Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/625

 1920 SHORT NOTICES 617 but the Greeks by their quarrel with the Armenians had done more than this. By weakening and then overthrowing the Armenian kingdom they had substituted disaffected, subjects for what should have been friendly neighbours, and had thus opened the way for the Turks. The same may be said of the annexation of Georgia. The writer looks upon these events rather differently, when he writes,' leirrs premieres invasions [of the Seldjouks] n'atteignirent pas I'Empire byzantin. Ellas eurent memo d'abord pour lui un resultat favorable, car, en terrorisant les vassaux de Byzance et en amenant celle-ci a se preoccuper d'une serieuse organisation defensive en ces regions, elles provoquerent I'annexion a I'Empire de I'Armenie orientale et d'une partie de la Georgie (p. 16). By thus vexing their neighbours the Byzantine government was persisting in its earlier errors, when the persecution of the eastern schismatics had so notably facilitated the first progress of Islam and the Arab conquest of Syria. The list of sources is followed by an index and by a very clear map ; it is a great convenience that the geographical names in the index are provided with references to the squares on the map. R. M. D. In preparation for the jubilee of St. Thomas last July—' the fourteenth Jubilee of the Translation, the fifteenth of the Martyrdom ' — Canon A. J. Mason collected all the materials that could be found bearing on the history of the archbishop's remains. These he has published in a transla- tion, with sufficient extracts from the originals, and a full commentary, under the title. What became of the Bones of St. Thomas ? (Cambridge : University Press, 1920). Dr. Mason inclines to the opinion that the bones discovered in 1888 are really those of the saint. There is no doubt a definite statement in Wriothesley's Chronicle that they were burnt in 1538 ; but its value is greatly diminished when Charles Wriothesley, its author, is found to have been a different person from Thomas Wriothesley who took part in the destruction of the shrine (p. 148). Moreover, there is reason to believe that the text of the chronicle has been altered so as to agree with Stow and Holinshed, who wrote many years later. Dr. Mason thinks that the story of the burning of the bones was a popular rumour which soon got abroad. He shows that there is no evidence of such treatment of remains in the demolition of other shrines at the time. The book, apart from its immediate subject, is a valuable contribution to the topo- graphy of Canterbury. The translations are made with the literary skill, and the notes written with the scholarly exactness, which we might have expected from the learned author. Y. Professor E. Emerton in his The Defensor Pacis of Marsiglio of Padua (Cambridge, Massachussetts : Harvard University Press, 1920) gives a summary of the main contentions of that epoch-making work. His exposition is clear and pointed, but exception must be taken to some statements and omissions which diminish its value. He attributes too modern an individualism to Marsilius. Again, he leaves out (p. 30) the argument in dictio i, cap. 17, that in the well-ordered state there cannot be two mutually independent governments, which is all-important as the theoretical secular basis of Marsilius's doctrine that the clergy ought to