[Sidenote: A blind Gothic warrior enslaved.]
'Our pity is greatly moved by the petition of Ocer, a blind Goth, who has come by the help of borrowed sight to _feel_ the sweetness of our clemency, though he cannot see our presence.
'He asserts that he, a free Goth, who once followed our armies, has, owing to his misfortune, been reduced to slavery by Gudila and Oppas. Strange excess of impudence to make that man their servant, before whose sword they had assuredly trembled had he possessed his eyesight! He pleads that Count Pythias has already pronounced against the claims of his pretended masters. If you find that this is so, restore him at once to freedom, and warn those men not to dare to repeat their oppression of the unfortunate.'
30. KING THEODORIC TO GUDUI[M], VIR SUBLIMIS [AND DUX].
[Sidenote: Servile tasks imposed on free Goths by a Duke.]
'We expect those whom we choose as Dukes to work righteousness. Costula and Daila, men who by the blessing of God rejoice in the freedom of our Goths, complain that servile tasks are imposed upon them by you. We do not do this ourselves, nor will we allow anyone else to do it. If you find that the grievance is correctly stated rectify it at once, or our anger will turn against the Duke who thus abuses his power.'
31. KING THEODORIC TO DECORATUS, VIR DEVOTUS (?).
[For the career of Decoratus see v. 3 and 4.]
[Sidenote: Arrears of Siliquaticum to be enforced.]
'Thomas, Vir Clarissimus, complains that he cannot collect the arrears of Siliquaticum from certain persons in Apulia and Calabria.
'Do you therefore summon Mark the Presbyter, Andreas, Simeonius, and the others whose names are set forth in the accompanying schedule, to come into your presence, using no unnecessary force[399] in your summons. If they cannot clear themselves of this debt to the public Treasury, they must be forced to pay.'
[Footnote 399: 'Servata in omnibus civilitate.']
[The arrears are said to be for the 8th, 9th, 11th, 1st, 2nd, and 15th Indictiones; i.e. probably for the years 500, 501, 503, 508, 509, 507. I cannot account for this curious order in which the years are arranged, which seems to suggest some corruption of the text. Probably this letter was written about 509.]