LXXXV and LXXXVI), which has a very limited circulation. This unsatisfactory edition lacks not only such an indispensable tool as an index, but has not even a table of contents. These purely mechanical defects make the use of this edition very difficult. Besides, this work of Hopf, in the form in which it now exists, was apparently not entirely finished by the author; the material is arranged without any definite plan; the style is dry and heavy; the book is not easily read. But the enormous amount of fresh unpublished material introduced in it opens up sometimes entirely new pages of Greek medieval history during the period of the Frankish domination and makes the work of this German scholar of much importance. The author's attention is centered primarily on external events.

Hopf died early, without having used or published all the material he collected. At present all his manuscript treasures can be found at the Berlin National Library. They constitute a very rich source of information for historians.

Hopf's history was not accessible to the wide reading public. It was too dry, it was too scholarly, and it was published in a littleknown encyclopedia. In later years there were several German scholars who made use of Hopf's work in writing more readable surveys of medieval Greek or Byzantine history. Of such historians at least two should be mentioned: Hertzberg and Gregorovius.

Hertzberg.-Hertzberg, for some time a student of ancient Greek and Roman History, later became interested in the Middle Ages and wrote two works of a general nature: (1) The History of Greece from the End of the Classical Period to the Present Time (Geschichte Griechenlands seit dem Absterben des antiken Lebens bis zum Gegenwart), four volumes, Gotha, 1876-79; (2) History of the Byzantines and of the Ottoman Empire until the End of the Sixteenth Century (Geschichte der Byzantiner und des Osmanischen Reiches bis gegen Ende des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts), Berlin, 1883. While not truly original investigations, these two books have introduced, so to say, many of the results of Hopf's work to a wider circle of readers, particularly because of their fine easy style.

The second book came out in a Russian translation by P. V. Bezobrazov, with notes and appendixes, under the title of G. F. Hertzberg's History of Byzantium (Moscow, 1896). This transla

tion, as compared with the German original, is particularly valuable because Bezobrazov not only indicated the literature on the subject, but added several appendixes which introduce the main results of studies made by Russian scholars in the field of Byzantine internal history. These additions deal with such phases, neglected by Hertzberg, as the great palace and the court ceremonial, handicrafts and trades corporations, peasants, the peasant community and the rural code, the measures for protecting peasant landownership and the serfdom of the peasants, the position of the serfs, the peasant lots, and the tax roll, the system of taxation, and abuses of tax collectors. This last book of Hertzberg, particularly the Russian translation of it, is very valuable for an elementary acquaintance with Byzantine history.

Gregorovius. Another scholar who used Hopf's investigations as a foundation for his own work was F. Gregorovius, famous for his large work on the history of Rome in the Middle Ages. This work on medieval Roman history suggested to the author the idea of studying the medieval history of another center of ancient civilization, Athens. The result of this study was a two-volume History of the City of Athens in the Middle Ages (Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter), Stuttgart, 1889. This book is founded upon the works of Hopf, which, according to Gregorovius,26 form a firm foundation for all investigations made since the time of Hopf, as well as for those which may be undertaken in the future. But Gregorovius drew also upon the cultural life of the country which Hopf, as is well known, neglected in his studies. He handled his problem in a brilliant manner. By bringing into his work material discovered since the time of Hopf, he gave an excellent account of the history of medieval Athens, with the general history of Byzantium as a background. He brought his account down to the time of the formation of the Greek Kingdom in the nineteenth century.

His work may be read with much benefit by all interested in Byzantine History.

Bury.-J. B. Bury, born in 1861, was professor at Cambridge University, in England; he wrote, besides other books in the field of Byzantology, three volumes on the general history of the Byzan26 Gregorovius, op. cit., I, xviii-xix.

tine Empire, embracing events from 395 to 867. The first two volumes came out in 1889 under the title, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (London, 1889). They deal with events up to 800 A.D., i.e., until the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III in Rome. The third volume was published twentythree years later under the title, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (London, 1912). This volume deals with the period from 802 to 867. In 1923 came out a second edition of the first two volumes, covering events only till the end of the reign of Justinian the Great (565 A.D.). This is not merely a revised and enlarged edition, but almost a new work on the early history of the Byzantine Empire. The first of these two volumes, as the author says, might be entitled the "German Conquest of Western Europe," and the second the "Age of Justinian." The history of the period from 565 to 800 has not yet been edited for the second time. The author evidently intended to write a Byzantine history on a wide scale. But unfortunately Bury died on June 1, 1927.

In his work Bury maintains the one right idea: the existence of a continuous Roman Empire from the first to the fifteenth centuries. There is no period of history, says Bury in the preface to the first edition, which has been so much obscured by incorrect and misleading titles as the period of the later Roman Empire. It is more due to improper names than one might at first be disposed to admit, that the import of that period is so constantly misunderstood and its character so often misrepresented. The first step toward grasping the history of those centuries through which the ancient evolved into the modern world is the comprehension of the fact that the old Roman Empire did not cease to exist until the year 1453. The line of Roman Emperors continued in unbroken succession from Octavius Augustus to Constantine Palaeologus, the last of the Byzantine emperors. Now, this essential fact is obscured by applying the name "Byzantine" or the name "Greek" to the Empire in its later stages. Historians who use the phrase "Byzantine Empire" mostly disagree as to the date at which the "Roman Empire" ends and the "Byzantine Empire" begins. Sometimes the line is drawn at the

27 See Preface, p. vii.

foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great, sometimes at the death of Theodosius the Great, sometimes at the reign of Justinian, sometimes (as by Finlay) at the accession of Leo the Isaurian; and the historian who adopts one line of division cannot assert that the historian who adopts a different line is wrong, for all such divisions are purely arbitrary. The Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453, and such expressions as "Byzantine," "Greek," "Romanic," or "Graeco-Roman Empire" serve only to obscure an important fact and perpetuate a serious error.

Moved by these considerations, Bury entitled his first two volumes (first edition), concerned with the period preceding 800 A.D., A History of the Later Roman Empire. In 800 Charlemagne was proclaimed emperor in Rome. Hence from this moment it is quite correct to distinguish the two rival empires by prefixing the adjectives Western and Eastern. But unhappily the phrase "Eastern Roman Empire" is not confined to this legitimate use. We hear of an Eastern and a Western Roman Empire in the fifth century; we hear of the fall of a Western Empire in 476. Such language, though it has the sanction of high names, is incorrect in itself and leads to a further confusion. It is incorrect because of the following considerations: The Roman Empire was one and undivided in the fifth century; though there were generally more Emperors than one, there were never two empires. To speak of two empires in the fifth century is to misrepresent in the grossest manner the theory of the imperial constitution. No one talks about two Roman empires in the days of Constantius and Constans (successors of Constantine the Great); yet the relations between Arcadius and Honorius, the relation between Theodosius II and Valentinian III, the relation between Leo I and Anthemius, were exactly the same as the political relation which existed between the sons of Constantine. However independent one of another, or even hostile, the rulers from time to time may have been, theoretically the unity of the Empire which they ruled was unaffected. No empire fell in 476; that year only marks a stage, and not even the most important stage, in the process of disintegration which was going on during the whole century. The resignation of Romulus Augustulus did not even shake the Roman Empire, far less did it cause an empire to fall. It is un

fortunate, therefore, that Gibbon spoke of the "fall of the Western Empire" and that many modern writers have given their sanction to the phrase.

Thus the Roman Empire existed from the first century B.C. to the fifteenth century A.D. Only from the year 800 forward may it be distinguished as the Eastern Roman Empire, because of the foundation of another Roman Empire in the West.28 Bury therefore entitled his third volume, published in 1912 and narrating events from 802 forward, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire in order to distinguish it from the first two volumes.

Bury points out the superficial manner in which Byzantine history has been treated by the philosophers and writers of the eighteenth century and notes that these eminent men have entirely ignored one of the most important and essential factors in the development of Western European civilization, i.e., the influence of the later Roman Empire and New Rome.29

Of course, Bury's point of view is nothing new. The idea of a continuous Roman Empire was recognized before his time by such men as Montesquieu (in his Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence). But Bury advanced this thesis with unusual force and made it very convincing through his work.

His history deserves very close attention. While giving the history of the eastern part of the empire, he follows, until 800, the events in the western part, which is, of course, in keeping with his idea of the unity of the Roman Empire. Bury does not limit himself to political history only; entire chapters of his book are devoted to questions of administration, literature, social life, geography, art, etc. The first two chapters of the second edition, devoted to the constitution of the monarchy and the administrative machinery, are considered by a very well-known specialist in the history of the Roman Empire as the best short description of the general conditions which prevailed in the late Roman Empire.30 Bury knew

28 Bury, op. cit., I, Introduction, pp. v-viii. This introduction has been omitted in the second edition, but it still bears upon our historical survey. See F. Dölger, in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXVI, 1-2 (1926), 97.

20 Ibid.

30 M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1926), p. 628.