be of great value to those who wish to know the facts of Byzantine history or read the contents of some of the original sources. The reader also becomes acquainted with the important conclusions and theories of modern historians on the main problems of Byzantine history, social as well as political. Kulakovsky's account of historical events is very detailed, and that is why the three volumes which have appeared (about 1,400 pages) cover the history of the Empire only until the beginning of the eighth century.

Th. I. Uspensky.-In 1914 came out the first volume of the History of the Byzantine Empire by the Russian academician and former director of the Archeological Institute in Constantinople, Th. I. Uspensky. This beautiful publication, with numerous maps, plates, and pictures, gives on 872 pages an account of historical events from the fourth century until the beginning of the eighth century, i.e., until the Iconoclast period. This book represents the first attempt made by a specialist in this field, to write a general history of the Byzantine Empire. The man who undertook it is one of the most distinguished scholars in the field of Byzantine history and culture, who devoted his long and industrious life almost exclusively to the study of different sides and epochs of the complex history of the Byzantine Empire. Wishing to offer an accessible narrative history to a wide circle of readers, Uspensky did not supply his work with many references, either in his footnotes or at the end of chapters, but limited himself to mentioning his main sources and secondary works. The first part of the second volume of his work has just been published (in 1927). It contains the iconoclastic epoch and the problem of the Slavonic apostles, Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius.

Uspensky's first volume is a kind of broad introduction into the history of the Byzantine Empire at the time when the main elements of "Byzantinism" were being created and the complex Byzantine culture was being formed. The author cannot refrain from finding in certain past events of Byzantine history some "lessons" for modern life. While speaking of the dominant importance of the Oriental Byzantine provinces and pointing out that it was precisely in Asia Minor, in the Empire of Nicaea, that the idea of restoring the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth century had grown and

ripened, Uspensky concludes that "the lesson of history must be strictly examined" and weighed by those who are at present waiting for the division of the inheritance of the "dangerously ill patient on the Bosphorus."41 Elsewhere the author says:

We should be greatly mistaken were we to insist that it is within our power to avoid taking an active part in the settlement of matters connected with the Byzantine heritage. Although it usually depends upon the heir to accept or refuse the heritage left to him, still Russia's part in the Eastern question was bequeathed by history and cannot be changed voluntarily unless some unforeseen shock will give us the faculty to forget and stamp out the memory of the things which made us live, strive, and suffer.“

Attempting throughout his work to explain the problem of Slavic-Byzantine relations, the author says at the close of his introduction, written in October, 1912, "Let the reader reflect upon the contents of the chapters devoted to the history of the southern Slavs and let him seek there the explanation of today's sad events in the Balkan peninsula," i.e., the events of the Second Balkan War.43

Uspensky has set himself the goal of putting into the hands of the Russian reader serious material which on the one hand would give him a clear understanding of a carefully weighed and well-reasonedout system, and on the other hand would make him remember with kindness the author, who is convinced that a thorough study of Byzantine history and its relation to Russia's past is indispensable to a Russian scholar and not less necessary for the formation and proper guidance of Russian political and national consciousness.

As an adherent of "Byzantinism," Uspensky takes particular care to define what Byzantinism really is. In his conception the essential features which gave rise to Byzantinism were the immigration of the barbarians to the Empire and the cultural and religious crisis of the third and fourth centuries." Elsewhere we read, "Byzantinism is a historical principle, the effect of which is revealed in the history of the people of Southern and Eastern Europe; this principle directs the development of many states even in our own times; it expresses itself in a particular set of beliefs and political institutions, and, one might say, in special forms of class organization and 41 Th. I. Uspensky, History of the Byzantine Empire (St. Petersburg, 1914), I, xii (in Russian). Ibid., pp. 47-48.

42 Ibid., pp. 46-47.

43 lbid., p. XIV.

land relations."45 By Byzantinism, which is the result of a fusion of Romanism with older cultures, such as Hebrew, Persian, and Hellenic, "is meant primarily the combination of all elements which influenced the gradual reformation of the Roman Empire from the fifth to the eighth centuries, before it was transformed into the Byzantine Empire."46 "Many changes were caused by Germanic and Slavic immigration, bringing on reforms in the social and economic structure and in the military system of the Empire. The new elements exerted much influence upon the reformation of the Roman Empire in the East, causing it to acquire gradually the characteristics of Byzantinism."47 Byzantinism manifests itself in the following phenomena: (1) “in a steady abolition of the prevailing Latin tongue and its gradual replacement by the Greek, or properly speaking, Byzantine, language; (2) in the struggle of nationalities for political supremacy; (3) in the new development of art, in the appearance of new motives which contributed to the creation of new monuments, as well as in peculiar works in the field of literature, where a new and original method is gradually developed under the influence of the patterns and traditions of Oriental culture."48

Uspensky's statement that the Roman Empire in the East acquires the distinguishing traits of Byzantinism about the eighth century indicates that his opinion coincides with that of the English Byzantine scholar, Finlay.

Uspensky's general theses are not proved in the first volume; they can therefore be judged properly only when we shall have his complete history of the Byzantine Empire, or at least a history until the Latin conquest.

The following questions should be pointed out as the main problems raised in the first volume: (1) the question of Slavic migration in the Balkan peninsula and its effect upon Byzantine life; (2) the question of landownership in the Byzantine Empire; and (3) the question of the system of themes, i.e., provincial administration of the Empire. And although these questions do not find a final answer in Uspensky's book, still the interpretations given by the author arouse a desire and a need for a further study of these complex problems.

45 Ibid., p. 16.

46 Ibid., p. 39.

47 Ibid., pp. 39-40.

48 Ibid., p. 40.

This work was conceived by the author more than twenty-five years ago and was written slowly over a long period of time; various parts of it differ greatly in value. Alongside of new, vivid, and interesting chapters we find chapters based on obsolete materials, far below the level reached by modern scholars in the study of certain questions. This is felt particularly strongly in the chapters on the Arabs and Muhammedans. The fact that Uspensky devotes much space to the social life of the Empire should be pointed out as one of the chief merits of the book. The volume makes it possible for the reader to become acquainted with the early period of Byzantine history through a clear exposition by a specialist who devoted his scholarly life almost exclusively to the study of the Byzantine period.

S. P. Shestakov.-In 1913 were published the Lectures on the History of the Byzantine Empire, by S. P. Shestakov, professor at the University of Kazan. A second revised and enlarged edition of these lectures appeared in 1915. The volume deals with historical events beginning with the migrations of the barbarians within the boundaries of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries and ending with the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. The author relates many facts about external political affairs and social life of the Empire and gives some information about the historiography and literature of this branch of history. The information is not always exact and the narrative is very hasty.

C. N. Uspensky.—A very refreshing and vivid impression is left by the Outlines in Byzantine History, published in 1917 in Moscow by the Russian scholar, C. N. Uspensky.49 The volume is only 268 pages long and contains a very interesting general introduction and survey of the social and economic evolution of the Roman Empire. It brings the reader in contact with the important internal problems of the Byzantine period. The account ends with the late Iconoclast period and the restoration of image worship in 843 during the reign of Theodora. The distinguishing feature of these Outlines is the emphasis placed on questions of internal organization of the Empire and religious and social evolution; political events are brought in only at points where the author finds them valuable in the explanation of certain phenomena of social

49 He died in Moscow in 1917.

life. Uspensky carefully develops his main and wholly correct idea of the Hellenistic nature of the Roman and Byzantine empires. He makes an interesting attempt to investigate the feudalizing processes of Byzantine life in the field of laic as well as monasterial landholding. Uspensky was particularly interested in the Iconoclast period, and the last chapters of his Outlines devoted to this epoch deserve particularly serious attention. Among other problems, Uspensky analyzes the formation of the first barbarian kingdoms within the Empire, the administrative reforms and financial management under Justinian, the organization of themes, the peasantry of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries and the so-called "rural code," the problems of land-holding and the excusseia (Byzantine immunity). Small in size, but rich in contents, and written in vivid and imaginative style, this book is of very great value to all persons interested in the history of the Byzantine Empire.

A. A. Vasiliev.-The present work is a translation, revised, corrected, and enlarged, of the most recent Russian contribution in the field of general Byzantine history. The complete work is in two volumes and embraces the whole history of the Byzantine Empire. The first volume was published in 1917 under the title Lectures in Byzantine History. Vol. I. The Period until the Beginning of the Crusades (1081) (Petrograd, 1917. Pp. vii+355). The second volume, embracing the history from the Crusades until the fall of Constantinople in 1453, was published in three separate parts: the first part, Byzantium and the Crusaders (Petrograd, 1923. Pp. 120); the second part, Latin Domination in the East (Petrograd, 1923. Pp. 76); and the third part, The Fall of the Byzantine Empire (Leningrad, 1925. Pp. 143).

Special periodicals; general references concerning law, art, and chronology; papyrology.—The first periodical specially devoted to Byzantine studies appeared in Germany in 1892 and was called the Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Byzantine Journal). In addition to numerous articles and book reviews, it contains a detailed bibliography of all the publications related to Byzantine history. Much space is devoted to all Russian and Slavic publications. Professor Krumbacher was the founder and first editor of this periodical. Twentytwo volumes appeared by 1914. An excellent analytical index to the first twelve volumes appeared in 1909. During the war the Byzan