There is not an atom of reference for this statement, which we fufpect to be a bafelefs fabric, fupported only, like the elephant on the tortoife, by the groundless affumption, that alodial eftates were derived from the gift of the nation at large, and in no other way. That alodialifts held in contempt beneficiary and feudal tenures' we have never read; we know that the feudal proprietors were vaftly more powerful in the times of which Dr R. is now treating, and that they gradually abforbed almost all the reft into the vortex of the feudal polity. Benefices, as Dr R. has proved from Marculfus, were in fome instances hereditary as early as the feventh century; though they probably did not become fuch in general before the age of Louis le Debonnaire. But how far these benefices partook of the effential properties of fiefs, we fufpect to be extremely doubtful. The word feudum is not known to be older than A. D. 1000.

In the second section of this third chapter, we are treated with a compendium of the different codes of law which prevailed in Gaul during the period comprised in the volume. We object to the introduction of the Roman law at the front of thefe, because it was not predominant in the country after the conqueft by Clovis, and because a great part of what Dr R. has inferted is utterly inapplicable to the condition of a diftant province. But, at all events, he fhould have avoided blunders. The peaceable poffeffion of moveables unclaimed for one year, and of heritables or immoveables for two years, formed the right of ufucapio; but in later times the right of prefcription was extended to ten, or even twenty years. This is not quite accurate nor full; the prescription here fixed is only in favour of a bona fide purchafer; ten years were made the term of limitation, where the rightful owner was in the country; twenty, where he had been abroad. Property was either liferent, ufufruct, or heritable. In the former, the fubject could not be deteriorated; but on the death of the poffeffor, or on the expiration of his leafe, it returned fubftantially to the general or legal proprietor.' This is all confufion: ufufruct is neither oppofed to heritable property nor to liferent, but to the naked right, which, by a legal fiction, was fuppofed to refide in a different perfon from the ufufructuary. The titles referred to in Heineccius, lib. 2. tit. 4. & 5. have nothing to do with liferent, which seems to be a glofs of Dr R.'s upon ufufruct. An infol vent debtor was fold, or, if any of his creditors infifted upon it, his body was divided among them. It is thought that the latter punillment, however, was feldom inflicted. It is thought that the latter punishment was never enacted; it is known that it was never inflicted. See Heinecc. lib. 3. tit. 30. Dr R.'s own refer

ence.

• The

The Roman judges were anciently their kings; then the confuls; afterwards the prætors, and their affeffors, chofen annually by the people. It is not true, that the affeffors were chofen by the people. They were felected by the Prætor from the clafs in whom the judiciary power refided. So much for the Roman, now for the Barbarian laws.

If no heir appeared to claim the property of the deceased, it fell to the king, or to the public treafury.

This purports to be the 65th title of the Salic law: with what accuracy Dr R. has tranflated it, we leave the reader to judge, when he has compared the original words.

Tit. 65. De compofitione homicidii. Si cujufcumque pater occifus fuerit, medietatem filii in compofitione colligunt, et aliam medietatem parentes qui proximiores fuerunt, tam de paterná quam de materná generatione dividunt. Quod fi de paterná vel materná parte nullus proximus fuerit, portio ille ad fifcam perveniet, vel cui fifcas concederit.

One of the capitularies of Charlemagne, after explaining what intereft is, declares it to be juft, when no more is required than was promifed; another of them declares it to be ufury, when more is demanded than was ftipulated.'

Thus Dr R., and thus the capitulary, as quoted by him:

Ufura eft, ubi amplius requifitur quam datur. Verbi gratiâ, fi dederis folidum, et amplius requifieris: vel fi dederis modium vini, frumenti, et iterum fuper aliud exegeris.

It is obvious how little this fupports the tranflation above.

He who would not reftore what he had borrowed, and he who would not pay his juft debts after they were formally demanded, was fined nine folidi; and if he ftill refufed, fifteen folidi more were to be impofed on him.'

The words in Italics are foifted in by Dr Ranken. - The law, Lex. Sal. tit. 55. has nothing of them. The fine, as far as we can judge, feems rather to be impofed for the contempt in neglecting legal procefs, than for the breach of truft.

In Dr R.'s sketch of the Ripuary law, we have remarked the following inaccuracy:

Sales of large property were alfo made by writing; but if the fubject was fmall, it was held legal before fix, or if very fmall, before three witneffes. In the cafe of purchafing a large property, it was done in the prefence of twelve boys, befides the witneffes, to each of whom the purchafer gave a blow and a pinch of the ear, to fecure remembrance of the fale.'

We shall confront this with the law itself, tit. 59. and 60.

Si quis alteri aliquid vendiderit, et emptor teflamentum venditionis accipere voluerit, in mallo hoc facere debet, et pretium in præfenti tradat, et rem accipiat, et teftamentum publicè confcribatur. Quod fi parva res fuerit, feptem teftibus firmetur; & autem magna, duodecim roboretur.

Si quis villam aut vineam aut quamlibet poffeffiunculam ab alio comparaverit, et teftamentum accipere non potuerit: fi mediocris res eft, cum fex teftibus; fi parva, cum tribus; quod fi magna, cum duodecim ad locum traditionis cum totidem numero pueris accedat: et fic iis præfentibus pretium tradat, et poffeffionem accipiat, et unicuique de parvulis alapas donet, et torqueat auriculas, ut ei in poftmodum teftimonium præbeant.

It must be obvious to every one how much thefe interesting titles have been mifunderstood by Dr Ranken. The firft relates. to chattel (and perhaps incorporeal) property, which might be delivered any where; and therefore the mallus, or great court of the king, was the place appointed as moft public and folemn. The fecond relates to fuch property as, in the terms of the Englifh law, lies in livery, and will pafs by mere fymbolical delivery of poffeffion upon the fpot without deed, as lands and houses. The admirable use which the legiflators of Gaul made of the doctrine of affociation, is not unknown to thofe confummate metaphyficians, the churchwardens of parishes in England, who with more fagacity, it must be confeffed, than justice, perpetuate the memorial of parochial boundaries by fmiting the fcalps, or fcourging the pofteriors of the junior members of the work

houfe.

The dowry granted to the bride by the father-in-law (Legis Vifigoth. lib. 3. tit. 1. l. 5.) was not to exceed a tenth part of his for

tune. '

Dr Ranken here confounds dowry with dower; or at least ufes the former word in an obfolete fenfe. Dos has one meaning in Horace, and another in the code of the Visigoths, who had very different notions of Latinity. We apprehend that dos, in the claffical fenfe, is rarely ufed by the law writers of the middle ages.

But to proceed

This dowry,' fays Dr Ranken, was to be entirely at her own difpofal; only, if fhe died inteftate, it was to return to the hufband and his heirs.

The law fays, De his omnibus in conjugio mulier affumta, SI NON RELIQUERIT FILIOS, facere quod voluerit liberam fe noverit habere licentiam.

Even pannels were protected by laws. To ftrike or injure a pannel unneceffarily or unreasonably, was punished with 100 lafhes; or if by a flave, with 200 !'

We fear the word pannel will convey no fort of idea to fome of our worthy friends in the South. Pannel, be it known, means, in Scotish law, and Dr Ranken's hiftory, a prifoner or perfon under trial. But this is a verbal criticifm. Suppofe it fhould

VOL. VI. NO. II.

P

tura

turn out, that this protecting humanity of the Gothic code is a creature of Dr Ranken's brain, begotten between ignorance and inattention? Si quis furem captum aut reum alicui excufferit, fi majoris loci perfona eft, extenfus coram judice pro folá præfumptione centum flagella fufcipiat, et quem excuffit repræfentare cogatur. Cod. Vif. lib. 7. tit. 2. 1. 20. The law goes on to enumerate other cafes of the fame offence, and inflict other penalties. Now, the meaning of this is clearly-If any one fall rescue from another, a thief taken in the act, or one accufed of a crime, he fhall receive a hundred lashes before the judge, and be compelled to bring back the man whom he refcued. But Dr Ranken has conftrued furem alicui excufferit,' fhall beat any thief; whereas no blows have been fuftained but by Prifcian.

If a hufband difmiffed his wife (we are now in the Burgundian code, tit. 34) without any cause, then his fortune went to her and her children. '

The lady was not even to be difmiffed; Si de his tribus facinoribus (adultery, witchcraft, and violation of fepulchres; that is, we fuppofe, fupping with goules) nihil admiferit, nulli virorum liceat de altero crimine uxorem fuam dimittere; fed fi maluerit, exeat de domo rebus omnibus dimiffis, et illa cum filiis fuis his, quæ maritus habuit, potiatur.

The fourth chapter contains the hiftory of learning, upon which we have no particular obfervation to make. The fifth that of the arts. Of this a great part is occupied by accounts of agriculture, architecture, and the like, all extracted from Roman writers, and relating to Italy alone, but little more applicable to France than to Kamtfchatka. They are moreover as erroneous as they are impertinent. To fay nothing of a tranf lation from the elder Pliny in p. 416, and from the younger in P. 444, which would reap ftripes in a fchoolboy, what could induce Dr Ranken to enter into a defcription of the five orders of architecture? What demon could put into his head, that the Corinthian order is little more than an additional ornament to the chapiter of the Ionian column?' or that, in the Ionic, volutes were made to depend from the architrave?' If this be fo, there has been a marvellous confpiracy in all architects, ancient and modern, to delude the world; fince it is certain, that in every building and in every book, the volutes are found to be appendages to the capital, and not the architrave, of the Ionic order. Gothic architecture comes next under review, though, at the death of Charlemagne, when this volume ends, there certainly was not a Gothic edifice throughout all Europe. We fhall not be fevere upon Dr Ranken's notions about this art, as it feems the privilege of all the world at prefent to talk about Gothic

Gothic architecture, without understanding what it means. The fixth and feventh chapters, the hiftory of commerce, and of language and manners, are very jejune,-probably, in fome degree, through the deficiency of materials.

We have been fo long detained upon the first volume of Dr Ranken's work, that we can pay scarce any attention to the two laft. We fhall only make a few ftrictures on the extracts which he gives from the Capitularies.

One of these enacts, Ne decem anni, neque viceni, vel triginta annorum præfcriptio, religiofis domibus opponatur, fed fola quadraginta annorum cunicula. This law is founded on the fame principles as the English maxim, nullum tempus occurrit Ecclefia; that is, the probability that men, who have only a life-intereft, will rather lofe or compromise their rights, than embark in litigation. But Dr Ranken, overlooking the words religiofis domibus, has rendered it, as a general rule of prescription for all perfons. Again,

A man's widow was entitled to a third share of the fortune which he had himself acquired; but all that he held by inheritance, or other mode of accession, from his friends, defcended to his children and other legal beirs.

The Capitulary fays, De iis rebus, quas is, qui illud beneficium babuit, aliunde adduxit vel comparavit, vel ei ab amicis fuis collatum eft, has volumus tam ad orphanos defunctorum, quam ad uxores eorum pervenire.

Culpable homicide was punished with banishment, befides the wargild, or fine, paid to the nearest heirs of the deceafed. Murder was punished with death. '

The capitularies referred to are lib. 4: 20. and lib. 6. 39: The first runs in these words: Quicunque hominem aut de levi caufa, AUT SINE CAUSA INTERFECERIT, Wirgildus ejus his, ad quos ille pertinet, componatur. Ipfe verò propter talem præfumptionem in exilium mittatur, ad quantum tempus nobis placuerit, res tamen fuas non amittat. The fecond enacts: Si quis ferro percufferit hominem, et mortuus fuerit, qui percuffit, reus erit homicidii, et ipfe morietur. We were ftruck by the difficulty of reconciling these two laws, and once fuppofed the second to have been an alteration of the firft; but on looking more narrowly into the fixth book of the Capitularies, we found it to be merely an extract from the Levitical law, from the beginning down to the 54th title. Thus, the law, Si quis ferro, &c. above cited, is a tranflation of Numbers, ch. 35. v. 16. We do not apprehend that the Mofaic code was ever of binding force in the dominions of Charlemagne, and confider the first law refpecting homicide as the true one.

Dr Ranken is both amufed and fcandalized at the following law, Capit. lib. 7. 321. Let no man take more than two wives,

P 2

for