Note 11 — INTRODUCTION.1

Everything connected with the division of the land has been the theme of much dispute, both in Italy and abroad. It was learnedly treated by Troya, in his work on the "Condizione dei Romani vinti dai Longobardi"; Capponi and Capei discussed it with much subtlety in their "Lettere sui Longobardi" (appendix of the "Archivio Storico Italiano," vols. i. and ii.); so too Manzoni, Balbo, &c. The question turns on the interpretation of two passages in "Paulus Diaconus." The passage alluding to the first division made, when the Longobards seized one-third of the revenues of the land, is clear enough: "His diebus multi nobilium Romanorum ob cupiditatem interfecti sunt. Reliqui vero per hospites divisi, ut terciam partem suarum frugum Langobardis persolverent, tributarii efficiuntur." But the other is much less clear, and has been variously interpreted. This is the reading most generally adopted: "Hujus in diebus" (i.e., in Autari's reign) "ob restaurationem Regni, duces qui tunc erunt, omnem substantiarum suarum mediatatem regalibus usibus tribuunt; populi tamen agravati per langobardos hospites, partiuntur." But a tenth-century version, in the Ambrosian Codex, runs as follows: "Aggravati pro Longobardis, hospitia partiuntur." The division of the land (hospitia), and not of the fruits of the land, would seem more clearly indicated in this second reading, accepted by Balbo. Prof. Capei, on the other hand, while accepting the first reading, asserts that the word partiuntur should be interpreted in an active sense. The conquered divided their lands with their conquerors, and therefore were oppressed (aggravati), being compelled to yield one-half of their estates, but they had at least the advantage of retaining the other half in their own possession.