the opulent watering-place of Baiae always remained, 66 Oppida Caesena, in this sense we find Cicero alluding to " Italia tributim descripta" as a matter of interest to the candidates for public offices. (Q. Cic. de Petit. Cons. 8.) 3. Italy under the Roman Empire.—No material change was introduced into the political condition of Italy by the establishment of the imperial authority at Rome; the constitution and regulations that existed before the end of the Republic continued, with only a few modifications, in full force. The most important of these was the system of municipal organisation, which pervaded every part of the country, and which was directly derived from the days of Italian freedom, when every town had really possessed an independent government. Italy, as it existed under the Romans, may be still regarded as an aggregate of individual communities, though these had lost all pretensions to national independence, and retained only their separate municipal existence. Every municipium had its own internal organisation, presenting very nearly a miniature copy of that of the Roman republic. It had its senate or council, the members of which were called Decuriones, and the council itself Ordo Decurionum, or often simply Ordo; its popular assemblies, which, however, soon fell into disuse under the Empire; and its local magistrates, of whom the principal were the Duumviri, or sometimes Quatuorviri, answering to the Roman consuls and praetors: the Quinquennales, with functions analogous to those of the censors; the Acdiles and Quaestors, whose duties nearly corre sponded with those of the same magistrates at Rome. These different magistrates were annually elected, at first by the popular assembly, subsequently by the Senate or Decurions: the members of the latter body held their offices for life. Nor was this municipal government confined to the town in which it was resident every such Municipium possessed a territory or Ager, of which it was as it were the capital, and over which it exercised the same municipal jurisdiction as within its own walls. This district of course varied much in extent, but in many instances comprised a very considerable territory, including many smaller towns and villages, all which were dependent, for municipal purposes, upon the central and chief town. Thus we are told by Pliny, that many of the tribes that inhabited the Alpine valleys bordering on the plains of Gallia Cisalpina, were by the Lex Pompeia assigned to certain neighbouring municipia (Lege Pompeia attributi municipiis, Plin. iii. 20. s. 24), that is to say, they were included in their territory, and subjected to their jurisdiction. Again, we know that the territories of Cremona and Mantua adjoined one another, though the cities were at a considerable distance. In like manner, the territory of Beneventum conprised a large part of the land of the Hirpini. It is this point which gives a great importance to the distinction between municipal towns and those which were not so; that the former were not only them-vived the fall of the Western Empire, and continued selves more important places, but were, in fact, the capitals of districts, into which the whole country was divided. The villages and minor towns included within these districts were distinguished by the terms "fora, conciliabula, vici, castella," and were dependent upon the chief town, though sometimes possessing a subordinate and imperfect local organisation of their own. In some cases it even happened that, from local circumstances, one of these subordinate places would rise to a condition of wealth and prosperity far surpassing those of the municipium, on which it nevertheless continued dependent. Thus, The municipal organisation of Italy, and the territorial distribution connected with it, lasted throughout the Roman empire, though there was always a strong tendency on the part of the central authority and its officers to encroach upon the municipal powers: and in one important point, that of their legal jurisdiction, those powers were materially circumscribed. But the municipal constitution itself naturally acquired increased importance as the cen-tral power became feeble and disorganised: it sur to subsist under the Gothic and Lombard conquerors, until the cities of Italy gradually assumed a position of independence, and the municipal constitutions which had existed under the Roman empire, became the foundation of the free republics of the middle ages. (Savigny, Gesch. des Römischen Rechts im Mittel Alter, vol. i.) The ecclesiastical arrangements introduced after the establishment of Christianity in the Roman empire, appear to have stood in close connection with the municipal limits. Almost every town which was then a flourishing municipium became the see of a bishop, and the limits of the diocese in general co- VI. The Sixth Region contained Umbria, toincided with those of the municipal territory.* But gether with the land N. of the Apennines, once in the period of decay and confusion that followed, occupied by the Senonian Gauls, and which exthe episcopal see often remained after the city had tended along the coast of the Adriatic from the been ruined or fallen into complete decay: hence Aesis to the Ariminus. On the W. it was sepathe ecclesiastical records of the early ages of Chris-rated from Etruria by the Tiber, along the left bank tianity are often of material assistance in enabling of which it extended as far as Ocriculum. us to trace the existence of ancient cities, and identify ancient localities. 4. Political and Administrative Division under the Roman Empire. It is not till the reign of Augustus that any division of Italy for administrative purposes occurs, and the reason is obvious. So long as the different nations of Italy preserved the semblance of independence, which they maintained till the period of the Social War, no uniform system of administration was possible. Even after that period, when they were all merged in the condition of Roman citizens, the municipal institutions, which were still in full force, appear to have been regarded as sufficient for all purposes of internal management; and the general objects of the State were confided to the ordinary Roman magistrates, or to extraordinary officers appointed for particular purposes. The first division of Italy into eleven regions by Augustus, appears to have been designed in the first instance merely to facilitate the arrangements of the census; but, as the taking of this was closely coupled with the levying of taxes, the same divisions were soon adopted for financial and other administrative purposes, and continued to be the basis of all subsequent arrangements. The divisions established by Augustus, and which have fortunately been preserved to us by Pliny (the only author who mentions their institution), were as follows: I. The First Region comprised Latium (in the more extended sense of that name, including the land of the Hernicans and Volscians), together with Campania, and the district of the Picentini. It thus extended from the mouth of the Tiber to that of the Silarus; and the Anio formed its boundary on the N. II. The Second Region, which adjoined the preceding on the SE., included Apulia, Calabria, and the land of the Hirpini, which was thus separated from the rest of Samnium. III. The Third Region contained Lucania and Bruttium: it was bounded by the Silarus on the NW. and by the Bradanus on the NE. IV. The Fourth Region contained all Samnium, except the Hirpini, together with the Frentani, Marrucini, Marsi, Peligni, Aequiculi, Vestini, and Sabini. It thus extended from the Anio to the frontiers of Picenum, and from the boundary of Unbria on the N. to Apulia on the S. It was separated from the latter district by the river Tifernus, and from Picenum by the Aternus. V. The Fifth Region was composed solely of the ancient Picenum (including under that name the territory of Hadria and of the Praetutii), and extended along the Adriatic from the mouth of the Aternus to that of the Aesis. * A glance at the list of bishoprics existing in any of the provinces of Central Italy (Etruria, for instance, or Umbria), as compared with the names of the towns enumerated by Pliny in the same district, will at once show the connection between the two. (Bingham's Ecclesiastical Antiquities, book ix. chap. v. VII. The Seventh Region consisted of the ancient Etruria, and preserved the ancient limits of that country: viz. the Tiber on the E., the Apennines on the N., and the Tyrrhenian sea on the W., from the mouth of the Tiber to that of the Macra. VIII. The Eighth Region, or Gallia Cispadana, extended from the frontiers of Liguria near Placentia, to Ariminum on the Adriatic, and was bounded by the Apennines on the S., and by the Padus on the N. IX. The Ninth Region comprised Liguria, extending along the sea-coast from the Macra to the Varus, and inland as far as the Padus, which formed its northern boundary from the confluence of the Trebia to its sources in Mt. Vesulus. X. The Tenth Region was composed of Venetia, including the land of the Carni, with the addition of Istria, and a part of Gallia Cisalpina, previously occupied by the Cenomani, extending as far W. as the Addua. XI. The Eleventh Region comprised the remainder of Gallia Transpadana, or the whole tract between the Alps and the Padus, from the sources of the latter river to its confluence with the Addua. It is probable, both from the silence of Pliny, and from the limited scope with which these divisions were first instituted, that the regions had originally no distinctive names applied to them: but these would be gradually adopted, as the division acquired increased political importance. No difficulty could arise, where the limits of the Region coincided (or nearly so) with those of a previously existing people, as in the cases of Etruria, Liguria, Picenum, &c. In other instances the name of a part was given to the whole: thus, the first region came to be called Regio Campaniae; and hence, in the Liber Coloniarum, the "Civitates Campaniae" include all Latium also. [CAMPANIA.] The name of Regio Samnii or Samnium was in like manner given to the fourth region, though perhaps not till after the northern part of it had been separated from the rest under the name of Valeria. The division introduced by Augustus continued with but little alteration till the time of Constantine. The changes introduced by Hadrian and M. Aurelius regarded only the administration of justice in Italy generally (Spartian. Hadr. 22; Capit. M. Ant. 11); but in this, as well as in various other regulations, there was a marked арproach to the assimilating the government of Italy to that of the provinces; and the term Consularis," applied to the judicial officers appointed by Hadrian merely to denote their dignity, soon came to be used as an official designation for the governor of a district, as we find it in the Notitia. But the distinction between Italy and the provinces is still strongly marked by Ulpian, and it was not till the fourth century that the term "Provincia" came to be applied to the regions or districts of Italy (Mommsen, ad Lib. Col. pp. 193, 194.) The changes introduced into the divisions of Augustus, either before the time of Constantine or under that emperor, were the following:- 1. The fourth region was divided into two, the southern portion containing Samnium (to which the land of the Hirpini, included by Augustus in the second region, was reunited), together with the Frentani and Peligni; while the land of the Sabines, the Marsi, and the Vestini, constituted a separate district, which bore the name of VALERIA, from the great highway, the Via Valeria, by which it was traversed. 2. The portion of the sixth region which lay between the Apennines and the Adriatic (originally inhabited by the Gauls) was separated from Umbria properly so called, and distinguished by the name of Picenum Annonarium, while the true Picenum was called, for the sake of distinction, Picenum Suburbicarium. 3. The eighth region, or Gallia Cispadana, was divided into two, of which the westernmost portion assumed the name of AEMILIA, from the highroad of that name; an appellation which seems to have come into common use as early as the time of Martial (iii. 4, vi. 85): while the eastern portion, much the smaller of the two, received that of FLAMINIA, though the highroad of that name only extended to Ariminum, on the very frontier of this district. This new division seems to have been generally united with Picenum Annonarium, though retaining its separate name. 4. The Alpes Cottiae, a mountain district which in the time of Augustus had still retained its nominal independence, though incorporated with the Roman empire by Nero, seems to have continued to form a separate district till the time of Constantine, who united it with the ninth region, the whole of which now came to be known as the Alpes Cottiae: while, still more strangely, the name of Liguria was transferred from this region, to which it properly belonged, to the eleventh region, or Gallia Transpadana; so that late writers speak of Mediolanum as the capital of Liguria. [LIGURIA.] 5. The only other change that requires notice was the division of Etruria into two portions, called Tuscia Annonaria and Tuscia Urbicaria. This, as well as the similar distinction between the two Picenums, had its origin in the administrative arrangements introduced by Maximian, who, when he established the imperial residence at Milan, imposed upon the northern and adjoining provinces the task of finding supplies (annonae) for the imperial court and followers, while the other portions of Italy were charged with similar burdens for the supply of Rome. (Mommsen, ad Lib. Col. pp. 198-200.) Hence Trebellius Pollio, writing in the reign of Diocletian, after enumerating the districts of Southern and Central Italy, comprises all that lay N. of Flaininia and Etruria under the general appellation of "omnis annonaria regio." (Treb. Poll. Trig. Tyr. 24.) 5. Tuscia et Umbria. 6. Picenum Suburbicarium. 7. Campania. 8. Sicilia. 9. Apulia et Calabria. 10. Lucania et Bruttii. 11. Alpes Cottiae (Liguria). 12. Raetia Prima. 13. Raetia Secunda. 14. Samnium. 15. Valeria. 16. Sardinia. 17. Corsica. This list substantially agrees with that in the Libellus Provinciarum (published by Gronovius, Lugd. Bat. 1739), a document of the time of Theodosius I., as well as with that given by Paulus Diaconus in his geographical description of Italy (Hist. Lang. ii. 14-22), though he has added an eighteenth province, to which he gives the name of "Alpes Apennini:" which can be no other than the northern part of Etruria, or Tuscia Annonaria. Of the seventeen provinces enumerated in the Notitia eight were placed under governors who bore the title of Consulares, seven under Praesides, and the two southernmost under Correctores, a title which appears to have been at one time common to them all. (For further details on the administrative divisions of Italy during the latter period of the Roman empire, see the Notitia Dignitatum in Partibus Occidentis, Bonn, 1840, with Böcking's valuable commentary; Mommsen, über die Lib. Colon. in the Schriften der Römischen Feldmesser, vol. ii. Berlin, 1852; Marquardt, Handb. der Röm. Alterthümer, vol. iii. pt. i. pp. 55—71.) The divisions thus established before the close of the Western Empire, were continued after its fall under the Gothic monarchy, and we find them frequently alluded to as subsisting under their old names in Cassiodorus and Procopius. It was not till the establishment of the Lombards in Italy that this division gave place to one wholly different, which became the foundation of that which subsisted in the middle ages. The Lombards divided the part of Italy in which they established their power, including all the N., or what is now called Lombardy, together with a part of Tuscany and Umbria, into a number of military fiefs or governments, under the name of Duchies (Ducatus): the Duchy of Friuli, Duchy of Verona, Duchy of Pavia, &c. Besides those immediately subject to the Lombard kings, two of these were established further to the S., Duchy of Spoleto and Duchy of Benevento, which enjoyed a semi-independent position: and the last of these was extended by successive conquests from the Greek Empire, till it comprised almost the the In addition to these changes, Constantine, in the general reorganisation of his empire, united to Italy the two provinces of Rhaetia (including Vindelicia), as well as the three great islands of Sicily, Sar-whole of the S. of Italy, or the modern kingdom of dinia, and Corsica. These last, together with all the central and southern provinces of Italy, were placed under the jurisdiction of the Vicarius Urbis Romae, while all the northern provinces were subject to the Vicarius Italiae. The minor arrangements seem to have frequently varied in detail, but the seventeen provinces into which the "Dioecesis Italiae" was now divided, are thus enumerated in the Notitia Dignitatum (ii. pp. 9, 10): 1. Venetia. 2. Aemilia. 3. Liguria (i. e. Gallia Transpadana). 4. Flaminia et Picenum Annonarium. Naples. The Greek emperors, however, still retained possession of the Exarchate of Ravenna, together with the district called the Pentapolis, comprising a considerable part of Picenum, and what was called the Duchy of Rome, including a part of Etruria and Umbria, as well as Latium. In the S. also they always kept possession of some of the maritime places of Campania, Naples, Gaëta, and Salerno, as well as of a part of Calabria, and the cities of Otranto and Gallipoli. After the fall of the Lombard kingdom, in A. D. 774, though they had now lost their possessions in the N., the Exarchate and the Pentapolis, the Byzantine emperors for a long time extended their dominion over a considerable part of the S., and wrested from the dukes of Benevento the districts to which they gave the names of the Capitanata and the Basilicata (a part of the ancient Apulia and Lucania), and of which they retained possession till the 11th century. It was then that a new enemy first appeared on the scene, and the Normans, under Robert Guiscard, completed the final expulsion of the Greek emperors from Italy. The capture of Bari in 1071, and of Salerno in 1077, destroyed the last vestiges of the dominion that had been founded by the generals of Justinian. (D'Anville, E'tats formés en Europe après la Chute de l'Empire Romain, 4to. Paris, 1771.) VI. POPULATION OF ITALY UNDER THE The statements transmitted to us from antiquity concerning the amount of the population in different cities and countries are for the most part of so vague a character and such uncertain authority as to be little worthy of consideration; but we have two facts recorded in connection with that of Italy, which may lead us to form at least an approximate estimate of its numbers. The first of these data is the statement given by Polybius, as well as by several Roman writers on the authority of Fabius, and which there is every reason to believe based on authentic documents, of the total amount of the forces which the Romans and their allies were able to oppose to the threatened invasion of the Gauls in B. C. 225. According to the detailed enumeration given by Polybius, the total number of men capable of bearing arms which appeared on the registers of the Romans and their allies, amounted to above 700,000 foot and 70,000 horsemen. Pliny gives them at 700,000 foot and 80,000 horse; while Eutropius and Orosius state the whole amount in round numbers at 800,000. (Pol. ii. 24; Plin. iii. 20. s. 24; Eutrop. iii. 5; Oros. iv. 13.) It is evident, from the precise statements of Polybius, that this was the total amount of the free population of military age (τὸ σύμπαν πλῆθος τῶν δυναμένων öлλа Ваσтáseш), and not that which could be actually brought into the field. If we estimate the proportion of these to the total free population as 1 to 4, which appears to have been the ratio currently adopted in ancient times, we should obtain a total of 3,200.000 for the free population of the Italian peninsula, exclusive of the greater part of Cisalpine Gaul, and the whole of Liguria: and even if we adopt the proportion of 1 to 5, more commonly received in modern times, this would still give a total of only 4,000,000, an amount by no means very large, as the population of the same parts of Italy at the present day considerably exceeds 9,000,000. (Serristori, Statistica d'Italia.) Of the amount of the servile population we have no means of forming an estimate: but it was probably not large at this period of the Roman history; and its subsequent rapid increase was contemporaneous with the diminution of the free population. The complaints of the extent to which this had The Cenomani and Veneti were among the allies who sent assistance to the Romans on this occasion, but their actual contingent of 20,000 men is all that is included in the estimate of Polybius. They did not, like the Italian allies, and doubtless could not, send registers of their total available resources. taken place as early as the time of the Gracchi, and their lamentations over the depopulation of Italy (Plut. T. Gracch. 8), would lead us to suppose that the number of free citizens had greatly fallen off. If this was the case in B. C. 133, the events of the next half century the sanguinary struggle of the Social War, which swept off, according to Velleius Paterculus (ii. 15), more than 300,000 men in the vigour of their age, and the cruel devastation of Samnium and Etruria by Sulla-were certainly not calculated to repair the deficiency. But, notwithstanding this, we find that the census of B. C. 70, which included all the new citizens recently admitted to the Roman franchise, and did not yet comprise any population out of Italy, nor even the Transpadane Gauls, gave a result of 910,000 Roman citizens (capita civium); from which we may fairly infer a free population of at least 4,500,000. (Liv. Epit. xcviii. ed. Jahn, compared with Phlegon, ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 84. ed. Bekker.) The rapid extension of a Roman population in Gallia Cispadana, as well as Venetia and Liguria, had evidently more than compensated for the diminution in the central provinces of the peninsula. Of the populousness of Italy under the Empire, we have no data on which to found an estimate. But there are certainly no reasons to suppose that it ever exceeded the amount which it had attained under the Republic. Complaints of its depopulation, of the decay of flourishing towns, and the desolation of whole districts, are frequent in the writers of the Augustan age and the first century of the Christian era. We are told that Caesar in B. C. 46, already found a dreadful diminution of the population (dewǹv bλıyav@pwríav, Dion Cass. xliii. 25); and the period of the Triumvirate must have tended greatly to aggravate the evil. Augustus seems to have used every means to recruit the exhausted population: but that his efforts were but partially successful is evident from the picture which Strabo (writing in the reign of Tiberius) gives us of the state of decay and desolation to which the once populous provinces of Samnium, Apulia, and Lucania, were in his day reduced; while Livy confirms his statement, in regard even to districts nearer Rome, such as the land of the Aequians and Volscians. (Strab. v. p. 249, vi. pp. 253, 281; Liv. vi. 12.) Pliny, writing under Vespasian, speaks of the "latifundia" as having been "the ruin of Italy;" and there seems no reason to suppose that this evil was afterwards checked in any material degree. The splendour of many of the municipal towns, and especially the magnificent public buildings with which they were adorned, is apt to convey a notion of wealth and opulence which it seems hard to combine with that of a declining population. But it must be remembered that these great works were in many, probably in most instances, erected by the munificence either of the emperors or of private individuals; and the vast wealth of a few nobles was so far from being the sign of general prosperity, that it was looked upon as one of the main causes of decay. Many of the towns and cities of Italy were, however, no doubt very flourishing and populous: but numerous testimonies of ancient writers seem to prove that this was far from being the case with the country at large; and it is certain that no ancient author lends any countenance to the notion entertained by some modern writers, of "the incredible multitudes of people with which Italy abounded during the reigns of the Roman emperors" (Ad dison, Remarks on Italy). (See this question fully discussed and investigated by Zumpt, über den Stand der Bevölkerung im Alterthum. 4to. Berlin, 1841.) Gallia Cisalpina, including Venetia and the part of Liguria N. of the Apennines, seems to have been by far the most flourishing and populous part of Italy under the Roman empire. Its extraordinary natural resources had been brought into cultivation at a comparatively late period, and were still unexhausted nor had it suffered so much from the civil wars which had given a fatal blow to the prosperity of the rest of Italy. It would appear also to have been comparatively free from the system of cultivation by slave labour which had proved so ruinous to the more southern regions. The younger Pliny, indeed, mentions that his estate near Comum, and all those in its neighbourhood, were cultivated wholly by free labourers. (Plin. Ep. iii. 19.) In the latter ages of the Empire, also, the establishment of the imperial court at Mediolanum (which continued from the time of Maximian to that of Honorius) must have given a fresh stimulus to the prosperity of this favoured region. But when the Empire was no longer able to guard the barrier of the Alps against the irruptions of barbarians, it was on Northern Italy that the first brunt of their devastations naturally fell; and the numerous and opulent cities in the plains of the Padus were plundered in succession by the Goths, the Huns, and the Lombards. VII. AUTHORITIES. Considering the celebrity of Italy, and the importance which it enjoyed, not only under the Romans but during the middle ages, and the facility of access which has rendered it so favourite a resort of travellers in modern times, it seems strange that our knowledge of its ancient geography should be still very imperfect. Yet it cannot be denied that this is the case. The first disadvantage under which we labour is, that our ancient authorities themselves are far from being as copious or satisfactory as might be expected. The account given by Strabo, though marked by much of his usual good sense and judgment, is by no means sufficiently ample or detailed to meet all our requirements. He had also comparatively little interest in, and was probably himself but imperfectly acquainted with, the early history of Rome, and therefore did not care to notice, or inquire after, places which had figured in that history, but were in his time sunk into decay or oblivion. Mela dismisses the geography of Italy very hastily, as being too well known to require a detailed description (ii. 4. § 1): while Pliny, on the contrary, apologises for passing but lightly over so important and interesting a subject, on account of the impossibility of doing it justice (iii. 5. s. 6). His enumeration of the different regions and the towns they contained is nevertheless of the greatest value, and in all probability based upon authentic materials. But he almost wholly neglects the physical geography, and enumerates the inland towns of each district in alphabetical order, so that his mention of them gives us no assistance in determining their position. Ptolemy's lists of names are far less authentic and trustworthy than those of Pliny; and the positions which he professes to give are often but little to be depended on. The Itineraries afford valuable assistance, and perhaps there is no country for which they are more useful and trustworthy guides; but they fail us exactly where we are the most in want of assistance,―in the more remote and unfrequented parts of Italy, or those districts which in the latter ages of the Empire had fallen into a state of decay and desolation. One of the most important aids to the determination of ancient localities is unquestionably the preservation of the ancient names, which have often been transmitted almost without change to the present day; and even where the name is now altered, we are often enabled by ecclesiastical records to trace the ancient appellation down to the middle ages, and prove both the fact and the origin of its alteration." In numerous instances (such as Aletium, Sipontum, &c.) an ancient church alone records the existence and preserves the name of the decayed city. But two circumstances must guard us against too hasty an inference from the mere evidence of name: the one, that it not unfrequently happened, during the disturbed periods of the middle ages, that the inhabitants of an ancient town would migrate to another site, whether for security or other reasons, and transfer their old name to their new abode. Instances of this will be found in the cases of ABELLINUM, AUFIDENA, &c., and the most remarkable of all in that of CAPUA. Another source of occasional error is that the present appellations of localities are sometimes derived from erroneous traditions of the middle ages, or even from the misapplication of ancient names by local writers on the first revival of learning. One of the most important and trustworthy auxiliaries in the determination of ancient names and localities, that of inscriptions, unfortunately requires, in the case of Italy, to be received with much care and caution. The perverted ingenuity or misguided patriotism of many of the earlier Italian antiquarians frequently led them either to fabricate or interpolate such documents, and this with so much skill and show of learning, that many such fictitious or apocryphal inscriptions have found their way into the collections of Gruter, Muratori, and Orelli, and have been cited in succession by numerous modern writers. Mommsen has conferred a great service upon the student of Italian antiquities by subjecting all the recorded inscriptions belonging to the kingdom of Naples to a searching critical inquiry, and discarding from his valuable collection (Inscriptiones Regni Neapolitani Latinae, fol. Lips. 1852) all those of dubious authenticity. It is much to be desired that the same task may be undertaken for those of the rest of Italy. The comparative geography of ancient and modern Italy had more or less engaged the attention of scholars from the first revival of learning. But of the general works on the subject, those before the time of Cluverius may be regarded more as objects of curiosity than as of much real use to the student. Biondo Flavio (Blondus Flavius) is the earliest writer who has left us a complete and connected view of Italian topography, in his Italia Illustrata (first published in 1474, afterwards with his other works at Basle, in 1531 and 1559): after him came Leandro Alberti, whose Descrizione di tutta Italia (Venice, 1551) contains some valuable notices. But the great work of Cluverius (Italia Antiqua, 2 vols. fol. Lugd. Bat. 1624) altogether superseded those which had preceded him, and became the foundation of all subsequent inquiries. Cluverius has not only brought together, with the most praiseworthy diligence, all the passages of |