From The History of the Langobards by Paul the Deacon, translated by William Dudley Foulke, LL. D.; The Department of History, University of Pennsylvania; New York: Longman, Green & Co., 1906; pp. 318-392.
SOURCES OF PAUL’S HISTORY OF THE LANGOBARDS.
The overthrow of the Roman empire had as its necessary result that in the different political territories comprising it, the historical literature of one people was superimposed upon that of another. There were soon formed three principal groups, that of the Eastern empire, that of the Langobards and that of the Franks. Naturally these did not stand shut off and disconnected from each other but they were mutually intertwined. No author has worked together these three groups in connection with the history of the undivided Roman empire in so comprehensive a manner as Paul. In this way direction is given to the investigation of the sources of his history. These three masses are first to be separated (Mommsen, p. 56). We have therefore:
(a) Frankish sources,1
(b) Langobard sources,
(c) Roman sources.
1 These being the simplest are considered first. I follow Mommsen’s order in this discussion.
(A) FRANKISH SOURCES.
For the Frankish tradition Paul has used almost exclusively in the first part of his narrative the “of the Franks” by Gregory of Tours.2 He omits the earlier portions of that 319 history, but from the time of the immigration of the Langobards into Italy, which makes them the neighbors of the Franks, he uses the work in a general way and especially in regard to the relations between these two peoples, and he often transcribes it, as he himself says (III, 29), “almost in the same words”. Paul’s third book consists in greater part of such excerpts (Mommsen, 57).
From Gregory is taken (Jacobi, 33-37) the statement that Buccelinus (P. II, 2; Greg. III, 32) sent booty to Theudepert; the account of the help which Alboin received from the Saxons for his expedition to Italy (P. II, 26; Gregory IV, 42-43; V, 15); the enumeration of the sons of Chlothar, who were reigning when the Langobards invaded Italy (P. II, 10; Greg. IV, 22), and the wars of Sigisbert with the Avars (id. IV, 23, 29) as well as his marriage with Brunicheldis (id. IV, 27).
There are some mistakes in Paul’s citations from Gregory. Thus Gregory mentions (IV, 41) the expedition of Alboin and adds that in seven years the conquest of the country was completed amid great devastation. Paul relates (II, 32) that this occurred in the seventh year after Alboin’s arrival (Jacobi, 34).
Gregory is the source also (Jacobi, 35) for Paul’s account of St. Hospitius (P. III, 1, 2; Greg. VI, 6); of the irruption of the Langobards and Saxons into Provence and their repulse by Mummulus (P. III, 3, 4; Greg. IV, 42); of the return of the Saxons to their former abodes (III, 5, 6; Greg. IV, 42); of their conflicts there and their overthrow by the Suevians (P. III, 7; Greg. V, 15); of the foray of the three Langobard dukes Amo, Zaban and Rodanus (P. III, 8; Greg. IV, 44); of the murder of Sigisbert I (P. III, 10; Greg. IV, 51, 52, V, 1) and the succession of Childebert II. Paul copies in 320 full detail from Gregory the account of Justin II and Tiberius II (P. III, 11, 12, 13, 15; Greg. IV, 40; V, 19, 30; VI, 2, 30) but upsets the chronology (see note P. III, 11) as he also does in transcribing the account of the subsidy paid by the emperor Maurice to Childepert for the invasion of Italy (P. III, 17, note, also P. III, 22; Greg. VI, 42; VIII, 18; See Jacobi, 35). The narrative of the irruption of a Frankish army into Italy in 588 and its overthrow (P. III, 29; Greg. IX, 25) and of the campaign of 590 (P. III, 31) also come from Gregory (X, 2, 3). As to the events in Spain and the relation between the Gothic and Frankish kingdoms resulting therefrom (III, 21) Paul treats Gregory’s account as given too much in detail and uses Bede’s Chronicle (AM. 4536) in part, instead3 (See note supra, III, 21).
Paul also took from Gregory the account of the negotiations of king Authari (P. III, 28; Greg. IX, 25) for the sister of Childepert and how Childepert in violation of his promises gave her to the Catholic king of the Goths; also the fable of the dragon seen in the Tiber, the account of the seven-fold litany (P. III, 24; Greg. X, 1) and the embassy to Childepert (P. III, 35; Greg. X, 3) on the death of Authari. The use of Gregory as an authority here ceases (Jacobi, 37).
The history of Gregory of Tours comes down to 591 and after this period Paul’s accounts of events in the Frankish kingdom become very scanty (Mommsen, p. 57). He adds a legend however, which he learned in France regarding king Gunthram which, as he says, was not included in the History of the Franks (III. 34; Momm., p. 57). There is considerable doubt what other Frankish sources, if any, he has used. An important authority at this period is the so-called Fredegarius, 321 the name assigned to the unknown compiler or compilers of a work coming down to 642.4 There is much difference of opinion whether Paul has used this authority. Points of resemblance appear between the two accounts; for instance, Paul’s statement (II, 5) that the empress Sophia sent word to Narses that she would make him portion out the tasks of wool in the women’s chamber, to which Narses answered that he would prepare her such a web as she could not unravel in her lifetime. Fredegarius (Epit., ch. 65) relates a similar circumstance although the words are different. Moreover a story like that which Paul tells of the marriage of Theudelinda with Agilulf (III, 35) is related by Fredegarius (Chron., ch. 70) of Rothari and Gundeperga, the widow of Ariold. According to Fredegarius (ch. 51, 70, 71) Gundeperga had to suffer both from Arioald and from Rothari quite similar treatment as from Rodoald according to Paul. Fredegarius (Chron., ch. 34) says that Agilulf and Theudelinda had caused the murder of Gunduald from jealousy of his popularity, while Paul says (IV, 40) that the author of the deed is unknown. Pabst (Forsch., 428, n. 4) considers Paul’s statement (IV, 41) that Adaloald was deposed after a ten years’ reign on account of insanity, as a simple extract from the chronicle of Fredegarius (ch. 49). But Fredegarius says nothing of Theudelinda reigning with her son, although the Langobard Chronicler of the year 641 confirms this (Jacobi, 39).322
Paul’s accounts concerning Frankish history from 590 to 612 need not be traced to Fredegarius. Paul mentions a war about 593 (IV, 4) between Childepert II and the son of Hilperic, a bloody rain in the land of the Briones and a stream of blood in the Renus, all which are lacking in Fredegarius. So also the statement that Childepert made Tassilo king (IV, 7) in Bavaria. Paul relates the death of Childepert II and his wife by poison (IV, 11); Fredegarius (Chron., ch. 16) merely says Childepert died. Paul puts Childepert’s death before that of Gunthram, which, according to Fredegarius occurred four years earlier (Jacobi, 40). Fredegarius has no account of the invasion of the Avars into Thuringia mentioned by Paul (IV, 11); nor of the peace between Agilulf and Theoderic (P. IV, 13). When therefore Paul (IV, 15) speaks of the appearances in the heavens in almost the same words as Fredegarius (Chron., ch. 20) the resemblance is either accidental or is due to the use by these two authors of a common source, since Paul immediately adds an account of a war between Clothar and Theudepert, while according to Fredegarius, Clothar fought with the two sons of Childepert (Chron., ch. 20). Paul’s statement (IV, 28) regarding the war is so indefinite that a conclusion that it was drawn from Fredegarius cannot be made. Paul also states quite briefly (IV, 40) Theudepert’s death, while Fredegarius describes his overthrow in detail, but omits his death (ch. 38). All these occurrences took place between 590 and 618 and it does not speak in favor of the use of Fredegarius that Paul from that time to 663 omits all Frankish history, and first mentions (V, 5) a legendary victory of Grimuald at Rivoli over a Frankish army from Provence, which the Frankish sources do not speak of.
As the result of his investigation Jacobi concludes (p. 41) that if any use was made by Paul of Fredegarius it must be limited to the story of the flight of Cesara, the Persian queen, to 323 Constantinople (IV, 50; Fred. Chron., ch. 9) and that Paul’s statements regarding Frankish history are to be traced, not to Fredegarius, but to Secundus.
Even as to Cesara the use of Fredegarius seems improbable, for while Paul makes the Persian king come to Constantinople for baptism (IV, 50), according to Fredegarius (Chron., ch. 9) the scene occurs at Antioch; Fredegarius gives the name of the Persian king as Anaulf, Paul does not name him; Fredegarius puts the whole occurrence in 588, about eight years earlier than Paul. Jacobi explains these discrepancies by adopting the view that Paul did not have the chronicle immediately before him, but inserted the story from memory or from a short extract. It seems more probable that here, as well as in matters relating to Frankish history, Paul and Fredegarius used more or less directly a number of the same traditions, and it cannot now be determined which of the two has followed the original sources of these traditions the more closely.
The immediate use of Fredegarius by Paul seems to be disproved by another circumstance: Fredegarius speaks of the murder of duke Taso as occasioned by king Arioald (Chron. 79) but Paul says (IV, 41) that no information concerning Arioald has come to him. How then can he have consulted Fredegarius?
Did Paul use any other Frankish sources? In his account (II, 10) of the wars of the Frankish king Sigisbert over the Avars, he mentions Turingia as the scene of the war and the Elbe as the place of Sigisbert’s victory. These statements are not found in Gregory of Tours, from whom the rest of the account is taken, and they come (Jacobi, 34) from an unknown source, possibly Secundus. Besides, in Paul’s legendary account (V, 5) of a victory of king Grimuald over the Franks at Rivoli, occurs an equally doubtful statement (V, 32 and note) of a league between Grimuald and king Dagipert.
Paul (VI, 16 and note) mentions St. Arnulf of Metz 324 with whose biography he was acquainted, but he incorrectly makes him contemporary with Cunincpert. The mention of Anschis (VI, 23) is erroneously put in the time of Aripert II (701 to 712). These things, as well as what Paul (VI, 37) says of Pipin II (that accompanied by a single follower, he attacked an enemy in his bedchamber beyond the Rhine), do not seem to Jacobi (p. 42) to indicate the immediate use of a written source. Then Paul mentions Pipin’s wars with the Saxons and with Ratpot, king of the Frisians, speaks of Pipin’s son Charles Martel, and later (VI, 42) mentions Charles’ wars against his enemies, where an expression: “When he was held in prison he was set free by God’s command and escaped,” indicates the use of an annalistic source, and resembles a phrase in the Chronicon Moissiacense, a document of the early part of the ninth century (MG. SS. I, 290) that he “was held in prison but with God’s help presently escaped.” Also Paul correctly gives the battle of Vincy as the decisive victory over Raginfrid (Jacobi, 43). The statement that Charles Martel assigned Angers as a dwelling-place to Raginfrid (VI, 42) is peculiar to Paul, who differs in this from other sources. Paul’s account (VI, 46) of the battle of Poictiers shows that he took it from some source which was related to the Chron. Moiss.5 (MG. SS. I, 291), which also speaks of an alliance between Charles Martel and Eudo, while the annals of Metz (MG. SS. I, 325) say that Eudo called upon the Arabs. In the account of the battle of the little river Berre, the Chron. Moiss. (MG. SS. I, 292) states that Charles Martel, upon the news of the invasion into Provence, marched against the Saracens, drove them back over the Rhone, besieged Narbonne, and without raising the siege, repulsed by the river Berre a second army of Arabs approaching for the 325 relief of the city; Paul (VI, 54) speaks of two different campaigns, in one of which Charles calls upon Liutprand for help. The statement that Charles sent his son Pipin to Liutprand for adoption (VI, 53) occurs only in Paul. This account, which is undoubtedly authentic, could hardly be traced, Jacobi thinks (p. 45), to a Frankish source, and he regards Paul himself as the authority.
The foregoing facts indicate that Paul used certain oral accounts and traditions he had learned when in France and that if he used any other written Frankish sources such use was sparing and fragmentary, and his authorities were far from reliable.
Gregory of Tours is, therefore, the only Frankish source of any importance used in the History of the Langobards.
2 Georgius Florentius, who afterwards took the ecclesiastical name of Gregory, was born about 538 at Clermont Ferrand, Auvergne, France, became bishop of Tours 573, died 594 or 595. His history, written in most ungrammatical Latin, is of the highest authority in regard to Frankish affairs, for the period 561 to 591 when it closes. He is less reliable as to external matters and his sketches of the Langobard campaigns in the south of Gaul are meager and unsatisfactory (Hodgkin, V, 179-181).
3 Gregory’s statement that Ingunde died in Africa (Greg., VIII, 21, 28) is to be preferred to that of Paul (III, 21) who says she died in Sicily (Jacobi, 36, 37).
4 Fredegarius was apparently a Burgundian ecclesiastic who, in the first three books of his Chronicle, which began with the creation of the world, copied from Gregory’s history, inserting long passages from Jerome, Hippolytus, Idatius and Isidore, but in the fourth book, which commences in the year 583, he writes as a more independent historian and continues the work of Gregory to a later period. He died probably before 663. From about 631 he speaks as a contemporary, though he is often ill-informed and inaccurate (Hodgkin, VI, 149).
5 Waitz refers this to the Liber Pontificalis, (Gregory II) but other matters were added by Paul.
(B) LANGOBARD SOURCES.
Paul’s Langobard authorities, so far as known, are two-fold:
1. “The Origin of the Nation of Langobards” (Origo Gentis Langobardorum).
2. “The Acts of the Langobards,” by Secundus of Trent (now lost).
1. The Origin of the Nation of the Langobards.
Paul twice refers to a prologue to the Edict of Rothari as one of the sources of his history (Jacobi, 4). In book I, chap. 21 he says: “At the same time Waccho fell upon the Suavi and subjected them to his authority. If any one may think that this is a lie and not the truth of the matter, let him read over the prologue of the edict which king Rothari composed (relegat prologum edicti quem rex Rothari * * * composuit6) of 326 the laws of the Langobards and he will find this written in almost all the manuscripts as we have inserted it in this little history.” Also in book IV, chapter 42 he says “it was now indeed the seventy-seventh year from the time when the Langobards had come into Italy as that king (Rothari) bore witness in a prologue to his Edict.”
The last passage apparently refers to a short preface in Rothari’s laws (Edicti Codices, M. G. LL., IV, p. 1), although the 76th year and not the 77th is there mentioned. But this preface contains no account of the overthrow of the Suavi by Waccho, Bethmann (p. 351 et seq.), Baude di Vesme (Edicta Regum Langobardorum, Aug. Taur., 1855, p. LXXI; see Jacobi, 4, 5) and others therefore believe that Paul’s reference must be attributed to a short history of the Origin of the Nation of the Langobards contained in three manuscripts (of Modena, Madrid and La Cava7) and in a fourth form greatly interpolated in the so-called Chronicon Gothanum (Jacobi, 4). A translation of the Origo as contained in these three MSS. is here given:8327
I. There is an island9 that is called Scadanan,10 which is interpreted “destruction,”11 in the regions of the north, where many people dwell. Among these there was a small people that was called the Winniles. And with them was a woman, Gambara by name, and she had two sons. Ybor was the name of one and Agio the name of the other. They, with their mother, Gambara by name, held the sovereignty over the Winniles. Then the leaders of the Wandals, that is, Ambri and Assi, moved with their army, and said to the Winniles: “Either pay us tributes or prepare yourselves for battle and fight with us.” Then answered Ybor and Agio, with their mother Gambara: “It is better for us to make ready the battle than to pay tribute to the Wandals.” Then Ambri and Assi, that is, the leaders of the Wandals, asked Godan that he should give them the victory over the Winniles. Godan answered, saying: “Whom I shall first see when at sunrise, to them will I give the victory.” At that time Gambara with her two sons, that is, Ybor and Agio, who were chiefs over the Winniles, besought Frea, the wife of Godan, to be propitious to the Winnilis. Then Frea gave counsel that at sunrise the Winniles should come, and that their women, with their hair let down around the face in the likeness of a beard, should also come with their husbands. Then when it became bright, while the sun was rising, Frea, the wife of Godan, turned around the bed where her husband was lying and put his face toward the east and awakened him. And he, looking at them, saw the Winniles and their women having their hair let down around the face. And he says, “Who are those Long-beards?” And Frea said to Godan, “As you have given them a name, 328 give them also the victory.” And he gave them the victory, so that they should defend themselves according to his counsel and obtain the victory. From that time the Winniles were called Langobards.
II. And the Langobards moved thence and came to Golaida and afterwards they occupied the aldionates of Anthaib and Bainaib and Burgundaib. And it is said that they made for themselves a king, Agilmund by name, the son of Agio, of the race of Gugingus. And after him reigned Laiamicho of the race of Gugingus.12 And after him reigned Lethuc and it is said that he reigned about forty years. And after him reigned Aldihoc the son of Lethuc. And after him reigned Godehoc.
II. At that time king Audoachari went forth from Ravenna with the army of the Alani and came into Rugiland and fought with the Rugians and killed Theuvane king of the Rugians, and led many captives with him into Italy. Then the Langobards departed from their own territories and dwelt some years in Rugiland.
IV. Claffo, the son of Godehoc reigned after him. And after him reigned Tato the son of Claffo. The Langobards settled three years in the fields of Feld. Tato fought with Rodolf king of the Heruli and killed him and carried off his banner (vando) and helmet. After him the Heruli had no kingly office. And Wacho the son of Unichis killed king Tato his paternal uncle together with Zuchilo. And Wacho fought, and Ildichis the son of Tato fought, and Ildichis fled to the Gippidi where he died. And to avenge his wrong the Gypidis made war with the Langobards. At this time Wacho bent the Suabians under the dominion of the Langobards. Wacho had three wives: (first) Raicunda, daughter of Fisud king of the Turingi. After her he took as his wife Austrigusa a girl of the Gippidi.13 And Wacho had from Austrigusa two daughters; the name of one was Wisigarda whom he gave in marriage to 329 Theudipert king14 of the Franks, and the name of the second was Walderada whom Scusuald king of the Franks had as his wife, but having her in hatred he transferred her to Garipald for a wife. He had as his third wife the daughter of the king of the Heruli, Silinga by name. From her he had a son, Waltari by name. Wacho died and his son Waltari reigned seven years without posterity.15 These werall Lethinges.
V. And after Waltari, reigned Auduin.16 He led the Langobards into Pannonia. And there reigned after him Albuin, his son, whose mother is Rodelenda. At that time Albuin fought with the king of the Gippidi, Cunimund by name, and Cunimund died in that battle and the Gippidi were subjugated. Albuin took as his wife Cunimund’s daughter Rosemund, whom he had captured as booty, since his wife Flutsuinda, who was the daughter of Flothar, king of the Franks, had already died. From her he had a daughter by name Albsuinda. And the Langobards dwelt forty-two years17 in Pannonia. This Albuin led into Italy the Langobards who were invited by Narses chief of the secretaries. And Albuin, king of the Langobards, moved out of Pannonia in the month of April after18 Easter in the first indiction. In the second indiction, indeed, they began to plunder Italy, but in the third indiction he became master of Italy. Albuin reigned in Italy three years, and was killed in Verona in the palace by Rosemund his wife and Hilmichis upon the advice of Peritheo. Hilmichis wished to be king and could not because the Langobards wanted to slay him. Then Rosemund sent word to the prefect Longinus that he should receive her in Ravenna. When Longinus presently heard this he rejoiced; he sent a ship of the public service and they brought Rosemund and Hilmichis and Albsuinda, king Albuin’s daughter, and conducted 330 all the treasures of the Langobards with them to Ravenna. Then the prefect Longinus began to persuade Rosemund to kill Hilmichis and become the wife of Longinus. Having given ear to his counsel, she mixed poison and, after the bath, gave it to him (Hilmichis) to drink in a goblet.19 But when Hilmichis had drunk, he knew that he had drunk something pernicious. He commanded that Rosemund herself should drink, although unwilling, and they both died. Then the prefect Longinus took the treasure of the Langobards and commanded Albsuinda, the daughter of king Albuin, to be put in a ship, and sent her over to Constantinople to the emperor.
VI. The rest of the Langobards set over themselves a king named Cleph, of the stock of Beleos, and Cleph reigned two years and died. And the dukes of the Langobards administered justice for twelve years and after these things they set up over themselves a king named Autari, the son of Cleph. And Autari took as his wife Theudelenda, a daughter of Garipald and of Walderada from Bavaria. And with Theudelenda came her brother named Gundoald, and king Autari appointed him duke in the city of Asta. And Autari reigned seven years. And Acquo,20 the Thuringian duke,21 departed from Turin and united himself with queen Theudelenda and became king of the Langobards. And he killed his rebel dukes Zangrolf of Verona, Mimulf of the island of St. Julian and Gaidulf of Bergamo, and others who were rebels. And Acquo begot of Theudelenda a daughter, Gunperga22 by name. And Acquo reigned six years, and after him Aroal reigned twelve years.23 331 And after him reined Rothari, of the race of Arodus and he destroyed the city and fortresses of the Romans which were around the coasts from the neighborhood of Luna24 up to the land of the Franks and in the east up to Ubitergium (Oderzo). And he fought near the river Scultenna,25 and there fell on the side of the Romans the number of eight thousand.
VII. And Rothari reigned seventeen years. And after him reigned Aripert nine years. And after him reigned Grimoald.26 At this time the emperor Constantine departed from Constantinople and came into the territories of Campania and turned back to Sicily and was killed by his own people. And Grimoald reigned nine years, and after him Berthari reigned.27
Bluhme says (Mon. Germ. Hist. Leges, IV, p. 646, note) that several reasons indicate that the text of this Origo was written when Berthari (Perctarit) was king. Baude di Vesme attributes it to Rothari’s time, and believes that the final statements were subsequent additions. Bethmann (p. 414) attributes it to the seventh year of the reign of Grimoald. (See also Jacobi, 8, 9).
Of the fourth text, the Chronicon Gothanum, Hodgkin remarks (V, 69), “To one manuscript of the Lombard laws, that is now preserved in the ducal library of Gotha, there is prefixed an introduction on the history of the Lombards which evidently shows a certain affinity to the Origo, but is of later date, and contains some curious additions as to the early migrations of the race. It continues the history down to the time of Charles the Great, and was probably written under his son Pipin, (A. D. 807-810). (See also Schmidt, 10.) The author is a strongly-pronounced Christian, and loves to support his statements by quotations from Scripture. He is, however, 332 very imperfectly informed as to early Lombard history; he wrote, as will be seen, two hundred and fifty years after the invasion, and it does not seem wise to place much dependence on his statements where they differ from those of the Origo.”
The question what Paul took from the Origo has been exhaustively discussed, first, in Jacobi’s monograph, “The Sources of Paul the Deacon’s History of the Langobards” (Halle, 1877), and, secondly, in an article by Theodore Mommsen published in the Neues Archiv, Vol. V, 53, et seq. (1879). Let us consider these discussions in their order.
According to Jacobi (p. 10) Paul took from the Origo, first, the account of the origin of the Langobards in the North. With the aid of Pliny, he identified Scadan or Scadanan (I, 2; Pliny, Nat. Hist., IV, 27 ) with Scadinavia. The description he gives of that “island” may be from an oral account. The words of the Origo, “In the regions of the north where many people dwell,” give occasion for Paul’s first chapter, showing the advantage of northern lands for the development of powerful peoples. In this he garnished his account from Isidore, as well hereafter appear.
Paul then causes the Langobards to come forth from Scadinavia (I, 3) on account of over-population, “although other causes are asserted for their emigration.” The Origo assigns no cause, but the Chronicon Gothanum says in its confused way, “The ancient ancestors of the Langobards assert from their parent Gambara for what purpose was their departure or emigration,” etc. They came first to Scoringa (I, 7), where they remained a long time. Here they were attacked by the Wandals under Ambri and Assi. Now Paul (I, 7 and 8), following the Origo, relates the saga by which the victory was accorded them by Wotan with Frea’s help and they acquired the name of Langobards. Jacobi believes (p. 13) that the name Scoringa was dropped from the text of the Origo as it has come down to us, and that the derivation of the name of 333 the Langobards from their method of wearing their hair is also drawn from some earlier copy of the Origo, although this addition is lacking in the three manuscripts. The Chronicon Gothanum states that they changed their name to Langobards “because their beard was long and never shaved.” These last words come from Isidore (Etymology, IX, 2, 94), but Jacobi (p. 13) considers it probable that they were derived therefrom through the Origo, since there is found elsewhere in the Origo traces of the use of Isidore (Jacobi, 14).
The Langobards obtain the victory over the Vandals (I, 10) but a famine soon breaks out in Scoringa and they resolve to emigrate (I, 11, 12) to Mauringa. But they must pass through the territory of the Assipitti who refuse them transit. By cunning the Langobards divert a threatened attack, and a duel between a champion of the Assipitti and a Langobard slave opens the way to them. To increase the number of men capable of bearing arms they bestow freedom upon many of their slaves by the ancient symbol of the arrow (See Hammerstein, Bardengau, 65). The Origo contains nothing of all this (Jacobi, 15).
The Origo knows nothing of the famine which compelled the people to emigrate from Scoringa. Jacobi considers it incredible that Paul arbitrarily inserted Scoringa and Mauringa, and he believes that these names were in the original copy of the Origo which Paul used.
According to Jacobi (p. 16), Vesme’s view that everything Paul did not borrow from the Origo and Gregory of Tours regarding the early history of his people comes from the lost work of Secundus, has been refuted by Waitz (Götting gel. Anz. 1856, p. 1587). Everything which can be traced with certainty to Secundus indicates that the lost work of that author had an annalistic form.
The statements of the wandering from Mauringa to Vurgundaib, Paul takes almost word for word (I, 13) from the 334 Origo. His account of the elevation of king Agelmund to the throne (I, 14) and the thirty-three-year reign of that monarch does not vary from his copy, but the motive for the selection of a king appears to be Paul’s own addition. It is the same which was attributed to the Israelites when Saul was made their king (I Samuel VIII, 5) “Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (Jacobi, 17).
Paul then mentions Lamissio as the second king (P. I, 17) but relates much more than stands in the Origo which simply declares, “After Agilmund, reigned Laimicho of the race of Gugingus.” It appears to Jacobi that all this addition comes from another source, since departing from the Origo, Lamissio’s monstrous birth and rescue from the pond by king Agelmund is stated (I, 15) while his six brothers are drowned, and afterwards the Langobards pass over a river and fight with the Amazons. Neither can the defeat of the Langobards by the Bulgarians nor the liberation of the people through Lamissio’s boldness be traced to the Origo, but Paul returns to that account when he mentions the succession of king Lethu and the two following kings (chap. 18), and the taking possession of Rugiland by the Langobards (Paul, ch. 19; Jacobi, p. 19). This short account of the Origo, Paul amplifies with additions from Eugippius’s Life of St. Severinus and from the Chronicle of Jordanis. According to the Origo he then mentions the death of Godeoc, the succession of Claffo and Tato, the emigration of the Langobards from Rugiland, their three years’ stay in the open “feld,” the war of Tato with Rodolf, king of the Heroli, the overthrow of the latter and the capture of his banner and his helmet (ch. 20). On the other hand Paul gives as the cause of the war the murder of Rodolf’s brother at the instigation of Rumetruda and describes the fight in detail from an unknown source and he then comes back to the Origo with the statement that Tato carried off the standard of Rodolf. Here two sources can clearly be distinguished (Jacobi, 20). Tato’s 335 overthrow by Waccho (whom Paul erroneously makes the son of Zuchilo); Waccho’s contest with Hildechis; the flight of the latter to the Gepidae; the enmity thereafter between the two peoples and the subjugation of the Suevi by Waccho are reported by Paul from the Origo without variation. From the same source he enumerates the three wives of Waccho and their children, but with Ranicunda he leaves out the name of her father. He calls Austrigusa a daughter of the king of the Gepidae (I, 21), departing from the Origo which called her a girl of the Gepidae. Waltari, Waccho’s son is called in the Origo farigaidus, “without descendants,” an adjective lacking in Paul (Jacobi, 21). Audoin’s expedition to Pannonia (I, 22) and the name of his wife Rodelinda (I, 27) are taken from the Origo.28 On the other hand Paul introduces from another source the account (I, 23-24) of the duel of Alboin with Turismod the son of Turisind and the expedition to the latter king to get his arms. Paul takes from the Origo the account of Alboin’s first marriage with Chlotsuinda; the battle with the Gepidae and the marriage of Alboin with Rosemund (I, 27), but he makes two additions; one that Alboin found support from the Avars and the other that the skull of Cunimund was used as a drinking-cup. Since Paul says (II, 28) he saw this drinking vessel in the hand of king Ratchis, perhaps that king is our author’s authority. Menander (Exc. legatt, p. 303, 304, Bonn. ed.) confirms the statement that the Langobards had the help of the Avars (Jacobi, 22). Paul now follows other sources and returns to the Origo when he states that Alboin by treaty relinquished Pannonia to the Avars (II, 7). The three manuscripts of La Cava, Madrid 336 and Modena here give evidence of an important omission. The Chronicon Gothanum alone has kept the account of this matter29 and Jacobi considers that from this place on it gives us the better text. The story that Narses called the Langobards into the country occurs in the Origo, but Paul here gives the preference to another and more complete source, the Liber Pontificalis. On the other hand he gives from the Origo (and incorrectly) the stay of the Langobards in Pannonia as forty-two years, also the date of their emigration as the second of April; the fact that Easter fell upon the first of April in the year 568 is correctly reckoned up by Paul himself (II, 7). The mention of the year of our Lord probably comes from another source, perhaps Secundus.
The account of Alboin’s murder in Verona (II, 28) is traceable in some features to the Origo, but Paul relates in detail the adultery of Rosemund on which the Origo is silent but which the Langobard chronicle for the year 641 confirms. Whence Paul got his account can scarcely be determined (Jacobi, 22). The statement of Helmechis’ vain attempt to obtain the crown, his flight with Rosemund, Albsuinda and the royal treasure to Ravenna, and the fate which there overtook the conspirators (II, 29) were taken by Paul from the Origo, also the statement that Albsuinda was sent tt Constantinople with the treasure (II, 30). We next meet with the Origo in the execution of the rebellious duks Mimulf (IV, 3), 337 Zangrulf and Gaidulf (IV, 13), but the repeated rebellions of the latter, Paul took from another source. He appears to have inserted from the Origo the statement that Gunduald was duke of Asti (IV, 40), as well as the account of the conquests of Rothari (IV, 45) and his victory at the Scultenna.
The forgoing is Jacobi’s opinion as to the use of the Origo.
According to Mommsen’s view (Neues Arciv, V, 58) Paul had before him a source that was far more copious, and from the condensed Origo as we have it and Paul’s narrative taken together, there can be formed a combination nearer the original than either.30 Even in Paul’s time there were manuscripts of the laws of the Langobards which did not contain the Origo, and of the numerous ones which have come down to us only three, all of the 10th and 11th century, have the Origo, and that in different forms, besides the Chronicon Gothanum from a single manuscript of the 11th century, with still greater variations; Mommsen therefore considers it probable that at a later time this historical introduction to Rothari’s laws, where not omitted, was adopted only in abbreviated form (p. 59). He adds that the Chronicon Gothanum contain certain statements not found in the other three manuscripts, but which certainly belong to the original, and some of which are also found in Paul. Among these is the statement that when the Langobards, before their emigration from Pannonia, turned over all their territory to the Avars, the latter agreed to evacuate it if the Langobards should be driven from Italy (I, 27; II, 7), and that no other explanation is possible, except that the Origo omitted this account. Mommsen here compares the opening 338 statements of the Origo with Paul (I, 2 and 3) and adds (p. 63) that the account of the over-population of Scadinavia, the division of its inhabitants into three parts and the emigration of one-third is found only with Paul, although its saga-like form indicates that it is borrowed from the Origo in which the abbreviated words “among these (inter quos) was a small people that was called the Winnilis” represent this account. The remark of Paul, that besides over-population other causes of their emigration are also asserted, points to the fact that the complete Origo added something further, perhaps of floods or failure of crops or similar afflictions.31
Mommsen (p. 64) here compares the accounts in the Origo and in Paul regarding the origin of the name of the Langobards and the victory given to the Winnili by Wotan. He notes (p. 65) that Scoringa is mentioned only by Paul, and that in the Origo no place is assigned to the battle, and he adds: “That this is the result of an abbreviation appears clearly from the expression which follows, ‘And the Langobards moved thence and came into Golaida,’ while no place is mentioned previously except Scadanan, and the word ‘thence’ is therefore without relation to anything which precedes.” The account of the famine (p. 66) is found only in Paul; also the opposition of the Assipitti, the story of the men with the dogs’ heads, of the duel of the Langobard slave with the champion of the Assipitti, of emancipation by the arrow, and finally of the immigration into Mauringa. For none of these legends is there any statement which explains their origin, and Mommsen insists that they fit excellently into the Origo. He adds: 339 “With the emigration into Golaida both the accounts again come together. The Origo says: ‘And the Langobards moved thence and came into Golaida, and afterwards they possessed the aldionates of Anthaib and Bainaib, and also Burgundaib.’ Paul says (I, 13): ‘Then the Langobards went forth from Mauringa and arrived in Golanda, where, having remained some time, they are afterwards said to have possessed for some years Anthab, Banthab, and also Vurgundaib, which we can consider are names of districts (cantons) or of some kinds of places.’ Here it appears clearly that the Origo is abbreviated; that the four oldest abodes of the Langobards, Scadinavia, Scoringa, Mauringa and Golanda, belong to a connected legend will hardly be contested, but as the Origo now stands, the Winniles come from Scadanan to Golaida, and of their four abodes the second and third are lacking, although in the word ‘thence’ the trace of an intermediate station is seen” (p. 67).
“The account (p. 68) of the ignoble birth of the second king Lamissio * * * is lacking in the Origo, but Bethmann says, incorrectly (Waitz, note 1, 15), that it contradicts the Origo. The words ‘of the race of Gugingus’ which are added both in the Origo and Paul to the name of the first king (Agelmund) are added to that of the second (Lamissio) only in one edition of the Origo.32 and are a palpable interpolation, since the name of the family is not given in the case of any later king, and in the list of kings incorporated in Rothari’s laws the family name is affixed only in the case of the first king.”
Mommsen (p. 71) observes that in the account of Rosemund and Alboin the condensation in the Origo is again evident, that it is improbable that a story-teller who reports with such particularity how Frea turned around her husband’s bed should have left out of the Rosemund story the goblet made of the 340 king’s skull, but that with epitomizers everything is possible, and not the least to leave out the point of the story. “It is not clear,” he adds, “how the rôles in this tragedy were distributed. According to the Origo, Alboin was killed by Rosemund and Helmechis by the counsel of Peredeo. According to Paul, Helmechis, the armor-bearer of the king, procures Peredeo as an unwilling confederate, and it is then said, ‘According to the counsel of Peredeo, she, more cruel than any beast, introduced the murderer Helmechis.’ ”
“It looks as if Paul had not properly understood his copy, for which the latter was in fault, and therefore wrote something that makes no clear sense.”33
Mommsen thus continues (p. 72). “Waitz adopts for the Langobardic sections of Paul’s history a triple source; first, the Origo; second, another narrative which related divers matters concerning the abodes and migration of that people, (the contradictions between which two sources Paul either does not notice or has not considered worthy of regard), and finally the writing of Secundus concerning the acts of the Langobards. That the first two sources are rather to be combined into one has been shown in the previous argument. Of contradictions I see simply nothing, since the discrepancies in regard to the origin of Lamissio and the murder of Alboin depend respectively upon a mistake of the text and an erroneous interpretation; but the harmonizing of both versions appears to me easy and natural.”
“It is quite different with the writing of Secundus of Trent. Paul mentions this work twice (III, 29; IV, 40) under the title ‘The Acts of the Langobards.’ A series of statements 341 can be traced with complete certainty to this authority, partly on account of personal references and partly on account of the places where they occurred. This has ofen been done, and was done in a satisfactory way by Jacobi (p. 65 et seq.). * * * If it is to be accepted with good reason that the historical accounts in Paul for the time before 612, so far as they depend upon a Langobard source, ought to be traced to Secundus, it appears all the more difficult to determine the relation of Secundus to the Origo. It is pure caprice to attribute with Jacobi the accounts which bear a legendary character to the Origo and contemporaneous statements to Secundus. It is a peculiarity of the earlier Langobard history to mingle truth and poetry indistinguishably even in matters which are not properly legendary, in the case of Rosemund’s crime and Authari’s wooing. On the one hand the Origo included the later times of Langobard history, and on the other, the title of Secundus’ book is opposed to the idea that he wrote only the history of his own time (p. 73). * * * Besides, in the occurrences under Agilulf (A. D. 590 to 616) which properly fall in the time of Secundus, the close relationship between the Origo and Paul is still preserved. Moreover, the early Langobard tradition in Paul has a homogeneous character and there is scarcely room in it for more than one authority.”
“There is only one way out of this embarrassment, but nothing hinders us from taking it. Is it not evident that the Origo Gentis Langobardorum is nothing but an extract from the writing of Secundus of Trent furnished with a short continuation? Then everything explains itself simply. The Origo was prefixed as an historical introduction to the laws of the Langobards, possibly upon their issue in 643, or probably in 668. How should the man who did this have been ignorant of the chronicle of Secundus of Trent which had been brought down to 612? Nothing is more probable than that Secundus was used for this purpose and that the editor limited himself 342 to continuing it up to the time he wrote. That Paul cited the book as the Prologue of the Edict of king Rothari, according to its official position, when he wanted to defend himself against the reproach of the falsification of history and that he elsewhere called it the “Acts of the Langobards” of Secundus is not opposed to this (?). Once admit that the historical work was a component part of the book of laws as Paul at least considered it, and nothing can be objected to both these designations (p. 74).”
Schmidt (Neues Archiv, 13, p. 391) supports Mommsen’s contention that the copy of the Origo from which Paul took his extracts was more extensive than the manuscripts which have come down to us. He remarks that as Paul did not find the account of the subjugation of the Suevi by king Waccho in all his copies, abbreviated editions must have been before him, and the statements in Paul’s history which are not in our present texts of the Origo must be traced to some earlier and fuller edition of that work34 (p. 392 et seq.).
But Schmidt considers Mommsen’s view, that this original Origo was identical with Secundus, as not tenable and believes with Jacobi that the latter work was more in the nature of annals (p. 394). Ebert also (Litteratur des Mittelalters, II, 46, note 1) insists that the book from which Mommsen declares Paul had taken so much, could not be the “succinct little history” which Paul described in book IV, chapter 40.
Waitz (Neues Archiv, Vol. V, p. 421) thus answers Mommsen’s contention: “For myself I can in no way consider probable the view that the so-called Origo, the Chronicon Gothanum and Paul have drawn from a common source, and 343 that their contents are to be traced back in great part to the lost book of Secundus. I will never convince myself that Paul has cited the same work at one time, as ‘The Acts of the Langobards,’ of this author and at another time as a prologue to an edict. * * * I also see no ground whatever to consider the Origo an extract from a greater work, an extract which according to Mommsen’s view must have simply omitted important occasions in the History of the Langobards. In the words which are introduced as a proof or mark of the abbreviation, ‘And the Langobards moved thence,’ the word ‘thence’ related to Scadinavia or Scadanan. The Origo gives us the tradition in regard to the naming of the Langobards in naïve originality. It lets the people receive their name in the place where their first home was, and it inquires little whether there were Wandals there or not. I can only consider it one of the arbitrary combinations of Paul when he puts the story during the emigration to the land of Soringa. * * *
“Mommsen seeks to remove a contradiction between the statement of the Origo regarding the ancestry of Laiamicho and the detailed narrative given by Paul of the birth of Lamissio, as the king is here called, by removing the words ‘from the race of Gugingus’ with one manuscript out of the text. But this manuscript (p. 423), or as Mommsen writes it, this recension is troubled with mistakes of all kinds, and it must appear unjustified to give it the preference in one place where it seems to fit. The same words are also left out in the manuscript immediately before, with reference to Agelmund, and only later are restored to the margin, which can easily have been forgotten the second time. We cannot therefore speak here of an erroneous text.”
As to Paul’s mistaken interpretation of the account of Alboin’s murder, which Mommsen thinks is due to the fault in the source from which he took the account, Waitz remarks: 344 “It constantly appears to me, on the other hand, that he has transcribed his copy, especially in the Origo, only too faithfully,35 without remarking that the detailed narrative which he previously followed, divides the rôles otherwise — assigns the advice to Helmechis and the act to Peredeo.”
An interesting light is now thrown upon this discussion by the skillful efforts of Bruckner and others to trace the Origo to a Langobard epic song. Bruckner Sprache der Langobarden, (p. 17 et seq.) observes that although no remnant of Langobard poetry has come down to us in ts original form, yet there is evidence that such poetry existed, and certain features in the Origo as preserved in the Latin language indicate that its statements were taken at least in part from a Langobard poem. In the first place, the word farigaidus,36 “without posterity,” is a sure proof that the author made use of a German source. In the next place, the alliteration in the first chapters which was noticed by Müllenhof (Beowulf, 101), Schmidt (p. 16) and Koegel (I, 107) is made apparent by the re-translation into Old-German of portions of the first four chapters. Bruckner accordingly gives a number of such translations, showing alliteration. His view was contested by Much (Götting gel. Anzeiger, 1896, p. 892) and also by Kraus (Zeitschrift für osterreichischen Gymnasien, 1895, Vol. 47, pp. 313, 314) who showed the objections to such re-translations and claimed that alliterative proper names did not prove that a song was the immediate source from which 345 the Latin account was taken. By way of illustration Kraus translated into German a passage taken haphazard from Livy, and the translation certainly showed a goodly number of alliterative words. Kraus therefore insisted that the traces of alliteration must be much more numerous and evident than those given by Bruckner to exclude the suspicion of accident. Bruckner then, in an article in the ”Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum” (Vol. 43, part I, (p. 47), answers these criticisms.
He treats the Origo, not as a whole, but in single parts separated from each other (p. 48). The first chapter tells how the Wandals and Winnili encounter each other ready for battle; how Frea interferes in a cunning manner in favor of the Winnili, and how Wotan then gave to them the name of Langobards, and the victory over their enemies. “It is hard to see,” says Bruckner, “how the legend of the origin of this people, in which myth and history appear closely united, could have been transmitted to subsequent generations otherwise than in epic song. Original nationality expresses itself in the whole delightful and simple narrative. Learned accessories are wholly absent. We have in this first chapter an old saga of the people in unadulterated form. * * * The conduct of Frea toward Godan reminds one of that of Hera toward Zeus as described in the Iliad37 (Book 14, line 153). In the songs of the Edda similar contrivances are related of the gods. * * *
“The account of the Origo shows the essential characteristics of an epic song. The action is related in a concise but powerful manner, mostly in the shape of a dialogue, and although 346 the account is relatively a short one, the repetitions characteristic of epic poetry are not lacking. For example, ‘Then the leaders of the Wandals, Ambri and Assi moved’ and shortly afterwards ‘Then Ambri and Assi, that is the leaders of the Wandals.’ Again ‘They besought Frea, the wife of Godan’ and a few lines later ‘Frea the wife of Godan turned the bed around.’ It corresponds moreover with the epic style that the counsel which Frea gives the Winniles and its results are related with the same expressions almost word for word. ‘Then Frea gave the advice that when the sun rose the Winniles should come, and that their women, with their hair let down around the face, etc,’ and again, ‘And he (Godan), looking upon them, saw the Winniles and their women with their hair let down around the face.’ According to the custom of epic poetry of seizing only the principal events of the action, the carrying out of this counsel on the part of the Winniles is not related of itself, but after the advice is given them it is straightway shown how Godan sees them, together with their women, on awakening.” * * *
“In the Origo, on account of the simple mode of presentation, the traces of alliteration are so clear and extensive as to exclude the possibility that they are due to accident. One peculiarity, which shows an original composition in verse, is that the action moves in strikingly short sentences or in sharply marked divisions of sentences which correspond in length to a half verse. This circumstance is all the more important when the different character of the construction of sentences in Latin is considered, and this division of verse results naturally and without any effort to produce it.”
Bruckner now attempts the task of reconstructing the Origo in the form of a German song. He makes no effort to use any conjectural inflected form, but puts the substantive in the nominative and the verb in the infinitive, and thus reconstructs metrically the greater part of the first chapter. There are a 347 few passages that cannot be reproduced in alliterative verse if no change is made, and some of his proposed translations may be questioned, but he insists that there is enough remaining to show the epic origin of the Origo. The following extract, beginning at the second sentence of the Origo (where the poem probably commenced) shows this effort of reproduction:
“There was a small people that was called Winnilis,
And with them was a woman, Gambara by name, and she had
Ibor was the name of one and Agio the name of the other.
They with their mother, Gambara by name,
giwald Winneles arwegan
Held the sovereignty over the Winniles. Moved then
erl (or adaling Ambri Assi
The leaders of the Wandals, that is, Ambri and Assi,
With their army and said to the Winniles,
gamban geldan garuuian
Either pay tributes or prepare yourselves
For battle and fight with us.
anduuordian Ibor Agio
Then answered Ibor and Agio
With their mother Gambara,
It is better for us to make ready the battle
gamban geldan gairewandilum
Than to pay tributes to the Wandals.
Ambri Assi erl (adaling)
Then Ambri and Assi, that is, the leaders of the Wandals,
Asked Wodan that over the Winniles348
He should give them the victory.
Wôdan wordun sprak
Wodan answered and said,
sunna upstîgan air sehan
Whom at sunrise I shall first see,
To them will I give the victory.
At that time Gambara with her two sons,
Ibor Agio adaling or erl
That is, Ibor and Agio, who were chiefs over the Winniles,
Besought Frea, the wife of Wodan,
wegôn? (Old-High-German) Winniles
To be propitious to the Winniles.
Then Frea gave counsel that at sunrise
Winniles air 160; wîb
The Winniles should come, and that their women,
With their hair let down around their face
gilinissie liudweros (?)]
In the likeness of a beard, should come also with their husbands.
suigli (?) sunna
Then when it became bright, while the sun was rising,
Frea, the wife of Wodan, turned around
The bed where her husband was lying
And put his face toward the east
And awakened him, and he, looking at them,
Saw the Winniles and their women
Having their hair let down around the face,349
And he says, ‘Who are these long-beards?’
wordun sprak Wôdan
And Frea said to Wodan,
As thou hast given a name, give them also the victory.”39
In the concluding passage — “And he gave them the victory so that they should defend themselves according to his counsel and obtain the victory. From that time the Winnili were called Langobards” — there are also traces of alliteration, but there is evidently a defect in the translation or a change from the original form, and there is some contradiction between the manuscripts.
The next chapter, which tells of the emigration of the Langobards, the election of their king, and the succession of the two subsequent kings, also contains national traditions, and in like manner the elements of alliterative verse appear in it, as well in the third chapter, describing the fight between king Odoacar and the Rugians and the settlement of the Langobards in Rugiland. The same is true of the earlier parts of Chapter IV. In this chapter the battle between Tato and Rodolf, king of the Heroli, is described. In Paul’s History of the Langobards (I, 20) ware told: “Tato indeed carried off the banner of Rodolf, which they call bandum, and his helmet which he had been accustomed to bear in war.” Bruckner believes (p. 55) that the redundant clause, “Which he had been accustomed to bear in war,” can only be explained as a 350 translation of a German composite word; that the combat between the Langobards and the Heroli was celebrated in a German song, and that the traces of this song appear in what precedes and follows.40
In the latter part of the fourth chapter, however (Bruckner, p. 57), the tractes of alliteration begin to disappear at the passage, ‘And Wacho fought and Ildichis, the son of Tato, fought and Ildichis fled to the Gippidi where he died, etc.’ The rest of chapter IV shows few recognizable traces of alliterative song. The account of the three wives of Wacho and his various children evidently comes from another source. Only three lines (describing Wacho’s death, that his son Waltari reigned seven years, and that these were Lethinges) are alliterative. After these Bruckner finds no traces of a poeti source and considers that this part of the Origo is rather historical than traditional, that it shows a style quite different from the first part, with more involved construction and indirect quotations, and the impossibility of turning it into alliterative verse seems to him to show all the more clearly that the first part of the poem, which can be so easily done into such verse, has a poetical origin.
It appears to the present translator that Bruckner has made out his case, and that in his reconstruction of these alliterative verses he has shown the strongest probability of the epic origin of the first part of the Origo.
In regard to the general question as to the source from which Paul derived his account, Bruckner in this article (p. 47) follows the opinion of Waitz, and whereas Mommsen sees 351 no contradiction between Paul and the Origo, Bruckner considers that Paul’s account varies so widely from it that even a common source cannot be inferred!
In the presence of such divergent views, it is hazardous for the editor to venture an opinion. It seems to him, however, that Waitz and Bruckner have effectually refuted Mommsen’s contention that Paul drew his account from a single and more extensive Origo contained in the lost historical work of Secundus. Paul’s own statement (I, 21) shows that he consulted, not only one, but several manuscripts in regard to the early history of his people. He would hardly have given two different titles to the single work of Secundus. The fact that the Origo came originally from an epic poem makes it improbable that an historical work should have been the single source from which it was derived. It is more than likely that one or more of the manuscripts Paul consulted were similar in scope and phraseology to the Origo as we have it, and that he made extracts therefrom almost word for word.41
Waitz’s contention that there were three sources: first, the Origo as we have it, second, some other account not known to us, and third, Secundus of Trent, seems highly probable. This second source, however, may well have been a more extended version of the Origo than that preserved in the three manuscripts of Madrid, La Cava and Modena. The evidence of abbreviation in these manuscripts as set forth by Mommsen and Schmidt as well as Jacobi,42 is quite strong.
The fact that the Origo was taken in part from an epic poem does not conflict with this view. Upon the whole, 352 Waitz’s opinion appears to the editor to be sound, with the understanding that the “other source” he speaks of may well have been another version of the Origo in a greatly extended and somewhat altered form.
6 Bethmann refers quem to edicti following a grammatical mistake in the edict itself. Vesme refers it to prologum implying that Paul considered Rothari the author of the prologue (see Jacobi, 5).
7 These manuscripts are described in Bethmann, 356 to 360. There is much difference of opinion as to which is the best. Bruckner (Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, vol. 34, pt. 1, p. 49, note) considers the Modena more ancient and original than the Madrid. Also Schmidt (p. 9) who among many reasons refers to the correct spelling of Winniles, Waltari, Walderada instead of Guinniles, Gualtari, Gualderada. Mommsen speaks of the Madrid and La Cava MSS. as the two best (p. 37, note) but says the choice of the reading is free and that sometimes the Modena is more correct (id., 60, note 2). The Madrid MSS. closed A. D. 671, the Modena A. D. 668, and Waitz has shown that in so far the latter stood nearer the original form (id.).
8 I follow the edition of Waitz in Monumenta Germaniae Historica — Scriptores Rerum Langobardicarum, pp. 1-6.
9 The Madrid and La Cava manuscripts in place of “There is an island” have “That is under the consul” which is evidently a corruption (see Mommsen, p. 60, note 2).
10 “Scadan” says the Modena MS., “Scandanan,” the La Cava MS.
11 Exscidia (Modena MSS.). A derivation pointing to the Gothic word skattigan, to injure, German Schaden, English scathe (Hodg., VI, 90). Mommsen considers this a later interpolation to be rejected (p. 60, note 3).
12 The words “Of the face of Gugingus” are omitted in the Modena MSS. and Mommsen regards them (p. 68) as an interpolation (see also Brückner, Zeitschrift für deutsche Alterthum, p. 56)
13 Jacobi, 20, note 4.
14 Read regi with Modena MS. in place of regis.
15 “Farigaidus” (Bruckner, pp. 19, 203).
16 “Of the stock of Gausus” says the list of kings in Rothari’s Prologue (Mon. Germ. Hist. Leges, IV, 2).
17 The Modena MS. says twelve. Neither number is correct. They probably remained there about twenty-two years.
18 A Pascha, (Waitz, p. 11, 7, note).
19 Thus Abel translates in caldo (p. 6), or perhaps it is “In a hot potion.”
20 Aggo in Modena MSS.
21 Turingus. Perhaps this merely means that he was duke of Turin. “Of the stock of Anawas” adds the Prologue to Rothari’s Edict (Mon. Germ. Hist. Leges, Vol. IV, p. 2).
22 “And a son named Adwald” adds the Modena MSS.
23 In the Prologue, “Arioald of the race of Caupus.” The text here seems greatly corrupted. Paul and the Chronicon Gothanum give Agilulf’s reign at 25 years and that of his son Adalwald (here omitted) at 10 years.
24 Northwest of Lucca.
25 In Modena.
26 The Modena MSS. adds “seventeen years.”
27 The Modena MSS. omits the sentence regarding Berthari.
28 The Chronicon Gothanum calls Audoin’s mother “Menia the wife of king Pissa,” and speaks of him as of the race of Gausus (M. G. LL., IV, 644). Paul and the Origo make no mention of the matter.
29 It states: “At this time when the Langobards began to go out of Pannonia, the Avars then made an agreement and treaty of friendship with those Langobards and a document of writing, that up to two hundred years if they should again seek Pannonia, they (the Avars) would relinquish to their side that land without any wars of contest and would be ready for their assistance in Italy to which they had set out, up to full two hundred years” (M. G. LL., IV, p. 644).
30 Bethmann also says the Chronicon Gothanum sometimes contains matters lacking in the Origo but which are found in Paul who did not use the Chronicon Gothanum, and that these things must have existed in the common source of both the Origo and Chronicon Gothanum (p. 364).
31 May not the reason given in the Chronicon Gothanum (M. G. LL., IV, 641), that “the people were moved, not by necessity or hardness of heart, or oppression of the poor, but that they should attain salvation from on high,” be one of the causes to which Paul refers (Schmidt, Neues Archiv, XIII, 392, note 1)?
32 That of the La Cava and Madrid MSS. which are closely allied. They are omitted in the Modena MS.
33 Does it not rather look as if he took his account from two contradictory sources which he tried to reconcile in his usual inconclusive way just as he made Odoacar king of part of the Rugians (I, 19) at a time when he was fighting against the Rugians?
34 The totally varying statements of the time of Agilulf’s reign, six years according to the Origo and twenty-five, according to Paul are due to the great corruption of the manuscripts in this place (compare the various readings in Waitz’s ed.).
35 Paul (II, 28), “Rosemund * * * * according to the advice of Peredeo brought in the murderer Helmichis.” Origo, “He was killed in Verona in the palace by Hilmichis and Rosemund his wife upon the advice of Peritheo.”
36 Or fargaetum as the Chronicon Gothanum has it. Bethmann considers this word related to the modern German vergessen, “forgotten” (M. G., Script. Rerum Langob., p. 4), and thinks it is a mere author’s note of something forgotten.
37 After the Trojans under the guidance of Zeus had attacked the Greeks by their swift ships, and were defeating them, Hera borrowed the girdle of Aphrodite, secured the aid of Sleep, and beguiled Zeus into a deep slumber, whereupon the Greeks, aided by Poseidon, defeated the Trojans and drove them back.
38 The Godan of the Latin text is probably a corruption of Wotan or Wodan (see Paul, I, 9).
39 It will be noted that four out of the six lines in the foregoing, which it is impossible to render into alliterative German, are those relating to Gambara, so that a single interpolation or defect in the translation into Latin might account for them all. Every one of these four lines might be omitted, and scarcely any change would be required in the rest of the the poem. May it not be that the statements concerning Gambara came from another source?
40 If this is so it would seem to indicate — since the phrase “which he had been accustomed to bear in war” does not appear in the Origo — that Paul had taken his account from some different (perhaps more extended) version which had also for its source an epic poem.
41 Bluhme in his preface to the Laws of the Langobards (Mon. Germ. Hist. LL., IV, cxii, sec. x) states that the Madrid and La Cava MSS. came from Benevento. If so, their prototypes were probably accessible to Paul.
42 See also Bethmann, 364.
2. The Acts of the Langobards by Secundus of Trent.
In the foregoing discussion mention has been made of the lost work of Secundus of Trent.43 Paul twice mentions this work as one of his authorities (III, 29; IV, 40), and he also speaks of Secundus as godfather on the occasion of the baptism of Adaloald (IV, 27). Secundus is also mentioned several times in the letters of Pope Gregory the Great; in January, 596, he is deacon to archbishop Marinianus of Ravenna (Jacobi, 63; Gregory’s Epistles, VI, 24). In April of the same year Gregory writes to Secundus at Ravenna (Epistles, VI, 30) to hasten the conclusion of the peace with Agilulf; In April, 599, Gregory again writes to him (Epistles, II, 52) to allay his doubts in regard to the synod of Chalcedon. In 603 Secundus appears (from Gregory’s letter to queen Theudelinda) to have been at the Langobard court. He was then an abbot. Secundus’ work was a “History of the Acts of the Langobards” (P., IV, 40), and was brought down to 612. It is harder to say when it began. In determining what Paul took from it, the fact that Secundus came from Trent is important, and the local accounts in Paul’s history relating to Trent must be ascribed to this source. These statements are quite numerous. First, Paul mentions (III, 9) the taking of Anagnis above Trent by the Franks, the defeat of count Ragilo of Lagaris, the victory of duke Euin of Trent at Salurn, his marriage (III, 10) with a daughter of duke Garibald of Bavaria, his command of the expedition to Istria (III, 27), the irruption of the Franks into Italy in 590 (III, 31) where Paul supplements 353 the account of Gregory of Tours by statements from Secundus, the embassy of bishop Agnellus to Gaul to secure the liberation of prisoners, the peace concluded by duke Euin (IV, 1); the drought, famine and plague of grasshoppers (IV, 2); the death of duke Euin; the appintment of his successor Gaidoald (IV, 10); the insurrection of the latter against Agilulf and his subsequent reconciliation, and the mention of Secundus as godfather to Adaloald (IV, 27).
That Secundus had close relations to queen Theudelinda and the Langobard court brings us a second class of questions we can trace to his lost work, namely — those which related to this court (Jacobi, 67), such as Agilulf’s elevation to the throne (III, 35), and the punishment of the rebellious dukes Mimulf, Gaidulf, and Ulfari44 (IV, 3). Probably the statement that pope Gregory the Great sent a copy of his Dialogues to queen Theudelinda (IV, 5) comes from Secundus since no hint of this is found in Gregory’s letters. Jacobi doubts (p. 67) whether what Paul says of Agilulf’s and Theudelinda’s attitude to the Catholic church (IV, 6) can be traced to Secundus, as the latter would hardly have designated the Langobards as heathens at the time of their invasion and it is doubtful whether Agilulf held the Catholic faith; but it would seem quite as likely that in this Paul copied Secundus’ errors as that he interpolated statements of his own. We can attribute to Secundus what Paul says of the appointment of Tassilo as duke or king in Bavaria by Childepert; of Tassilo’s victory over the Slavs (IV, 7); of the overthrow of the Bavarians in 595 by the Cagan (IV, 10); of the succession of Garibald (IV, 39) after Tassilo’s death and his wars waged with the Slavs. Through queen Theudelinda and duke Euin’s wife, a connection existed with Bavaria (Jacobi, 68). Paul 354 relates (IV, 8) from the Liber Pontificalis the attack by the exarch Romanus upon various cities possessed by the Langobards, but he adds apparently from Secundus that Agilulf captured Perugia and executed the traitorous duke of that city. Paul’s statement of the appearance of a comet in January following; of the death of archbishop John of Ravenna and the installment of his successor Marianus; of the introduction of wild horses and buffaloes into Italy; of the death of duke Euin; the defeat of the Bavarians; (IV, 10) the coming of an embassy from the Cagan; the peace with him and with Gallicinus and Theodoric II (IV, 12) all point to Agilulf’s court and to Secundus. The account of this execution of dukes Zangrulf and Gaidulf may be traceable either to Secundus or to the Origo, but the punishment of duke Warnecautius comes from Secundus (IV, 13) as well as the ravages of the plague in Ravenna and in Verona (IV, 14); the capture of duke Godescalc of Parma and his wife, king Agilulf’s daughter by the exarch; the sending of ship-builders to the Cagan (IV, 20), and perhaps the consecration of the church of St. John in Monza (IV, 21), though Paul probably knew personally that queen Theudelinda has built a palace there (IV, 22) since he described the pictures in it. The capture and destruction of Padua can more certainly be traced to Secundus (IV, 23), also the statement that Agilulf’s ambassadors to the Cagan returned with the ambassador of the Avars who proceeded to Gaul to make peace between the Langobards and Franks, and the statement that an army of Langobards and Avars with Slavs invaded Istria (IV, 24). Adaloald’s birth; the attack upon Monselice; the return of Smaragdus (IV, 25); the campaign against the exarch for the liberation of the king’s daughter and her death (IV, 28); the cold winter and failure of crops following the death of pope Gregory (IV, 29); the coronation of Adaloald (IV, 30); the death by lightning of the choir-leader Peter (IV, 31); the truces between Agilulf 355 and Smaragdus; the comet (IV, 32); the sending of Agilulf’s notary to the emperor Phocas, and the securing of an annual truce (IV, 35), are all probably derived from Secundus, but Jacobi (p. 71) thinks there is more doubt as to the account of the irruption of the Avars into Friuli and the treason of the duchess Romilda since that account was legendary (IV, 37) and the indefinite expression “about these times” points to the use of another source. The account of the transactions in Bavaria (IV, 39); the annual peace of Agilulf with the emperor and the renewal of the same; the peace with the Franks; the irruption of the Slavs into Istria (IV, 34); appear to be taken from Secundus. Then follows the statement of Secundus’ death (id.).
In considering the character of Secundus’ work, Jacobi believes (p. 72) that when Paul says (IV, 40) that Secundus wrote a short history of the acts of the Langobards up to his own time, this means that Secundus wrote a contemporary history, and that his work was in the nature of a chronicle or a series of annals. Paul generally follows his sources nearly word for word, and the participial construction and the frequent use of the perfect tense and the passive voice, the introduction of sentences taken from Secundus by the phrases “in this year,” “at this time,” “in the following year,” “in the following month,” and the mentions of natural phenomena, point to the fact that Secundus wrote in the manner of the chroniclers of his time. Jacobi therefore thinks (p. 72) that he probably began with the conquest of Italy in 568.
Secundus stated that the patriarch Paul fled from Aquileia from the Langobards to Grado (II, 10) and that that winter there was a great fall of snow, followed by abundant harvests. The catalogue of the patriarchs down to Severus in Aquileia and Epiphanius in Grado (IV, 33), Jacobi believes (p. 73) is traceable to Secundus.45 Perhaps Paul’s statement (III, 20) 356 that Gregory was the author of the letter sent by Pope Pelagius II to the patriarch Elias is traceable to Secundus;46 also the account (III, 26) of the forcible kidnapping of Severus and other bishops by Smaragdus, their return to Grado and their retraction at the Synod of Marano, since Agnellus of Trent was one of the bishops who took part in this synod. Paul may have made use of some document besides, but more likely this was done by Secundus.47 Alboin’s meeting with bishop Felix of Treviso (II, 12); the conquest of Venetia (II, 14); the king’s entrance into Milan on September 5th, 569; the conquest of Liguria up to the coast cities; the flight of archbishop Honoratus to Ravenna (II, 25), are traceable in like manner to Secundus (Jacobi, 74).
Paul’s account of the conquest of Ticinum by Alboin (II, 26) may come from Secundus or from the Origo. The Origo says that the city was besieged for three years, and to judge 357 from the Chronicon Gothanum it mentioned also the capture of Milan and other cities. The mention of the failure of crops in the second year of the siege points to Secundus, so that Paul here very likely fused together different statements. Other legendary accounts were also accessible to Paul as is shown by his story (II, 27) of Alboin’s entry into Pavia.
What Paul states about the murder of Alboin is traceable to other sources, but what he tells of the reign and death of Cleph (II, 31) may be taken from Secundus.
The statement (II, 32) regarding the time of the interregnum, which Paul, differing from other sources, fixes at ten years, as well as that which gives the number of the dukes, and tells of the distribution of the Romans among the Langobards are traceable to Secundus. Also the account of Authari’s elevation to the throne (III, 16) and that he took the name of Flavius, but Jacobi (p. 75) does not attribute to this historian the statement that the dukes relinquished half their possessions to the king, and Pabst (Forsch., II, 425, n. 2) regards as wholly legendary what Paul relates of the Golden Age under Authari. With greater certainty we can determine that Secundus mentioned the conquest of Brexillum; the three years’ truce with Smaragdus (III, 18); the floods in Liguria and Venetia; the damage to the walls of Verona; the great thunder storm; the fire in Verona (III, 23), and Paul completed his account from Gregory the Great and Gregory of Tours (Jacobi, 76). Paul’s account of Authari’s wooing (III, 30), however, seems to Jacobi legendary (p. 76). Only two places in it show by the form of the narrative that they have proceeded from historical sources; the account of the murder of Ansul (III, 30) at Verona and the statement of the date and place of the marriage of Authari and Theudelinda. These point to the use of a source like Secundus. Jacobi thinks that what Paul says of the flight of Theudelinda from Bavaria is legendary since queen Theudelinda has her coming announced 358 and the Frankish sources are silent. Paul knew from the Origo that Gundoald came to Italy with his sister Theudelinda.
Jacobi (p. 77) traces the date of Authari’s death (III, 35) and the suspicion that he had been poisoned, to Secundus and believes that in the narrative of Agilulf’s choice by Theudelinda connected with historical dates, saga and fact are united.
Jacobi also traces to Secundus (p. 77) the conquest of Classis (III, 3) by duke Faroald of Spoleto;48 the accession and death of duke Ariulf and the struggles of the sons of Faroald for the succession, which led to the appointment of Theudelapius (IV, 16). What Paul says of Arichis, the successor of Zotto of Beneventum (IV, 18) seems to Jacobi (p. 78) to come from Secundus, on account of the words, “sent by the king Agilulf,” though Beneventan sources were certainly accessible to Paul, and the first mention of Zotto (III, 33) is not derived from the historian of Trent.
The statements which Paul borrowed from Secundus in regard to Langobard history are concluded at this point, but Secundus hardly confined himself to the special history of his own country. At this time the relations between the Frankish and Langobard kingdoms were important, and nothing is more natural than that Secundus should bring into his work what came to his knowledge under this head. The statements concerning Frankish affairs down to 612 which are not traceable to Gregory are probably taken from Secundus, and where Paul follows Gregory with variations, we can trace these variations (where they are not due to mere carelessness) to Secundus, such as the statement in regard to Sigisbert’s struggles with the Avars in Thuringia and by the Elbe (II, 10; Greg., IV, 23). Thus Gregory gives as the reason of the unfortunate campaign 359 of Childepert II against the Langobards in 585, the lack of union in their leaders (Greg., VIII, 18), and Paul (III, 22) attributes it to the discord between the Alamanni and the Franks. It is uncertain whether the account (III, 10) of Sigisbert’s death is taken from Gregory (IV, 51; V, 1) or Secundus. Since Paul immediately adds a statement about Euin of Trent he may have taken it from Secundus.
Finally, the short accounts (IV, 26) of the fall and overthrow of the emperor Maurice by Phocas, as well as the overthrow of the latter in 610 and the accession of Heraclius (IV, 36) to the throne, appear to be traceable to Secundus.49
In the same style in which Paul (IV, 40), before the statement of Secundus’ death, speaks of the conclusion of a peace between the Langobards, the emperor and the Franks, and the irruption of the Slavs into Istria, he goes on, after the account of Secundus’ death, with the statement of a truce between Agilulf and the emperor and of the death of Theudipert II and of duke Gundoald of Asti. The possible sources from which Paul had learned the death of Secundus in March, 612, are many, but the most probable seems to Jacobi (p. 79) to be that a continuer of the chronicle also mentioned the death of the author and added the above short statements.
The foregoing discussion concludes our review of the Langobard sources from which Paul derived the statements in his history.
43 The statements regarding Secundus are taken almost exclusively from Jacobi, pp. 63-84.
44 The Origo mentions the two first but says nothing of Mimulf’s desertion to the Franks, and Paul here follows the completer source.
45 Cipolla, after collating and discussing the various sources now accessible upon this point (Atti del Congresso in Cividale, 1899, pp. 135-140) , concludes that Paul used a catalogue then existing in his own city of Cividale which was substantially the same as the one used by the See of Grado, and contained, besides the years of the pontificate of each patriarch, certain brief historical statements. Paul’s omission of the patriarchate of Marcianus, however, which is contained in the Chronicle of the Patriarchs of Aquileia and in the Chronicle of Altino, makes it probable that he relied upon some secondary source.
46 Cipolla (Atti, etc., pp. 143-144) thinks Paul found this letter among some documents at Cividale, but did not read or understand it, since he gave it the wrong interpretation. It would seem more probable that he took his statements wholly from some other source.
47 Cipolla believes, however (Atti, etc., p. 144), that the matters relating to Severus were taken from the acts of the schismatic Synod of Marano, and that Paul was ignorant of the fact that Gregory regarded Severus as the head of the schism.
48 The opinion of Droctulf indeed states this circumstance (III, 29), but as Paul mentions Faroald as first duke of the people of Spoleto (III, 13) another source, probably Secundus, was used.
49 Ebert (Litteratur des Mittelalters, II, 46, note) believes that Jacobi has attributed too much to Secundus, in view of the fact that Paul had spoken of his work as “a succinct little history.”
(C) ROMAN SOURCES.
We turn now to the last division of this investigation, to the ascertainment of the Roman sources which Paul used. These were quite numerous, a great number of short and 360 sometimes unimportant extracts having been made by Paul from various Roman authorities. There was, however, a very considerable and a very important portion of Paul’s history which was taken from a source in regard to which there is a serious controversy, Mommsen insisting that it is derived from a chronicle now lost, and Jacobi and Waitz claiming that the bulk of this portion of the history is taken from the Liber Pontificalis and Bede, and that only a small portion is taken from the lost chronicle. There is also a dispute as to the source from which Paul derived his Catalogue of the Provinces of Italy in the Second Book. We may, therefore, conveniently divide this part of our discussion into three divisions. First, Miscellaneous Sources; second, Liber Pontificalis, Bede and the Lost Chronicle; third, the Catalogue of the Provinces of Italy.
(1) Miscellaneous Sources.
These are set forth by Jacobi in detail, and there is litte difference of opinion in regard to them. They are Eugippius, Gregory the Great, Marcus Casinensis, Venantius Fortunatus, Autpert, Life of Columban, the Elder Pliny, Justin, the Cosmographer of Ravenna, Virgil, Donatus, Sextus Aurelius Victor, Festus, Isidore, Jordanis, Justinian. These will be considered in order.
Eugippius50 (Jacobi, 24). Eugippius’ biography of St. Severinus was used by Paul only once, when he added to the account in the Origo of Odoacar’s victory over Fewa (I, 19) some few statements in regard to the latter, including Fewa’s other name, Feletheus, and the fact that the saint often admonished him and his wife Gisa in vain regarding their errors 361 and finally prophesied their fate. Also the statement that the saint was buried in Naples (Eugipp. Vita. Severini Acta. SS., Jan. 8, I, p. 486 et seg. See chap. I, 3, sec 15; IX, sec. 39; XII, sec. 57).
Gregory the Great51 (Jacobi, 24, 25, 26). Paul mentions the Dialogues of Gregory the Great on several occasions (I, 26; III, 23; IV, 5) and his two poems on St. Benedict are based almost entirely on statements made in the second book of these Dialogues (See Appendix III). The first thing in the historical part of Paul’s work traceable to Gregory is the mention of those terrible signs which appeared in the northern sky like lances and swords, and foretold the irruption of the Langobards (P. II, 5; Dialog. III, 38; I, Homily on the Gospels). From Gregory also comes, as our author himself states, the account of the flood in Verona (III, 23; Dialogue III, 19). But since Paul mentions the 17th of October as the day of the occurrence and speaks of a fire in Verona of which Gregory says nothing, he had evidently another source at his hand, probably Secundus. Paul also takes (IV, 17) from the Dialogues (II, 17) the account of the destruction of the cloister of Monte Cassino in 589, which, however, he puts at too late a period, about 601 (Jacobi, 26). He adds that the Rule of the Order written by St. Benedict’s own hand was rescued and sent to Rome from which it was later re-acquired for the newly established cloister (VI, 40). This was probably taken from some account at Monte Cassino. Paul names in this place (IV, 17) the four abbots who succeeded St. Benedict. 362 Gregory in the prologue to the Second Book of Dialogues mentions the first two.52
Paul refers (IV, 8) to Gregory’s homilies on Ezekiel when he mentions that Gregory was so greatly affected by Agilulf’s advance that he had to interrupt his description of the temple. Gregory relates this occurrence in the preface of the second book of the homilies (Waitz). Paul brings this circumstance into connection with the attack by the exarch Romanus in 594 upon several cities, whereupon Agilulf marched against Romanus, stormed Perugia and pressed on to Rome (Gregory’s Epistles, V, 40).
Besides the letters to Agilulf and Theudelinda (IV, 9; Ep. IX, 42, 43) Paul gives us only one complete letter of Gregory, that to duke Arichis of Benevento January 602 (IV, 19; Ep. XII, 21), and then, in a characterization of Gregory, he gives us part of a letter to the deacon Savinianus (IV, 29; Ep. IV, 47: II). The statement that Gregory is the author of the letter to Elias of Aquileia which Pelagius II addressed to him on the occasion of the schism is found only in Paul (III, 20). There appears no mention of it in Gregory’s letters.
Marcus Casinensis (Jacobi, 27). Paul (I, 26) mentions the poet Marcus who composed a poem on St. Benedict in thirty-three distichs concerning the establishment of the cloister of Monte Cassino. Paul gives us line 38 (See Muratori Script. IV, 605-606).
Venantius Fortunatus53 (Jacobi, 27, 28). From the poem of Venantius Fortunatus on St. Martin of Tours (Book IV, verses 640, 700) Paul took the birth place of the poet, the 363 healing of his eyes in the church at Ravenna and his journey to Tours (II, 13).54
Autpert (Jacobi, 28). Paul tells us (IV, 40) that he took the account of the establishment of the cloister of St. Vincent on the Volturno by the brothers Tato, Taso and Paldo from their biographies composed by the abbot Autpert.55
Life of St. Columban56 (Jacobi, 28). The establishment of the cloisters of Luxeuil and Bobbio by St. Columban is mentioned by Paul (IV, 41) quite briefly, and while it is probable, it is not certain, that he used for this statement the Life of St. Columban. Mommsen believes (p. 66) that the identification of Wotan with Mercury is also taken from this life (ch. 53).
The Elder Pliny (Jacobi, 28). Paul (I, 2) refers to Pliny’s Natural History (IV, 27 ) to establish the identity of the “Scadanan” of the Origo with Scadinavia. In the account of Lamissio (I, 15), Paul refers to Pliny (VII, 3) to establish 364 the credibility of his story of that king’s wonderful birth. Mommsen believes (p. 92), that Paul’s statement (II, 17) that the river Siler is the boundary between Campania and Lucania is from Pliny, also Paul’s reference to the Aternus or Piscarium (II, 19), and to “the left horn of Italy” (II, 21), etc.
Justin57 (Jacobi, 29). In his account of the irruption of the Gauls under Brennus into Italy, (II, 23) Paul mostly follows the Epitome of Justin (XXIV) which gives the number of the Gauls at 300,000 and states that a part of them destroyed Rome, another part went to Greece and were there defeated at Delphi, and the third part proceeded to Asia (XXV, 2) and settled in Galatia, and the last, Paul adds, were the Galatians to whom St. Paul wrote his epistle. Paul arbitrarily attributed to these three bands of invaders the strength of 100,000 men each. The names of the cities established by the Gauls are also taken from Justin (XX, 5) (?).58
The Cosmographer of Ravenna (I, 11, see Jacobi, 30) mentions Mauringa, which according to Paul (I, 11) is the third settlement of the Langobards, and describes the Skridefinnen who are probably the Scritobini of Paul (I, 3). (See Procopius, B. G., II, 15.) Possibly Paul’s explanation of the ebb and flow of the tide (I, 6) can be traced to this source.
Virgil (Jacobi, 30). Virgil’s verses (Æneid III, 420 to 423) are quoted in Paul’s reference to Charybdis.
Donatus59 (Jacobi, 30). Paul refers (II, 23) to Donatus’ 365 commentary upon Virgil for his assertion that Mantua was in Gaul. The place in question is found in Servius on the Æneid (Bk. X, line 200).
Sextus Aurelius Victor (Jacobi, 30). To prove that the Cottian Alps were a province by themselves (II, 18) Paul appeals to a history by Sextus Aurelius Victor (De Caesar., Ch. V, Nero). Perhaps also the derivation of the name of the Cottian Alps from king Cottius comes from this history.
Festus60(Jacobi, 31). From Festus’ De Verborum significatione (Exc. ed. Müller) Paul deduces the origin of the names Lucania (p. 119), Picenum (p. 212), Samnium (p. 327), Italia (p. 46), Ausonia (p. 4). Also, according to Mommsen (p. 95), Forum Julii (p. 84).61
Isidore62 (See Jacobi, 31). Paul took from Isidore’s Etymologies (XIII, 19; 6), that lake Benacus lay in Venetia (P.[,] II, 14). Also the explanation of the names Histria (Etym. XIV, 4, 18)63, Tuscia (p. 20), Umbria (p. 21), Campania (XV, 1, 64), Apennine Alps (XIV, 8, 13), Etruria (XIV, 4, 22), Sicily (XIV, 6, 30), Corsica (p. 35), Sardinia, (XIV, 6, 34), 366 Italy (XIV, 4, 19).64 Also the introductory first chapter of his first book, describing the advantages of northern lands for the propagation of the human race, must be traced to Isidore (IX, 2, 96; XIV, 4, 2). The remarkable derivation of Germania from germinare is also traceable to a certain extent to a statement of Isidore (XIV, 4, 2). Paul’s statement of the boundaries of Italy (II, 9) was also taken from Isidore’s Etymologies (XIV, 4, 19). On the other hand, Paul only used the Chronicle of Isidore twice in his Langobard history; first, for the conquest of Belisarius over the Persians (I, 25; see Chronicle AM., 5762), and second, for the insurrection of the faction of the circus, the Blues and the Greens under Phocas (P., IV, 36; Chron. AM., 5809).
Jordanis65 (Jacobi, 32). From the Chronicle of Jordanis Paul took (I, 19) the names of the peoples which Odoacar led into the field against Fewa (Ed. Lindenbr. Hamb., 1611, p. 59); also the statement (P., II, 1) of the alliance of the Langobards with the Byzantine court (id., p. 67). From Jordanis’ History of the Goths Paul took the explanations of the names of Brittia (chap. XXX; see Mommsen, p. 94) and Venetia (chap. XXIX; see Mommsen, p. 97).
Justinian (Jacobi, 32). Paul took his statement regarding the composition of the Code, Institutes and Pandects of Justinian (I, 25) from the second preface of Justinian to the Digests. From this, too, came the enumeration of the titles of Justinian.
The explanation of the derivation of Ligura, Æmilia, Flaminia and Apulia are peculiar to Paul (II, 15, 19, 21),66 perhaps 367 also his derivation of the Cottian Alps from king Cottius (II, 16; Jacobi, 32).
It would seem that Paul had before him documents from Monte Cassino only to a very limited extent (Jacobi, 86). The account of the robbery of the bones of St. Benedict and his sister (P., VI, 2) appear to rest upon some such authority, and the account of the second establishment of the cloister by Petronax (VI, 40) on the use of some local source. The narrative of the conflict between duke Pemmo of Friuli and the patriarch Calixtus (VI, 51) may rest upon certain Friulan accounts, since the work of our author in its latter portion deals with such legends of the marvelous doings of the Langobard kings and the dukes of Beneventum, Friuli and Spoleto.
50 An Italian monk, the pupil of St. Severinus of Noricum, who wrote about 511 a life of the saint, which is an important source of early German History.
51 Gregory I, or St. Gregory, born at Rome about 540, pope from 590 to 604. He was the author of numerous homilies on Ezekiel and the Gospels, of “Morals,” “Pastoral care,” “Dialogues,” “Letters,” etc. His letters are of great value as sources of contemporary history. (See note III, 24).
52 Paul’s account of the destruction of the people of Italy (III, 32) “who had grown up like crops” comes from the Dialogues (II, 38).
53 A Latin poet, bishop of Poictiers, born at Ceneda, Italy, about 530, died about 600. He was the author of 600 hymns, among them the Vexilla regis prodeunt.
54 The verses do not say that Venantius made the journey in that way, but at the end of his poem apostrophizing his book, which he sends to his friends in Italy, he indicates the way that book is to take, which is surely that which he himself took on his journey from Italy to France. In the poem mention is made of Forum Julü, but not in its proper order, and Paul does not speak of this place (which was his own birthplace, or near it) in relating the journey. Crivellucci (Studi Storici, 1899) concludes that the mention of Forum Julii is an interpolation, and that as it is absent in some of the MSS., it could not have been in the one consulted by Paul.
55 Autpert came from the Frankish kingdom to the cloister of St. Vincent, and died there 778 (Bethmann, 384).
56 Written by Jonas, a monk of Bobbio, about 640 (Hodgkin, VI, 105). St. Columban was born in Leinster, Ireland about 543 (id., p. 110), died at Bobbio, Italy, 615 (id., p. 145). He was a missionary in France, Switzerland and Italy, and founded the monasteries of Luxeuil and Bobbio (id., pp. 111-133).
57 A Roman historian who lived before the fifth century; he was the compiler of an epitome of a lost history by Pompeius Trogus, written near the beginning of the Christian era (Larousse).
58 But Justin names Conium, Verona, Tridentum and Vincentia and omits Ticinum.
59 Aelius Donatus, a Roman grammarian and rhetorician who lived in the middle of the fourth century, who wrote, among other things, a commentary on Virgil.
60 Sextus Pompeius Festus, a Latin lexicographer, who lived perhaps in the second century. He epitomized a glossary of Latin words and phrases, entitled “De Verborum Significatu,” by M. Verrius Flaccus, which is now lost.
61 These citations from Festus may be found in alphabetical order in other editions than Müller’s.
62 Isidorus Hispalensis, or Isidore of Seville, born at Cartagena about 560, died 636, became bishop of Seville 600. He wrote a work on etymology, a chronicle, etc., and his books were held in high esteem during the Middle Ages.
63 I cite the Madrid edition of Isidore (Ulloa, 1778), which differs from the texts cited by Jacobi and Mommsen.
64 Mommsen adds (p. 95) Latium (Isid. XIV, 4, 19).
65 A Gothic historian and ecclesiastic of the sixth century. He wrote a history of the Goths and a general chronicle.
66 Mommsen believes (p. 97) that the meaning of Apulia, Atella, Aurelia and Liguria were derived from the complete edition of Festus which Paul had, and which has not come down to us.
(2) The Liber Pontificalis, Bede and the Lost Chronicle.
In treating of these it will be convenient first to consider Jacobi’s analysis of Paul’s sources and then to compare this with Mommsen’s divergent views. Jacobi says (p. 45) that for the later part of the History of the Langobards the Liber Pontificalis and Bede’s Chronicle are almost the only sources which have come down to us, and that about one-sixth of Paul’s work is derived from these two. His whole system of chronology depends in a general way upon Bede. Paul used the Liber Pontificalis from John III to Gregory II. He appears to have used an edition known as B of Muratori (Jacobi 46 and 47). From it he took the story (P., II, 5; Lib. Pont., John III) of the invitation of the Langobards into Italy by Narses; also the account of Narses’ departure to Naples, his return to Rome, his death and the sending of his body to Constantinople (P., II, 11; Lib. Pont., John III); the statement that at the time of Pope Benedict the Langobards laid waste the country surrounding Rome and that Justin II brought grain from Egypt to relieve the famine (P., III, 11; Lib. Pont., Bened. I); and of the election of pope Pelagius (P., III, 20; 368 Lib. Pont., Pelagius II) without the confirmation of the emperor.
As Bede also used the Liber Pontificalis, it is sometimes hard to tell whether Paul made his extract from the former or the latter; for example, in regard to the missionaries sent to Britain by Gregory I (P., III, 25; Bede 4536; Lib. Pont., Greg. I). Sometimes he supplements one by the other. It is doubtful which source he followed in relating the confirmation by Liutprand of the gift of the Cottian Alps (P., VI, 28; Bede 4659; Lib. Pont., John VII; Jacobi 49-50). Thus Paul (V, 30) recapitulates from the Liber Pontificalis (Vitalianus and Adeodatus) the murder of Constans II in Sicily in 668; the suppression of the uprising of Mezetius and the succession of Constantine IV, but the period of the reign of the latter is taken from Bede (A. M. 4639). Sometimes Paul connects the statements in such a way that mistakes occur. Thus he takes the account of an eclipse of the moon (VI, 5) (June 28th, 680) from the Liber Pontificalis (Agatho), and of an eclipse of the sun (May 2, 680) from Bede (A. M. 4622), but the chronological order is inverted. To the gift of the patrimony of the Cottian Alps by king Aripert (VI, 28) to the Holy See (Bede A. M. 4659; Lib. Pont., John VII) Paul joins as contemporaneous the pilgrimage of two Anglo-Saxon kings to Rome, which is incorrect, since the Liber Pontificalis fixes the event under Pope Constantine I (708 and 715). Also in the account of the second reign of Justinian II Paul works together (VI, 31) the account of the Liber Pontificalis (John VII) and Bede (A. M. 4665) stating that Justinian put to death certain patricians, as well as his two rivals Leo (Leontius) and Tiberius (Apsimar) whereas Bede had simply designated these as patriarchs.
Paul (VI, 31) relates in Bede’s language (A. M. 4665) that Justinian sent the patriarch Callinicus whom he calls Gallicinus, blinded to Rome, made the abbot Cyrus patriarch, and 369 caused Pope Constantine I to come to Constantinople, and on the other hand he relates in the words of the Liber Pontificalis (Constantine, Murat., III, p. 153, n. 16) that the Pope vainly tried to dissuade the emperor from sending an army against the banished Filippicus. Paul takes from the Liber Pontificalis (VI, 36; Lib. Pont., Gregory II) the insurrection of the fleet sent by Anastasius II against Egypt, but he adds from Bede (A. M. 4671) the victory of Theodosius over Anastasius at Nicea, the setting up again of the Council picture in Constantinople, and the overflow of the Tiber. The siege of Constantinople by the Arabs, Paul takes (VI, 47) from Bede (A. M. 4680), but adds from the Liber Pontificalis (Greg. II) that 300,000 persons perished by pestilence. He relates from Bede (A. M. 4680) that the Saracens were defeated by the Bulgarians and the rest of their army destroyed by a storm at sea, and that the bones of St. Augustine were transported from Sardinia to Ticinum by king Liutprand, and he correctly puts as contemporary therewith (VI, 48) from the Liber Pontificalis (Greg. II) the conquest of Narnia by the Langobards.
Paul relates (IV, 8) from the Liber Pontificalis alone (Greg. I) the capture by the exarch Romanus of some cities that already belonged to the Langobards; the taking of Naples by John of Consia; his defeat by the patrician Eleutherius, and the murder of the latter in Luceoli (Jacobi, 52, 53); the account (IV, 45) of the earthquake and plague in Rome (Lib. Pont., Deusdedit, Muratori III, p. 135), and the expedition of Constans II to Italy (V, 6; Lib. Pont., Vitalian), but he adds from other sources more detailed accounts and legends of the struggle between king Grimoald and the emperor. Paul tells us (V, 11) also from the Liber Pontificalis (Vitalian) of Constans’ entrance into Rome, the plundering of the Pantheon, the departure of the emperor to Naples and Sicily and his murder in Syracuse; the insurrection of Mecetius (Mezetius) (V, 12; Lib. Pont., Adeodatus); the plundering of 370 Sicily by the Saracens (V, 13); the storms of rain and the second crop of leguminous plants (V, 15); the sending of archbishop Theodore and abbot Hadrian to Britain (V, 30; Lib. Pont., Vitalian); the comet (V, 31; Lib. Pont., Donus); the pestilence that followed; the adornment by Pope Donus of the so-called “Paradise” in front of St. Peter’s with a pavement of white marble (id.), and the account of the Sixth General Council (VI, 4; Lib. Pont., Agatho). The letter of Damianus however is not found in the Liber Pontificalis nor Bede. Possibly Paul saw the letter and perhaps his confession of faith was taken from it. The eclipse of the moon and the pestilence (VI, 5) comes from the Liber Pontificalis (Agatho). Paul places as contemporaneous with these the ravages of the disease in Pavia and the bringing of the relics of St. Sebastian from Rome. Two remarkable star phenomena and an eruption of Vesuvius (VI, 9) come from the Liber Pontificalis (Benedict II), also the invasion by duke Gisulf (VI, 27) in 702 of the Roman Campania (John VI), but not the name of the conquered cities. The journey of archbishop Benedict (VI, 29) of Milan to Rome comes from the Life of Pope Constantine I. The account of the capture and re-capture of Cumae (VI, 40); the coming of duke Theudo of Bavaria to Rome (VI, 44; Liber Pont., Greg. II); the conquest of Spain by the Saracens and the battle of Poictiers (VI, 46); Liutprand’s siege of Ravenna and capture of Classis; the unsuccessful attempt (VI, 49) which the exarch Paul made against Gregory II and Gregory’s opposition to the iconoclastic measures of Leo the Isaurian, are all taken from the Liber Pontificalis (Gregory II) together with Gregory’s refusal to favor the insurrection against the emperor. While the Liber Pontificalis states that several cities of Aemilia, as well as the Pentapolis and Auxinum surrendered to Liutprand (Pabst, 476), Paul leaves in uncertainty the conquest of these cities by the king. The taking of Sutrium (VI, 49); Liber Pont., 371 Gregory II) by Liutprand and the restoration of it to the Pope are mentioned by Paul from this source. The repeated attempts of Leo to prevent the worship of images, the removal of the patriarch Germanus and the naming of his successor Anastasius are the last facts which Paul took from the Liber Pontificalis (P. VI, 49; Lib. Pont., Greg. II).
It is remarkable that Paul omits so much which he found in his copy, such as the league of Liutprand with the exarch Eutychius, the subjugation of Spoleto and the meeting of Liutprand and Gregory II at Rome. The reason for this silence cannot be certainly given.
From Bede’s Chronicle Paul (see Jacobi, 58) takes the account (I, 25) of the destruction of the kingdom of the Vandals in Africa by Belisarius (Bede A. M. 4518); the mention of Dionisius, the founder of the Christian computation of time (id.); the statement (III, 13; Bede A. M. 4529) that Gregory the Great composed his book of Morals or Commentaries on Job at the court of Tiberius in Constantinople, and there successfully opposed the heresy of Euthicius; the death of Gregory (P., IV, 29; Bede A. M. 4565); the transformation of the Pantheon into a church; the period of Focas’ reign; the war of the Persians against the empire (IV, 36); the death of Heraclius; the reign of his son Heracleonas with his mother Martina; the six months’ reign of Constantine III and the succession of Constans II whom Paul calls Constantine (P., IV, 49; Bede A. M. 4591, 4593, 4504, 4622), and Paul’s chronological errors are thus explained (Jacobi, 59).
The conquest of Africa and the destruction of Carthage by the Arabs (VI, 10; Bede A. M. 4649); the accession of Justinian II (VI, 11; Bede A. M. 4649) (in which he makes the mistake 372 of calling Justinian a younger son of Constantine, whereas Bede calls him Justinian the younger, a son of Constantine); Justinian’s unsuccessful attempt to bring Pope Sergius to Constantinople; the peace with the Arabs (id.); Justinian’s overthrow by Leo (VI, 12; Bede, 4649, 4652); the account (VI, 14) of the synod of Aquileia which ended a schism (Bede, 4659) and the statement that the Fifth Synod was directed against Theodore of Mopsuestia (VI, 14; Bede, 4639), all come from Bede, but Paul adds erroneously that this synod proclaimed Mary the Mother of God, confusing it with the Third General Council (Jacobi, 61). Paul takes from Bede (VI, 32; Bede A. M. 4665, 4667) the insurrection of Filippicus which ended Justinian’s second reign, but Paul adds from another source that Justinian had his nose cut off when he was banished by Leontius and after his return sought to revenge himself by continual executions of his opponents. Paul took word for word from Bede (VI, 34; Bede A. M. 4667) the statement of the removal of the patriarch Cyrus, but the other name of Filippicus, Bardanis, as well as the name Artemius, Paul took from another source. Paul took from Bede the attempt of Filippicus the Monothelete to influence the Pope, and the account of the picture of the six œcumenical councils and of the removal of the imperial effigies (VI, 34; Bede, 4667); Filippicus’ overthrow through Anastasius, who recognized the Sixth Council (Bede, 4670); the Journeys of the Angles to Rome (VI, 37; Bede, 4671); the rise of Leo the Isaurian to the throne (VI, 41; Bede, 4680); also the statement (VI, 68; Bede, 4680) of the removal of the bones of St. Augustine by king Liutprand, so that Bede’s Chronicle is used down to the last syllable.
The remaining part of Bede’s work, “De Temporum Ratione,” was only used once by Paul (I, 5; Bede, ch. 31) in his comparison of the changing length of the days and the difference in the length of the shadow in different lands. 373 Bede’s History of the Church was used by Paul only once (VI, 15) in regard to the journey and conversion of king Cedoal (Bede, V, 7). He incorrectly makes this contemporary with the synod of Aquileia.
Such is the account, (considerably condensed), which Jacobi gives of the extracts from Bede and the Liber Pontificalis. At another place, in his discussion of the sources used by Paul (p. 84), he insists that an indication of an annalistic source now lost occurs in Paul (II, 14) where he says: “For Venetia does not only consist in the few islands which we now call Venice. * * * * This is proved by the books of annals, in which Pergamus (Bergamo) is said to be a city of Venice.” In Paul’s Roman History (bk. XVI), he had said: “Biorgor, king of the Alani, was overcome and killed not far from Bergamo, a city of Venetia.” Bauch (pp. 59, 74) and Holder-Egger (Neues Archiv I, 302) have shown the annalistic origin of the latter passage, and that its source may be traced to Ravenna. Other passages can be traced to similar sources, for instance, the account of the destruction of the Vandal kingdom in Africa by Belisarius, and of the conquest of the king of the Moors, Amtalas, by the ex-consul Joannes (I, 25). Another series of annalistic statements occurs in the beginning of the second book, where Paul mentions (II, 1) the conquest of Totila by Narses with the aid of Langobard auxiliaries, and varies from Procopius in his account of their dismissal, while he omits all mention of the conflict of Narses with Teia. On the other hand, he relates the victory of Narses over Buccellinus, Amingo and Leutheri (II, 2), and seems to have been drawn from a source common to Marius of Avenches and the Liber Pontificalis for the History of Sinduald (II, 3) and Dagisteus. Marius, as well as Paul, praises Narses strongly, and as Paul appears to have drawn the statement (II, 4) of the punishment of the bishop Vitalis of Altino from an annalistic source, this may contain the expressions Paul used in 374 regard to Narses, and he may have made additions from another source (Jacobi, 86).
So much for the discussion of Jacobi. On the other hand Mommsen (p. 77) first considers Paul’s Roman sources in connection with the concluding part of his previous work, his Roman History, and says: “Paul brings that history down to the death of Totila in 552, and closes his 16th book with the promise of relating in a subsequent book the things which may be said concerning the good fortune of the emperor Justinian. This following book does not exist, but in its place is the History of the Langobards. For in the account of Justinian the events related in detail in the Roman History (the Persian war; the conquest of Africa; the overthrow of the Goths in Italy through Belisarius) are here condensed into the briefest compass. But the narrative goes into greater detail in things not mentioned in the Roman History — the vanquishing of Amtalas, king of the Moors; the great work in jurisprudence; the building of the church of St. Sophia — and closes with a general estimate of the emperor. In the following book the account of the Gothic war is taken up just at the point where the Roman History breaks off, that is, with the struggle between Narses and Buccellinus in the year 553, except that the sending of the auxiliary Langobard troops to the army of Narses, which occurred in Totila’s lifetime, is put at the head. Therefore, the pieces fit together as closely as could be expected, and Paul has arranged his history of Italy, or rather he has modified his original plan, in such a way that he has entitled the first sixteen books as the Roman History, and his last six books as the History of the Langobards. * * * 67 375
“This relation of the two works of Paul is also useful in the question of the sources, since the latter part of the Roman History and the Roman portions of the Langobard History must be combined in the investigation. Since the introduction of Droysen (the editor of Paul’s Roman History) only dealt with the former, I will now attempt to show briefly that the results found by him are applicable here, and that in fact a chronicle now lost or incompletely preserved lies at the basis of these sources. When we separate from the first four books (I include also the 3d and 4th in the circle of investigation) everything which can be traced with probability either to Gregory of Tours and his continuers, or to Secundus of Trent and his continuers, or to the literature known to Paul which is not in the nature of a chronicle, there remain approximately the following portions:
“Book I, ch. 25. This is the section already mentioned in regard to Justinian’s government in general. What Paul says at the end in regard to the authors Cassiodorus, Dionisius the Less, Priscian and Arator, is not taken from a chronicle, but from the titles and prefaces of their works, and it further confirms his extensive knowledge of literature.
“Book II, chs. 1 to 5 (compare Book III, ch. 12). History of Narses and of the immigration of the Langobards into Italy, after deducting from it what can belong to Secundus (Mommsen, p. 78).
“Book II, ch. 11. Narses’ death.
“Book III, chs. 11 and 12, Justin II, Tiberius Constantine, after deducting the extensive extracts from Gregory and the Liber Pontificalis.376
“Book III, chs. 15, 22, Maurice, after deducting what belongs to Gregory.
“Book IV, ch. 26, Maurice, Focas.
“Book IV, ch. 29, Death of Pope Gregory.
“Book IV, ch. 36, Focas, Heraclius.
“Book IV, ch. 49, Sons of Heraclius. Constantine (the so-called Constans II).
“If we compare with these accounts the annalistic narratives which have come to us from other quarters, many of them are repeated in such a way that their common origin is undoubted. Such analogies occur repeatedly between Paul on the one side and on the other side Isidore and the Copenhagen Continuer of Prosper. But above all there appear such close relations between this portion of Paul and the Chronicle of Bede that they agree even in their false statements, which is always the surest guide.”68
Mommsen here compares with Paul (Book IV, ch. 36) certain passages from Isidore, from the Copenhagen Continuer of Prosper,69 and from Bede. He (p. 81) thinks it strange that Paul 377 should have taken nothing further from Isidore’s Chronicle than a statement concerning the quarrels between the Greens and Blues, and that he should have taken this account and the following one in Isidore about the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in the same order as Isidore has them, but only the first in the words of Isidore and the second, word for word from Bede. Mommsen adds that the conduct of the authors of the early Middle Ages as compilers offers extraordinary problems; that in Paul’s History a number of statements remain which come neither from Langobard sources nor from Isidore or Bede, and he insists that Paul has used for the later books of hs Roman History, as well as for his Langobard History, certain annals composed in the Byzantine portions of Italy and now lost. What kind of a chronicle this was can in a manner be determined, and Mommsen in describing it says that accounts of the occurrences in the East were not completely lacking (IV, 36), but were scanty, and that the horizon of the author was not that of Constantinople, but of Rome or Ravenna (Mommsen, 82); that the chronicle introduced the names of the emperors with an enumeration of their order (P. III, 12), the number of years of the reign of each, and here and there a brief statement of the emperor’s origin and early condition of life (P. III, 11, 12, 15); that Paul’s characterization of Justinian comes from this group of sources, yet it cannot be traced back to any of the documents that have come down to us; that we recognize Amtalas, the king of the 278 Moors, from John of Corippus and Procopius’ history of the Vandals, but that no western source mentions his name except Paul.
Mommen thus continues (p. 82): “The remarkable resumé of the legislation of Justinian must be attributed to the same source, owing to the connection in which it appears, and it is not without significance that this is the only testimony at hand of the complete publication of the Novels of Justinian. The accounts relating to Narses, especially those concerning the Gothic war of Buccellinus, and of the transfer of Narses’ body to Constantinople for burial can not well be attributed to Secundus in their totality, for the account is given from the Roman standpoint, and most of the events mentioned do not refer to the Langobards. Paul took from these annals of the Eastern Empire, and not from the Langobard annals, his account of the expedition of Heraclianus for the overthrow of Focas, of which no Latin author, as far as I know, makes any mention. Isidore, Bede, Paul and the Copenhagen Continuer of Prosper, have drawn from this common source, but not one from the other. * * * ”
“A series of other questions is connected with these. It is very probable that the Liber Pontificalis, which also belongs to Byzantine Italy, was closely related to these Italian annals of the Eastern Empire. Indeed, the question can be asked whether the numerous and extensive extracts which pass with Bede and with Paul as excerpts from the Liber Pontificalis may not rather have been taken from these annals. Unfortunately, owing to the lack of a critical edition of the Liber Pontificalis, and the uncertainty resulting from versions that vary greatly from each other, this can hardly be decided at the present time” (Mommsen, p. 84).
Waitz in Neues Archiv V, 423 et seq.,, thus answers Mommsen’s contentions:
“So far as it relates to the Roman accounts, I agree with 379 Mommsen that Paul used one or several works of annals, lost to us, in his History of the Langobards as well as in his Roman History. But I see no ground, therefore, to strike Bede or the Liber Pontificalis out of the list of the books used by him, and to trace back to such a lost work the accounts which correspond with them in part word for word.”
67 Ebert (Litteratur des Mittelalters, II, 45, note 1) insists that we are not justified in considering Paul’s “History of the Langobards” as a continuation of his “Roman History” and that we cannot speak of a history of Italy composed of the two works taken together, since the Roman history deals with the whole empire and not Italy alone. In a strict sense this is true, yet in a more general way, Mommsen’s view is not without justification and elucidates very clearly the connection of the two works.
68 Thus they reckon the period of the kingdom of the Vandals as ninety-six years, as Paul also estimates it in his Roman history. Justinian and Procopius reckoned it at ninety-five years, which number is official and correct. Pope Gregory died in the seventh indiction; Paul as well as Bede places his death in the eighth. Both have alike in incorrect order, the sons of Heraclius, Constantinus and Heracleones, reigning for a short time after each other. (Mommsen, 79).
69 Otherwise called the Langobard Chronicle of 641 — a chronicle discovered by Waitz in Copenhagen which comes down to that year. Up to 378 it is merely a brief extract from Jerome, with short additions upon the margin. From 378 to 455 it is a literal copy of the Chronicle of Prosper with a few additions from Isidore, etc. From 455 to 523 it is a compilation from the Annals of Ravenna, with additions from Isidore, from a Gallic, annalistical source and from a catalogue of the bishops of Milan, all arranged according to the years of the consuls. After 523 the annalistical form is abandoned and it is derived from unknown sources. Schmidt (p. 22) thinks the two last portions are by different authors. Bethmann (p. 381)believed that the chronicler used Secundus as one of his sources. Jacobi (pp. 80-84) disproves this. The chronicle is of little authority (Schmidt, 24, 25).
(3) Catalogue of the Provinces of Italy.
Mommsen (p. 84) discusses Paul’s description of the provinces of Italy (II, 14 to 24) and the sources from which it is derived. He tells us that Diocletian divided Italy into twelve districts as follows: 1. Raetia. 2. Venetia and Histria. 3. Aemilia and Liguria. 4. The Cottian Alps. 5. Flaminia and Picenum. 6. Tuscia and Umbria. 7. Campania and Samnium. 8. Apulia and Calabria. 9. Lucania and Bruttii. 10. Corsica. 11. Sardinia. 12. Sicily. The number of districts before the end of the fourth century rose to sixteen, by dividing Raetia into first and second Raetia, and by separating Aemilia from Liguria, Picenum Suburbicarium from Flaminia and Picenum Annonarium, and Campania from Samnium. The oldest complete list of the Italian provinces contained in the Calendar of Polemius Silvius gives this number. But before 399, the number was increased by seventeen, through the establishment of Valeria.
It is these seventeen provinces which Paul described in his catalogue of the provinces of Italy. “If he gives eighteen,” continues Mommsen, (p. 86), “this rests upon a mistake made by him, the discovery and removal of which, however, he has placed in our hands in his honorable way. The Apennine Alps constitute his ninth province, which according to him begin from the Cottian Alps and lie between Tuscia and Umbria on the one side and Aemilia and Flaminia on the other, and comprise the places Bobbio, Verona, Frignano by Bologna, Monteveglio by Cesena and Urbino. But this province lies in the air. Of the places which Paul contributes to this ninth 380 province, he elsewhere puts Bobbio in the Cottian Alps (II, 16; IV, 41), Verona in Venetia (II, 14), Frignano and Monteveglio in Aemilia (VI, 49), and therefore refutes himself in a most thorough manner, which indeed was not necessary, since the territories between which this province lies, Tuscia, Umbria, Flaminia, Picenum, adjoin each other. * * Strike out this province improperly imported, and Paul’s list corresponds exactly with the above-mentioned list of seventeen provinces.”
A map of the provinces of Italy, according to Paul, was prepared for Mommsen by Kiepert, and a copy of it is here inserted.
The Provinces of Italy according to Paul the Deacon.
The source from which Paul derived this list of the provinces of Italy forms the subject of an interesting discussion between Mommsen and Waitz.
Waitz in his edition of Paul’s History (p. 188) pubishes in an appendix the following catalogue of the provinces of Italy as contained in a manuscript of the tenth century in the Madrid Library:
The first province is Venetia. This Venetia contains Verona, Vincentia, Patavium, Mantua and other cities, but among all, the city of Aquileia was the capital, in place of which just now is Forum Julii, so led because Julius Cæsar had established a market there for business.
The second province is Liguria, in which is Mediolanum and Ticinum, which is called by another name, Papia. It stretches to the boundaries of the Langobards. Between this and the country of the Alamani are two provinces, that is First Reptia and Second Reptia lie among the Alps, in which properly the Reti are known to dwell.
The Cottian Alps are called the third province. This extends from Liguria in a southerly direction up to the Tyrrenian Sea, and on the west it is reckoned from the boundaries of the Gauls. In it are contained Aquis (where there are hot springs) and the cities of Dertona, Genua and Saona and the monastery of Bovium.
The fourth province is Tuscia. This includes Aurelia 381 toward the northwest and Umbria on the eastern side. In this province Rome was situated, which was at one time capital of the whole world. In Umbria are Perusium and Lake Clitorius and Spoletium.
Campania, the fifth province, stretches from the city of Rome to the Siler, a river of Lucania. In it the very rich cities of Capua, Neapolis and Salernum are situated.
The sixth province, Lucania, begins at the river Siler and extends with Oritia70 as far as the Sicilian strait along the coast of the Tirrenian Sea, like the two last named provinces, holding the right horn of Italy. In it cities are placed, that is, Pestus, Laynus, Cassanus, Cosentia, Malvitus and Regium.
The seventh province is reckoned in the Apennine Alps, which take their origin from the place where the Cottian Alps terminate. These Apennine Alps, extending through the middle of Italy, separate Tuscia from Emilia, and Umbria from Flaminea. In it are the cities of Feronianum and Montebellium and Bovium and Orbinum, and also the town which is called Verona.
The eighth province, Emilia, beginning from the province of Liguria, extends towards Ravenna between the Apennine Alps and the waters of the Padus. It contains wealthy cities: Plagentia, Regio, Boonia and the Forum of Cornelius, the fortress of which is called Imola.
The ninth province, Flaminea, is placed between the Apennine Alps and the Adriatic Sea. In it are Ravenna, most noble of cities, and five other cities which in the Greek tongue are called Pentapolis.
The tenth province, Picenum, comes after Flaminea. It has on the south the Apennine mountains, on the other side, the Adriatic Sea. It extends to the river Piscaria. In it are the cities Firmus, Asculus and Pennis, also (Hadriae)) consumed with old age.71
Valeria, the eleventh province, to which Nursia is attached, is situated between Umbria and Campania, and Picenum, and 382 it touches on the east the region of Samnium. This contains the cities of Tibur, Carsiolis, Reate, Forconis and Amiternum, and the regions of the Marsians and their lake which is called Focinus.
The twelfth province, Samnium, is between Campania and the Adriatic Sea and Apulia. This begins at the Piscaria. In it are the cities of Theate, Aufidianum, Hisernia and Sampnium, consumed by its old age, from which the whole province is named, and that most wealthy Beneventum, the capital of this province.
The thirteenth province is Apulia, united with it Calabria. It contains the tolerably rich cities of Luceria, Sipontum, Camisium, Acerentia, Brundisium, Tarentum, and in the left horn of Italy, lying distant fifty miles, Ydrontum, fitted for commerce.
The island of Sicily is reckoned the fourteenth province. In this province are very rich cities, among which is the great city of Syracuse.
The fifteenth province is the island of Corsica, which is full of corners with many promontories.
The sixteenth province is the island of Sardinia. Both of these are girt by the waves of the Tirrenian Sea. This extends into the African sea in the shape of the human foot, more broadly in the west as well as in the east, its sides being alike in shape. It extends in length north and south 140 miles, in breadth 40 miles.72
Waitz, in his appendix (p. 188) insists (following Bethmann) that the prototype of this catalogue is earlier than the time of Paul, and that Paul copied and cited it, and made additions to it drawn mostly from Isidore. Mommsen declares (p. 88) tat this is an error, that the catalogue is a mere epitome of Paul. He says: “Paul enumerates, as we have seen, eighteen provinces, the catalogue sixteen, both with the inclusion of the fictitious Apennine Alps. The difference consists in this, that both of the Raetiae are enumerated by Paul, since they were well known to belong to the diocese of Italy ever since there was such a diocese, and in the catalogue, on the other hand, these two provinces are named, but they are not enumerated. This is explained very simply by a stupid misunderstanding of Paul’s language of which the writer of the Madrid catalogue was guilty. Paul names Liguria as the second province, then adds the two provinces of First and Second Raetia, and then enumerates the Cottian Alps as the fifth. The epitomizer copies this, word for word, but because Paul does not designate the third and fourth, as he was otherwise accustomed to do, as tertia and quarta, but only as two provinces, when the epitomizer goes on mechanically with his numbering, he makes the fifth of Paul the third, and so on. This silly oversight puts it beyond doubt that the Madrid catalogue is nothing but a bad extract from our Paul.”
Mommsen insists (p. 89) that Paul’s list is nothing else than an extract of the catalogue which has subsequently come down to us in the Speier and Bamberg-Oxford manuscripts. He compares these manuscripts with each other, and declares that the remarkable resemblance of this catalogue with Paul in its substance as well as in the collateral observations which it contains (for instance, in referring to the Tyrrenian sea in connection with each of the three islands) strikes the eye at once. This catalogue did not merely comprise the provinces of Italy, but all the provinces of the still existing Roman empire, and it 384 belonged to a compilation extending far beyond the time of Paul and probably to the fifth century. This is confirmed by a closer comparison, for while the catalogue is essentially reproduced (although with an author’s freedom) in Paul’s description, it offers the key to Paul’s doubts and mistakes. This appears especially in regard to the unfortunate Apennine Alps. There was actually no Alpine province except the Cottian Alps, but Paul found that province described in the catalogue as “the Cottian and Apennine Alps,” and this false name occurs both in the Speier and Bamberg-Oxford manuscripts. What Paul says (II, 20) of the region of the Marsians, that “it was not at all described by the ancients in the Catalogue of the Provinces of Italy,” accords with these manuscripts. Finally, the remark (II, 18), “there were also some who called Aemila and Valeria and Nursia one province,” found its evident explanation, according to Mommsen, in the confusion which prevailed between the Speier catalogue on the one side and the Bamberg-Oxford on the other, and was taken, Mommsen thinks, from the original manuscript which lay at the foundation of both.
In the Speier manuscript we have (Mommsen, p. 90):
“The provinces of Italy are seventeen.
First. Campania, in which is Capua.
Second. Tuscia with Umbria, in which is Rome.
* * * * * * * * *
Fourth. Nursia, Valeria, in which is Reate.
Fifth. Flammina, in which is Ravenna,” etc.
In the Bamberg and Oxford catalogue we have;
“The Provinces of Italy then are sixteen.
First. Campania, in which is Capua.
Second. Tuscia with Umbria.
Third. Emilia, Nursia, Valeria.
Fourth. Flaminia, in which is the city of Ravenna,” etc.
This must mean that the third province was Emilia, the fourth Nursia and Valeria, and that in the Speier list Emilia had dropped out, but the enumeration was in order, while in the Bamberger list the word “fourth” had dropped out between the words “Emilia” and “Nursia,” and as a result of this, the numbering of the subsequent provinces was altered. Mommsen suggests that in the manuscript before him Paul may have read “Third, Emilia, Nursia, Valeria, Fifth, Flaminia, etc.” and that it can easily be understood that he hesitated whether Emilia, Nursia and Valeria constituted one province and that a mistake was made in the subsequent enumeration, or whether the word “Fourth” was dropped after “Emilia,” which on the whole he preferred to believe (Mommsen, 91, 92).
Waitz (Neues Archiv, V, 417) controverts the view taken by Mommsen, and insists that Paul took his list of provinces from the catalogue in the Madrid manuscript as well as from the source of the Speier catalogue. He refers to several observations by Paul indicating a double prototype, and adds in regards to the “stupid misunderstanding” attributed by Mommsen to the writer of the Madrid catalogue in changing the enumeration by numbering the provinces mechanically: “I think it would have been still more mechanical for a simple copyist or epitomizer to adhere to the enumeration of Paul. But for an author who composed the Madrid catalogue upon the basis of an old prototype yet with a certain independence, there could well be reasons for naming both the Raetiae after his source, but not counting them as provinces of Italy. He must have written at a time when they were not connected with the rest of Italy, but belonged to the kingdom of the Franks. When Paul varied from this and went back to the old enumeration and turned ‘the third’ into ‘the fifth,’ he might be induced to do this through the other (Speier) list, which included both the Raetiae, especially when the reason for excluding them from 386 Italy ceased to exist, or had at least, become less important, since at the time of Charlemagne everything was united under one sovereignty, and the antiquarian point of view, so to speak, in the enumeration could alone come into operation. Paul acts, moreover, under all circumstances, with a certain freedom in his enumeration, since he has not sixteen provinces like the Bamberg and Oxford text, and in another way the Madrid catalogue; not seventeen as the Speier catalogue properly contains (although it enumerates them with the omission of the third), but eighteen. Eighteen because (improperly as Mommsen says, but coinciding with the Madrid catalogue) the Apennine Alps are introduced besides the Cottian Alps. Paul might well be induced by the passage in Victor in regard to the Cottian Alps to give the preference to one prototype over the other, but not, if he had only one before him, to depart wholly from this one.
“From this come into force, I think, all the grounds which otherwise speak in favor of the priority of the Madrid catalogue. It contains something more than Paul, which would be hard to understand in an excerpt which is otherwise so literal. * * In regard to the islands of Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia, there are statements which, as Mommsen remarks, are all taken from Isidore, and in regard to which one can hardly understand how the author of the list came to add them if he otherwise did nothing except make excerpts from Paul. * * * *
“He (Paul) is much more complete (than the Madrid manuscript), and has a large number of statements which are not found in that catalogue. The source of these can be pointed out with more or less certainty and more than formerly now that we can compare the Speier list. Apart from this list there is not a single statement to be found in the Madrid catalogue where the source can be traced. If this catalogue was an excerpt from Paul, the author must have subtracted with wonderful skill, one could say with genuine divination, 387 everything which is not borrowed from Festus, Jordanis and Isidore, in order then, on the other side, to add something else out of the same Isidore. That is simply impossible, and I think I have shown that every reason fails to support such a view.”
Waitz thus sums up his conclusion: “Upon the basis of the older ‘Notitia Provinciarum’ there was developed after the middle of the seventh century and during the time of the Langobards a sketch of the provinces which has come down to us in the form of the Madrid manuscript. Paul incorporated it almost completely in his book, but compared it with the older, shorter and in many ways different composition, which was also known to him, and which is known to us in the Speier and Bamberg-Oxford manuscripts, and he added, moreover, certain etymological and historical statements which his considerable learning in the old writings placed at his disposition.”
The arguments presented by Waitz appear convincing. Paul’s method of using his authorities, especially in the early portion of his history, is generally to follow them pretty closely, sometimes almost word for word, and following the order and arrangement of his original,73 and it does not seem probable that he would have arbitrarily changed entirely the order of the Speier list, as was done in his enumeration, if that list had been his only authority
70 Evidently a mistake for Britia (Bruttium).
71 Waitz supplies here “Hadriae” from Paul’s History.
72 The first province, Venetia, is mentioned in language quite different from the description of Paul — otherwise the resemblance of the above catalogue to Paul’s account of the provinces of Italy is very close. There are a number of grammatical errors in this catalogue where the corresponding sentences are written correctly in Paul. The names of many of the places are spelled differently, the First Raetia and Second Raetia, although named, are not enumerated here, but are included in Paul’s enumeration, hence the numbering is different after the second province, and there are a few matters (printed above in italics) which are not found in Paul, or where Paul’s statement differs from the catalogue. Many additional matters are found in Paul.
73 Compare for instance his method of treatment of the miracles of St. Benedict in the verses in Book I (see Appendix III), where he follows strictly the order observed by St. Gregory in his Dialogues (Book I).
Index of Sources (Jacobi 89).74
I, Isidore, Etymol., XIV, IV, 2, Origo. II, Origo, Pliny, IV, 27 (13). III, Origo. V, Bede De Temp. Rat., cap. 31; Cosmographer of Ravenna, I, 11. VI, Virgil’s Æneid, III, 420. VII, VIII, Origo. IX, Origo; Isidore, Etym., IX, 2; Life of St. Columban, ch. 43. X, Origo. XI, Cosmographer of Ravenna, I, 11. XIII, XIV, Origo. XV, Pliny Nat. Hist., VII, 3. XVIII, Origo. XIX, Origo and Eugippius’ Life of Severinus, Ch. 1; III (sec. 15), IX (sec. 39), XI, XII (sec. 57); Jordanis, Ed. Lindenbr. Hamb. 1611, p. 59. XX, XXI, XXII, Origo. XXV, Bede’s Chron., AM. 4518; Paul’s Roman Hist., XVI, 11-19 (see Mommsen, 56, note); Isidore’s Chron., AM. 5762; Annalistic source; Justinian, 2d preface to Pandects, perhaps derived from a legal text book connected with a Turin manuscript; see Fitting, Juristical Writings of the Middle Ages, Halle, 1876, p. 103, 131-145; see Jacobi, p. 88. XXVI, Gregory’s Dialogues, Bk. II see Appendix III, infra.; Marcus Casinensis (line 38, Muratori Script., IV, 605, 606). XXVII, Origo.389
I, Jordanis, Ed. Lindenbr. Hamb., 1611, p. 67; Annalistic source. II, Greg. Tours, III, 32; Annalistic source. III, Annalistic source. IV, Bede; Annalistic source. V, Liber Pontif., John, III; Fredegarius Epitom., 65 (?); St. Gregory’s Homil. I on the Gospels, Dialogues III, 38. VI, Gregory of Tours, IV, 42, 43; V, 15. VII, Origo, Secundus. VIII, Isidore, Etym., XIV, 14, 16. IX, Secundus; Isidore, Etym., XIV, IV, 19. X, Gregory of Tours, IV, 22, 23, 27, 29; Lib. Pontif., Benedict, I; Secundus. XI, Lib. Pontif., John, III. XII, Secundus. XIII, Venant. Fortunat., Life of St. Martin, IV, 640-700. XIV, Secundus; Madrid Catalogue of the Provinces of Italy (Waitz, p. 188); Speier Manuscript and Bamberg-Oxford Catalogue (Mommsen, 90, 91); Annalistic source; Isidore, Etymol., XIII, 19; XIV, 4, 18; Festus, 84; Jordanis de Reb. Get., ch. 29. XV, Madrid, Speier & Bamberg Catalogues. XVI, Isidore, Etymol., XIV, IV, 20, 21; same catalogues. XVII, Isidore, Etymol., XV, I, 64; Festus (ed. Müller), p. 119; Jordanis de Reb. Get., ch. 30; same catalogues. XVIII, Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Cæsar, ch. 5, Nero; Isidore, XIV, VIII, 13; same catalogues. XIX, Festus, 212; same catalogues. XX, Isidore, XIV, IV, 22; Festus, 327; same catalogues. XXII, Isidore, XIV, VI, 30, 35, 34; same catalogues. XXIII, Donatus, see Servius on Æneid, X, 200; Justin., Epit., XXIV, 4, 8; XXV, 2 XX, 5, XXIV, 4; same catalogues. XXIV, Isidore, XIV, IV, 18; Festus, p. 40, 4. XXV, Secundus. XXVI, XXVII, Origo; Secundus. XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, Origo. XXXI, Secundus. XXXII, Secundus, Gregory of Tours, IV, 41; St. Gregory’s Dialogues, III, 38.
I, II, III, IV, Greg. Tours, IV, 42; VI, 6. V. VI, Greg.
Tours, IV, 42. VII, Greg. Tours, V, 15.
VIII, Greg. Tours, IV, 44.
X, Greg. Tours, IV, 51, 52; V, 1; Secundus.
XI, Greg. Tours, IV, 39-40; V, 19, 30; Lib. Pontif., Benedict I.
XII, Greg. Tours, V, 19-30.
XIII, Greg. Tours, VI, 2; Bede, 4529; Secundus.
XV, Greg. Tours, VI, 30.
XVII, Greg. Tours, VI, 42.
XVIII, Secundus; Epitaph of Droctulft.
XIX, Epit. Droct.
XX, Lib. Pontif., Pelagius II; Secundus.
XXI, Greg. Tours, V, 39; VIII, 28; Bede, 4536.
XXII, Greg. Tours, VIII, 18; Secundus.
XXIII, Secundus; St. Gregory’s Dialogues, III, 19; Greg. Tours, X, praef.
XXIV, Greg. Tours, X, 1.
XXV, Lib. Pontif., Gregory I; Bede, 4536.
XXVI, XXVII, Secundus.
XXVIII, XXIX, Greg. Tours, IX, 25.
XXXI, Greg. Tours, X, 2, 3; Secundus.
XXXIII, Beneventine account.
XXXIV, Greg. Tours, X, 3; Legend of Châlons.
XXXV, Greg. Tours, X, 3; Secundus.
I, II, III, Secundus; Origo. IV, V, Secundus; Dialogues of Gregory the Great. VII, Secundus. VIII, Lib. Pontif. Gregory I; Secundus; Gregory’s Homily on Ezek. Preface, Bk. II. IX, St. Gregory’s Letters, IX, 42-43. X, id., IX, 43; Secundus. XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, Secundus. XVII, Gregory’s Dialogues, II, Preface and 17. XVIII, Secundus; Benevent. account. XIX, Gregory’s Letters, XII, 21. XX, XXI, Secundus. XXII, Isidore, Etym., XIX, 22. XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, Secundus. XXIX, Bede, 4565; Lib. Pontif., Sabinian; Secundus; Gregory’s Letters, IV, 47. XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, Secundus. XXXIV, Lib. Pontif., Deusdedit, Boniface, V. XXXV, Secundus. XXXVI, Bede, 4565; Isidore, Chron. AM., 5809; Secundus. XXXVII, Friulan legend. XXXVIII, see Fredegarius’ Chronicle, 50-69 (?). XXXIX, 391 Secundus. XL, Secundus and his continuer; Origo. XLI, List of Langobard kings; Fredegarius, ch. 49 (?). XLII, Origo; Edict Rothari, sec. 386 and Prologue; Benevent. account. XLIII, XLIV, Benevent. account. XLV, Origo; Lib. Pontif., Deusdedit. XLVI, Benevent. account. XLVII, Origo; see Fredegarius’ Chronicle, 51 (?). XLVIII, List of the kings. XLIX, Bede, 4591, 4593, 4594, 4622. L, Fredegarius’ Chronicle, 9 (?); Friulan account; Catalogue of dukes of Spoleto. LI, Pavian and Benevent. accounts.
VI, XI, Lib. Pontif., Vitalian. XII, XIII, XV, Lib. Pontif. Adeodat., XXX, Bede, 4639, Lib. Pontif., Adeodat; id., Vitalian. XXXI, Lib. Pontif., Donus. XXXV, List of the kings.
I, II, Benevent. account. III, Friulan account. IV, Lib. Pontif., Agatho; Bede, 4639. V, Lib. Pontif., Agatho; Bede, 4622. IX, Lib. Pontif., Benedict, II. X, XI, Bede, 4649. XII, Bede, 4649-4652. XIII, Bede, 4665. XIV, Bede, 4659, 4639. XV, Bede, Eccles. History, V, 7. XXIV, XXV. XXVI, Friulan account. XXVII, Benevent. account; Lib. Pontif., John, VI. XXVIII, Bede, 4659; Lib.Pontif., John, VII; id., Constantine, I. XXIX, Lib. Pontif., Constantine[,] I. XXX, Catalogue of dukes of Spoleto. XXXI, Lib. Pont., John, VII; Bede, 4665; Lib. Pontif., Constantine, I. (Muratori, p. 153, n. 16.) XXXII, Bede, 4665-4667. XXXIV Bede, 4667, 4670. XXXVI, Lib. Pontif., Gregory, II; Bede, 4671. XXXVII, Bede, 4671. XXXIX, Benevent. account. XL, Monte Cassino account; Life of Paldo, Tasso and Tato by Autpert; Lib. Pontif., Gregory II. XLI, Bede, 4680. XLII, Frankish annals, see Chron. Moiss. M. G. SS., 1, 290. XLIII, Bede, 4670; Lib. Pontif., Gregory II. XLIV, Lib. Pontif., Gregory II. XLV, Catalogue 392 of the Patriarchs of Aquileia; Friulan legend. XLVI, Lib. Pontif., Gregory II. See Chron. Moiss. M. G. SS., 1,291, 292. XLVII, XLVIII, Bede, 4680; Lib. Pontif., Gregory II; XLIX, Lib. Pontif., Gregory II. L, Benevent. account. LI, Friulan account. LIV, Frankish Annals; see Chron. Moiss. LVIII, Miracles in the Life of St. Baodolinus.
74 The italics refer to the various chapters in Paul. For brevity I have omitted Jacobi’s references to the particular sentences, phrases and words used by Paul and taken from the various authorities named. These will be found in most cases by comparing the source cited here, with the reference to that source in the previous portion of this appendix. I have also added to the sources mentioned by Jacobi a number of additional sources mentioned by Waitz and Mommsen. Chapters and parts of chapters derived from unknown sources are not referred to in the above index.