Grabar's predecessors did not elaborate how art, and especially architecture fitted "into the grand historical scheme"; his "History" became the first comprehensive work that attempted to solve the task. Grabar, accepting now-standard periodization of Russian history, applied the same scheme to history of architecture and emphasized the role of individual monarchs in it. His view of the transition from Naryshkin Baroque, the summit of Muscovite architecture, into loaned European Petrine Baroque as an organic process, however, was contentious from the start, and, according to James Cracraft, could not account for an abrupt demise of national architecture under Peter I and his successors. His own concept of "Moscow Baroque", probably influenced by Heinrich Wölfflin, is "not entirely consistent or clear". Soviet historians retained Grabar's overall scheme, sealing the "persistent lack of a clear and consistent, architecturally configured periodization of Russian architectural history.". Grabar's concept of Moscow Baroque was challenged, his Ukrainian Baroque was trashed, yet Belarusian Baroque became "a fixture of Soviet scholarship."