of the Roman Empire, it was only a degenerate representation even of the Byzantine state. This third period is characterized as the Greek Empire of Constantinople. Its feeble existence was terminated by the Ottoman Turks at the taking of Constantinople in 1453. (4) When the Crusaders conquered the greater part of the Byzantine Empire, they divided their conquest with the Venetians and founded the Latin Empire of Romania with its feudal principalities in Greece. The domination of the Latins is important as marking the decline of Greek influence in the East and as causing a rapid diminution in the wealth and numbers of the Greek nation. This period extends from the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 until the conquest of Naxos by the Ottoman Turks in 1566. (5) The conquest of Constantinople in 1204 caused the foundation of a new Greek state in eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire, called the Empire of Trebizond. Its existence is a curious episode in Greek history, though the government was characterized by the peculiarities which indicated the influence of Asiatic rather than of European manners. It bore a strong resemblance to the Georgian and Armenian monarchies. During two centuries and a half it maintained a considerable degree of influence, based, however, rather on its commercial position and resources than on its political strength or its Greek civilization. Its existence exerted little influence on the fate of Greece, and its conquest, in the year 1461, excited little sympathy. (6) The sixth and last period of the history of Greece under foreign domination extends from 1453 to 1821 and embraces the records both of the Ottoman rule and of the temporary occupation of the Peloponnesus by the Venetian Republic, from 1685 to 1715.22

Finlay, as has already been said, made a great step forward in the study of Byzantine history. Though his division of Greek history into periods, like any schematic division, is a debatable procedure, still his is the unquestionable distinction of having been the first to turn his attention to the internal history of the Byzantine state in its juridical, social, and economic phases. Of course, this was not a series of profound original investigations, which, as regards many questions, are still wanting. Most of Finlay's accounts of the internal history were based upon general considerations and 23 Finlay, op. cit., I, xvii-xix.

on analogies with recent historical events. His signal service was to indicate and raise many interesting questions concerning the internal history of the Byzantine Empire. Finlay's work is read even today with much benefit and interest, in spite of the fact that he took up Byzantine history only because without it he could not relate the history of modern Greece.

For deep and original research, says the English historian, Freeman, for a comprehensive grasp of his subject, and above all for a bold and independent spirit of inquiry, Finlay may take his place among the first historical writers of our time. His book is one of the sterling works of our age. Looking at all its circumstances, at the vastness of its conception, and the difficulties of its execution, it is the greatest work which British historical literature has produced since the days of Gibbon (this is written by Freeman in 1855). He passed his life in the land and among the people of whom he wrote. Perhaps no great historical work ever so directly owed its origin to the practical phenomena of the modern world. Living in Greece, a man of keen observant mind, a student of law and political economy rather than a professed scholar, he was led to think deeply on the state of the land in which he lived, and to trace the causes of what he saw to their origin two thousand years before. It is easy, in reading Finlay's works, to see how much they have both gained and lost by the peculiar circumstances under which they have been written. No work produced by either an ordinary scholar or an ordinary politician could ever come near to the native strength and originality of the work of the solitary thinker, studying, musing, and recording the events of two thousand years in order to solve the problems which he saw at his own door.23

In these last words Freeman shows a real understanding of Finlay's distinctive features, i.e., the attempts to explain, by means of ancient survivals in the present time, analogous phenomena in the past.

Paparrigopoulo.-About the middle of the nineteenth century the attention of men interested in Byzantine history turned to the works of Paparrigopoulo, a serious Greek scholar and professor at the University of Athens who devoted his life to the study of the 23 Freeman, Historical Essays, III, 241-43.

past of Greece. Already in the thirties and forties he published some brief and interesting historical works: for instance, the work On the Settlement of Some Slav Tribes in the Peloponnesus (IIepì τῆς ἐποικήσεως Σλαβικών τινων φύλων εἰς τὴν Πελοπόννησον), Athens, 1843. But these were only preparatory steps toward his more extensive work. The main enterprise of his life was to write a history of his people. The result of his thirty years' effort was a five-volume History of the Greek People from the Most Ancient Times to Recent Years (Ιστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἔθνους ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων Xpóvwv μéxρɩ τŵV VEWTEρwv), Athens, 1860-77; several editions came out later, the most recent edition by Karolides, Athens, 1925. This work gives the history of the Greek people until 1832. Written in modern Greek, this rather bulky work was not accessible to all, and Paparrigopoulo later decided to set forth his most important results in one volume written in French and entitled A History of Hellenic Civilization (Histoire de la civilisation hellénique), Paris, 1878. Toward the end of his life he undertook to do the same thing in Greek, but he died before he finished this task. After his death this work was published under the title of The Most Instructive Results of the History of the Greek People (Athens, 1899). It represents an abstract or an outline, and at times a revision of what was given in a very detailed way in the five-volume history. The second, third, fourth, and fifth volumes have to do with Byzantine history.

In spite of its strongly biased character, the work of Paparrigopoulo deserves much attention. As a convinced patriot the author looks upon history from a purely nationalistic Greek point of view; in all important phenomena he sees Greek origin and considers Roman influence only casual and superficial. The author's attention is particularly attracted to his favorite period, the epoch of the Iconoclast emperors. Considering not only the religious aspect of the period, the Greek scholar sees in this movement an attempt at real social reform coming out of the innermost depths of the Hellenic spirit, and enthusiastically contends that, "leaving aside the fundamental religious dogmas, the Hellenic reforms of the eighth century were, from the standpoint of social changes, much broader and more systematic than more recent Western European reforms, advocating principles and dogmas which, to our great astonishment,

are found in the eighth century.24 But these reforms were too bold and radical for Byzantine society; hence the Iconoclast epoch was followed by a reactionary period. This explains why the Macedonian dynasty followed a conservative policy. Hellenism retained its importance during the entire medieval period. There were no inner causes for the fall of Constantinople in 1204; the capital of the empire yielded only to the crude physical force of the crusaders. And if the sad event of 1204 dealt a heavy blow to "Byzantine Hellenism," then soon after this a dominating influence is exercised by "modern Hellenism," whose direct descendants are the modern Greeks of the nineteenth century. Thus, in the opinion of Paparrigopoulo, Hellenism in one form or another continued its healthy existence during the entire Byzantine period. Quite naturally, the work of this Greek scholar reflects the enthusiasm of a Greek patriot. Still, his large History of the Greek People and the French History of Hellenic Civilization are very valuable books. Paparrigopoulo's chief service was to point out the great importance and complexity of the Iconoclast movement. His work cannot be readily used because it has no index or references, and the verification of facts and conclusions is very difficult and inconvenient.

Hopf.-To the body of serious and tireless scholars in the field of Byzantine history in the nineteenth century belongs the German professor, Carl Hopf (1832–73). A native of Westphalia, he was the son of a secondary-school teacher, especially interested in Homer. From a very early age he showed evidence of a striking memory and capacity for foreign languages. After completing his studies at the University of Bonn he remained there as an assistant and devoted himself passionately to the solution of his chief scientific problem, i.e., the study of Greek history under the Frankish domination, the period after 1204 A.D. In 1853-54 Hopf made his first journey, by way of Vienna, to Northern Italy, which at that time was still in the hands of Austria. There he worked intensively, spending most of his time in some of the private family archives. His labors resulted in the publication of a number of archive documents and monographs devoted to the history of separate Frankish kingdoms in Greece and of the islands of the Aegean Sea. Becoming professor at

24 Paparrigopoulo, Histoire de la civilisation hellénique, p. 194.

Greifswald and later chief librarian and professor at Königsberg, Hopf continued his study of the Middle Ages. For the purpose of further study he made a second journey (1861-63) during which he visited Genoa, Naples, Palermo, Malta, Corfù, Zante, Syra, Naxos, and Greece, where he collected an enormous amount of material in manuscripts. Upon his return home Hopf began his work of putting these materials in order, but his health broke down and he died at Wiesbaden (1873) in the prime of his life and at the height of his creative scholarly career. He published a considerable number of monographs and articles, as well as numerous sources referring to the Frankish epoch.

The most important and valuable work of Hopf is his History of Greece from the Beginning of the Middle Ages to the Most Recent Times (Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginne des Mittelalters bis auf die neuere Zeit, 1867–68).

This work shows the author's wide acquaintance with original sources, which manifests itself particularly in the parts of the book based on the manuscript material collected by Hopf himself. He devoted most of his book to the period of Frankish domination in the East; here again, basing his narrative on a mass of archive material, he was, so to say, the first one to give a detailed account of the external history of this domination, not only in the important centers, but also in the small islands of the Aegean Sea. As not all the manuscripts collected by Hopf have been published, certain portions of his book based upon them, are not merely a secondary work, but may be considered as a genuine primary source.

Hopf's history analyzes in detail the question of the Slavs in Greece. In his discussion of this question he advances facts and arguments against the famous theory of Fallmerayer, which maintained that the blood of the modern Greeks contains not a drop of the ancient Hellenic blood, and that the Greeks of today are descendants of the Slavs and Albanians who invaded Greece in the Middle Ages.25

Unfortunately, this valuable work of Hopf has been published in the old General Encyclopedia of Arts and Sciences (Ersch-Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, vols.

25 This question will be discussed at length later.