Chapter, Paragraph

 1  3,2 |        According to one historian (Diehl), “she amused, charmed,
 2  3,3 |            etc. The French scholar Diehl[18] said that they would
 3  3,5 |         progress of mankind,” said Diehl.[54] In the twelfth century,
 4  3,8 |   According to the French scholar, Diehl, this formed a vicious circle.
 5  3,14|   According to the French scholar, Diehl,[130] the two exarchates
 6  4,1 |        dead cities of Tunis,” said Diehl, “which are today in most
 7  4,1 |           heavy blow. Here is what Diehl says with regard to the
 8  5,3 |           not really the case.[40] Diehl, who in his History of the
 9  5,7 |            In recent times Charles Diehl made the statement that “
10  5,8 |          not with full certainty.~ Diehl thus appraised the significance
11  6,8 |     Strzygowski’s theories, as Ch. Diehl said, there are “many ingenious
12  7,1 |   foreigner.” The French historian Diehl compared the condition of
13  7,1 |           ferocity, Andronicus, as Diehl said, being a genius by
14  7,4 |           Prodromus belonged, said Diehl, to a degenerate class in
15  8,16| independent of each other.[188] As Diehl said, the background of
16  8,17|         The French scholar Charles Diehl wrote on this epoch: “Usurpations
17  8,17|       Byzantium. “But,” as Charles Diehl justly remarked, “in the
18  9,2 |             to the French scholar, Diehl, “a slender, dislocated,
19  9,2 |           28] The French historian Diehl remarked that, despite continued
20  9,7 |            French Byzantinist, Ch. Diehl, wrote: “While Constantinople
21  9,17|    conditions for the future.[323] Diehl wrote: “The struggle of
22  9,18|           constitutional monarchy. Diehl remarked; “It is not the
23  9,18|      imitation of a Western model. Diehl said: “If the society described
24  9,18|             published in 1910, Ch. Diehl rejected both these theories
25  9,18|         1917 D. Aïnalov criticized Diehl’s solution from the point
26  9,18|           point of view of method. Diehl did not base his conclusions
27  9,18|            431] In this connection Diehl justly remarked; “This hypothesis
28  9,18|      Millet, Bréhier, and Aïnalov, Diehl in the second edition of
29  9,18|            no break. At this point Diehl repeated the passage of