[3] See, for example, Goro Dati's "Storia di Firenze."
[4] Since this paper first appeared many important researches have been made on the origin of Florence and its Commune, particularly by Professor D. O. Hartwig, of whose estimable work we shall speak later on. Several general histories of Florence have also been published, of which the more noteworthy are the "Storia della Repubblica di Firenze," by the Marquis Gino Capponi (Florence, Barbera, 1875, 2 vols.), and "L'Histoire de Florence," by Mons. Perrens (Paris, 1877–90, 9 vols.), both to be mentioned farther on.
[5] At the time when this sentence was written Malespini was held to be anterior to Villani, and the latter his plagiarist. Later, the contrary was proved by Scheffer-Boichorst, many of whose arguments admit of no reply. But Marchese G. Capponi refused to be convinced, on the strength of certain indications establishing, as he thought, that Malespini had written at an earlier date than Villani. Later again the diligent researches begun by Professor Lami confirmed the fact that Malespini's work is a compilation, chiefly, from Villani, and perhaps, though only here and there, from some other chronicler of possibly earlier date. The latter hypothesis would explain the deductions of Gino Capponi.
[6] Published in Florence, 1838, 2 vols., at "The Sign of Dante" printing office. See also Gervinus, "Geschichte der florentinischen Historiographie." Frankfurt, 1833.
[7] Capellæ, "Commentarii," of which eleven editions appeared between 1531 and 1542. Ranke, "Zur Kritik neurer Geschichtschreiber." I may now add that in my opinion Ranke was exaggeratedly hostile to Guicciardini, whose historic merits are proved by documentary evidence. Vide my work on Machiavelli, end of vol. iii.
[8] Here allusion is made to Capponi's "History," which was still unpublished at the time.
[9] Vide "Discorso Storico," chap. i.
[10] Gino Capponi, "Lettere sui Longobardi."
[11] Everything connected with the division of the land has been the theme of much dispute, both in Italy and abroad. It was learnedly treated by Troya, in his work on the "Condizione dei Romani vinti dai Longobardi"; Capponi and Capei discussed it with much subtlety in their "Lettere sui Longobardi" (appendix of the "Archivio Storico Italiano," vols. i. and ii.); so too Manzoni, Balbo, &c. The question turns on the interpretation of two passages in "Paulus Diaconus." The passage alluding to the first division made, when the Longobards seized one-third of the revenues of the land, is clear enough: "His diebus multi nobilium Romanorum ob cupiditatem interfecti sunt. Reliqui vero per hospites divisi, ut terciam partem suarum frugum Langobardis persolverent, tributarii efficiuntur." But the other is much less clear, and has been variously interpreted. This is the reading most generally adopted: "Hujus in diebus" (i.e., in Autari's reign) "ob restaurationem Regni, duces qui tunc erunt, omnem substantiarum suarum mediatatem regalibus usibus tribuunt; populi tamen agravati per langobardos hospites, partiuntur." But a tenth-century version, in the Ambrosian Codex, runs as follows: "Aggravati pro Longobardis, hospitia partiuntur." The division of the land (hospitia), and not of the fruits of the land, would seem more clearly indicated in this second reading, accepted by Balbo. Prof. Capei, on the other hand, while accepting the first reading, asserts that the word partiuntur should be interpreted in an active sense. The conquered divided their lands with their conquerors, and therefore were oppressed (aggravati), being compelled to yield one-half of their estates, but they had at least the advantage of retaining the other half in their own possession.
[12] Among other authorities, vide Gino Capponi, note to doc. 3, vol. i. of the "Archivio Storico Italiano."