Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/255

 1921 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 247 undoubtedly have heard of it later on, when inquiries were made into its rights and all possible evidence was produced on behalf of the monks. As a matter of fact the authority of the bishop was confirmed by Eugenius III and the popes who followed him. Meanwhile the monks, unable to secure an exemption, attempted to gain for their abbot the office of count which was held by the bishop. This led to the fabrication of fourteen documents ranging from Charles the Great to Frederick Barbarossa. Fortified by these privileges the monks went back to their old claim to exemption from the bishop's jurisdiction. The matter was brought before Innocent III in 1199, when he recited the allegations on both sides and called for evidence, but expressly refrained from giving a decision ; ' super subiectione vel libertate monasterii nee statuendum aliquid duximus nee mutandum ' (ii. 266). To speak of this as a ' decision ' in favour of the bishop (ii. 374) is a simple mistake. The pope then, according to practice, appointed delegates to inquire into the question. In 1207 they heard thirty-four witnesses in support of the monastery (ii. 340-64), and were convinced by the evidence that it was immediately subject to the Holy See. But Innocent on receiving their report paid no regard to what was immaterial ; he was only con- cerned about what the popes had granted. He did not mention the bulls of Innocent II and Lucius II, because they were irrelevant. He cited those of Eugenius III, Anastasius IV, Hadrian IV, Lucius III, and Urban III, and decreed finally that the monastery was dependent on the bishop both in spirituals and in temporals (ii. 376-80). If in one important point we have been compelled to join issue with Signor Buzzi, we have nothing but admiration for the remarkable skill and industry with which he has marshalled the evidence. His corrections of Count Cipolla's notes on the chronology of the documents (iii. 1-16 ; cf. i. 22-6) are based on a sound method, though not invariably con- vincing ; and his revision of the sequence and dates of the bishops and abbots from 1143 to 1218 (iii. 149-52) involves a good many changes in the corresponding lists given by his predecessor (i. 29 seq., 56-8). His collec- tion of the topographical data (iii. 85-141) is of great value for the student of local conditions. Reginald L. Poole. Privilegis i Ordinations de les Vails Pirenenques. Editats per Ferran Valls Taberner. Vol. iii. Vail a" Andorra. (Barcelona : Impremta de la Casa de Caritat, 1920. Although the claim of the bishop of Urgel in 1894 to be sole sovereign of Andorra to the exclusion of France aroused a passing interest in the little Pyrenean republic, its history is still little known. While San Marino, which last September for the first time for many generations altered the half-yearly tenure of its chief magistracy, has a copious bibliography, Andorra, except for Tucker's rare monograph of 1882, Leary's book published in 1912, and Johnson's sketch of these two tiny common- wealths, has had no historian in English and not many in Spanish, Catalan, or French— for Blade's Etudes Geographiques sur la Vallee a" Andorra never found their intended completion in his contemplated history. The present volume, published under the auspices of the