The first and oldest tract which occurs in Dr. Hänel's collection, he conjectures to have been written in Italy about the middle of the twelfth century. The author, whose name has not been discovered, begins by stating that there are said to be four lilies of the law, yielding good and various odours: "Quoniam quatuor esse legum dicuntur lilia, varios bonosque odores referentia." These fragrant lilies are Martinus, Bulgarus, Hugo a Porta Ravennate, and Jacobus Hugolinus, who were all professors of the civil law in the university of Bologna, and whose differences of opinion in expounding particular doctrines he undertakes to specify. But his attention is chiefly directed to the opinions of Martinus and Bulgarus.

The second tract, that of Rogerius Beneventanus " De Dissensionibus Dominorum," was first printed in the year 1537. An edition of it was published by Haubold,† to whose learned labours the students of ancient jurisprudence are so much indebted. Wenck, another very able professor in the same university, who has illustrated the history of the glossatores, is inclined to believe that the author wrote between 1127 and 1158; but Hänel fixes upon a period somewhat more recent, and places the composition of the work between 1150 and 1162. Of the materials supplied by his anonymous predecessor, Rogerius seems very freely to have availed himself.

Another work of a nameless author, described by a good alliteration as " Codicis Chisiani Collectio," follows in the order of arrangement. Hänel supposes it to have been written about the close of the twelfth century. The author mentions the names of many recent writers on the civil law, all of whom, so far as can be ascertained, were natives of Italy, and it is highly probable that he likewise belonged to that country. From the two previous collections he has transcribed entire paragraphs.

The "Dissensiones Dominorum" of Hugolinus form a work of much greater extent than the other three combined. It comprehends no fewer than 470 paragraphs. Savigny and Hänel are both of opinion that the author must have written about the beginning of the thirteenth century. He has to a great extent in

31, 6 Bde. 8vo. How far the English lawyers are disposed or prepared to avail themselves of his researches, may partly be inferred from the following erudite passage, which occurs in a very recent publication: " The Pandects were discovered at Amalphi in 1137, 2d Stephen. 3 Black. Com. 66." (Merewether and Stephens's History of the Boroughs and Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom, vol. i. p. 6. Lond. 1835, 3 vols. 8vo.)

† Rogerii Beneventani de Dissensionibus Dominorum, sive de Controversiis veterum Juris Romani Interpretum, qui Glossatores vocantur, Opusculum: emendatius edidit D. Christianus Gottlieb Haubold, &c. Lipsiæ, 1821, 8vo.

corporated the collections of his three predecessors, and has made many additions of his own. He mentions most of the writers whose names occur in the third collection, together with several others, and among these Azo, Odericus, and Vacarius; of whom the latter is best known to our countrymen, as having been the first professor of the civil law in England. His history was however involved in much obscurity till the appearance of Wenck's very elaborate and accurate work.*

All these reliques of jurisprudence are published with the most scrupulous care and diligence; nor can it escape the observation of any one who inspects the volume, that the editor must have bestowed upon it no small portion of time and labour. He commences with a preface of sixty pages, and has illustrated his different authors with a double series of annotations, the one containing references to a variety of writers who have discussed the same subjects, and the other relating to the readings and emendation of the text. His references to manuscript authorities, and to other obscure sources of information, are very numerous. style of annotation is concise, and he compresses much erudition within a narrow compass. Four different indices, very laboriously compiled, complete a volume of nearly eight hundred pages.

His

Dr. Hänel is a professor of law in the university of Leipzig, and is no unworthy successor of Haubold and Wenck. To his ardour in exploring the libraries of various countries, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Britain, Spain, and Portugal, we have elsewhere had occasion to allude. To this learned peregrination he devoted several years of his life, as well as some considerable share of his private fortune; and, returning to his native country with a very ample stock of materials, he speedily began to communicate to the public some portions of his literary wealth. The earliest of his works was his catalogue of manuscripts: the Dissensiones Dominorum followed after an interval of four years; and he now meditates editions of the Gregorian, Hermogenian, and Theodosian Codes, and of the Breviarium of Anianus. For such a task he is eminently qualified, not only by his learning and acuteness, but likewise by the previous course of his researches.

* Magister Vacarius, primus Juris Romani in Anglia Professor, ex annalium monumentis et opere accurate descripto illustratus, Juris Romani in Bononiensis Scholæ initiis fortunam illustrans, emendationem, interpretationem hodiernam juvaus, studiis Caroli Friderici Christiani Wenck, Jur. Doct. et Prof. Lips. Lipsiæ, 1820, 8vo.

ART. III.-1. Istoria d'Italia di Messer Francesco Guicciardini a miglior lezione ridotta, dal Professore Giovanni Rosini. 6 vol. 8vo. Parigi, 1832.

2. Storia d'Italia, continuata da quella del Guicciardini sino al 1789, di Carlo Botta. 10 vol. 8vo. Parigi, 1833.

3. Annali d'Italia dal 1750 al 1819, compilati da A. Coppi in continuazione di quelli del Muratori, 4 vol. 8vo. Roma, 1827. THE history of modern Italy, as essentially connected with the general history of the other European states, begins with the end of the fifteenth and the commencement of the sixteenth centuries. Before that time, and during that long preceding period called the middle ages, Italy, divided into numerous municipal republics and principalities, formed a political world of itself, the component parts of which were as much, if not more, divided and diversified in their social system, their interests, and their policy, as the other nations of Europe were among themselves. Accordingly, it is impossible to give a satisfactory single history of all Italy during the middle ages. Every republic, every principality, of that period has its own distinct annals or chronicles; which are like so many separate paintings, each occupying a frame of its own, so that, while we are looking into the history of Venice, of Florence, of Milan, of Genoa, of Rome, and of Sicily, we have a cosmoramic view of each of those States, but we can never embrace a panoramic outline of the whole of Italy. We find, it is true, the history of one state often connected with that of some of its neighbours, but the connection is merely temporary, and soon after we lose sight of it altogether. There was no preponderating power round which the other states moved in orbits; each formed a system of itself. From the time of the Lombard league, the Imperial authority in Italy had become merely nominal. The irruptions of the Angevins and the Aragonese had ended by establishing native dynasties in Southern Italy, independent of the countries whence they originally came. Venice was a maritime power more Oriental than Italian. The dominion of the popes, as temporal sovereigns, was very limited; their authority was contested by the barons and the municipalities, even in the territory nominally belonging to the See of Rome, and was restrained on every side by its neighbours, Naples, Florence, and Venice. Some aspiring individuals, the Visconti, Ladislaus of Naples, and Alfonso after him,— strove to create a preponderating power in Italy, but they failed. Wiser heads endeavoured to establish a balance of power between the Italian states, so as to secure the rights and independence of

each, resembling in principle the balance which the statesmen of Europe in after-ages conceived and strove to maintain, for the sake of guarding against the encroachments of the houses of Austria or of Bourbon. This equilibrium among the Italian states, between Florence and Milan, Venice and Naples, answered its purpose as long as the little world of Italy, insulated as it were from the rest of Europe, had to guard only against native ambition; but when there rose beyond the Alps other and much more formidable powers, who began to look upon Italy as an easy prey, then the Italian system of balance of power, instead of strengthening the country against the danger from abroad, weakened it by keeping alive old jealousies and animosities. A confederacy of all the Italian states would have been then more to the purpose. The great Lorenzo de' Medici perceived the want of such a bond of union, and he attempted to supply it by an alliance between Florence, Milan, and Naples, but his death frustrated his yet immature design. Private ambition, rival jealousies, and general dishonesty, opened Italy to the army of Charles VIII. and from that moment Italian independence was lost.

"So long as the three great nations of Europe (France, Germany, and Spain) were unable, through internal dissensions or foreign war, to put forth their natural strength, the Italians had so little to dread for their independence, that their policy was altogether directed to the regulation of the domestic balance of power among themselves. In the latter part of the 15th century a more enlarged view of Europe would have manifested the necessity of reconciling petty animosities, and sacrificing petty ambition in order to preserve the nationality of their governments, not by attempting to melt down Lombards and Neapolitans, principalities and republics, into a single monarchy, but by the more just and rational scheme of a common federation. The politicians of Italy were abundantly competent, as far as cool and clever understandings could render them, to perceive the interests of their country. But it is the will of Providence that the highest and surest wisdom, even in matters of policy, should never be unconnected with virtue."-Hallam's Europe during the Middle Ages, ch. iii.

Ludovico Sforza, in order to secure his usurpation of the duchy of Milan over his own nephew, invited the French to the conquest of Naples; Florence, under the weak Piero de Medici, abetted the invaders; and the Borgias at Rome, after repeatedly betraying both parties, sided with the stronger. The French went to Naples, were driven away, came again under Louis XII., and the Aragonese dynasty of Naples, who in their distress had applied to their relative, Ferdinand of Spain, for assistance, found themselves stripped of every thing by their own perfidious ally. The French and Spaniards then quarrelled about the spoils; the

French were worsted, and Spain remained in possession of Naples and Sicily. Lombardy, by means equally unjust, had fallen into the hands of Louis XII. and, to complete the total ruin of Italy, a pope, Julius II., allied himself with both French and Germans, to effect the destruction of Venice, the only Italian state that still maintained its independence. The same Julius, soon afterwards, feeling perhaps a return of Italian spirit and Italian sagacity, formed a fresh alliance with Venice and Spain to drive the French from Lombardy, and he succeeded, after having occasioned infinite mischief. The horrors of that war, 1509-12, the plunder of Vicenza, Padua, Legnago, and other towns, the storming and massacre of Brescia, are faithfully described by an eye-witness, Luigi da Porta in his Lettere Storiche, published for the first time in 1832. In the end, Louis XII. was obliged to give up Lombardy, which that prince, styled by French historians "the father of his people," had covered with blood and ruins, through his inordinate ambition. A third French king and a fresh army soon afterwards crossed the Alps to attempt the conquest of unfortunate Lombardy. The result was like that at Naples. The French conquered and again lost, and Charles V. remained in possession of the Milanese, as he was already of Southern Italy. The remaining Italian powers now thought of resistance, but it only served to rivet their chains. Rome was taken and horribly pillaged, 1527; and, soon after, 1530, Florence was obliged to submit to Charles and the Medici. All Italy lay prostrate at the foot of Spain.

This eventful period of 36 years, from the descent of Charles VIII. into Italy to the final subjugation of that country by Charles V., found a contemporary historian equal to the task of handing down its transactions to posterity. As this was the epoch in which the history of modern Italy first assumed a sort of unity of character, of condensation of interests, so was Guicciardini the first general historian of his country. The merits of his work are well known, and we need not here enlarge upon them. He was the friend of Machiavelli, from whom it seems very probable that he derived much information of which he availed himself for the earlier part of his work. It is well known that Machiavelli had collected materials for the continuation of his history of Florence, which breaks off at the death of Lorenzo in 1492. In the years that followed, Machiavelli was employed in several important missions, connected with the politics of Florence and of Italy in general, while Guicciardini was still little more than a boy, and it was only in 1512 that Guicciardini, then 30 years of age, was first employed on a political mission. Machiavelli was then a veteran in diplomacy. They afterwards