[76: The detached notice is found subjoined to the Veronese provincial list (_Notitia dignitatum_, ed. Seeck, p. 253): _nomina civitatum trans Renum fluvium quae sunt; Usiphorum_ (read _Usiporum_)--_Tuvanium_ (read _Tubantum_)--_Nictrensium--Novarii--Casuariorum: istae omnes civitates trans Renum in formulam Belgicae primae redactae trans castellum Montiacese: nam lxxx. leugas trans Renum Romani possederunt. Istae civitates sub Gallieno imperatore a barbaris occupatae sunt_. That the Usipes afterwards dwelt in this region, is confirmed by Tacitus, _Hist._ iv. 37, _Germ._ 32; that they belonged to the empire in the year 83, but had perhaps been made subject only shortly before, is plain from the narrative, _Agr._ 28. The Tubantes and Chasuarii are placed by Ptolemy, ii. 11, 11, in the vicinity of the Chatti; that they shared the fate of the Usipes is accordingly probable. No certain identification of the other two corrupt names has hitherto been found; perhaps the Tencteri had a place here, or some of the small tribes named with these only in Ptolemy, ii. 11, 6. The notice in its original form named Belgica simply, as the province was only divided by Diocletian, and named it rightly in so far as the two Germanies belonged geographically to Belgica. The specified measurement carries us, if we follow the Kinzig valley to the north-east, beyond Fulda nearly to Hersfeld. Inscriptions have been found here far eastward beyond the Rhine, as far as the Wetterau; Friedberg and Butzbach were military positions strongly garrisoned; at Altenstadt between Friedberg and Büdingen there has been found an inscription of the year 242 (Brambach, _C. I. Rh._ 1410) pointing to protection of the frontier (_collegium iuventutis_).] [77: What the designation _agri decumates_ (for the latter word is at anyrate to be connected with _agri_) occurring only in Tacitus, _Germ._ 29, means, is uncertain. It is possible that the territory regarded in the earlier imperial period certainly as property of the state or rather of the emperor, like the old _ager occupatorius_ of the republic, might be used by the first who took possession upon payment of the tenth; but neither is it linguistically proved that _decumas_ can mean "liable for a tenth," nor are we acquainted with such arrangements in the imperial period. Moreover it should not be overlooked that the description of Tacitus refers to the time before the institution of the line of the Neckar; it does not suit the latter period any more than does the designation, which doubtless is not clear, but is at any rate certainly connected with the earlier legal relation.] [78: This has been proved by Zangemeister (_Westdeutsche Zeitschrift_, iii. p. 246).]