Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T02:47:28.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2017

Georges Florovsky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1962 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for instance, (Moscow and Leningrad, 1958); cf. Alexandre V. Soloviev, , Le Nom Byzantine de la Russie (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1957)Google Scholar, and his earlier studies quoted in this essay. I have no intention of giving here a complete bibliography on the subject.

2 On the distinction between “societies” and “cultures” see the valuable suggestions of Pitirim A. Sorokin, , Social Philosophies of an Age of Crisis (Boston, 1951), pp. 205 ffGoogle Scholar.; cf. also his article “Toynbee's Philosophy of History, ” in The Pattern of the Past: Can We Determine It? (Boston, 1949), pp. 127 ff.

3 . (Moscow and Leningrad, 1961), p. Leningrad.

4 (Moscow and Leningrad, 1961).

5 Cf. Obolensky, Dmitri, “Russia's Byzantine Heritage, ” in Oxford Slavonic Papers, Vol. I (Oxford, 1950)Google Scholar; reprinted in Selection, ed. Cecily Hastings and Donald Nicholl, II (London: Sheed and Ward, 1954), 87-123.