|
Book 3
Chapter I
Some of the dukes of the Langobards then, with a strong army invaded
Gaul. [1] Hospitius, a man of God, who had been cloistered at Nicea (Nice), foresaw their invasion a long while beforehand,
by revelation of the Holy Spirit, and predicted to the citizens of that city what calamities were impending. For he was a
man of the greatest abstinence and of praiseworthy life, who, bound by iron chains upon his flesh and clad with goat's hair,
used bread alone and a few dates for his food. But in the days of Lent he was nourished by the roots of Egyptian herbs which
hermits use, the gift of some merchants. The Lord deemed it fitting that great and excellent things should be accomplished
by him, which are written in the books of the reverend man Gregory, bishop of Tours. This holy man then, predicted the coming
of the Langobards into Gaul in this manner: " The Langobards," he says, "will come into Gaul and will lay waste seven cities
because their wickedness has waxed great in the sight of the Lord, for all the people are addicted to perjuries, guilty of
thefts, intent upon plunder, ready for murders; the fruit of justice is not in them, tithes are not given, the poor man is
not fed, the naked is not clothed, the stranger is not received in hospitality. Therefore is this blow about to come upon
that people." Also advising his monks, he said: "Depart also from this place, taking away with you what you have, for behold,
the nation I foretold is approaching." And when they said, "We will not abandon thee, most holy Father," he replied, " Fear
not for me, it will come to pass that they will inflict injuries upon me, but they will not harm me to my death."
[1]
An invasion of Gaul, probably a mere foray, is mentioned by Marius of Avenches as having occurred in 569, immediately after
Alboin's invasion of Italy. It was evidently a failure, for it was stated that many Langobard captives were sold into slavery
(Pabst, 410, note 2). The particular invasion mentioned in the text occurred not earlier than 570 (Hodgkin, V, 216).
Chapter II.
And when the monks had departed, the army of the Langobards drew near. And while it
was destroying all it found, it came to the place where the holy man was cloistered. He showed himself to them through the
window of a tower. But when they, going around the tower, sought an entrance through which they could pass in to him, and
found none at all, two of them climbed upon the roof and uncovered it. And seeing him bound with chains and clad in goat's
skin, they said: " He is a malefactor and has committed murder, therefore he is held bound in these fetters,'' and when they
had called an interpreter they inquired from him what evil deed he had committed that he was bound in such punishment, and
he declared that he was a murderer and guilty of all crimes. Then one of them drew his sword to cut off his head, but straightway
his right hand stiffened while suspended in the act of striking, nor could he draw it back. So he let go of the sword and
dropped it upon the ground. His companions seeing these things raised a cry to heaven entreating the saint that he would graciously
make known what they should do. And he indeed, having made the sign of salvation, restored the withered arm to health. And
the Langobard who had been healed was converted to the faith of Christ and was straightway made a priest and then a monk,
and remained in that same place up to the end of his life in the service of God. But when the blessed Hospitius had spoken
the word of God to the Langobards, two dukes who heard him reverently, returned safe and sound to their own country, but certain
ones who had despised his words perished miserably in that same Provincia.[1]
[1] Provence, a district on the Mediterranean
at the mouth of the Rhone, the first part of Gaul to become, and the last to remain a Roman province (Hodgkin, V, 200).
Chapter III.
Then while the Langobards were devastating Gaul, Amatus, the patrician of Provincia,
a subject of Gunthrani, king of the Franks, led an army against them, and when the battle began, he fled and was there killed.
And the Langobards made so great a slaughter of the Burgundians that the number of the slain could not be reckoned, and enriched
with incalculable booty they returned to Italy.
Chapter IV.
When they
had departed, Eunius, who was also called Mummulus, being summoned by the king, acquired the honor of the patriciate, and
when the Langobards again invaded Gaul [1] and came as far as Mustiascalmes (Moutiers), [2] which place lies near the city
of Ebredunum (Embrun), Mummulus moved his army and set out thither with the Burgundians. And when the Langobards were surrounded
by his army and trees were felled in their way [3] among the winding paths of the woods, he rushed upon them and killed many
of them and captured some and sent them to Gunthram his king. [4] And the Langobards, when these things were done, returned
to Italy.
[1] By way of the Col de Genevre (Hodgkin, V, 217).
[2] In the department of the Basses Alpes.
[3]
'Factis concisis' - See Du Cange, 'concisa'.
[4] In this battle, Salonius, bishop of Embrun, and Sagittarius, bishop of
Gap, two brothers, fought and slew many (Hodg., V, 217).
Chapter V.
Afterwards
the Saxons who had come with the Langobards into Italy, broke into Gaul and established their camp within the territory of
Regia, that is, at the villa Stablo (Establon), [1] dispersing themselves among the villas of the neighboring cities, seizing
booty, taking off captives and laying all things waste. When Mummulus learned this, he attacked them with his army and killed
many of them, and did not cease slaying them until night made an end, for he found men ignorant and understanding nothing
of what had come upon them. But when morning came, the Saxons put their army in order, preparing themselves bravely for war
but by means of messengers they made peace, presents were given to Mummulus, the captives and all the booty were abandoned,
and they returned to Italy.
[1] Near Moutiers (Abel).
Chapter VI.
After
the Saxons had returned to Italy and had taken with them their wives and children and all their household goods, they planned
to go back again to Gaul, in order that they might be received by king Sigispert and by his aid might return to their own
country. For it is certain that these Saxons had come to Italy with their wives and children that they might dwell in it,
yet as far as can be understood they were unwilling to be subject to the commands of the Langobards. But it was not permitted
to them by the Langobards to live according to their own laws, [1] and therefore they determined to go back to their own country.
When they were about to enter Gaul they formed themselves into two troops, and one troop indeed entered through the city of
Nicea (Nice), but the other, through Ebredunum (Embrun), returning the same way they had gone the year before. Because it
was the time of the harvests they collected and threshed grain and ate it and gave it to their animals to eat. They plundered
flocks, nor did they abstain from burnings, and when they had come to the river Rodanus (Rhone), which they had to cross to
reach the kingdom of Sigispert, Mummulus met them with a powerful multitude. Then seeing him they feared greatly, and giving
him many coins of gold for their release, they were permitted to cross the Rodanus. While they were proceeding to king Sigispert
they deceived many on the way in their dealing, selling bars of brass which were so colored, I know not how, that they imitated
the appearance of proved and tested gold, [2] whence many were deceived by this fraud and giving gold and receiving brass,
were made paupers. When they came at length to king Sigispert, they were allowed to go back to the place from which they had
first come.
[1] This statement, which is accepted without question by most of the commentators, is discredited by Hartmann
(II, I, 80), who remarks that it is an addition made by Paul himself to the account of Gregory of Tours from whom he takes
this part of his history, and that it comes from Paul's knowledge of the Langobard state in the eighth century which is quite
unreliable for events occurring two centuries earlier.
[2] Gregory of Tours (IV, 42) places this event at Arverni (Clermont),
which seems out of the way for an army proceeding to Sigispert in Austrasia, whose capital was Metz, and Gregory says it was
then spring-time, which is hard to reconcile with the statements about the threshed grain, unless indeed the Saxons wandered
through Gaul until the following spring (Hodgkin, V, 192, note l).
Chapter VII.
And
when they had come to their own country they found it was held by Suavi (Suabians) and other peoples, as we have before related.
[1] Bestirring themselves against these, they attempted to drive them out and destroy them. The Suavi however offered them
a third part of the region, saying: "We can live together and dwell in common without strife." and when they in no way acquiesced,
the Suavi offered them a half and afterwards two parts, reserving only a third for themselves. And when they were unwilling,
the Suavi offered with the land also all the flocks if only they would cease from war, but the Saxons, not content with this,
sought a contest, and they had a strife among themselves beforehand in what way they should divide the wives of the Suavi.
But it did not turn out with them as they thought, for when battle was joined 20,000 of them were killed, but of the Suavi
four hundred and eighty fell, and the rest obtained a victory. And six thousand of the Saxons who survived the war made a
vow that they would cut neither beard nor hair until they avenged themselves upon their Suabian enemies. And again going into
battle, they were grievously wasted and so they ceased from war.
[1] Book II, chapter 6.
<< Previous Page Next Page >>
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).
<< Previous Page Next Page >>
|
