sense from that which is generally attached to them, of "theory of the production and distribution of the wealth of "nations," and has adapted them, as appears even from the second part of his title, to the more ample, and, etymologically speaking, more correct meaning, of the various laws, customs and manners by which society was ruled during the middle ages. The work of M. Cibrario would consequently seem to have the same object as Mr. Hallam's "View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages," published for the first time about twenty-one years ago, with a preface which might be well prefixed by the modern Italian to his work, in order to acquaint the reader with its object. M. Cibrario, however, says, that the two works have nothing in common: to this we cannot assent, although we are ready to admit that they are very distinct performances. Mr. Hallam, selecting from the narratives which he found in the printed historical records of the middle ages such as he deemed correct, and in which his eminently critical eye did not discover any ground for suspicion, and omitting what with great tact he deemed of minor importance, draws a picture of the political state of society throughout Europe, from Clovis to Charles VIII. of France. If he speaks of manners and customs he does so only incidentally, and to elucidate the higher branches of the subject which he has undertaken to illustrate. The object of his work is not to record facts, but to show what were the effects produced by the state of religion, constitution and laws, and how these effects reacted on the societies of the middle ages. M. Cibrario's work has but little in common with that of our countryman in this respect. Less eager to discover the why and wherefore, the Italian author has patiently studied old parchments and musty household account-books, and from new facts, often trifling and apparently uninteresting, he has drawn important consequences as to the political or economical state of the country, has added to the stock of our positive information on the subject, and has occasionally thrown considerable light on hitherto obscure points. Mr. Hallam, with a more comprehensive and philosophical, but practical mind, has succeeded in rendering his work highly instructive to those who dustriously collected many new useful materials for future historians, and has entered into details which the other did not consider worthy of attention. But whilst Mr. Hallam has taken a view of all Europe during the middle ages, M. Cibrario has limited himself to inquire into the state of Italy, or, properly speaking, of Piedmont and Lombardy, more particularly the former. He says little of Tuscany, still less of the Papal States, next to nothing of the Neapolitan and Sicilian kingdoms. The title of the work is therefore so far apt to mislead the reader, who does not know that what is stated to be a history of political economy during the middle ages, is limited to two provinces of one of the European states. It cannot, however, be denied, that the politico-economical vicissitudes of these two provinces, to the end of the fourteenth century, are pregnant with interest and highly instructive; it was there that the battles of the people were first fought after the fall of ancient states, and liberty for the mass, not for a caste, conquered. There also, unhappily, were first shown the baneful effects of unchecked licence, of cunning priestcraft and overbearing oligarchy. The conquerors of Italy, at the fall of the western empire, had appointed governors, generally designated under the name of Counts, who to the executive often added the judicial power, over each town and its territory. But the Roman municipal government was not totally eradicated from Italy, although there is no doubt that at first the counts as well as the nobility belonged to the nation of the conquerors, and that the latter had possessed themselves of municipal power, to the exclusion of the generality of the inhabitants. There was, however, an eminently democratic element in the constitution of the cities, and that was religion, which acknowledges no distinction of birth or fortune, and the bishops, being elected by the people, were the natural guardians of their electors. When Italy was invaded by the Saracens and Hungarians, the sovereigns were unable to protect the country, but the people defended themselves as well as they could-fighting literally pro aris et focis. In those conflicts the bishops were the natural leaders of their flocks, and took particular care in strengthening, by every means, their cities, hitherto undefended, of Milan, who died in 882, surrounded Milan with walls, and that the same was the case with respect to Modena, under its bishop Leudonio, who died in 898*. Although this was repeatedly done without any other warrant than the most lawful of all-self-defence, leave was often granted to bishops, monasteries and private individuals to fortify their places, and hence the abundance of castles and strongholds which covered the Alps, the Apennines and the rest of Italy. To defend the places so fortified it was necessary to arm the common people, who, behind an entrenchment, were as good and better than the milites and valvassores, the nobility of the time, and who fought desperately against an enemy from whom they knew they could expect no quarter. The people having once learnt how to use arms, and to rely on their own means to defend themselves from foreign foes, were not likely to submit to the extortion and plundering pretensions of the grandees, mostly of a foreign race, to whom they owed nothing, but who on the contrary were indebted to the inhabitants of the cities at large for the common safety. The sovereigns of Italy were obliged to proceed with great deference towards the bishops, who not only possessed a great influence on the people, but, having a voice in the Diets, shared in the election of the sovereign, and voted the laws. It was therefore difficult to deprive them of the power and dignity of Counts, which they had usurped in many places, when they were, de facto, the only recognised authority, in spiritual as well as temporal matters; and on many accounts it was good policy in the sovereigns occasionally to confer on them that dignity. It was moreover thought a meritorious and pious act to increase the temporal power of the episcopacy+. * Dum premeret patriam rabies miserabilis istam, Muratori, Diss. i. col. 22. +"Insurgentibus sæpe ac sæpius ob jurisdictionem ac dominationem controversiis inter Episcopos et civitatum præsides sive comites, rem tutiorem commodioremque sibi arbitrati sunt sacri pastores ipsum quoque temporale populorum regimen ab After the death of Otho I. or the Great, Italy was for a long while without any general government, left under that species of municipal self-government that each city succeeded in securing to itself. This weak and fluctuating government relied on the division of interest of the factions, not on its own vigour. The common people in the meantime gained strength, and towards the end of the eleventh century, Landulph, archbishop of Milan, of the noble family of Carcano, having behaved haughtily and insolently, the citizens gave battle to him and to the whole of the aristocracy by whom he was supported, and drove them from the city. The Cremonese likewise waged a successful war against their bishop. The dissensions between the emperor Henry IV. and pope Gregory VII. greatly tended to increase the independence of the cities of Upper Italy. The inhabitants, as well as their bishops, being generally in favour of the emperor, could dictate to him their conditions; and those who were for the Pope and the countess Matilda were not much inclined to respect the rights of the chief of the state. Whenever any follower of this party changed side in that great struggle, some new concessions were either forced from the Emperor, or graciously granted by him to gain supporters to his cause, and weaken his enemy's. The contest did not merely extend to the spiritual and temporal powers, but caused such schism, even in the former only, that Rome had two popes (one of which was afterwards declared an antipope by the winning party), and Milan three archbishops at the same time-Godfrey, elected by the Emperor; Otto, by the Pope; and Theobald, by the people. The prerogatives of that sovereign, who was twice beaten by the troops of one of the great vassals of Non raro Germanicis regibus opus erat episcoporum præsidium, sive ut reges eligerentur, sive ut electi regnum adquisitum eorum ope deinde tuerentur. Opportunitatem adeo secundam amplificandæ potentiæ suæ non sinebant sacri antistites sibi e manibus elabi."-Antiq. Ital. Med. Ævi, Diss. viii. tom. i. col. 416. Muratori quotes many instances of bishops having obtained the county (that is the government of the town and its territory) from the sovereign; and publishes, among other documents, a charter from Rodolph, king of Burgundy, giving the county of the Tarantaise to the archbishop Amizo. The charter is dated 996, indict. x. in the third year of king Rodolph's reign; on which Muratori observes the indiction should be vi.; but he is mistaken. The same charter, published in the Monumenta Hist. Patria, (Chart. tom. i. col. 304,) copied from Besson, is not so complete as in Muratori, and no observation is made either as to his having edited it, or as to the of Milan, who died in 882, surrounded Milan with walls, and that the same was the case with respect to Modena, under its bishop Leudonio, who died in 898*. Although this was repeatedly done without any other warrant than the most lawful of all-self-defence, leave was often granted to bishops, monasteries and private individuals to fortify their places, and hence the abundance of castles and strongholds which covered the Alps, the Apennines and the rest of Italy. To defend the places so fortified it was necessary to arm the common people, who, behind an entrenchment, were as good and better than the milites and valvassores, the nobility of the time, and who fought desperately against an enemy from whom they knew they could expect no quarter. The people having once learnt how to use arms, and to rely on their own means to defend themselves from foreign foes, were not likely to submit to the extortion and plundering pretensions of the grandees, mostly of a foreign race, to whom they owed nothing, but who on the contrary were indebted to the inhabitants of the cities at large for the common safety. The sovereigns of Italy were obliged to proceed with great deference towards the bishops, who not only possessed a great influence on the people, but, having a voice in the Diets, shared in the election of the sovereign, and voted the laws. It was therefore difficult to deprive them of the power and dignity of Counts, which they had usurped in many places, when they were, de facto, the only recognised authority, in spiritual as well as temporal matters; and on many accounts it was good policy in the sovereigns occasionally to confer on them that dignity. It was moreover thought a meritorious and pious act to increase the temporal power of the episcopacy+. * Dum premeret patriam rabies miserabilis istam, Muratori, Diss. i. col. 22. +"Insurgentibus sæpe ac sæpius ob jurisdictionem ac dominationem controversiis inter Episcopos et civitatum præsides sive comites, rem tutiorem commodioremque sibi arbitrati sunt sacri pastores ipsum quoque temporale populorum regimen ab |