Book 3

Chapter XVI.

But the Langobards indeed, when they had been under the power of dukes for ten years, determined at length by common consent that Authari, the son of their sovereign Cleph, above mentioned, should be their king. And they called him also Flavius [1] on account of his high office. All those who were afterwards kings of the Langobards auspiciously used this name. In his days on account of the re-establishment of the kingdom, those who were then dukes gave up half of their possessions for royal uses that there might be the means from which the king himself and those who should attend him and those devoted to his service throughout the various offices might be supported. [2] The oppressed people, however, were parcelled out among their Langobard guests.[3] There was indeed this admirable thing in the kingdom of the Langobards. There was no violence, no ambuscades were laid, no one constrained another unjustly, no one took spoils, there were no thefts, no robberies, every one proceeded whither he pleased, safe and without fear. [4]

[1] A title borrowed from the family name of Vespasian and Titus, afterwards used by a number of their successors and by the emperors of the East and thence transferred to other sovereigns, for example, to Odoacar (Hodgkin, V, 234) and to the Visigothic kings of Spain after Recared (Abel, p. 60). It was used to signify that the Langobard king had succeeded to the imperial dignity.
[2] The powers of the king are nowhere clearly defined. It should be noted that he was king of the Langobard people (not king of Italy), and that the Romans, who were not free subjects, were not taken into consideration (Hartmann, II, 2, 30). It would seem (Hodgkin, VI, 568) that the laws were devised by him after consultation with the principal men and nobles, and then accepted by the army, which formed the assembly of the people. The king was the supreme judge, but was assisted by jurors in coming to his conclusions. The highest criminal jurisdiction was exercised by him, sometimes immediately in cases of great importance, but more frequently by means of his officers. He had the highest police jurisdiction. Without his permission no free man accompanied by his clan (farn) might change his residence. Churches and convents were under his protection. He represented a woman as against her guardian and a retainer as against his lord.
[3] "Populi tamen adgravati per Langobardos hospites partiunter." This is one of the most important passages in Paul's history, as it furnishes almost the only existing statement of the condition of the Roman population under the early Langobard kings. It has been considered very obscure, and various interpretations have been given. Giansvero renders it: "And the people, oppressed by their Langobard guests, are divided.'' Abel translates nearly as in the text. Hodgkin (V, 232) renders it thus: " (In this division) the subject populations who had been assigned to their several guests were included." This departs widely from the Latin text, though it may well be the actual meaning. Capponi (Sui Langobardi in Italia 18, see Scritti Edit; e Inediti, 75, 77) believes that the sentence means that the tributary populations remained divided among the Langobard guests, and that the property only was ceded to the king. But Hodgkin asks (VI, 585) why the lands should be given to the king stripped of the Roman 'aldii' to cultivate them, and what the dukes who surrendered part of their land would do with the increased population now thrown wholly upon the remainder. Villari insists (Le Invasioni Barbariche in Italia, pp. 265, 266) that the property which the Langobard dukes divided with the king was that which they had taken from the Roman nobles they had killed (II, 32 supra), or which they had confiscated in other ways, and that there still remained to these dukes the third of the products of the lands possessed by the Romans, and he adds (p. 273) that the "oppressed people" were the same as those who had been made tributaries before (II, 32 supra), and who, therefore, had been and still remained divided among the Langobard proprietors who surrendered to the king half of the lands which were their free and full property. Savigny says (Geschichte des Romischen Rechts, I, chap. 5, p. 401): "The king was endowed by the nobles. The Romans were in the meantime divided among the individual Langobards as their hospites and the old relation between them remained unchanged." Hegel says: "There was no change in the general condition of the conquered Romans. They remained divided among their hospites." Troya (Storia d'Italia, I, 5 ccccx) contends that the true reading is 'patiuntur' for 'partiuntur'. ''The dukes gave one-half of their property to the king, nevertheless the populations oppressed by the Langobard guests suffered for it.'' The dukes made up for their patriotic surrender by screwing a larger tribute out of the oppressed Romans. But Hodgkin remarks (VI, 586, note) that this does not agree with the sentence that follows about the golden age. Since Paul no longer speaks of the products of the land, some think (see Villari, pp. 265, 266, 273) that the third of the rents was changed into a third of the lands, and believe that since the Langobards had made new acquisitions of territory, a division was made of the new lands for the benefit of those who had to give the king part of their own possessions. It does not seem to me that the above passage is as difficult as it has been considered. In the parcelling out of the people among their Langobard guests, the king, through his representative (his 'actor', or perhaps his Gasfaldus), may well have been one of these ''guests,'' a word which, as we have seen, was the euphemistic name assumed by the Langobards who settled upon the lands of the Romans and took a share of the products. In that case the literal translation given in the text would be entirely appropriate, and yet there would be no shifting of the population nor any change in the system of dividing the products of the land. One great difficulty with the passage has been to explain the use of the word 'tamen' (however), the usual meaning of which is adversative. Crivellucci (Studii Storici, 1899, 255) shows that out of forty-eight instances in which this conjunction is used by Paul in this history, there are six places where it might properly be given a copulative meaning equivalent to "and" or "also," and one place where such a meaning is required, viz., at the beginning of chapter 23, book II. It is certain that this conjunction as well as nihiloiniini', its equivalent, was often used by Paul, either with a variable meaning or else most inexpressively, and that its use here ought not to interfere with a translation of this passage, which is in other respects both reasonable and literal. As to the condition of this subject Roman population see note to II, 32, supra.
[4] This description of the golden age is not borne out by the facts (Pabst, 425, note 2).


Chapter XVII.

At this time the emperor Maurice sent by his ambassadors to Childepert, king of the Franks, 50,000 solidi [1] to make an attack with his army upon the Langobards and drive them from Italy, and Childepert suddenly entered Italy with a countless multitude of Franks. [2] The Langobards indeed entrenched themselves in their towns and when messengers had passed between the parties and gifts had been offered they made peace with Childepert. [3] When he had returned to Gaul, the emperor Maurice, having learned that he had made a treaty with the Langobards, asked for the return of the solidi he had given in consideration of the overthrow of the Langobards. But Childepert, relying upon the strength of his resources, would not give an answer in this matter.

[1] The value of the gold solidus (here referred to) differed at different times. Hodgkin places it at twelve shillings, so that this 50,000 solidi was equal to L30,000 (V, 228). He also (VI, 413, 414) gives a table of the purchasing power of the solidus about the time of Liutprand, which was more than a century later than the period in question. The average value of a slave varied from sixty solidi to sixteen; a new olive garden sold for eight solidi; half a house in Pisa for nine; a garden in Lucca for fifteen; a bed, tunic and mantle for ten solidi each; a horse with trappings for one hundred solidi, etc. Personality seems to have had a high value in comparison with real estate.
[2] Paul erroneously places the elevation of Authari to the throne before the arrangement made by the emperor Maurice with Childpert II, A. D. 582, for a common enterprise against the Langobards. In fact, it was the threatened danger of foreign invasion which induced the dukes to strengthen their military power by the creation of a king (Jacobi, 35).
[3] Gregory of Tours, from whom Paul took this statement, says the Langobards submitted to Childepert's dominion (H. F., 6, 42). Probably these gifts were considered as tribute.


Chapter XVIII.

When these things had been done in this way, king Authari approached the city of Brexillus (Brescello), situated on the bank of the Po, [1] to capture it. Thither duke Droctulft had fled from the Langobards and surrendering to the emperor's party, and being joined by his soldiers, resisted bravely the army of the Langobards. This man was descended from the race of Suavi (Suabians), that is, of the Alamanni, and had grown up among the Langobards, and because he was of an excellent figure, had acquired the honor of a dukedom, but when he found an occasion of avenging his captivity [2] he suddenly rose against the arms of the Langobards. The Langobards waged grievous wars against him and at length overcame him together with the soldiers he was aiding, and compelled him to withdraw to Ravenna. Brexillus was taken and its walls were levelled to the ground. After these things king Authari made peace for three years with the patrician Smaragdus,[3] who was then in authority at Ravenna.

[1] Twelve miles from Parma and on the Aemilian way (Hodgkin, V, 243).
[2] He had apparently been taken prisoner by the Imperial troops, and resented his lack of support by the other Langobard dukes, to whom he considered he owed his captivity (Hodgkin, V, 242).
[3] Smaragdus had been appointed in 585 to succeed the incapable Longinus (Hodgkin, V, 242). This treaty was made very shortly afterwards (Waitz).


Chapter XIX.

With the support of this Droctulft, of whom we have spoken, the soldiers of the Ravenna people often fought against the Langobards, and after a fleet was built, they drove out with his aid the Langobards who were holding the city of Classis. [1] And when he had filled the limit of life, they gave him an honorable sepulcher in front of the church of the holy martyr Vitalis, [2] and set forth his praises in the following epitaph:

Drocton lies buried within this tomb, but only in body,
For in his merits he lives, over the orb of the world.
First with the Langobards he dwelt, for by race and by nature
Sprung from Suavian stock, suave to all people was he.
Terrible to be seen was his face, though in heart he was kindly,
Long was the beard that grew down on his vigorous breast.
Loving the standards of Rome and the emblems of the republic,
Aid unto them he brought, crushing the power of his race.
Love unto us he bore, despising the claims of his kindred,
Deeming Ravenna his own fatherland, dear to his heart.
First of his valiant deeds was the glory of captured Brexillus.
There for a time he remained, dreadful to all of his foes.
Later when here his power brought aid to the Roman standards
First within his hands rested the banner of Christ.
Afterwards when Faroald withheld by treachery Classis,
"Fleet-town" [3] in hope to avenge, arms for the fleet he prepares,
Struggles in tiny ships on the flowing stream of Badrinus. [4]
Conquers and overcomes numberless Langobard [5] bands,
Vanquishes also in lands of the East the impetuous Avar,
Seeking to win for his lords victory's sovereign palm.
Often to them as a conq'ror, sustained by the aid of Vitalis,
Martyr and holy saint, honored with triumphs he came.
And in the fane of Vitalis he sought the repose of his body,
Pleased that this place should hold, after his death, his remains
When he died, he implored these things of the priest Joannes, [6]
By whose pious love he had returned to these lands. [7]

[1] The port of Ravenna. The dates conjectured for this event vary from A. D. 584 to 588 (Hodgkin, VI, 91, 92).
[2] This church, an octagonal building in the Byzantine style, was completed in the year 547, with the aid of contributions made by the emperor Justinian and the empress Theodora. Its walls were adorned with exquisite mosaics which are still in an excellent state of preservation. St. Vitalis was the patron saint of Ravenna. He came to that city from Milan during the persecution under
Nero, A. D. 62, at a time when St. Ursicinus was about to suffer martyrdom. He sustained and encouraged Ursicinus, who was terrified at the torments he was compelled to undergo, and after his death Vitalis buried him, and was thereupon arrested, tortured. and buried alive (Larousse).
[3] 'Classis', ''a fleet'' being the name of the town.
[4] Padoreno, say some, (Waitz) but this was one of the mouths of the Po more than thirty miles distant (Hodg., V, 247 note).
[5] In the original the Langobards are called Bardi, a name which recalls the Bardengau and Bardowick of the Elbe region.
[6] Johannes III, bishop of Ravenna, 578-595 (Hodgkin V, 248 note 2).
[7] A somewhat freer translation in rhyme is given in Hodgkin (V, 247).