154 SEER, 86, I, 2008 the latter is justified (pp. 64-67). The translation is indeed not a precise one. Still, the central argument ? namely, the proposition of a creative typology ofmusicians based on the concept of time ? which Dufour claims surfaces only in theRussian original, also transpires through the French text.Finally, the reader should note that Suvchinskii's article 'Le "Strawinsky" d'Igor Glebov' appeared in Musique, not inRevue Musicale, as stated (pp. 42, 45, 48). Despite such weaknesses, thisbook should be an essential reading for anyone interested in Stravinskii's neoclassicism and in theEuropean musical milieu of the years 1910 to 1940. St Antony'sCollege,Oxford Katerina Levidou Talbot, Alice-Mary (ed.). SymposiumonLate ByzantineThessalonike.Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 57. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C., 2003. xvi + 305 pp. Maps. Illustrations. Figures. Notes. Appendices. Bibliographical references. $110.00. This is an impressive publication of the papers on Late Byzantine Thessalonike given at the 2001 Dumbarton Oaks Symposium dedicated to the memory ofNicholas Oikonomides (1934-2000). The papers are preceded by an appreciation by Henry Maguire of the outstanding contribution toMedieval and Byzantine Art and Culture of the late Ernst Kitzinger (f2003), followed by a brief introduction by Jean-Michel Spieser on the historical role ofThessalonike, raising questions concerning its prosperity and decline, and pointing out areas for future research. Paper one by John W. Barker, 'Late Byzantine Thessalonike: A Second City's Challenges and Responses' (pp. 1-33), deals with the history of the city from the twelfthcentury to its final capture by the Ottomans in 1430.His point of departure is an extract fromDemetrios Kydones' monody on the city in the aftermath of the Zealot revolt (1342-45), inwhich Kydones stressed its economic, mercantile, cultural and religious importance which would explain why in the eyes of the Byzantines Thessalonike was considered only second toConstantinople (Kantakouzenos, II, 93 = CB, II, 57). Barker then proceeds to give a succinct analysis of the tangled events in the beginning of the twelfth century, when the city was granted to the Monferrats as an appanage. As such, it survived the fragmentation of theEmpire from 1204 until 1224,when the city was taken by Theodore Angelos of Epirus and finally by the Emperor John III Vatatzes ofNicaea in 1246. But the legacy of an appanage persisted under the Palaiologoi (not simply as aWestern concept) due to the pressing political circumstances and the gradual fragmentation of what remained of theByzantine Empire. The paper is followed by twoAppendices: the first a chronological list of events, and the second, most valuable, examin ing afresh the secondary literature and their interpretation of the Zealot regime. Paper two by Charalambos Bakirtzis, 'The Urban Continuity and Size of Late Byzantine Thessalonike' (pp. 35-64, with illustrations), is a careful and well-documented study.After a brief topographical description of the city and REVIEWS !55 a survey of itsagricultural and commercial activities dictated by itsgeograph ical position that linked itwith the hinterland, theAegean and theMediter ranean, Barker moves on to discuss its urban continuity based both on literary and archaeological findings. The surviving evidence attests that, unlike other cities, the size of Thessalonike did not shrinkwhen itwas converted to a fortified medieval kastron, and that in the late Byzantine period itcovered the same area as in the Roman and Early Christian era. Gradually, however, during themiddle and late Byzantine period, the population shifted from the upper city to the lower part, towards the harbour where all commercial activities took place. Paper three by Slobodan Curcic, 'The Role of Thessalonike in Church Architecture in the Balkans' (pp. 65-84 with illustrations), is an extensive study. It begins with a critique on definitions used by art historians, namely, 'Macedonian school' and 'Macedonian dome', and adduces evidence to reject both. He then proceeds with an examination of the domes of Hagia Aikaterini, comparing certain of its features with churches in Epirus (e.g., Panagia Vellas atVoulgareli), and concludes convincingly that,despite the use of certain Epirote methods of construction, the Constantinopolitan architec tural influence in the last decades of the thirteenth century was by far the greatest. Curcic points to the fact that the dome ofHagia Aikaterine, which he identifies...