Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/452

444 REl'IEWS OF BOOKS July contains no mention of the abolition of the hereditary satrapies. Lastly, at p. 138, 1. 6, ' Christianity ' is surely an error for ' Diphysitism '. The bibliography is most thorough, but for some reason the original texts of the Armenian writers are not given ; also Bruns's and Kirsch's text of Barhebraeus has been superseded by Bedjan's, and the author has apparently no knowledge of Filler's dissertation on Leontius, and, what is more extraordinary, of Professor Bury's Eastern Roman Empire. Perhaps also my translations of extracts from the Arabic writers in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, xviii. 182, and anie, xv. 728 ; xvi. 84, should have been mentioned. Kosegarten's translation of Al Tabari does not reach this period, and Zotenberg's is only of the Persian epitome. The description of the Chronicle of Simeon the Logothete as a continuation of George the Monk by an ' inconnu ' is incorrect ; it has no connexion with the work of George except that some compiler has chosen to conglomerate the two. I notice that Kisal (p. 177) and Trialeth (p. 278) are not on the map, though under the latter a reference to the map is given in the index, and Locana, under which a reference to the map occurs in the index, appears there as ' Lycandos '. The map has been so well done that I am sorry to find any fault with it ; but it would have been even more useful than it is if the Arab provinces had been marked. E. W. Brooks. Histoire de Lorraine. Tome i, Des Origines a 1562. P-ar Robert Parisot. (Paris : Picard, 1919.) M. Parisot, who published in 1899 a valuable book on Lorraine under the Carolingians, is ' Professeur d'histoire de I'Est de la France ' at the uni- versity of Nancy, He finished this first volume of his new work before the war began, so that it is fortunately free from the bias which inevitably affected all writing on the history of the disputed regions until the results of the war were known. Lorraine for him in this book is primarily the region of the three bishoprics and the Barrois, but he deals more generally with the whole Moselle basin which the Romans called Belgica Prima. M. Parisot attempts to draw, very roughly and with many qualifications, a racial frontier between the region that was predominantly German and that in which the Gallo-Romans remained the chief element after the Frank and Alaman invasions. He relies mainly upon linguistic arguments, and his line runs from north-west to south-east, from the source of the Semoy near Arlon, about fifty kilometres west of Treves, to Denon, the same distance west of Strasburg. But the proportion of Grerman and Gallic elements varies in different parts of Lorraine, and not only in the period of invasions but in later times the rival languages gained and lost ground. German advanced up to the end of the middle ages, but in the sixteenth century, and more rapidly after the Thirty Years' War, French extended over fresh ground. It is not easy to create any impression of unity in the historical account of a region that is divided in race and language, has no capital, no pre- donainant ruler either secular or ecclesiastical, and whose limits are only those of an archiepiscopal province over which the archbishop exercised unusually slight influence. If the old Austrasian capital, Metz, had