Chapter, Paragraph

 1  2,4 |       of the Byzantine Empire. N, H. Baynes remarked, “In
 2  2,5 |       are precisely nil.”[179] N. Baynes recently made a
 3  2,5 |    Tacitus and Dante,[183] and N. Baynes called him the last
 4  3,9 |      the work of Cosmas,” said N. P. Kondakov, “are more
 5  4,1 |        These Bulgarians, as V. N. Zlatarsky asserted, had
 6  5,3 |     this case the Slavonic. V. N. Zlatarsky recently supported
 7  5,4 | Byzantine art.[67] Finally, C. N. Uspensky shifted the emphasis
 8  5,4 |     the capital,” according to N. P. Kondakov, “there was
 9  5,5 | directed against the monks; C. N. Uspensky stated definitely
10  5,7 |    found in the Outlines of C. N. Uspensky. Finally, Th.
11  5,8 |    ornamented. “Briefly,” said N. P. Kondakov, “the church
12  6,2 |      on the part of the Arabs. N. Marr said that at the beginning
13  6,2 |       them the Russian scholar N. Marr devoted much time.
14  6,8 |       primary importance, and ;n order to increase its income
15  7,4 |       with the case of Italus, N. Marr raised “the most important
16  8,7 |        Despotat far beyond the n\arrow limits of its own
17  8,17|     other causes. One scholar, N. Suvorov, traced the origin
18  8,17|     feudalism in Old Russia by N. Pavlov-Silvansky, who compared
19  9,18|      known. This theory, which N. Kondakov called “archaeological
20  9,18|       and fourteenth centuries N. P. Kondakov wrote in 1909; “