much more archaic type than that of any
other Teutonic writings which we possess, except a few of the earliest
Northern inscriptions. This may be seen, e.g. in the better preservation
of final and unaccented syllables and in the retention of the dual and
the middle (passive) voice in verbs. It would be quite erroneous,
however, to regard the Gothic fragments as representing a type of
language common to all Teutonic nations in the 4th century. Indeed the
distinctive characteristics of the language are very marked, and there
is good reason for believing that it differed considerably from the
various northern and western languages, whereas the differences among
the latter at this time were probably comparatively slight (see TEUTONIC
LANGUAGES). On the other hand, it must not be supposed that the language
of the Goths stood quite isolated. Procopius (_Vand._ i. 2) states
distinctly that the Gothic language was spoken not only by the
Ostrogoths and Visigoths but also by the Vandals and the Gepidae; and in
the former case there is sufficient evidence, chiefly from proper names,
to prove that his statement is not far from the truth. With regard to
the Gepidae we have less information; but since the Goths, according to
Jordanes (cap. 17), believed them to have been originally a branch of
their own nation, it is highly probable that the two languages were at
least closely related. Procopius elsewhere (_Vand._ i. 3; _Goth._ i. 1,
iii. 2) speaks of the Rugii, Sciri and Alani as Gothic nations. The fact
that the two former were sprung from the north-east of Germany renders
it probable that they had Gothic affinities, while the Alani, though
non-Teutonic in origin, may have become gothicized in the course of the
migration period. Some modern writers have included in the same class
the Burgundians, a nation which had apparently come from the basin of
the Oder, but the evidence at our disposal on the whole hardly justifies
the supposition that their language retained a close affinity with
Gothic.
In the 4th and 5th centuries the Gothic language--using the term in its
widest sense--must have spread over the greater part of Europe together
with the north coast of Africa. It disappeared, however, with surprising
rapidity. There is no evidence for its survival in Italy or Africa after
the fall of the Ostrogothic and Vandal kingdoms, while in Spain it is
doubtful whether the Visigoths retained their language until the Arabic
conquest. In central Europe it may have lingered somewhat longer in view
of the evidence of the Salzburg MS. mentioned above. Possibly the
information there given was derived from southern Hungary or
Transylvania where remains of the Gepidae were to be found shortly
before the Magyar invasion (889). According to Walafridus Strabo (_de
Reb. Eccles._ cap. 7) also Gothic was still used in his time (the 9th
century) in some churches in the region of the lower Danube. Thenceforth
the language seems to have survived only among the Goths (_Goti
Tetraxitae_) of the Crimea, who are mentioned for the last time by Ogier
Ghislain de Busbecq, an imperial envoy at Constantinople about the
middle of the 16th century. He collected a number of words and phrases
in use among them which show clearly that their language, though not
unaffected by Iranian influence, was still essentially a form of Gothic.
See H. C. von der Gabelentz and J. Loebe, _Ulfilas_ (Altenburg and
Leipzig, 1836-1846); E. Bernhardt, _Vulfila oder die gotische Bibel_
(Halle, 1875). For other works on the Gothic language see J. Wright,
_A Primer of the Gothic Language_ (Oxford, 1892), p. 143 f. To the
references there given should be added: C. C. Uhlenbeck,
_Etymologisches Worterbuch d. got. Sprache_ (Amsterdam, 2nd ed. 1901);
F. Kluge, "Geschichte d. got. Sprache" in H. Paul's _Grundriss d.
germ. Philologie_ (2nd ed., vol. i., Strassburg, 1897); W. Streitberg,
_Gotisches Elementarbuch_ (Heidelberg, 1897); Th. von Grienberger,
_Beitrage zur Geschichte d. deutschen Sprache u. Literatur_, xxi. 185
ff.; L. F. A. Wimmer, _Die Runenschrift_ (Berlin, 1887), p. 61 ff.; G.
Stephens, _Handbook to the Runic Monuments_ (London, 1884), p. 203; F.
Wrede, _Uber die Sprache der Wandalen_ (Strassburg, 1886). For further
references see K. Zeuss, _Die Deutschen_, p. 432 f. (where earlier
references to the Crimean Goths are also given); F. Kluge, _op. cit._,
p. 515 ff.; and O. Bremer, _ib._ vol. iii., p. 822. (H. M. C.)