which he is treating, or to draw many to a more minute study of them. Hi matchless faculty of sarcasm and depreciation is too constantly kept at work he is too fond of anecdotes showing the weak and ludicrous side of any age of person; he is incapable of enthusiastic admiration for any thing or person Almost any history treated in this manner would leave the contemptible sid uppermost in the reader's imagination. Perhaps no history could pass un scathed through such an ordeal; the Byzantine history, of all others, was th least capable of enduring such a mode of treatment.10

Byzantine history, thus treated in Gibbon's peculiar manner, is presented in the wrong light. The personal histories and domestic affairs of all the Emperors, from the son of Heraclius to Isaac An gelus, are compressed into one chapter. "This mode of dealing with the subject is in harmony with the author's contemptuous attitude to the 'Byzantine' or 'Lower' Empire," remarks Bury. Gibbon's opinion of the internal history of the Empire after Heraclius is remarkable not only because of its superficial character but also be cause it gives an entirely false impression of the facts. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that in Gibbon's time entire periods of history still remained unexplored and unexplained, as for example, the period of the Iconoclasts, the social history of the tenth and eleventh centuries, etc. At any rate, in spite of these defects and gaps, or rather, keeping precisely these in mind, Gibbon's work may be read with much benefit and great interest in our own day.

The first edition of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire came out in six volumes in London during the period 1776-88. This work has been edited many times since its first appearance. At the end of the nineteenth century the English Byzantine scholar, Bury, published a new edition of Gibbon's history, supplementing it with extremely valuable comments, a large number of interesting and refreshing additions on numerous questions, and an excellent index (London, 1896-1900, 7 volumes); Bury aimed to bring out in his additions the results of historical investigations since the time of Gibbon. Gibbon's work has been translated into practically all European languages. Before the appearance of Bury's edition, the French translation of the well-known

16 Freeman, Historical Essays (3d series, London, 1879), pp. 234-35.

17 Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited by J. B. Bury, I (London, 1896), Introduction, p. liii.

idy of them. His tly kept at work; ide of any age or thing or person. contemptible side • could pass unl others, was the

liar manner, is
and domestic

s to Isaac An-
f dealing with
uous attitude
iry. Gibbon's

eraclius is re· but also beHowever, we ntire periods 1, as for exof the tenth hese defects bbon's work own day. Fall of the -ing the pence its first English Byn's history, large numquestions, es); Bury al investi

een transe appearell-known

, edited by

HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE

23

historian and politician Guizot was very valuable because of its critical and historical notes. This thirteen-volume edition was published in Paris in 1828. The Russian translation of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Nevedomsky, was published in seven volumes in Moscow during the years 1883-86.

Lebeau. The negative attitude of the French writers of the eighteenth century toward Byzantium did not prevent the Frenchman, Lebeau, who wrote in the second half of the century, from recording in a very detailed manner the events of Byzantine history in twenty-one volumes. He knew little Greek, and had to resort to Latin translations of original sources, using these without critical discrimination. He entitled his compilation Histoire du Bas-Empire (1757-86), and for a long time his work served as a symbol of the prevalent attitude of disdain toward the Byzantine Empire.18 This work was completed by another person, but the finished work containing twenty-seven volumes is of no importance today. It was revised and enlarged in the nineteenth century by two orientalists, Saint Martin, a specialist in Armenian, and Brosset, in Georgian, history. This new edition (twenty-one volumes, Paris, 1824-36) may have some value even at present, due to the abundant additions from oriental, chiefly Armenian, sources.

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries.-During the Napoleonic period appeared a new nine-volume work by J. C. Royou, a journalist by profession, who became an attorney during the Directory, and play-censor in the period of the Restoration. His compilation has the same title as the work of Lebeau, The History of the Late Empire from the Time of Constantine to the Capture of Constantinople in 1453 (Histoire du Bas-Empire depuis Constantin jusqu'à la prise de Constantinople en 1453), an XII, Paris, 1803. After stating in his introduction that most of the existing histories written in French, especially those of the "Bas-Empire," need revision, the author turns to Lebeau, who, "while possessing some good qualities, is hardly readable." In the opinion of Royou, Lebeau has forgotten that "history must not be an account of all that has happened in the world, but a record of only those events which are of 18 In French the adjective bas has a double meaning: "low" in position, and "late" in time. Lebeau had in mind the latter.

an interesting nature; what gives no instruction or pleasure must be sacrificed without any hesitation." He thinks that "by studying the causes of the fall of empires, means can be found to prevent, or at least retard, their fall in the future. . . . . Finally, in Constantinople we can observe with pleasure, to some extent, the shadow of the Roman Empire: The spectacle is fascinating until the last moment of its existence."19 The often anecdotal text of Royou's history, which is not based on original sources, is not supplemented with any references. From the opinions of the author given before one may judge that his work is of no importance.

Serious general works on the history of the Byzantine Empire began to appear only about the middle of the nineteenth century.

Finlay.-Byzantine history made a large step in advance in the work of the English historian, George Finlay, A History of Greece from the Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time (B.C. 146– A.D. 1864). Finlay, like Gibbon, left an autobiography which throws much light on those factors in Finlay's interesting life that mainly influenced his work. Finlay was born in England in 1799, where he received his elementary education. Later, having chosen the bar as his future career, he went to the German city of Göttingen for the purpose of completing there his studies in Roman law. When the young Finlay was taking leave of his uncle, the latter said to him, "Well, George, I hope you will study hard at Roman law, but I suppose you will visit the Greeks before I see you again."20 These words proved prophetic.

The progress of the Greek Revolution which broke out at this time attracted the attention of all Europe. Instead of studying diligently at Roman law, Finlay read much on the history of Greece, studied the Greek language, and in 1823 decided to visit Greece for the purpose of becoming closely acquainted with the life of the people, who interested him very much. He also wished to settle for himself the question of the possible success of the Greek revolt. During his stay in Greece in 1823-24 Finlay frequently met Lord Byron, who came to Greece, as is well known, for the purpose of

19 Royou, Histoire du Bas-Empire (Paris, 1803), Préface.

20 The autobiography of Finlay in the first volume of Finlay's History of Greece, edited by H. F. Tozer (Oxford, 1877), I, xxxix-xlvi.

participating in the work of national liberation, finding there his premature death. In 1827, after a short visit to England, Finlay returned to Greece and took part in the work of the expedition formed by General Gordon for the purpose of raising the siege of Athens. According to Finlay, the arrival of Count Capodistria as president of Greece, and the protection of the three Great European powers, promised the Greeks a period of peaceful progress. A philhellenist by conviction, believing sacredly in the great future of the new state, Finlay, seized by his passion for Greece, decided to make the soil of Hellas his home forever, and bought for this purpose a landed estate, on the purchase and improvement of which he spent all his money. It was at this time that he began to think of writing a history of the Greek Revolution. Finlay died in Athens in January, 1876. His plans for writing a history of the Greek Revolution led him to study the past fates of Greece. Gradually from the pen of Finlay came a series of separate works on Greek history. In 1844 came out his Greece under the Romans, embracing events from 146 B.C. to 717 A.D. In 1854 appeared his two volumes of the History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires from 716 to 1453. These were followed by two works on modern and contemporary Greek history. Later the author examined all his works carefully and decided to prepare them for a new edition. Finlay died before he finished this undertaking. After his death the general work, A History of Greece from Its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time (B.C. 146A.D. 1864), was published in 1877 in a seven-volume edition by Tozer, who inserted the autobiography of Finlay at the beginning of the first volume. This last edition is the one which should be used today.

Finlay holds the following opinion about the history of Greece up to the nineteenth century: The history of Greece, he writes, under foreign domination records the degradation and the calamities of the nation which attained the highest degree of civilization in the ancient world. Two thousand years of suffering have not obliterated the national character, nor extinguished the national ambition. The history of a people which has preserved its language and its nationality through centuries of misfortune, and whose energy has so far revived as to form an independent state, ought not to be utterly neg

lected. The condition of Greece during its long period of servitude was not one of uniform degeneracy. Under the Romans, and subsequently under the Ottomans, the Greeks formed only an insignificant portion of a vast empire. Their unwarlike character rendered them of little political importance, and many of the great changes and revolutions which occurred in the dominions of the emperors and of the sultans exerted no direct influence on Greece. Consequently, neither the general history of the Roman nor of the Ottoman empire forms a portion of Greek history. Under the Byzantine emperors the case was different; the Greeks became then identified with the imperial administration. The dissimilarity in the political position of the nation during these periods requires a different treatment from the historian to explain the characteristics of the times.21

Finlay divides the history of the Greeks as a dependent nation into six periods: (1) The first period comprises the history of Greece under Roman domination; this period of predominating Roman influence ends only in the first half of the eighth century with the accession of Leo the Isaurian, who gave the administration of Constantinople a new character. (2) The second period embraces the history of the Eastern Roman Empire in its new form, under its conventional title of the Byzantine Empire. The records of this despotism, modified, renovated, and reinvigorated by the Iconoclast emperors, constitute one of the most remarkable and instructive lessons in the history of monarchical institutions. During this period the history of the Greeks is closely interwoven with the annals of the imperial government, so that the history of the Byzantine Empire forms a portion of the history of the Greek nation. Byzantine history extends from the accession of Leo the Isaurian, in the year 716, to the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. (3) After the destruction of the Eastern Roman Empire, Greek history diverges into many channels. The exiled RomanGreeks of Constantinople fled to Asia and established their capital at Nicaea; they prolonged the imperial administration in some provinces on the old model and with the old names. After a lapse of less than sixty years, they recovered possession of Constantinople; but though the government they exercised retained the proud title 21 Finlay, op. cit., I, xv-xvii.