Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/114

 106 REVIEWS OF BOOKS January the only blemishes which I can find relate to the form rather than to the substance. I do not clearly understand if the intention is to collect all the authorities on which the dates given are based ; but, if it is, I must note that the intention has not always been carried out. We are told, for instance, that Chlodovech I died '511 post Oct. 29'; but, though evidence is given that he did not die earlier than 30 October 511, I find none that his death occurred during that year. I do not deny that he died in 511, but only point out that the evidence for the fact is not given in the text. A similar omission occurs in the case of Chlothar II. In the preface to the Chronologica we are given an interesting discussion of the obscure events which followed the death of Sigibert III, in which Dr. Krusch recapitulates and amplifies his own argument in vol. v, p. 90, on the evidence of a charter in Pertz, Dipl., p. 91, that Dagobert II was not tonsured and sent to Ireland immediately after his father's death, but reigned at least till his fourth year (659) ; but Dr. Krusch himself notes that there was war between Neustria and Austrasia in 656/7, and that the followers of Grimoald are described by the Neustrian king as a Meroving king, it is difficult to see how this can be, and no notice is taken of the inconsistency. Is it really quite certain that the old interpretation of the charter is wrong ? If Dagobert reigned four or five years before his deposition, it seems to me very strange that he should have reckoned the years of his second reign from his restoration. Certainly, if the old chronology is maintained, the difficulty as to filling up the six years between the death of Sigibert and the accession of Childeric remains, and Dr. Krusch's chronology has therefore much to be said for it ; but an explanation of the reference to the war of 656/7 is required. In the preface to the life of Richar I note that the list of previous editions, given in the case of all other lives, is absent ; and this is more unfortunate since in the reference to M. Poncelet's discovery of this earlier life it is not clearly stated that his article (Anal. Boll, xxii, p. 173) contains the text. I must again, as in my review of part 1, call attention to the irritating practice of giving unintelligible references. How can any one understand to what ' 1. c.' in the three references on p. 477 refers ? I have no notion where to look for the article there mentioned, though in connexion with the chronological question discussed above it is important to refer to it. E. W. Brooks. Un Philosophe Neoplatonicien du XI e siecle : Michel Psellos, sa Vie, son (Euvre, ses Luttes Philosophiques, son Influence. Par Chr. Zervos. Preface de Francois Pica vet. (Paris : Leroux, 1920.) In this book we have an attempt to determine the place of Psellos in the history of thought, and this, in the case of a Byzantine philosopher, amounts to recognizing that the role of Byzantium in regard to ancient learning was not merely that of a preserver : some at least of the Byzan- tines played a more active part. Preliminary to the conclusions reached as to the character of Psellos as a philosopher, we have chapters on the contemporary civilization and intellectual conditions at Byzantium,
 * infideles ', though, if Grimoald was then still ruling in the name of