Gambar halaman

are thoroughly competent even if many of their conclusions on disputed questions are open to doubt. We note in passing that, contrary to the opinion of Bury and of a number of other scholars, Dr. Wlislocki in the first line of his account of the Huns (section vi.) takes for granted their identity with the Hiung Nu. He regards the Huns as originally Turks, but soon much mixed, and believes the Bulgarians and probably the Magyars to have been chiefly Finns. On the particularly vexed question of the origin of the Roumanians he cautiously admits the possibility of truth in all the conflicting theories.

Section vii., Eastern Europe, by Professor Vladimir Milkowicz, deals with Russia and Poland. The Russian part, in spite of the praise bestowed upon it in the editor's preface, is not especially good. Its facts are familiar, its conclusions are often biassed and not over-convincing. The Polish portion is better as well as fuller. There is still so little of serious historical writing on Poland in the Western languages that we welcome every addition to the store. The author's tone is in the main fair and dispassionate, but at times he is most disappointing, as in his unpardonably inadequate account of the partitions of Poland, which is followed by less than a page (in this six hundred and fifty page history of eastern Europe) to bring the history of Poland down to the present day!

There is one last severe criticism we have to make that falls on the translation. In a work full of proper names for the most part transliterated from another alphabet, a consistent system of spelling is of obvious importance. The matter should have been turned over to some competent person, instead of which the translator of each section seems to have been free to follow his or her will, regardless of any one else. In section vii.- to name the worst offender-f, v and w are used indiscriminately for the same Russian letter, and even the Polish names are tampered with in spite of the fact that as Polish uses the Roman alphabet no changes are admissible.

These evils are brought out glaringly by the egregious index, whose compiler was evidently incapable of recognizing the same word under two separate spellings or the same person with two qualifications attached to him. A few examples will show the result of this. The first heading in the index is Aachen, p. 55; a little later, p. 62, we find Aixla-Chapelle. The Hungarian patriot Count Louis Batthyány is mentioned on page 396. When he is spoken of on the next page his first name is not repeated and an extra accent has somehow got on to the last, so the cautious index has another heading. Katharine II. has only one reference to her (which is more than that spelling deserves) but she comes to her own as Catherine II. We have separate headings for Justinian and Justinian Emperor; for Council of Nicaea and Council of Nicea; for Alexij Orloff and Alexei Orlov; for Otranto and Otranto in Apulia; and eight different ones with Basil or Basilius to cover two Byzantine emperors. The form Wladislaus comes in but once, and the

[ocr errors]

same is true of Wladislaw, but there are Ladislauses and Vladislavs in plenty, and in utter confusion. Under the plain heading Casimir, the first three references relate to three different persons, one of whom comes in again under four other headings—but it is useless to continue with examples of this kind. Any one with time to waste can find plenty for himself. We can only regret that the English rendering of a painstaking and useful historical work should be marred by such disgraceful slovenliness in some of its details.

ARCHIBALD Cary CoolingE.

Histoire du Dogme de la Papauté des Origines à la fin du

Quatrième Siècle. Par l'Abbé JOSEPHI TURMEL. (Paris : Alphonse Picard et Fils. 1908.

1908. Pp. 492.) The Abbé Turmel has gathered into a book the studies which he has published in the Retue Catholique des Eglises. He professes by his title to give a history of the dogma of the papacy in the first four centuries, but the work is not so much a contribution to the history of dogma as a study of the historical development of the Roman authority in the early period. The progress of dogmas of which the author speaks (p. 189) means, in this instance, the progress of actual jurisdiction. In more than one passage the term dogma is used when power would have been more exact. A sentence midway in the book might well have stood as a preface: “ Tels étaient les droits de la papauté considérés, non dans leur réalité intime que la théologie peut seule nous faire connaître, mais dans leur exercice historique” (p. 189). The story of this historical development is, however, somewhat confused by the constant implication that the Roman consciousness of dogmatic and governmental authority was in full existence at all times, even when it found no expression and was not presented as the basis of action. Possibly Turmel's adhesion to this dogma prevented him from following the example of Sohn's Kirchenrecht in exhibiting the growth of Roman authority as a special case of a class of facts, as a signal instance of the preponderant influence

a won by the great centres and their bishops. In one passage (pp. 178– 186), however, Turmel makes an admirable statement of this general case of development, and his scientific integrity is illustrated by the frank and admirable candor with which in one matter of great importance (p. 64) he acknowledges a conflict between historic induction and theology. Probably no more lucid and incisive statement of the problem of transition from collegial episcopate to monarchic episcopate can be named than that which leads to the acknowledgment just cited.

The work is able, minute, clear, erudite, interesting, and shows an amazing knowledge of the work of German and English scholarship. It is a monograph of great value especially in dealing with the fourth century where the general church histories like the recent admirable work of the Abbé Duchesne sacrifice the detail of this particular matter to the larger story of state establishment and theological warfare. The reader of the monograph is often aware that the audience addressed has a special theological and national interest in the matter and reconciles himself to some valuable discussion which for another audience might have been more brief.

Although the Abbé Turmel has an intelligence disciplined by historical science, able to present both sides of a discussion with full justice to each, and to find a conclusion in strict conformity to the body of the facts, there are some instances where a zeal other than that of the historian triumphs over his accuracy. Such apparently is the case when he renders the phrase of Irenaeus ("propter potentiorem principalitatem ") by “prééminence suprême ", or when he gratuitously interpolates the notion of absolute Roman authority into the story of the synod which condemned Novatian: “sur un mot de lui soixante évêques italiens se rassemblent” (p. 102). Turmel imagines that Cyprian was at first docile to Roman authority and later became truculent, but the early submissiveness is got by forcing Cyprian's language in the translation. “I thought it well to stand by your judgment” (“standum putavi et cum vestra sententia ") becomes “j'ai cru devoir me conformer à votre decision” (p. 95), and without a hint of omission Turmel drops the remaining words of Cyprian which preclude the idea of submission to authority. A promise of Cyprian to communicate his decision is rendered “non sans nous mettre d'accord avec vous” (p. 95). A Roman acknowledgment of Cyprian's courtesy ("pro tuo more fecisti ") becomes the approbation of a superior (“ tu as bien fait", p. 97) and Cyprian's request to Stephen of Rome to write "plenissimas litteras ” in a matter of discipline becomes a request for "une lettre décisive” (p. 124). Turmel's final conclusion that Cyprian's attitude in the baptismal controversy “dénote chez lui un sentiment peu net des droits de la primauté” (p. 172) is a gentle verdict from the Romanist point of view, but the long discussion might have more definitely reached the conclusion that Cyprian acknowledged in Rome not a primacy of authority but a primacy of honor.

It is possible that such misreadings as have been cited are due to haste and the standing misconception of " les droits de la primauté ". It is certainly only carelessness that caused a mistranslation of the third canon of the council of Sardica (p. 253). The canon provides that on an appeal of deposed bishops to Julius of Rome the trial may be resumed by the bishops who are neighbors to the province of the deposed. Turmel's translation means that the neighboring bishops shall refer an appeal to Rome for decision by the pope. This serious exaggeration of Roman authority is, however, confined to the translation of the canon. Two pages later Turmel properly interprets the meaning of the canon in his discussion. Yet this is not the only blemish. The canon simply delegates to Julius of Rome, not to the papacy in perpetuity, right to summon a new council in the case of an appealed case of deposition. Turmel writes: "il a attribué au pape ... un droit de révision." His discussion on the other hand sets forth that the right was a novelty in practice, instituted at that particular time.


The book is a useful help in tracing the development of Roman appellate jurisdiction, though it is obvious that it must be read with cautious, critical attention.




Recueil des Actes de Lothaire et de Louis V., Rois de France (954–

987). Publié sous la Direction de M. H. D'ARBOIS DE JUBAINVILLE, Membre de l'Institut, par M. Louis HALPHEN, avec la Collaboration de M. FERDINAND LOT. (Paris: C. Klincksieck. 1908. Pp. lv, 231.)

Recueil des Actes de Philippe Jer, Roi de France (1059–1108).

Publié sous la Direction de M. D'ARBOIS DE JUBAINVILLE, Membre de l'Institut, par M. PROU, Professeur à l'École des Chartes. (Paris: C. Klincksieck. 1908. Pp. ccl, 567.)

It is a curious fact that although the science of diplomatics had its origin in France and the traditions of the Benedictines have been well maintained by the École des Chartes yet the documentary sources of French history have not been collected and sifted with the same system and thoroughness as in Germany, and the French student has at his disposal no such body of Urkunden and Jahrbücher as his German colleagues have prepared. Even the field which interests France and Germany equally, the period of the Carolingians, has been tilled almost wholly by German and Austrian scholars. Projects for such undertakings have, however, not been lacking in France. Even before the Revolution the Academy of Inscriptions and the government formed plans for publishing in chronological order all the documents important for the history of France, and by the middle of the nineteenth century a large mass of copies had been accumulated for that purpose. These schemes were, however, too vast for execution, and they failed to take sufficient account of the need of studying critically each group of documents by itself. Only comparatively recently, largely through the efforts of the late Arthur Giry and M. Maurice Prou, has the Academy of Inscriptions turned to the more practicable task of issuing an edition of the documents of the West Frankish and French sovereigns from 840 to 1223. The first two volumes are now before us, and we learn from M. d'Arbois's preface that the work for the others is well advanced. A series of non-royal documents will be inaugurated next year by M. Léopold Delisle's monumental study of the charters of Henry II. for his continental dominions.



[ocr errors][ocr errors]

For M. Halphen's volume on the last two Carolingians the body of material is not large. He has been able to discover in all but fifty charters of these sovereigns, besides twelve forgeries and some scattered references to others documents, and, thanks to the excellent studies of M. Ferdinand Lot on this period, he has not been able to bring out much that is new for its history. The diplomatic introduction is a model of sober and concise statement, and occasionally, as in the account of the chancery, it throws light on the vicissitudes of royal power during these reigns and the growing demoralization toward the end. M. Prou deals with a longer period, and the one hundred and seventy-two charters which he has collected furnish the indispensable basis for the still unwritten history of Philip I.'s reign. On the whole, though, the perusal of these documents is disappointing, both for political history and for the study of institutions. Philip I. was not a personage of importance, and while his long reign fell in a notable period of history, his own official acts throw singularly little light upon his times.

Both volumes are admirable types of what such works should be. The text has been established with scrupulous care, the various copies and earlier editions are fully indicated, and the typography is excellent. To many the pains taken will seem almost too great, for the index refers regularly to lines as well as pages, and the list of copies is extended to the point of including all modern transcripts, even when they have no value for the text. The introductions are important contributions to diplomatics, and it is a convenience to be able to consult them in the same volume with the charters instead of having to seek them elsewhere, as in the case of the series with which this one takes rank, the Diplomata of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica.


p mpಳಗೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ರ್ಪಜಾ

English Society in the Eleventh Century: Essays in English Medie

val History. By Paul VINOGRADOFF, D.C.L., LL.D., Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1908. Pp. xii, 599.)

The middle ground between the conditions described in his two earlier works, the Growth of the Manor, in so far as it is a study of origins, and Villainage in England, a study of the perfected manor, Professor Vinogradoff has covered with a close and systematic investigation into the social conditions disclosed by Domesday Book. He has cut, in a sense, a section across English society at the moment when Norman institutions and customs were being imposed upon the already complex conditions resulting from Scandinavian occupations and the natural development of the Anglo-Saxons. In the first of the two essays into which the book is divided he approaches the subject from above, discussing the influence of public law on society as seen, first, in the military organization necessary for the defense of the country, the fyrd.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »