Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/451

1920 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 443 table, and an excellent index and map, which add greatly to its utility. The reason for not beginning the chronological narrative till 867 is certainly not very clear, and the separation of the relations with the two empires into two chapters causes some repetition and confusion ; but this does not prevent the author from clearly showing how the Armenians owed their semi-independence to their geographical position, to the nature of the country, and to their feudal military organization, and that, if they had been able to overcome their natural instability and lack of cohesion, they might have risen to much greater and more abiding power and prosperity, while on the other hand the Romans by their persistence in enforcing acceptance of the synod of Chalcedon over and over again drove a powerful ally into the enemy's camp. It is not easy to find any omission in M. Laurent's work, but in the account of the Armenian schism (p. 138) there is no mention of Julianism. The Julianist character of the Armenian church has certainly been questioned ; but the book contains no explanation of the separation between the Armenians and the Monophysite church of Syria and Egypt. I have also found here and there a statement which is at least misleading. Thus from the remark about the tribute of Cyprus at p. 255, n. 2, a reader would suppose that the story of the division of the tribute is an Arab invention, whereas the division was actually made by the treaty of 689, and it is only the ascription of it to the time of Mu'awiya which is a fiction ; also the reference to Nicolas Mysticus on p. 309 makes him appear to have been the immediate successor of Photius. More positive errors are the assertions that Zeno condemned the synod of Chalcedon (p. 138, n. 2 ; p. 264, n. 4), and that the Armeniacs took their name from their neighbourhood to Armenia. (The Armeniacs were certainly so called because they were the army of the ' magister militum per Aimeniam ', just as the Anatolics were the army of the 'magister militum per Orientem', who were moved westward when the eastern provinces were lost.) At p. 94, n. 8, and p. 373, M. Laurent without any argument gives the date of the battle of Bagre- vand as 25 April 772. Now this is one of the few cases in which exact dates are given by the authorities, and the dates stated by Leontius are : Battle of Ardjesh, Saturday, 4 Hrotithz ; battle of Bagrevand, Monday, 14 Hrotithz ; and, as one of these numbers is clearly wrong, Dulaurier read ' 13 ' for ' 14 ', and placed the two battles on 18 and 27 April 761. It has, however, been clearly shown by Filler {Quaest. de Leontii Arm. Ilistoria in Comm. Phil. Jenenses, torn. 7, fasc. 1) that the events happened between 771 and 775, and though that writer leaves the date open, it is not difficult to fix it. The Armenian symbols for 3 and 4 are easily confused, and we must obviously accept Dulaurier's emendation and, since the Armenian year contains 365 days without intercalation, and any day of the year therefore falls on the same day of the week every seven years, place the battles on Saturday 15 and Monday, 24 April, 775 ; which agrees with the fact that Leontius immediately goes on to relate the deaths of the emperor and the caliph, which happened in September and October of that year. At p. 68, n. 2, the reference to the so-called Joshua the Stylite seems to have been taken from Hiibschmann without verification. Hiibschmann refers to ' Joshua ' for the overthrow of Illus and Leontius, and the passage