agment of Bavarian antiquity excites the
indefatigable diligence of the count de Buat, Hist. des Peuples de
l'Europe, ton. xi. p. 595--635, tom. xii. p. 1-53.]

[Footnote 51: Giannone (Istoria Civile de Napoli, tom. i. p. 263) has
justly censured the impertinence of Boccaccio, (Gio. iii. Novel. 2,)
who, without right, or truth, or pretence, has given the pious queen
Theudelinda to the arms of a muleteer.]

From this fact, as well as from similar events, [52] it is certain that
the Lombards possessed freedom to elect their sovereign, and sense to
decline the frequent use of that dangerous privilege. The public revenue
arose from the produce of land and the profits of justice. When the
independent dukes agreed that Autharis should ascend the throne of
his father, they endowed the regal office with a fair moiety of their
respective domains. The proudest nobles aspired to the honors of
servitude near the person of their prince: he rewarded the fidelity of
his vassals by the precarious gift of pensions and benefices; and
atoned for the injuries of war by the rich foundation of monasteries and
churches. In peace a judge, a leader in war, he never usurped the
powers of a sole and absolute legislator. The king of Italy convened the
national assemblies in the palace, or more probably in the fields, of
Pavia: his great council was composed of the persons most eminent by
their birth and dignities; but the validity, as well as the execution,
of their decrees depended on the approbation of the faithful people, the
fortunate army of the Lombards. About fourscore years after the conquest
of Italy, their traditional customs were transcribed in Teutonic Latin,
[53] and ratified by the consent of the prince and people: some new
regulations were introduced, more suitable to their present condition;
the example of Rotharis was imitated by the wisest of his successors;
and the laws of the Lombards have been esteemed the least imperfect of
the Barbaric codes. [54] Secure by their courage in the possession of
liberty, these rude and hasty legislators were incapable of balancing
the powers of the constitution, or of discussing the nice theory
of political government. Such crimes as threatened the life of the
sovereign, or the safety of the state, were adjudged worthy of death;
but their attention was principally confined to the defence of
the person and property of the subject. According to the strange
jurisprudence of the times, the guilt of