ALSO IN:

_A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution,

volume 2._

EGYPT: A. D. 1807.

Occupation of Alexandria by the English.

Disastrous failure of their expedition.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840.

Rebellion of Mehemet Ali.

Successes against the Turks.

Intervention of the Western Powers.

Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

Mehemet Ali and his successors.

The khedives.

The opening of the Suez Canal.

"By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European

Powers, ... his title to Egypt having been ... affirmed ...

Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the

social and material improvement of the country, with an

aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as

the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions

and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed

grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up

till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and

notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death

incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing

Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then

verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental

malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in

mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the

government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha,

the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849,

but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of

the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and

bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type--ignorant,

cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every

sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in

almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in

July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his

own slaves,--acting, it was variously said, on a secret order

from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To

Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable

and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief

done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence

and force of character required to carry on the great work

begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for

the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the

colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world,

has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was

succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of

Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's

reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still

fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the

more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give

the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which

forms the main element of a problem that still confronts

Europe.

{762}

But, for this the same impartial judge will at least

equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his

extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at

ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical

justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress

of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of

railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved

the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the

country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native

industries. For so much, at least, history will give him

credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the

magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez

Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but

through which--as if by the irony of history--the first ship

that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic

of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal

character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel,

crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private

relations. ... It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the

first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of

'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank

a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy

bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the

year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from

the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,--in

virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."

_J. C. M'Coan, Egypt (National Life and Thought,

lecture 18)._

_J. C. M'Coan, Egypt under Ismail, chapter 1-4._

EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.

Conquest of the Soudan.

Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

The government of General Gordon.

Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.

In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance

to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central

Africa. [Sir Samuel] Baker was accordingly placed in command

of 1,200 men, supplied with cannon and steam-boats, and

received the title of Governour-General of the provinces which

he was commissioned to subdue. Having elected to make

Gondokoro the seat of his government, he changed its name to

Ismailia. He was not long in bringing the Bari to submission,

and then, advancing southwards, he came to the districts of

Dufilé and Fatiko, a healthy region endowed by nature with

fertile valleys and irrigated by limpid streams, but for years

past converted into a sort of hell upon earth by the

slave-hunters who had made it their headquarters. From these

pests Baker delivered the locality, and having by his tact and

energy overcome the distrust of the native rulers, he

established over their territory a certain number of small

military settlements. ... Baker returned to Europe flattering

himself with the delusion that he had put an end to the

scourge of slave dealing. It was true that various

slave-dealers' dens on the Upper Nile had been destroyed, a

number of outlaws had been shot, and a few thousand miserable

slaves had been set at liberty; but beyond that nothing had

been accomplished; no sooner had the liberator turned his back

than the odious traffic recommenced with more vigour than

before through the region south of Gondokoro. This, however,

was only one of the slave-hunting districts, and by no means

the worst. ... Under European compulsion ... the Khedive

Ismail undertook to promote measures to put a stop to the

scandal. He entered into various conventions with England on

the subject; and in order to convince the Powers of the

sincerity of his intentions, he consented to put the

equatorial provinces under the administration of an European

officer, who should be commissioned to carry on the work of

repression, conquest and organisation that had been commenced

by Baker. His choice fell upon a man of exceptional ability, a

brilliant officer trained at Woolwich, who had already gained

high renown in China, not only for military talent, but for

his adroitness and skill in negotiation and diplomacy. This

was Colonel Gordon, familiarly known as 'Chinese Gordon,' who

was now to add fresh lustre to his name in Egypt as Gordon

Pasha. Gordon was appointed Governour-General of the Soudan in

1874. With him were associated Chaillé-Long, an American

officer, who was chief of his staff; the German, Dr. Emin

Effendi, medical officer to the expedition; Lieutenants

Chippendall and Watson; Gessi and Kemp, engineers. ...

Thenceforward the territories, of which so little had hitherto

been known, became the continual scene of military movements

and scientific excursions. ... The Soudan was so far conquered

as to be held by about a dozen military outposts stationed

along the Nile from Lake No to Lakes Albert and Ibrahim. ...

In 1876 Gordon went back to Cairo. Nevertheless, although he

was wearied with the continual struggle of the past two years,

worn down by the incessant labours of internal organisation

and geographical investigations, disheartened, too, by the

jealousies, rivalries, and intrigues of all around him, and by

the ill feeling of the very people whom the Khedive's

Government had sent to support him, he consented to return

again to his post; this time with the title of

Governour-General of the Soudan, Darfur, and the Equatorial

Provinces. At the beginning of 1877 he took possession of the

Government palace at Khartoum. ... Egyptian authority, allied

with European civilisation, appeared now at length to be

taking some hold on the various districts, and the Cairo

Government might begin to look forward to a time when it could

reckon on some reward for its labours and sacrifices. The area

of the new Egyptian Soudan had now become immense.

Geographically, its centre included the entire valley of the

Nile proper, from Berber to the great lakes; on the east were

such portions of the valleys of the Blue Nile and Atbara as

lay outside Abyssinia; and on the west were the districts

watered by the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the Bahr-el-Arab, right

away to the confines of Wadai. ... Unfortunately in 1879

Ismail Pasha was deposed, and, to the grievous loss of the

Soudan, Gordon was recalled. As the immediate consequence, the

country fell back into the hands of Turkish pashas; apathy,

disorder, carelessness, and ill feeling reappeared at

Khartoum, and the Arab slave-dealers, who had for a period

been kept under by Baker, Gessi, and Gordon, came once more to

the front. ... It was Raouf Pasha who, in 1879, succeeded

Gordon as Governour-General. He had three Europeans as his

subordinates--Emin Bey, who before Gordon left, had been

placed in charge of the province of the equator; Lupton Bey,

an Englishman, who had followed Gessi as Governour on the

Bahr-el-Ghazal; and Slatin Bey, an Austrian, in command of

Darfur. Raouf had barely been two years at Khartoum when the

Mahdi appeared on the scene.

{763}

Prompted either by personal ambition or by religious hatred,

the idea of playing the part of 'Mahdi' had been acted upon by

many an Arab fanatic [see MAHDI]. Such an idea, at an early

age, had taken possession of a certain Soudanese of low birth,

a native of Dongola, by name Mohammed Ahmed. Before openly

aspiring to the role of the regenerator of Islam he had filled

several subordinate engagements, notably one under Dr. Peney,

the French surgeon-general in the Soudan, who died in 1861.

Shortly afterwards he received admittance into the powerful

order of the Ghelani dervishes, and then commenced his schemes

for stirring up a revolution in defence of his creed. His

proceedings did not fail to attract the attention of Gessi

Pasha, who had him arrested at Shekka and imprisoned for five

months. Under the government of Raouf he took up his abode

upon the small island of Abba, on the Nile above Khartoum,

where he gained a considerable notoriety by the austerity of

his life and by the fervour of his devotions, thus gradually

gaining a high reputation for sanctity. Not only offerings but

followers streamed in from every quarter. He became rich as

well as powerful. ... Waiting till May 1881, he then assumed

that a propitious time had arrived for the realisation of his

plans, and accordingly had himself publicly proclaimed as

'Mahdi,' inviting every fakir and every religious leader of

Islam to come and join him at Abba. ... Convinced that it was

impolitic to tolerate any longer the revolutionary intrigues

of such an adventurer at the very gates of Khartoum, Raouf

Pasha resolved to rid the country of Mohammed and to send him

to Cairo for trial. An expedition was accordingly despatched

to the island of Abba, but unfortunately the means employed

were inadequate to the task. Only a small body of black

soldiers were sent to arrest the agitator in his quarters, and

they, inspired no doubt by a vague and superstitious dread of

a man who represented himself as the messenger of Allah,

wavered and acted with indecision. Before their officers could

rally them to energy, the Mahdi, with a fierce train of

followers, knife in hand, rushed upon them, and killing many,

put the rest to flight; then, seeing that a renewed assault

was likely to be made, he withdrew the insurgent band into a

retreat of safety amongst the mountains of Southern Kordofan.

Henceforth revolt was openly declared. Such was the condition

of things in August 1881. Chase was given, but every effort to

secure the person of the pretended prophet was baffled. A

further attempt was made to arrest him by the Mudir of Fashoda

with 1,500 men, only to be attended with a still more

melancholy result. After a desperate struggle the Mudir lay

stretched upon the ground, his soldiers murdered all around

him. One single officer, with a few straggling cavalry,

escaped the massacre, and returned to report the fatal news.

The reverse caused an absolute panic in Khartoum, an intense

excitement spreading throughout the Soudan.... Meantime the

Mahdi's prestige was ever on the increase, and he soon felt

sufficiently strong to assume the offensive. His troops

overran Kordofan and Sennar, advancing on the one hand to the

town of Sennar, which they set on fire, and on the other to

El-Obeid, which they placed in a state of siege. In the

following July a fresh and more powerful expedition, this time

numbering 6,000 men, under the command of Yussuf Pasha, left

Fashoda and made towards the Mahdi's headquarters. It met with

no better fate than the expeditions that had gone before. ...

And then it was that the English Government, discerning danger

for Egypt in this insurrection of Islam, set to work to act

for the Khedive. It told off 11,000 men, and placed them under

the command of Hicks Pasha, an officer in the Egyptian service

who had made the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December

1882 this expedition embarked at Suez for Suakin, crossed the

desert, reached the Nile at Berber, and after much endurance

on the way, arrived at Khartoum. Before this, El-Obeid had

fallen into the Mahdi's power, and there he had taken up his

headquarters. Some trifling advantages were gained by Hicks,

but having entered Kordofan with the design of retaking

El-Obeid, he was, on the 5th of November 1883, hemmed in

amongst the Kasgil passes, and after three days' heroic

fighting, his army of about 10,000 men was overpowered by a

force five or six times their superior in numbers, and

completely exterminated. Hicks Pasha himself, his European

staff, and many Egyptian officers of high rank, were among the

dead, and forty-two guns fell into the hands of the enemy.

Again, not a man was left to carry the fatal tidings to

Khartoum. Rebellion continued to spread. After being agitated

for months, the population of the Eastern Soudan also made a

rising. Osman Digna, the foremost of the Mahdi's lieutenants,

occupied the road between Suakin and Berber, and surrounded

Sinkat and Tokar; then, having destroyed, one after another,

two Egyptian columns that had been despatched for the relief

of these towns, he finally cut off the communication between

Khartoum and the Red Sea. The tide of insurrection by this

time had risen so high that it threatened not only to

overthrow the Khedive's authority in the Soudan, but to become

the source of serious peril to Egypt itself."

_A. J. Wauters, Stanley's Emin Pasha Expedition, chapter 1-2._

ALSO IN:

_Major R. F. Wingate, Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan,

books 1-4._

_Colonel Sir. W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon,

chapters 5-6._

_A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, chapters 10-15._

EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882.

Bankruptcy of the state.

English and French control of finances.

Native hostility to the foreigners.

Rebellion, led by Arabi.

English bombardment of Alexandria.

"The facilities given by foreign money-lenders encouraged

extravagance and ostentation on the part of the sovereign and

the ruling classes, while mismanagement and corrupt practices

were common among officials, so that the public debt rose in

1875 to ninety-one millions, and in January, 1881, to

ninety-eight millions. ... The European capitalists obtained

for their money nominally six to nine per cent., but really

not less than eight to ten per cent., as the bonds were issued

at low rates. ... The interest on these borrowed millions was

punctually paid up to the end of 1875, when the Khedive found

that he could not satisfy his creditors, and the British

government interfered in his favour. Mr. Cave was sent to

examine into Egyptian finances, and he reported that loans at

twelve and thirteen per cent. were being agreed to and renewed

at twenty-five per cent., and that some measure of

consolidation was necessary. The two western Powers now took

the matter in hand, but they thereby recognized the whole of

these usurious demands.

{764}

The debt, although under their control, and therefore

secured, was not reduced by the amount already paid in

premiums for risk. Nor was the rate of interest diminished to

something more nearly approaching the rate payable on English

consols, which was three per cent. A tribunal under the

jurisdiction of united European and native judges was also

established in Egypt to decide complaints of foreigners

against natives, and vice versa. In May, 1876, this tribunal

gave judgment that the income of the Khedive Ismail, from his

private landed property, could be appropriated to pay the

creditors of the state, and an execution was put into the

Viceregal palace, Er Ramleh, near Alexandria. The Khedive

pronounced the judgment invalid, and the tribunal ceased to

act. Two commissioners were now again sent to report on

Egyptian finances--M. Joubert, the director of the Paris Bank,

for France, and Mr. Goschen, a former minister, for England.

These gentlemen proposed to hand over the control of the

finances to two Europeans, depriving the state of all

independence and governing power. The Khedive, in order to

resist these demands, convoked a sort of Parliament in order

to make an appeal to the people. From this Parliament was

afterwards developed the Assembly of Notables, and the

National party, now so often spoken of. In 1877 a European

commission of control over Egyptian finance was named. ...

Nubar Pasha was made Prime minister in 1878; the control of

the finances was entrusted to Mr. Wilson, an Englishman; and

later, the French controller, M. de Blignières, entered the

Cabinet. Better order was thus restored to the finances.

Rothschild's new loan of eight and a half millions was issued

at seventy-three, and therefore brought in from six to eight

per cent. nett. ... But to be able to pay the creditors their

full interest, economy had to be introduced into the national

expenditure. To do this, clumsy arrangements were made, and

the injustice shown in carrying them out embittered many

classes of the population, and laid the foundations of a

fanatical hatred of race against race. ... In consequence of

all this, the majority of the notables, many ulemas, officers,

and higher officials among the Egyptians, formed themselves

into a National party, with the object of resisting the

oppressive government of the foreigner. They were joined by

the great mass of the discharged soldiers and subordinate

officials, not to mention many others. At the end of February,

1870, a revolt broke out in Cairo. Nubar, hated by the

National party, was dismissed by the Khedive Ismail, who

installed his son Tewfik as Prime minister. In consequence of

this, the coupons due in April were not paid till the

beginning of May, and the western Powers demanded the

reinstatement of Nubar. That Tewfik on this occasion retired

and sided with the foreigners is the chief cause of his

present [1882] unpopularity in Egypt. Ismail, however, now

dismissed Wilson and De Blignières, and a Cabinet was formed,

consisting chiefly of native Egyptians, with Sherif Pasha as

Prime minister. Sherif now raised for the first time the cry

of which we have since heard so much, and which was inscribed

by Arabi on his banners, 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' The

western Powers retorted by a menacing naval demonstration, and

demanded of the Sultan the deposition of the Khedive. In June,

1870, this demand was agreed to. Ismail went into exile, and

his place was filled br Mahomed Tewfik. ... The new Khedive,

with apathetic weakness, yielded the reconstruction of his

ministry and the organization of his finances to the western

Powers. Mr. Baring and M. de Blignières, as commissioners of

the control, aided by officials named by Rothschild to watch

over his private interests, now ruled the land. They devoted

forty-five millions (about sixteen shillings per head on the

entire population) to the payment of interest. The people were

embittered by the distrust shown towards them, and the further

reduction of the army from fifty to fifteen thousand men threw

a large number out of employment. ... Many acts of military

insubordination occurred, and at last, on the 8th of November,

1881, the great military revolt broke out in Cairo. ... Ahmed

Arabi, colonel of the 4th regiment, now first came into public

notice. Several regiments, headed by their officers, openly

rebelled against the orders of the Khedive, who was compelled

to recall the nationalist, Sherif Pasha, and to refer the

further demands of the rebels for the increase of the army,

and for a constitution, to the Sultan. Sherif Pasha, however,

did not long enjoy the confidence of the National Egyptian

party, at whose head Arabi now stood, winning every day more

reputation and influence. The army, in which he permitted

great laxity of discipline, was entirely devoted to him. ... A

pretended plot of Circassian officers against his life he

dexterously used to increase his popularity. ... Twenty-six

officers were condemned to death by court-martial, but the

Khedive, at the instance of the western Powers, commuted the

sentence, and they were banished to Constantinople. This

leniency was stigmatized by the National party as treachery to

the country, and the Chamber of Notables retorted by naming

Arabi commander-in-chief of the army and Prime minister

without asking the consent of the Khedive. The Chamber soon

afterwards came into conflict with the foreign comptrollers.

... This ended in De Blignières resigning his post, and in the

May of the present year (1882) the consuls of the European

Powers declared that a fleet of English and French ironclads

would appear before Alexandria, to demand the disbanding of

the army and the punishment of its leaders. The threat was

realized, and, in spite of protests from the Sultan, a fleet

of English and French ironclads entered the harbour of

Alexandria. The Khedive, at the advice of his ministers and

the chiefs of the National party, appealed to the Sultan. ...

The popular hatred of foreigners now became more and more

apparent, and began to assume threatening dimensions. ... On

the 30th of May, Arabi announced that a despatch from the

Sultan had reached him, promising the deposition of Tewfik in

favour of his uncle Halim Pasha. ... On the 3rd of June,

Dervish Pasha, a man of energy notwithstanding his years, had

sailed from Constantinople. ... His object was to pacify Egypt

and to reconcile Tewfik and Arabi Pasha. ... Since the

publication of the despatch purporting to proclaim Halim Pasha

as Khedive, Arabi had done nothing towards dethroning the

actual ruler. But on the 2nd of June he began to strengthen

the fortifications of Alexandria with earthworks. ...

{765}

The British admiral protested, and the Sultan, on the

remonstrances of British diplomacy, forbad the continuation of

the works. ... Serious disturbances took place in Alexandria

on the 11th. The native rabble invaded the European quarter,

plundered the shops, and slew many foreigners. ... Though the

disturbances were not renewed, a general emigration of

foreigners was the result. ... On the 22nd a commission,

consisting of nine natives and nine Europeans ... began to try

the ringleaders of the riot. ... But events were hurrying on

towards war. The works at Alexandria were recommenced, and the

fortifications armed with heavy guns. The English admiral

received information that the entrance to the harbour would be

blocked by sunken storeships, and this, he declared, would be

an act of open war. A complete scheme for the destruction of

the Suez canal was also discovered. ... The English, on their

side, now began to make hostile demonstrations; and Arabi,

while repudiating warlike intentions, declared himself ready

for resistance. ... On the 27th the English vice-consul

advised his fellow-countrymen to leave Alexandria, and on the

3rd of July, according to the 'Times,' the arrangements for

war were complete. ... Finally, as a reconnaissance on the 9th

showed that the forts were still being strengthened, he [the

English admiral] informed the governor of Alexandria, Zulficar

Pasha, that unless the forts had been previously evacuated and

surrendered to the English, he intended to commence the

bombardment at four the next morning. ... As the French

government were unable to take part in any active measures (a

grant for that purpose having been refused by the National

Assembly), the greater part of their fleet, under Admiral

Conrad, left Alexandria for Port Said. The ironclads of other

nations, more than fifty in number, anchored outside the

harbour of Alexandria. ... On the evening of the 10th of July

... and at daybreak on the 11th, the ... ironclads took up the

positions assigned to them. There was a gentle breeze from the

east, and the weather was clear. At 6.30 a. m. all the ships

were cleared for action. At seven the admiral signalled to the

Alexandra to fire a shell into Fort Ada. ... The first shot

fired from the Alexandra was immediately replied to by the

Egyptians; whereupon the ships of the whole fleet and the

Egyptian forts and batteries opened fire, and the engagement

became general. ... At 8.30 Fort Marsa-el-Kanat was blown up

by shells from the Invincible and Monarch, and by nine o'clock

the Téméraire, Monarch, and Penelope had silenced most of the

guns in Fort Meks, although four defied every effort from

their protected situation. By 11.45 Forts Marabout and Adjemi

had ceased firing, and a landing party of seamen and marines

was despatched, under cover of the Bittern's guns, to spike

and blow up the guns in the forts. At 1.30 a shell from the

Superb burst in the chief powder magazine of Fort Ada and blew

it up. By four o'clock all the guns of Fort Pharos, and half

an hour later those of Fort Meks, were disabled, and at 5.30

the admiral ordered the firing to cease. The ships were

repeatedly struck and sustained some damage. ... The English

casualties were five killed and twenty-eight wounded, a

comparatively small loss. The Egyptian loss is not known. ...

At 1 p. m. on the 12th of July, the white flag was hoisted by

the Egyptians. Admiral Seymour demanded, as a preliminary

measure, the surrender of the forts commanding the entrance to

the harbour, and the negotiations on this point were

fruitlessly protracted for some hours. As night approached the

city was seen to be on fire in many places, and the flames

were spreading in all directions. The English now became aware

that the white flag had merely been used as means to gain time

for a hasty evacuation of Alexandria by Arabi and his army.

Sailors and marines were now landed, and ships of other

nations sent detachments on shore to protect their countrymen.

But it was too late; Bedouins, convicts, and ill-disciplined

soldiers had plundered and burnt the European quarter, killed

many foreigners, and a Reuter's telegram of the 14th said,

'Alexandria is completely destroyed.'"

_H. Vogt, The Egyptian War of 1882, pages 2-32._

ALSO IN:

_J. C. McCoan, Egypt under Ismail, chapter 8-10._

_C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapter 1-20._

_Khedives and Pashas._

_C. F. Goodrich, Report on British Military and Naval

Operations in Egypt, 1882, part 1._

EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.

The massacre and destruction in Alexandria.

Declared rebellion of Arabi.

Its suppression by the English.

Banishment of Arabi.

English occupation.

The city of Alexandria had become "such a scene of pillage,

massacre, and wanton destruction as to make the world shudder.

It was the old tale of horrors. Houses were plundered and

burned; the European quarter, including the stately buildings

surrounding the Great Square of Mehemet Ali, was sacked and

left a heap of smoldering ruins; and more than two thousand

Europeans, for the most part Levantines, were massacred with

all the cruelty of oriental fanaticism. This was on the

afternoon of the 12th. It was the second massacre that had

occurred under the very eyes of the British fleet. The

admiral's failure to prevent it has been called unfortunate by

some and criminal by others. It seems to have been wholly

without excuse. ... The blue-jackets were landed on the 13th,

and cleared the way before them with a Gatling gun. The next

day, more ships having arrived, a sufficient force was landed

to take possession of the entire city. The khedive was

escorted back to Ras-el-Tin from Ramleh, and given a strong

guard. Summary justice was dealt out to all hostile Arabs who

had been captured in the city. In short, English intervention

was followed by English occupation. The bombardment of

Alexandria had defined clearly the respective positions of

Arabi and the khedive toward Egypt and the Egyptian people.

... The khedive was not only weak in the eyes of his people,

but he was regarded as the tool of England. ... From the

moment the first shot was fired upon Alexandria, Arabi was the

real ruler of the people. ... The conference at Constantinople

was stirred by the news of the bombardment of Alexandria. It

presented a note to the Porte, July 15, requesting the

dispatch of Turkish troops to restore the status quo in Egypt.

But the sultan had no idea of taking the part of the Christian

in what all Islam regarded as a contest between the Moslem and

the unbeliever. ... In Egypt, the khedive had been prevailed

upon, after some demur, to proclaim Arabi a rebel and

discharge him from his cabinet. Arabi had issued a

counter-proclamation, on the same day, declaring Tewfik a

traitor to his people and his religion.

{766}

Having received the news of the khedive's proclamation, Lord

Dufferin, the British ambassador at Constantinople, announced

to the conference that England was about to send an expedition

to Egypt to suppress the rebellion and to restore the

authority of the khedive. Thereupon the sultan declared that

he had decided to send a Turkish expedition. Lord Dufferin

feigned to accept the sultan's cooperation, but demanded that

the Porte, as a preliminary step, should declare Arabi a

rebel. Again the sultan was confronted with the danger of

incurring the wrath of the Moslem world. He could not declare

Arabi a rebel. ... In his desperation, he sent a force of

3,000 men to Suda bay with orders to hold themselves in

readiness to enter Egypt at a moment's notice. ... In the

meantime, however, the English expedition had arrived in Egypt

and was proceeding to crush the rebellion, regardless of the

diplomatic delays and bickerings at Constantinople. ... It was

not until the 15th of August that Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived

with his force in Egypt. The English at that time held only

two points, Alexandria and Suez, while the entire Egyptian

interior, as well as Port Said and Ismailia, were held by

Arabi, whose force, it was estimated, now amounted to about

70,000 men, of whom at least 50,000 were regulars. The

objective point of General Wolseley's expedition to crush

Arabi was, of course, the city of Cairo. There were two ways

of approaching that city, one from Alexandria, through the

Delta, and the other from the Suez canal. There were many

objections to the former route. ... The Suez canal was

supposed to be neutral water. ... But England felt no

obligation to recognize any neutrality, ... acting upon the

principle, which is doubtless sound, that 'the neutrality of

any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific

oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can

place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity.' In

other words, General Wolseley decided to enter Cairo by way of

the Suez canal and Ismailia. But he kept his plan a profound

secret. Admiral Seymour alone knew his purpose. ... On the

19th, the transports moved eastward from Alexandria, as if to

attack Abukir; but under the cover of darkness that night,

they were escorted on to Port Said, where they learned that

the entire canal, owing to the preconcerted action of Admiral

Seymour, was in the hands of the British. On the 21st, the

troops met Sir Henry McPherson's Indian contingent at

Ismailia. Two days were now consumed in rest and preparation.

The Egyptians cut off the water supply, which came from the

Delta by the Sweet Water Canal, by damming the canal. A sortie

to secure possession of the dam was therefore deemed

necessary, and was successfully made on the 24th. Further

advances were made, and on the 26th, Kassassin, a station of

some importance on the canal and railway, was occupied. Here

the British force was obliged to delay for two weeks, while

organizing a hospital and a transport service. This gave Arabi

opportunity to concentrate his forces at Zagazig and

Tel-el-Kebir. But he knew it was for his interest to strike at

once before the British transports could come up with the

advance. He therefore made two attempts, one on August 28, and

the other on September 9, to regain the position lost at

Kassassin. But he failed in both, though inflicting some loss

upon his opponents. On the 12th of September preparations were

made by General Wolseley for a decisive battle. He had become

convinced from daily reconnoissance and from the view obtained

in the engagement of September 9, that the fortifications at

Tel-el-Kebir were both extensive and formidable. ... It was

therefore decided to make the approach under cover of

darkness. ... At 1.30 on the morning of the 13th General

Wolseley gave the order for the advance, his force consisting

of about 11,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalrymen, and sixty

field-guns. They had only the stars to guide them, but so

accurately was the movement conducted that the leading

brigades of each division reached the enemy's outposts within

two minutes of each other. 'The enemy (says General Wolseley)

were completely surprised, and it was not until one or two of

their advanced sentries fired their rifles that they realized

our close proximity to their works.' ... The intrenchments

were not carried without a severe struggle. The Egyptians

fought with a desperate courage and hundreds of them were

bayoneted at their posts. ... But what could the rank and file

accomplish when 'each officer knew that he would run, but

hoped his neighbor would stay.' At the first shot Arabi and

his second in command took horse and galloped to Belbeis,

where they caught a train for Cairo. Most of the other

officers, as the reports of killed and wounded show, did the

same. The Egyptians fired their first shot at 4.55 A. M., and

at 6.45 the English had possession of Arabi's headquarters and

the canal bridge. The British loss was 57 killed, 380 wounded,

and 22 missing. The Egyptian army left about 2,000 dead in the

fortifications. ... A proof of the completeness of the success

was the entire dissipation of Arabi's army. Groups of

soldiers, it is true, were scattered to different parts of

Egypt; but the army organization was completely broken up with

the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. ... 'Major-General Lowe was

ordered to push on with all possible speed to Cairo. ...

General Lowe [reached] the great barracks of Abbassieh, just

outside of Cairo, at 4.45 P. M., on the 14th instant. The

cavalry marched sixty-five miles in these two days. ... A

message was sent to Arabi Pasha through the prefect of the

city, calling upon him to surrender forthwith, which he did

unconditionally.' ... Before leaving England, Wolseley had

predicted that he would enter Cairo on the 16th of September;

but with still a day to spare the feat was accomplished, and

Arabi's rebellion was completely crushed. England now stood

alone. Victory had been won without the aid of France or the

intervention of Turkey. In Constantinople negotiations

regarding Turkish expeditions were still pending when Lord

Dufferin received the news of Wolseley's success, and

announced to the Porte that there was now no need of a Turkish

force in Egypt, as the war was ended. France at once prepared

to resume her share in the control; but England, having borne

the sole burden of the war, did not propose now to share the

influence her success had given her. And it was for the

interest of Egypt that she should not. ... England's first

duty, after quiet was assured, was to send away all the

British troops except a force of about 11,000 men, which it

was deemed advisable to retain in Egypt until the khedive's

authority was placed on a safe footing throughout the land. ...

{767}

What should be done with Arabi was the question of paramount

interest, when once the khedive's authority was re-established

and recognized. Tewfik and his ministers, if left to

themselves, would unquestionably have taken his life. ... But

England was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial.

... It was decided that the rebel leaders should appear before

a military tribunal, and they were given English counsel to

plead their cause. ... The trial was a farce. Everything was

'cut and dried' beforehand. It was arranged that Arabi was to

plead guilty to rebellion, that he was forthwith to be

condemned to death by the court, and that the khedive was

immediately to commute the sentence to perpetual exile. In

fact, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed before the

court met for Arabi's trial on December 3. ... On the 26th of

December Arabi and his six companions ... upon whom the same

sentence had been passed, left Cairo for the Island of Ceylon,

there to spend their life of perpetual exile. ... Lord

Dufferin ... had been sent from Constantinople to Cairo, early

in November, with the special mission of bringing order out of

governmental chaos. In two months he had prepared a scheme of

legislative reorganization. This was, however, somewhat

altered; so that it was not until May, 1883, that the plan in

its improved form was accepted by the decree of the khedive.

The new constitution provided for three classes of assemblies:

the 'Legislative' Council,' the 'General Assembly,' and the

'Provincial Councils,' of which there were to be fourteen, one

for each province. ... Every Egyptian man, over twenty years

of age, was to vote (by ballot) for an 'elector-delegate' from

the village in the neighborhood of which he lived, and the

'electors-delegate' from all the villages in a province were

to form the constituency that should elect the provincial

council. ... The scheme for reorganization was carried forward

to the extent of electing the 'electors-delegate' in

September; but by that time Egypt was again in a state of such

disquietude that the British advisers of the khedive

considered it unwise to put the new institutions into

operation. In place of legislative council and general

assembly, the khedive appointed a council of state, consisting

of eleven Egyptians, two Armenians, and ten Europeans. The

reforms were set aside for the time being in view of impending

troubles and dangers in the Sudan."

_J. E. Bowen, The Conflict of East and West

in Egypt, chapter 5-6._

ALSO IN:

_Colonel J. F. Maurice, Military History of

the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt._

_C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapter 22-44._

EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

General Gordon's Mission to Khartoum.

The town beleaguered by the Mahdists.

English rescue expedition.

The energy that was too late.

"The abandonment of the Soudan being decided upon, the British

Government confided to General Gordon the task of extricating

the Egyptian garrisons scattered throughout the country. ...

Gordon's original instructions were dated the 18th January,

1884. He was to proceed at once to Egypt, to report on the

military situation in the Soudan, and on the measures which it

might be advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian

garrisons and for the safety of the European population in

Khartoum. ... He was to be accompanied by Colonel Stewart. ...

Gordon's final instructions were given him by the Egyptian

Government in a firman appointing him Governor-General. ...

Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th February. ... While

Gordon was sending almost daily expressions of his view as to

the only way of carrying out the policy of eventual

evacuation, it was also becoming clear to him that he would

very soon be cut off from the rest of Egypt. His first remark

on this subject was to express 'the conviction that I shall be

caught in Khartoum'; and he wrote,--'Even if I was mean enough

to escape I have no power to do so.' The accuracy of this

forecast was speedily demonstrated. Within a few days

communications with Khartoum were interrupted, and although

subsequently restored for a time, the rising of the riparian

tribes rendered the receipt and despatch of messages

exceedingly uncertain. ... Long before the summer of 1884, it

was evident that the position of Gordon at Khartoum had become

so critical, that if he were to be rescued at all, it could

only be by the despatch of a British force. ... Early in May,

war preparations were commenced in England, and on the 10th of

the month the military authorities in Cairo received

instructions to prepare for the despatch in October of an

expedition for the relief of the Soudanese capital. 12,000

camels were ordered to be purchased and held in readiness for

a forward march in the autumn. On the 16th May a

half-battalion of English troops was moved up the Nile to Wady

Halfa. A few weeks later some other positions on the Nile were

occupied by portions of the Army of Occupation. Naval officers

were also sent up the river to examine and report upon the

cataracts and other impediments to navigation. Still it was

not till the 5th August that Mr. Gladstone rose in the House

of Commons to move a vote of credit of £300,000 to enable the

Government to undertake operations for the relief of Gordon.

... It was agreed that there were but two routes by which

Khartoum could be approached by an expedition. One by way of

the Nile, and the other via Souakim and Berber. ... The Nile

route having been decided on, preparations on a large scale

were begun. ... It was at first arranged that not more than

5,000 men should form the Expedition, but later on the number

was raised to 7,000. ... The instructions given to Lord

Wolseley stated that the primary object of the Expedition was

to bring away Gordon and Stewart from Khartoum; and when that

purpose should be effected, no further offensive operations of

any kind were to be undertaken."

_C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, 1882-1885,

volume 2, chapter 12-18._

"First, it was said that our troops would be before the gates

of Khartoum on January 14th; next it was the middle of

February; and then the time stretched out to the middle of

March. ... Lord Wolseley offered a hundred pounds to the

regiment covering the distance from Sarras to Debbeh most

expeditiously and with least damage to boats. ... He also

dispatched Sir Herbert Stewart on the immortal march to

Gakdul. Stewart's force, composed principally of the Mounted

Infantry and Camel Corps, and led by a troop of the 19th

Hussars, acting as scouts--numbering about 1,100 in all--set

out from Korti on December 30th. Its destination was about 100

miles from headquarters, and about 80 from the Nile at Shendy.

{768}

The enterprise, difficult and desperate as it was, was

achieved with perfect success. ... On the 17th January Sir

Herbert Stewart engaged the enemy on the road to Metemneh, and

after defeating some 10,000 Arabs--collected from Berber,

Metemneh, and Omdurman--pushed forward to the Abu Klea Wells.

His tactics were much the same as those of General Graham at

Elteb, and those of the Mahdi's men--of attacking when thirst

and fatigue had well-nigh prostrated the force--were at all

points similar to those adopted against Hicks. Our losses were

65 non-commissioned officers and men killed and 85 wounded,

with 9 officers killed--among them Colonel Burnaby--and 9

wounded. Stewart at once pushed on for Metemneh and the Nile.

He left the Wells on the 18th January to occupy Metemneh, if

possible, but, failing that, to make for the Nile and entrench

himself. After a night's march, some five miles south of

Metemneh, the column found itself in presence of an enemy said

to have been about 18,000 strong. Stewart halted and formed a

zareba under a deadly fire. He himself was mortally hurt in

the groin, and Mr. Cameron, of the Standard, and Mr. Herbert,

of the Morning Post, were killed. The zareba completed, the

column advanced in square, and the Arabs, profiting by Abu

Klea, moved forward in echelon, apparently with the purpose of

charging. At thirty yards or so they were brought to bay, so

terrific was the fire from the square, and so splendidly

served was Norton's artillery. For two hours the battle raged;

and then the Arabs, 'mown down in heaps,' gave way. Meantime

Sir Charles Wilson had made a dash for the Nile, where he

found steamers and reinforcements from Gordon, and the laconic

message, 'An right at Khartoum. Can hold out for years.' ...

In the joy at the good news, none had stopped to consider the

true meaning of the message, 'All right. Can hold out for

years,' for none was aware that nearly two months before

Gordon had said he had just provisions enough for 40 days, and

that what he really meant was that he had come to his last

biscuit. The message--which was written for the enemy--was

dated December 20, and Sir Charles Wilson would reach Khartoum on

January 28, just a month after its despatch. ... The public,

carefully kept in ignorance ... and hopeful beyond their wont,

were simply stupefied to hear, on February 5, that Khartoum was in

the hands of the Mahdi and Gordon captured or dead."

_A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon,

volume 2, chapter 10._

ALSO IN:

_H. M. Stanley, In Darkest Africa, chapter 1._

_Colonel H. E. Colvile, History of the Soudan Campaign._

_Colonel C. W. Wilson, From Korti to Khartoum._

_Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, The Campaign of the Cataracts._

_W. M. Pimblett, The Story of the Soudan War._

_Gen. C. G. Gordon, Journals at Khartoum._

_H. W. Gordon, Events in the Life of

Charles George Gordon, chapter 14-20._

EGYPT: A. D. 1893.

The reigning khedive.

Mohamed Tewfik died in January, 1802 and was succeeded by his

son Abbas, born in 1874.

_Statesman's Year-book, 1893._

----------EGYPT: End----------

EGYPTIAN EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

EGYPTIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

EIDGENOSSEN.

The German word Eidgenossen, signifying "confederates," is

often used in a special sense, historically, as applied to the

members of the Swiss Confederation/

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

The name of the Huguenots is believed by some writers to be a

corruption of the same term.

EIGHT SAINTS OF WAR, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

EIKON BASILIKE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

EION, Siege and capture of (B. C. 470).

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

EIRE.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

EKKLESIA.

See ECCLESIA.

EKOWE, Defence of (1879).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1870.

ELAGABALUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 218-222.

ELAM.

"Genesis calls a tribe dwelling on the Lower Tigris, between

the river and the mountains of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest

son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land of the Elamites was

known as Kissia [Cissia], and afterwards as Susiana, from the

name of the capital. It was also called Elymais."

_M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 1._

About 2300 B. C. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was overwhelmed by an

Elamite invasion--an invasion recorded by king Asshurbanipal,

and which is stated to have laid waste the land of Accad and

desecrated its temples. "Nor was this a passing inroad or raid

of booty-seeking mountaineers. It was a real conquest.

Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors remained in Southern

Chaldea. ... This is the first time we meet authentic

monumental records of a country which was destined through the

next sixteen centuries to be in continual contact, mostly

hostile, with both Babylonia and her northern rival, Assyria,

until its final annihilation by the latter [B. C. 649, under

Asshurbanipal, the Sardanapulus of the Greeks, who reduced the

whole country to a wilderness]. Its capital was Shushan

(afterwards pronounced by foreigners Susa), and its own

original name Shushinak. Its people were of Turanian stock,

its language was nearly akin to that of Shumir and Accad. ...

Elam, the name under which the country is best known, both

from the Bible and later monuments, is a Turanian word, which

means, like 'Accad,' 'Highlands.' ... One of

Khudur-Nankhundi's next successors, Khudur-Lagamar, was not

content with the addition of Chaldea to his kingdom of Elam.

He had the ambition of a born conqueror, and the generalship

of one. The Chapter xiv, of Genesis--which calls him

Chedorlaomer--is the only document we have descriptive of this

king's warlike career, and a very striking picture it gives of

it, ... Khudur-Lagamar ... lived, according to the most

probable calculations, about 2200 B. C."

_Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4._

It is among the discoveries of recent times, derived from the

records in clay unearthed in Babylonia, that Cyrus the Great

was originally king of Elam, and acquired Persia, as he

acquired his later dominions, by conquest.

See PERSIA, B. C. 549-521.

See, also, BABYLONIA.

EL ARISH, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ELBA: A. D. 1735.

Ceded to Spain by Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ELBA: A. D. 1802.

Annexation to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ELBA: A. D. 1814.

Napoleon in exile.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL),

and (APRIL-JUNE).

{i}

APPENDIX A.

NOTES TO ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VOLUME.

To the eye of modern scholarship "language" forms the basis of

every ethnic distinction. Physical and exterior features like the

stature, the color of the skin, the diversity of habits and

customs, the distinctions which once formed in great part the

basis of ethnic research have all in our own day been relegated

to a subordinate place.

The "language" test is of course subject to very serious

limitations. The intermingling of different peoples, more general

to be sure in our own day than in past ages, has nevertheless

been sufficiently great in every age to make the tracing of

linguistic forms a task of great difficulty. In special cases

where both the civilization and language of one people have

become lost in that of another the test must of course fail

utterly.

With all these restrictions however the adoption of the

linguistic method by modern criticism has been practically

universal. Its defence, if it requires any, is apparent. It is

the only method of ethnic study the deductions of which, where

successful at all, approach anything like certainty. The points

wherein linguistic criticism has failed have been freely

admitted; on the other hand the facts which it has established

are unassailable by any other school of criticism.

Taking language then as the only tangible working basis the

subject resolves itself from the start into a two-fold division:

the debatable and the certain. It is the purpose to indicate in

the course of these notes, what is merely conjecture and what may

be safely accepted as fact.

The ethnology of Europe, studied on this basis, has for its

central feature the _Indo-Germanic_ (_Indo-European_)

or _Aryan_ race. The distinction between the races clearly

Aryan and those doubtful or non-Aryan forms the primary division

of the subject. As the map is intended to deal only with the

Europe of the present, a historical distinction must be made at

the outset between the doubtful or non-Aryan peoples who preceded

the Aryans and the non-Aryan peoples who have appeared in Europe

in comparatively recent times. The simple formula, _pre-Aryan,

Aryan, non-Aryan,_ affords the key to the historical

development of European ethnology.

PRE-ARYAN PEOPLES.

Of the presumably pre-Aryan peoples of western Europe the

_Iberians_ occupy easily the first place. The seat of this

people at the dawn of history was in Spain and southern France;

their ethnology belongs entirely to the realm of conjecture. They

are of much darker complexion than the Aryans and their racial

characteristic is conservatism even to stubbornness, which places

them in marked contrast to their immediate Aryan neighbors, the

volatile Celts. Among the speculations concerning the origin of

the Iberians a plausible one is that of Dr. Bodichon, who assigns

to them an African origin making them, indeed, cognate with the

modern Berbers (see R. H. Patterson's "Ethnology of Europe" in

"Lectures on History and Art"). This generalization is made to

include also the _Bretons_ of the north west. It is clear

however that the population of modern Brittany is purely Celtic:

made up largely from the immigrations from the British Isles

during the fifth century.

To the stubbornness with which the Iberians resisted every

foreign aggression and refused intermingling with surrounding

races is due the survival to the present day of their

descendants, the _Basques_.

The mountain ranges of northern Spain, the Cantabrians and

Eastern Pyrenees have formed the very donjon-keep of this people

in every age. Here the _Cantabri_ successfully resisted the

Roman arms for more than a century after the subjugation of the

remainder of Spain, the final conquest not occurring until the

last years of Augustus. While the _Iberian_ race as a whole

has become lost in the greater mass of Celtic and Latin

intruders, it has remained almost pure in this quarter. The

present seat of the Basques is in the Spanish provinces of

Viscaya, Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Navarre and in the French

department of Basses Pyrénées. The Ivernians of Ireland, now lost

in the Celtic population, and the Ligurians along the shores of

the Genoese gulf, later absorbed by the Romans, both belong

likewise to this pre-Aryan class. (Modern research concerning

these pre-Aryan peoples has in large part taken its inspiration

from the "Untersuchungen" of Humboldt, whose view concerning the

connection between the Basques and Iberians is substantially the

one stated.)

Another early non-Aryan race now extinct were the Etruscans of

Italy. Their origin was manifestly different from that of the

pre-Aryan peoples just mentioned. By many they have been regarded

as a branch of the great Ural-Altaic family. This again is

conjecture.

ARYAN PEOPLES.

In beginning the survey of the Aryan peoples it is necessary to

mention the principal divisions of the race. As generally

enumerated there are seven of these, viz., the _Sanskrit_

(Hindoo), _Zend_ (Persian), _Greek, Latin, Celtic,

Germanic_ and _Slavic_. To these may be added two others

not definitely classified, the _Albanian_ and the

_Lithuanian_. These bear the closest affinity respectively

to the Latin and the _Slavic_.

Speculation concerning the origin of the Aryans need not concern

us. It belongs as yet entirely to the arena of controversy. The

vital question which divides the opposing schools is concerning

their European or Asiatic origin. Of the numerous writers on this

subject the two who perhaps afford the reader of English the best

view of the opposing opinions are, on the Asiatic side, Dr. Max

Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language); on the other, Professor

A. H. Sayce (Introduction to the Science of Language).

{ii}

Of the divisions of the Aryan race above enumerated the first two

do not appear in European ethnology. Of the other branches, the

_Latin_, _Germanic_ and _Slavic_ form by great

odds the bulk of the European population.

THE LATIN BRANCH.

The _Latin_ countries are France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and

the territory north of the Danube, between the Dniester and the

Theiss. In the strictest ethnic sense however the term Latin can

be applied only to Italy and then only to the central part. As

Italy first appears in history it is inhabited by a number of

different races: the _Iapygians_ and _Oenotrians_ of

the south who were thrown in direct contact with the Greek

settlers; the _Umbrians, Sabines, Latins, Volscians_ and

_Oscans_ in the centre; the _Etruscans_ on the west

shore north of the Tiber; while in the north we find the

_Gauls_ in the valley of the Po, with the _Ligurians_

and _Venetians_ respectively on the west and east coasts. Of

this motley collection the central group bore a close affinity to

the Latin, yet all alike received the Latin stamp with the

growing power of Rome.

The ethnic complexion of Italy thus formed was hardly modified by

the great Germanic invasions which followed with the fall of the

West-Roman Empire.

This observation applies with more or less truth to all the Latin

countries, the Germanic conquerors becoming everywhere merged and

finally lost in the greater mass of the conquered. Only in

Lombardy where a more enduring Germanic kingdom existed for over

two centuries (568-774), has the Germanic made any impression,

and this indeed a slight one, on the distinctly Latin character

of the Italian peninsula.

In Spain an interval between the Iberian period and the Roman

conquest appears to have existed, during which the population is

best described as _Celt-Iberian_. Upon this population the

Latin stamp was placed by the long and toilsome, but for that

reason more thorough, Roman conquest. The ethnic character of

Spain thus formed has passed without material change through the

ordeal both of Germanic and Saracenic conquest. The _Gothic_

kingdom of Spain (418-714) and the _Suevic_ kingdom of

northern Portugal (406-584) have left behind them scarcely a

trace. The effects of the great Mohammedan invasion cannot be

dismissed so lightly.

Conquered entirely by the Arabs and Moors in 714, the entire

country was not freed from the invader for nearly eight

centuries. In the south (Granada) where the Moors clung longest

their influence has been greatest. Here their impress on the pure

Aryan stock has never been effaced.

The opening phrase of Cæsar's Gallic war, "all Gaul is divided

into three parts," states a fact as truly ethnic as it is

geographical or historical. In the south (Aquitania) we find the

Celtic blending with the _Iberian_; in the northeast the

Cimbrian Belgae, the last comers of the Celtic family, are

strongly marked by the characteristics of the Germans; while in

the vast central territory the people "calling themselves Galli"

are of pure Celtic race. This brief statement of Caesar, allowing

for the subsequent influx of the German, is no mean description

of the ethnic divisions of France as they exist at the present

day, and is an evidence of the remarkable continuity of

ethnological as opposed to mere political conditions.

The four and a half centuries of Roman rule placed the Latin

stamp on the Gallic nation, a preparation for the most determined

siege of Germanic race influence which any Latin nation was fated

to undergo.

In Italy and Spain the exotic kingdoms were quickly overthrown;

the _Frankish_ kingdom in northern Gaul was in strictness

never overthrown at all.

In addition we soon have in the extreme north a second Germanic

element in the Scandinavian _Norman_. Over all these outside

elements, however, the Latin influence eventually triumphed.

While the _Franks_ have imposed their name upon the natives,

the latter have imposed their language and civilization on the

invaders.

The result of this clashing of influences is seen, however, in

the present linguistic division of the old Gallic lands. The line

running east and west through the centre of France marks the

division between the French and the _Provençal_ dialects,

the _langued'oil_ and the _langued'oc_. It is south of

this line in the country of the _langued'oc_ that the Latin

or Romance influence reigns most absolute in the native speech.

In the northeast, on the other hand, in the _Walloon_

provinces of Belgium, we have, as with the Belgae of classic

times, the near approach of the Gallic to the Germanic stems.

Our survey of the Latin peoples must close with a short notice of

its outlying members in the Balkan and Danubian lands. The

_Albanians_ (_Skipetars_) and the _Roumans_

(_Vlachs_ or _Wallachs_) represent as nearly as

ethnology can determine the ancient populations respectively of

Illyricum and Thrace. The ethnology of the Albanians is entirely

uncertain. Their present location, considerably to the south of

their supposed pristine seat in Illyricum, indicates some

southern migration of the race. This migration occurred at an

entirely unknown time, though it is generally believed to have

been contemporary with the great southward movement of the Slavic

races in the seventh century.

The _Albanian_ migrations of the time penetrated Attica,

Aetolia and the entire Peloponnesus; with the _Slavs_ and

_Vlachs_ they formed indeed a great part of the population

of Greece during the Middle Ages. While the Slavic stems have

since been merged in the native Greek population, and the

_Vlachs_ have almost entirely disappeared from these

southern lands, the Albanians in Greece have shown a greater

tenacity. Their part in later Greek history has been a prominent

one and they form to-day a great part of the population of Attica

and Argolis.

The _Roumans_ or _Vlachs_, the supposed native

population of Thrace, are more closely identified than the

Albanians with the other Latin peoples. They occupy at present

the vast country north of the Danube, their boundary extending on

the east to the Dniester, on the west almost to the Theiss.

Historically these people form a perplexing yet interesting

study. The theory once general that they represented a continuous

Latin civilization north of the Danube, connecting the classic

Dacia by an unbroken chain to the present, has now been generally

abandoned. (See Roesler's "Romänische Studien" or Freeman's

"Historical Geography of Europe," page 435.)

{iii}

The present geographical location of the Vlach peoples is

probably the result of a migration from the Thracian lands south

of the Danube, which occurred for unexplained causes in the

twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The kernel of the race at the

present day is the separate state of Roumania; in the East and

West they come under the respective rules of Russia and Hungary.

In mediaeval times the part played by them south of the Balkans

was an important one, and to this day they still linger in

considerable numbers on either side of the range of Pindus. (For

a short dissertation on the Vlach peoples, see Finlay, "History

of Greece," volume 3, pages 224-230.)

THE GERMANIC BRANCH.

The _Germanic_ nations of modern Europe are _England,

Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway_ and _Sweden_. The

Germanic races also form the major part of the population of

Switzerland, the Cis-Leithan division of the Austrian Empire, and

appear in isolated settlements throughout Hungary and Russia.

Of the earlier Germanic nations who overthrew the Roman Empire of

the West scarcely a trace remains.

The population of the British Isles at the dawn of history

furnishes a close parallel to that of Gaul. The pre-Aryan

_Ivernians_ (the possible _Iberians_ of the British

Isles) had been forced back into the recesses of Scotland and

Ireland; next to them came the Celts, like those of Gaul, in two

divisions, the _Goidels_ or _Gaels_ and the

_Britons_.

In Britain, contrary to the usual rule, the Roman domination did

not give the perpetual Latin stamp to the island; it is in fact

the only country save the Pannonian and Rhaetian lands south of

the upper Danube, once a Roman possession, where the Germanic

element has since gained a complete mastery. The invasion of the

Germanic races, the _Angles, Saxons_ and _Jutes_, from

the sixth to the eighth centuries, were practically wars of

extermination. The Celtic race is to-day represented on the

British Isles only in _Wales_ and the western portions of

_Scotland_ and _Ireland_. The invasions of the

_Danes_, and later the _Norman_ conquest, bringing with

them only slight infusions of kindred Germanic nations, have

produced in England no marked modification of the _Saxon_

stock.

The _German_ Empire, with the smaller adjoining realms,

Holland and Switzerland and the Austrian provinces of Austria,

Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol, contain the great mass of

the Germanic peoples of the continent.

During the confusion following the overthrow of the West-Roman

Empire the _Germanic_ peoples were grouped much further

westward than they are at present; the eastward reaction

involving the dispossession of the _Slavic_ peoples on the

Elbe and Oder, has been going on ever since the days of

Charlemagne. Germany like France possesses a linguistic division,

Low German (Nieder-Deutsche) being generally spoken in the lands

north of the cross line, High German (Hoch-Deutsche) from which

the written language is derived, to the south of it, Holland uses

the _Flemish_, a form of the Nieder-Deutsche; Belgium is

about equally divided between the _Flemish_ and the

_Walloon_. Switzerland, though predominantly German, is

encroached upon by the French in the western cantons, while in

the southeast is used the Italian and a form allied to the same,

the Romance speech of the Rhaetian (Tyrolese) Alps. This form

also prevails in Friuli and some mountainous parts of northern

Italy.

The present population of the German Empire is almost exclusively

Germanic, the exceptions being the Slavic _Poles_ of Posen,

Pomerellen, southeastern Prussia and eastern Silesia, the remnant

of the _Wends_ of Lusatia and the French element in the

recently acquired Imperial lands of Alsace and Lorraine. Beyond

the Empire we find a German population in the Austrian

territories already noted, in the border lands of Bohemia, and in

isolated settlements further east. The great settlement in the

Siebenbürgen was made by German emigrants in the eleventh century

and similar settlements dot the map both of Hungary and Russia.

On the Volga indeed exists the greatest of them all.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden are peopled by the _Scandinavian_

branch of the Germanic race. Only in the extreme north do we find

another and non-Aryan race, the _Lapps_. On the other hand a

remnant of the Swedes still retain a precarious hold on the coast

line of their former possession, the Russian Finland.

THE SLAVIC BRANCH.

The _Slavs_, though the last of the Aryan nations to appear

in history, form numerically by far the greatest branch of the

Indo-European family. Their present number in Europe is computed

at nearly one hundred million souls.

At the time of the great migrations they extended over nearly all

modern Germany; their slow dispossession by the Germanic peoples,

beginning in the eighth century, has already been noticed. In the

course of this dispossession the most westerly Slavic group, the

_Polabic_, between the Elbe and the Oder, were merged in the

German, and, barring the remnant of _Wends_ in Lusatia (the

_Sorabi_ or _Northern Serbs_), have disappeared

entirely from ethnic geography.

The great _Slavic_ nation of the present day is Russia, but

the great number of Slavic peoples who are not Russian and the

considerable Russian population which is not Slavic renders

impossible the study of this race on strictly national lines.

The Slavic peoples are separated, partly by geographical

conditions, into three great divisions: the _Eastern_, the

_Western_ and the _Southern_. The greatest of these

divisions, the Eastern, lies entirely within the boundaries of

the Russian Empire. The sub-divisions of the Eastern group are as

follows: The _Great Russians_ occupying the vast inland

territory and numbering alone between forty and fifty millions,

the _Little Russians_ inhabiting the entire south of Russia

from Poland to the Caspian, and the _White Russians_, the

least numerous of this division, in Smolensk, Wilna, and Minsk,

the west provinces bordering on the Lithuanians and Poles.

The _West Slavic_ group, omitting names of peoples now

extinct, are the _Poles, Slovaks, Czechs_ and the remnants

of the Lusatian _Wends_. The _Poles_, excepting those

already mentioned as within the German empire, and the Austrian

Poles of Cracow, are all under the domination of Russia. Under

the sovereignty of Austria are the _Slovaks, Moravians_ and

_Czechs_ of Bohemia, the latter the most westerly as well as

historically the oldest of the surviving Slavic peoples, having

appeared in their present seats in the last years of the fifth

century.

{iv}

In connection with this West Slavic group we should also refer to

the _Lithuanians_ whose history, despite the racial

difference, is so closely allied with that of Poland. Their

present location in the Russian provinces of Kowno, Kurland and

Livland has been practically the same since the dawn of history.

The _South Slavic_ peoples were isolated from their northern

kinsmen by the great _Finno-Tatar_ invasions.

The invasion of Europe by the Avars in the sixth century clove

like a wedge the two great divisions of the Slavic race, the

southernmost being forced upon the confines of the East-Roman

Empire. Though less imposing as conquests than the Germanic

invasions of the Western Empire, the racial importance of these

Slavic movements is far greater since they constitute, in

connection with the _Finno-Tatar_ invasions which caused

them, the most important and clearly defined series of ethnic

changes which Europe has experienced during the Christian Era.

During the sixth and seventh centuries these Slavic emigrants

spread over almost the entire Balkan peninsula, including Epirus

and the Peloponnesus. In Greece they afterwards disappeared as a

separate people, but in the region between the Danube, the Save

and the Balkans they immediately developed separate states

(Servia in 641, Bulgaria in 678). As they exist at present they

may be classed in three divisions. The _Bulgarians_, so

called from the _Finno-Tatar_ people whom they absorbed

while accepting their name, occupy the district included in the

separate state of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, with a

considerable territory to the south of it in Macedonia and

Thrace. It was this last named territory or one very nearly

corresponding to it that was actually ceded to Bulgaria by the

peace of San Stefano, though she unfortunately lost it by the

subsequent compromise effected at the Congress of Berlin. The

second division includes the _Servians, Montenegrans,

Bosnians_ and _Croatians_, the last two under Austrian

control; the third and smallest are the _Slovenes_ of

Carniola, likewise under Austrian sovereignty. (Schafarik's

"Slawische Alterthümer" is the greatest single authority on the

early history and also comparative ethnology of the

_Slavs_.)

The territory occupied by the _Greek_ speaking people is

clearly shown on the accompanying map. As in all history, it is

the coast lands where they seem to have formed the strongest

hold. In free Greece itself and in the Turkish territories

immediately adjoining, the _Greek_ population overwhelmingly

preponderates.

Nevertheless there is still a considerable Albanian element in

Attica and Argolis, a _Vlach_ element in Epirus while the

_Turk_ himself still lingers in certain quarters of

Thessaly. All these are remnants left over from the successive

migrations of the Middle Ages. The _Slavs_, who also figured

most prominently in these migrations, have disappeared in Greece

as a distinct race. The question as to the degree of Slavic

admixture among the modern Greeks is however another fruitful

source of ethnic controversy. The general features of the

question are most compactly stated in Finlay, volume 4, pages 1-37.

NON-ARYAN PEOPLES.

The _Non-Aryan_ peoples on the soil of modern Europe,

excepting the Jews and also probably excepting those already

placed in the unsolved class of pre-Aryan, all belong to the

_Finno-Tatar_ or _Ural-Altaic_ family, and all,

possibly excepting the _Finns_, date their arrival in Europe

from comparatively recent and historic times. The four principal

divisions of this race, the _Ugric, Finnic, Turkic_ and

_Mongolic_, all have their European representatives.

Of the first the only representatives are the _Hungarians_

(_Magyars_). The rift between the North and South Slavic

peoples opened by the _Huns_ in the fifth century, reopened

and enlarged by the _Avars_ in the sixth, was finally

occupied by their kinsmen the _Magyars_ in the ninth. The

receding of this wave of Asiatic invasion left the _Magyars_

in utter isolation among their Aryan neighbors. It follows as a

natural consequence that they have been the only one of the

_Ural-Altaic_ peoples to accept the religion and

civilization of the West. Since the conversion of their king St.

Stephen in the year 1000, their geographical position has not

altered. Roughly speaking, it comprises the western half of

Hungary, with an outlying branch in the Carpathians.

More closely allied to the _Magyars_ than to their more

immediate neighbors of the same race are the _Finnic_ stems

of the extreme north. Stretching originally over nearly the whole

northern half of Scandinavia and Russia they have been gradually

displaced, in the one case by their Germanic, in the other by

their Slavic neighbors. Their present representatives are the

_Ehsts_ and _Tschudes_ of Ehstland, the _Finns_

and _Karelians_ of Finland, the _Tscheremissians_ of

the upper Volga, the _Siryenians_ in the basin of the

Petchora and the _Lapps_ in northern Scandinavia and along

the shores of the Arctic ocean.

East of the _Lapps_, also bordering the Arctic ocean, lie

the _Samojedes_, a people forming a distinct branch of the

Ural-Altaic family though most closely allied to the Finnic

peoples. The great division of the Ural-Altaic family known

indifferently as _Tatar_ (_Tartar_) or _Turk_,

has, like the Aryan Slavs, through the accidents of historical

geography rather than race divergence been separated into two

great divisions: the northern or Russian division commonly

comprised under the specific name of _Tartar_; and the

southern, the _Turk_.

These are the latest additions to the European family of races.

The _Mongol-Tatar_ invasion of Russia occurred as late as

the thirteenth century, while the _Turks_ did not gain their

first foothold in Europe through the gates of Gallipoli until

1353. The bulk of the Turks of the present day are congregated in

Asia-Minor.

Barring the _Armenians_, the _Georgians_ of the

northeast, the _Greeks_ of the seacoast and the scattered

_Circassians_, the whole peninsula is substantially Turkish.

In Europe proper the Turks as a distinct people never cut a great

figure. Even in the grandest days of Osmanli conquest they were

always outnumbered by the conquered nations whose land they

occupied, and with the decline of their power this numerical

inferiority has become more and more marked. At the present day

there are very few portions of the Balkan peninsula where the

Turkish population actually predominates; their general

distribution is clearly shown on the map.

{v}

The _Tartars_ or _Russian Turks_ represent the siftings

of the Asiatic invasions of the thirteenth century.

Their number has been steadily dwindling until they now count

scarcely three millions, a mere handful in the mass of their

former Slavic subjects.

The survivors are scattered in irregular and isolated groups over

the south and east. Prominent among them are the _Crim

Tartars_, the kindred Nogais of the west shores of the

Caspian, the _Kirghis_ of the north shore and Ural valley,

and the _Bashkirs_ between the upper Ural and the Volga,

with an isolated branch of Tartars in the valley of the Araxes

south of the Caucasus.

The great Asiatic irruption of the thirteenth century has been

commonly known as the Mongol invasion. Such it was in leadership,

though the residuum which it has left behind in European Russia

proves that the rank and file were mostly Tartars. One Mongol

people however, the _Kalmucks_, did make their way into

Europe and still exist in the steppes between the lower Don and

the lower Volga.

The ethnology of the Caucasian peoples is the most difficult part

of the entire subject. On the steppes of the Black and Caspian

seas up to the very limit of the Caucasus we have two races

between whom the ethnic distinction is clearly defined, the

Mongol-Tartar and the Slav. Entering the Caucasus however we find

a vast number of races differing alike from these and from each

other.

To enumerate all the different divisions of these races, whose

ethnology is so very uncertain, would be useless. Grouped in

three general divisions however they are as follows: the

so-called _Circassians_ who formerly occupied the whole

western Caucasus with the adjoining Black sea coast but who,

since the Russian conquest of 1864, have for the most part

emigrated to different quarters of the Turkish Empire; the

_Lesghians_, under which general name are included the

motley crowd of peoples inhabiting the eastern Caucasus; and the

_Georgians_, the supposed descendants of the ancient

_Iberians_ of the Caucasus, who inhabit the southern slope,

including all the Tiflis province and the Trapezuntine lands on

the southeast coast of the Black sea.

The _Tartars_ are hardly found in the Caucasus though they

reappear immediately south of it in the lower basin of the Kura

and the Araxes. Here also appear the various _Iranian_ stems

of the Asiatic Aryans, the _Armenians_, the _Persians_

and the _Kurds_.

R. H. Latham's works on "European Ethnology" are the best general

authority in English. Of more recent German guides, map and

otherwise, the following are noteworthy: Bastain's

"Ethnologisches Bilderbuch," "Das Beständige in den

Menschenrassen," "Allgemeine Grundzüge der Ethnologie," Kiepert's

"Ethnographische Uebersichtskarte des Europäischen Orients,"

Menke's "Europa nach seinen Ethnologischen Verhältnissen in der

Mitte des 19. Jahrhundert," Rittich's "Ethnographie des

europäischen Russland," Sax's "Ethnographische Karte der

europäischen Turkei," Berghaus's "Ethnographische Karte vom

österreichischen Kaiserstaat," Wendt's "Bilder Atlas der Länder

und Völkerkunde," Andree's "Allgemeiner Hand-atlas

(Ethnographischen Karten)," Gerland's "Atlas der Ethnographie."

A. C. Reiley.

{vi}

APPENDIX B.

NOTES TO FOUR MAPS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA.

(TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.)

There exists to-day upon the map of Europe no section whose

historical geography has a greater present interest than the

Danubian, Balkan and Levantine states. It is these and the

Austro-Hungarian lands immediately adjoining which have formed

one of the great fulcrums for those national movements which

constitute the prime feature of the historical geography of the

present age.

Upon the present map of Europe in this quarter we discover a

number of separate and diminutive national entities, the

_Roumanian, Bulgarian, Servian_ and Montenegrin, the

_Greek_ and _Albanian_, all struggling desperately to

establish themselves on the debris of the crumbling Turkish

Empire.

What the issue will be of these numerous and mutually conflicting

struggles for separate national existence it is out of our

province to forecast.

It is only intended in this map series to throw all possible

light on their true character from the lessons and analogies of

the past. At first sight the period treated in the four Levantine

maps (from the last of the twelfth to the middle of the fifteenth

century) must appear the most intricate and the most obscure in

the entire history of this region. The most intricate it

certainly is, and possibly the most obscure, though the obscurity

arises largely from neglect. Its importance, however, arises from

the fact that it is the only past period of Levantine history

which presents a clear analogy to the present, not alone in its

purely transitionary character, but also from the several

national movements which during this time were diligently at

work.

During the Roman and the earlier Byzantine periods, which from

their continuity may be taken as one, any special tendency was of

course stifled under the preponderant rule of a single great

empire.

The same was equally true at a later time, when all of these

regions passed under the rule of the _Turk_. These four maps

treat of that most interesting period intervening between the

crumbling of the Byzantine power and the Turkish conquest. That

in our own day the crumbling in turn of the Turkish power has

repeated, in its general features, the same historical situation,

is the point upon which the interest must inevitably centre.

What the outcome will be in modern times forms the most

interesting of political studies. Whether the native races of the

Danube, the Balkans and the southern peninsula are to work out

their full national development, either federately or

independently, or whether they are destined to pass again, as is

threatened, under the domination of another and greater empire,

is one of the most important of the questions which agitates the

mind of the modern European statesman. That the latter outcome is

now the less likely is due to the great unfolding of separate

national spirit which marks so strongly the age in which we live.

The reason why the previous age treated in this map series ended

in nothing better than foreign and Mohammedan conquest may

perhaps be sought in the imperfect development of this same

national spirit.

THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The first map (Asia Minor and the Balkans near the close of the

twelfth century) is intended to show the geographical situation

as it existed immediately prior to the dismemberment of the

Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of this period is in

itself an important study. It must be regarded more as the

offspring than the direct continuation of the great East-Roman

Empire of Arcadius and Justinian; for with the centuries which

had intervened the great changes in polity, internal geography,

external neighbors and lastly the continual geographical

contraction, present us with an entirely new series of relations.

It is this geographical contraction which concerns us most

vitally, for with it the frontiers of the empire conform more and

more closely to the ethnic limits of the _Greek_ nation. The

later Byzantine Empire was, therefore, essentially a Greek

Empire, and as such it appeals most vividly to the national

consciousness of the Greek of our own time. The restoration of

this empire, with the little kingdom of free Greece as the

nucleus, is the vision which inspires the more aggressive and

venturesome school of modern Greek politicians. In the twelfth

century the bulk of Asia Minor had been wrested from the

Byzantine Empire by the _Turks_, but it was the Crusaders,

not the _Turks_, who overthrew the first empire. In one view

this fact is fortunate, otherwise there would have been no

transition period whose study would be productive of such

fruitful results.

Owing to the artful policy of the Comnenian emperors, the

Byzantine Empire actually profited by the early crusades and was

enabled through them to recover a considerable part of Asia Minor

from the Turks. This apparent success, however, was only the

prelude to final disaster.

Isolated from western Christendom by the schism, the

_Greeks_ were an object of suspicion and hatred to the Latin

Crusaders and it only required a slight abatement of the original

crusading spirit for their warlike ardor to be diverted from

Jerusalem to Constantinople. Cyprus was torn away from the Greek

Empire and created a separate kingdom under Latin rule, in 1191.

Finally, the so-called Fourth Crusade, controlled by Venetian

intrigue, ended in the complete dismemberment of the Byzantine

Empire (1204).

{vii}

This nefarious enterprise forms a dark spot in history: it also

ushers in the greatest period of geographical intricacy in

Levantine annals, the geography which immediately resulted from

it is not directly shown in this Levantine map series, but can be

seen on the general map of Europe at the opening of the

thirteenth century. Briefly stated, it represented the

establishment of a fragmentary and disjointed Latin Empire in the

place of the former Greek Empire of Constantinople. Known as the

Latin Empire of Romania, this new creation included the Empire of

Constantinople proper and its feudal dependencies, the kingdom of

Thessalonica, the duchy of Athens, and the principality of

Achaia.

Three orphan Greek states survived the fall of the parent power:

in Europe, the despotat of Epirus, and in Asia, the empires of

Nicæa and Trebizond.

The Latin states of the East are scarcely worthy the historian's

notice. They have no place whatever in the natural development,

either political or geographical, of the Levantine states. They

were not only forced by foreign lances upon an unwilling

population, but were clumsy feudalisms, established among a

people to whom the feudal idea was unintelligible and barbarous.

Like their prototypes, the Crusading states of Syria, they

resembled artificial encroachments upon the sea, standing for a

time, but with the ordinary course of nature the ocean reclaims

its own.

Even the weak little Greek states were strong in comparison and

immediately began to recover ground at their expense. The kingdom

of Thessalonica was overthrown by the despot of Epirus in 1222;

the Latin Empire of Constantinople itself fell before the Greek

Emperor of Nicæa in 1261; while the last of the barons of the

principality of Achaia submitted to the Byzantine despots of the

Morea in 1430.

The duchy of Athens alone of all these Latin states survived long

enough to fall at last before the _Turkish_ conquest. The

Levantine possessions won by Venice at this and later times were

destined, partly from their insular or maritime location, and

partly from the greater vitality of trade relations, to enjoy a

somewhat longer life.

To the Nicæan emperors of the house of Paleologus belongs the

achievement of having restored the Byzantine Empire in the event

of 1261. The expression Restored Byzantine Empire has been

employed, since it has the sanction of usage, though a complete

restoration never occurred. The geography of the Restored Empire

as shown on the second map (1265 A. D.) fails to include the

greater part of what we may term the cradle of the Greek race.

The only subsequent extension was over the balance of the Morea.

In every other quarter the frontiers of the Restored Empire soon

began to recede until it included only the city of Constantinople

and an ever decreasing portion of Thrace. With the commencement

of the fourteenth century the _Turks_, having thrown off the

Mongol-Tartar dominion, began under the house of Osmanlis their

final career of conquest. This, of course, was the beginning of

the end. Their first foothold in Europe was gained in 1353, but

over a century was destined to elapse before the completion of

their sovereignty in all the lands south of the Danube. There

remains, therefore, a considerable period during which whatever

separate national tendencies existed had full opportunity to

work.

THE FIRST AND SECOND BULGARIAN KINGDOMS.

It was this age which saw not only the highest point in the

national greatness of Bulgaria and Servia, but also witnessed the

evolution of the Wallachian principalities in the lands north of

the Danube.

The separate states of Bulgaria and Servia, born in the seventh

century of the great southward migration of the _Slavic_

peoples, had in after times risen or fallen according to the

strength or weakness of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria had

hitherto shown the greatest power. At several different periods,

notably under Simeon (883-927), and again under Samuel

(976-1014), it developed a strength which fairly overawed the

Empire itself. These _Slavic_ states had, however, been

subjected by the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the

eleventh century, and, though Servia enjoyed another period of

independence (1040-1148), it was not until the final crumbling of

the Byzantine Empire, the premonition of the event of 1204, that

their expansion recommences. The Wallachian, or Second Bulgarian

kingdom, which came into existence in 1187 in the lands between

the Balkans and the Danube, has been the subject of an ethnic

discussion which need not detain us. That it was not purely

_Slavic_ is well established, for the great and singular

revival of the _Vlach_ or _Rouman_ peoples and their

movement from the lands south of Haemus to their present seats

north of the Danube, which is one of the great features of this

age, had already begun. (The country between the Danube and the

Balkans, the seat of the Second Bulgarian kingdom, appears as

Aspro or White-Wallachia in some Byzantine writings. So also

north of the Danube the later Moldavia and Great Wallachia are

known respectively as Mavro [Black] and Hungarowallachia. Still

the fact of a continuous Roumnn civilization north of the Danube

is not established. The theory of a great northward movement of

the Vlach peoples is the one now generally accepted and is ably

advocated in Roesler's "Romänische Studien.")

At the present day this movement has been so long completed that

scarcely the trace of _Vlach_ population remains in the

lands south of the Danube. These emigrants appear, as it were, in

passing, to have shared with the native Bulgarians in the

creation of this Second Bulgarian kingdom. This realm achieved a

momentary greatness under its rulers of the house of Asau. The

dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 enabled them to

make great encroachments to the south, and it seemed for a time

that to the Bulgarian, not the Greek, would fall the task of

overthrowing the Latin Empire of Roumania (see general map of

Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century). With the

reëstablishment, however, of the Greek Empire of Constantinople,

in 1261, the Bulgarian kingdom began to lose much of its

importance, and its power was finally broken in 1285 by the

Mongols.

SERVIA.

In the following century it was the turn of Servia to enjoy a

period of preeminent greatness. The latter kingdom had recovered

its independence under the house of Nemanja in 1183.

{viii}

Under the great giant conqueror Stephen Dushan (1321-1355) it

enjoyed a period of greater power than has ever before or since

fallen to the lot of a single Balkan state. The Restored

Byzantine Empire had sustained no permanent loss from the period

of Bulgarian greatness: it was by the sudden Servian conquest

that it was deprived forever of nearly all its European

possessions (see Balkan map III). A Byzantine reaction might have

come under other conditions, but already another and greater

enemy was at her gates. Dushan died in 1355; and already, in

1353, two years before, the Turk at Gallipoli had made his

entrance into Europe. From this time every Christian state of the

East grew steadily weaker until Bulgaria, Servia, the Greek

Empire, and finally even Hungary, had passed under the Turkish

dominion.

THE VLACHS.

Passing on from these Slavic peoples, another national

manifestation of the greatest importance belonging to this

period, one which, unlike the Greek and Slavic, may be said in

one sense to have originated in the period, was that of the

_Vlachs_. This _Latin_ population, which ethnologists

have attempted to identify with the ancient _Thracians_,

was, previous to the twelfth century, scattered in irregular

groups throughout the entire Balkan peninsula. During the twelfth

century their great northward migration began. A single result of

this movement has already been noticed in the rise of the Second

Bulgarian kingdom. South of the Danube, however, their influence

was transitory. It was north of the river that the evolution of

the two principalities, Great Wallachia (Roumania) and Moldavia,

and the growth of a _Vlach_ population in the Transylvanian

lands of Eastern Hungary, has yielded the ethnic and in great

part the political geography of the present day.

The process of this evolution may be understood from a

comparative study of the four Balkan maps. Upon the first map the

_Cumanians_, a Finno-Tatar people, who in the twelfth

century had displaced a kindred race, the Patzinaks or

Petschenegs, occupy the whole country between the Danube and the

Transylvanian Alps. These were in turn swept forever from the map

of Europe by the Mongols (1224). With the receding of this

exterminating wave of Asiatic conquest the great wilderness was

thrown open to new settlers. The settlements of the _Vlachs_

north of the Danube and east of the Aluta became the principality

of Great Wallachia, the nucleus of the modern Roumania. West of

the Aluta the district of Little Wallachia was incorporated for a

long period, as the banat of Severin, in the Hungarian kingdom.

Finally, the principality of Moldavia came into existence in

1341, in land previously won by the Hungarians from the Mongols,

between the Dniester and the Carpathians. Both the principalities

of Great Wallachia and Moldavia were in the fourteenth century

dependencies of Hungary. The grasp of Hungary was loosened,

however, towards the close of the century and after a period of

shifting dependence, now on Hungary, now on Turkey, and for a

time, in the case of Moldavia, on Poland, we come to the period

of permanent Turkish supremacy.

With the presence and influence of the _Vlachs_ south of the

Balkans, during this period, we are less interested, since their

subsequent disappearance has removed the subject from any direct

connection with modern politics. The only quarter where they

still linger and where this influence led to the founding of an

independent state, was in the country east of the range of

Pindus, the Great Wallachia of the Byzantines. Here the

principality of Wallachian Thessaly appeared as an offshoot of

the Greek despotat of Epirus in 1259 (see map II).

This state retained its independent existence until 1308, when it

was divided between the Catalan dukes of Athens and the Byzantine

Empire.

ALBANIANS.

The _Skipetars_ (_Albanians_) during this period appear

to have been the slowest to grasp out for a separate national

existence. The southern section of Albania formed, after the fall

of Constantinople, a part of the despotat of Epirus, and whatever

independence existed in the northern section was lost in the

revival, first of the Byzantine, then, in the ensuing century, of

the Servian power. It was not until 1444 that a certain George

Castriot, known to the Turks as Iskander-i-beg, or Scanderbeg,

created a Christian principality in the mountain fastnesses of

Albania. This little realm stretched along the Adriatic from

Butrinto almost to Antivari, embracing, further inland, Kroja and

the basin of the Drin (see map IV).

It was not until after Scanderbeg's death that Ottoman control

was confirmed over this spirited Albanian population.

THE TURKISH CONQUEST.

The reign of Mohammed II. (1451-1481) witnessed the final

conquest of the entire country south of the Danube and the Save.

The extent of the Turkish Empire at his accession is shown on map

IV. The acquisitions of territory during his reign included in

Asia Minor the old Greek Empire of Trebizond (1461) and the

Turkish dynasty of Karaman; in Europe, Constantinople, whose fall

brought the Byzantine Empire to a close in 1453, the duchy of

Athens (1456), the despotats of Patras and Misithra (1460),

Servia (1458), Bosnia (1463), Albania (1468), Epirus and

Acarnania, the continental dominion of the Counts of Cephalonia

(1479), and Herzegovina (1481). In the mountainous district

immediately south of Herzegovina, the principality of Montenegro,

situated in lands which had formed the southern part of the first

Servian kingdom, alone preserved its independence, even at the

height of the Turkish domination.

The chronicle of Turkish history thereafter records only conquest

after conquest. The islands of the Ægean were many of them won

during Mohammed's own reign, the acquisition of the remainder

ensued shortly after. Venice was hunted step by step out of all

her Levantine possessions save the Ionian Islands; the

superiority over the _Crim Tartars_, Wallachia, Moldavia and

Jedisan followed, finally, the defeat at Mohacs (1526), and the

subsequent internal anarchy left nearly all Hungary at the mercy

of the Ottoman conqueror.

The geographical homogeneity thus restored by the Turkish

conquest was not again disturbed until the present century. The

repetition of almost the same conditions in our own time, though

with the process reversed, has been referred to in the sketch of

Balkan geography of the present day. The extreme importance of

the period just described, for the purposes of minute historical

analogy, will be apparent at once wherever comparison is

attempted.

{ix}

The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were of

course periods of far greater geographical intricacy, but the

purpose has been rather to indicate the nature of this intricacy

than to describe it in detail. The principal feature, namely, the

national movements, wherever they have manifested themselves,

have been more carefully dwelt upon. The object has been simply

to show that the four separate national movements, the

_Greek_, the _Slavic_, the _Rouman_, and the

_Albanian_, which may be said to have created the present

Levantine problem, were all present, and in the case of the two

last may even be said to have had their inception, in the period

just traversed.

In the present century the unfolding of national spirit has been

so much greater and far-reaching that a different outcome may be

looked for. It is sufficient for the present that the incipient

existence of these same movements has been shown to have existed

in a previous age. The best general text authority in English for

the geography of this period is George Finlay's "History of

Greece," volumes. III. and IV.; a more exhaustive guide in German is

Hopf's "Geschichte Griechenlands." For the purely geographical

works see the general bibliography of historical geography.

A. C. Reiley.

{x}

APPENDIX C.

NOTES TO THE MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (PRESENT CENTURY.)

The present century has been a remarkable one for the settlement

of great political and geographical questions. These questions

resolve themselves into two great classes, which indicate the

political forces of the present age,--the first, represented in

the growth of democratic thought, and the second arising from the

awakening of national spirit. The first of these concerns

historical geography only incidentally, but the second has

already done much to reconstruct the political geography of our

time.

RECENT NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.

Within a little over thirty years it has changed the map of

central Europe from a medley of small states into a united Italy

and a united Germany; it has also led to a reconstruction of the

Austro-Hungarian Empire, In Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary,

the national questions may, however, be regarded as settled; and

if, in the case of Austria-Hungary, owing to exactly reverse

conditions, the settlement has been a tentative one, it has at

least removed the question from the more immediate concern of the

present. In a different quarter of Europe, however, the rise of

the national movements has led to a question, infinitely more

complicated than the others, and which, so far from being

settled, is becoming ever more pressing year by year. This

reference is to the great Balkan problem. That this question has

been delayed in its solution for over four centuries, is due, no

doubt, to the conquests of the Turk, and it is still complicated

by his presence. In the notes to the four previous Balkan maps

(1191-1451), attention was especially directed to the national

movements, so far as they had opportunity to develop themselves

during this period. These movements, feeble in their character,

were all smothered by the Turkish conquest. With the decline of

this power in the present century these forces once more have

opportunity for reappearance. In this regard the history of the

Balkans during the nineteenth century is simply the history of

the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries read backwards.

The Turkish Empire had suffered terrible reverses during the

eighteenth century. Hungary (1699), the Crim Tartars (1774),

Bukovina (1777), Jedisan (1792), Bessarabia and Eastern Moldavia

(1812) were all successively wrested from the Ottomans, while

Egypt on one side and Moldavia and Wallachia on another recovered

practical autonomy, the one under the restored rule of the

Mamelukes (1766), the other under native hospodars.

THE SERVIAN AND GREEK REVOLTS.

All of these losses, though greatly weakening the Ottoman power,

did not destroy its geographical integrity. It was with the

Servian revolt of 1804 that the series of events pointing to the

actual disruption of the Turkish Empire may be said to have

begun. The first period of dissolution was measured by the reign

of Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), at once the greatest and the most

unfortunate of all the later Turkish sultans. Servia, first under

Kara Georg, then under Milosch Obrenovitch, the founder of the

present dynasty, maintained a struggle which led to the

recognition of Servian local autonomy in 1817. The second step in

the process of dissolution was the tragic Greek revolution

(1821-1828). The Sultan, after a terrible war of extermination,

had practically reduced Greece to subjection, when all his work

was undone by the intervention of the great powers.

The Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined squadrons of

England, France and Russia at Navarin, October 20, 1827, and in

the campaign of the ensuing year the Moscovite arms for the first

time in history penetrated south of the Balkans. The treaty of

Adrianople, between Russia and Turkey (September 14, 1829), gave

to the Czar the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia. By the

treaty of London earlier in this year Greece was made autonomous

under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and the protocol of March 22,

1829, drew her northern frontier in a line between the gulfs of

Arta and Volo. The titular sovereignty of the Sultan over Greece

was annulled later in the year at the peace of Adrianople, though

the northern boundary of the Hellenic kingdom was then curtailed

to a line drawn from the mouth of the Achelous to the gulf of

Lamia. With the accession of the Bavarian king Otho, in 1833,

after the failure of the republic, the northern boundary was

again adjusted, returning to about the limits laid down in the

March protocol of 1829. Greece then remained for over fifty years

bounded on the north by Mount Othrys, the Pindus range and the

gulf of Arta. In 1863, on the accession of the Danish king George

I., the Ionian Isles, which had been under English administration

since the Napoleonic wars, were ceded to the Greek kingdom, and

in May, 1881, almost the last change in European geography to the

present day was accomplished in the cession, by the Sultan, of

Thessaly and a small part of Epirus. The agitation in 1886 for a

further extension of Greek territory was unsuccessful.

THE TREATY OF UNKIAR SKELESSI.

A series of still greater reverses brought the reign of the

Sultan Mahmoud to a close. The chief of these were the defeats

sustained at the hands of his rebellious vassal Mehemet Ali,

pacha of Egypt, a man who takes rank even before the Sultan

himself as the greatest figure in the Mohammedan world during the

present century. The immediate issue of this struggle was the

practical independence of Egypt, where the descendants of Mehemet

still rule, their title having been changed in 1867 from viceroy

to that of khedive. An event incidental to the strife between

Mehemet Ali and the Sultan is of far greater importance in the

history of European Turkey.

{xi}

Mahmoud in his distress looked for aid to the great powers, and

the final issue of the rival interests struggling at

Constantinople was the memorable treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July,

1833) by which the Sultan resigned himself completely to the

interests of his former implacable foe, the Czar of Russia. In

outward appearance this treaty was an offensive and defensive

alliance; in practical results it gave the Moscovite, in exchange

for armed assistance, when needed, the practical control of the

Dardanelles. It is no extravagance of statement to say that this

treaty forms absolutely the high watermark of Russian

predominance in the affairs of the Levant. During the subsequent

sixty years, this influence, taken as a whole, strange paradox as

it may seem, has rather receded than advanced. The utter

prostration of the Turkish Empire on the death of Mahmoud (1839)

compelled Russia to recede from the conditions of Unkiar Skelessi

while a concert of the European powers undertook the task of

rehabilitating the prostrate power; the Crimean war (1854-1855)

struck a more damaging blow at the Russian power, and the events

of 1878, though they again shattered the Turkish Empire, did not,

as will be shown, lead to corresponding return of the Czar's

ascendency.

THE CRIMEAN WAR AND TREATY OF PARIS.

The Crimean War was brought on by the attempt of the Czar to

dictate concerning the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire--a

policy which culminated in the occupation of Moldavia and

Wallachia (1853). All Europe became arrayed against Russia on

this question,--Prussia and Austria in tacit opposition, while

England, France, and afterwards Piedmont, drifted into war with

the northern power.

By the treaty of Paris (1856), which terminated the sanguinary

struggle, the Danube, closed since the peace of Adrianople

(1829), was reopened; the southern part of Bessarabia was taken

from Russia and added to the principality of Moldavia; the treaty

powers renounced all right to interfere in the internal affairs

of the Porte; and, lastly, the Black Sea, which twenty years

before, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, had become a private

Russian pond, was swept of the Russian fleets and converted into

a neutral sea. The latter condition however was abrogated by the

powers (March 13, 1871).

Despite the defeat of Russia, the settlement effected at the

congress of Paris was but tentative. The most that the allied

powers could possibly have hoped for, was so far to cripple

Russia as to render her no longer a menace to the Ottoman Empire.

They succeeded only in so far as to defer the recurrence of a

Turkish crisis for another twenty years.

The chief event of importance during this interval was the birth

of the united Roumania. In 1857 the representative councils of

both Moldavia and Wallachia voted for their union under this

name. This personal union was accomplished by the choice of a

common ruler, John Cuza (1859), whose election was confirmed by a

new conference at Paris in 1861. A single ministry and single

assembly were formed at Bucharest in 1862. Prince Karl of

Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected hospodar in 1866, and

finally crowned as king in 1881.

THE REVIVED EASTERN QUESTION OF 1875-78.

The Eastern question was reopened with all its perplexities in

the Herzegovinian and Bosnian revolt of August, 1875. These

provinces, almost cut off from the Turkish Empire by Montenegro

and Servia, occupied a position which rendered their subjugation

almost a hopeless task. Preparations were already under way for a

settlement by joint action of the powers, when a wave of

fanatical fury sweeping over the Ottoman Empire rendered all

these efforts abortive. Another Christian insurrection in

Bulgaria was suppressed in a series of wholesale and atrocious

massacres. Servia and Montenegro in a ferment declared war on

Turkey (July 2, 1876). The Turkish arms, however, were easily

victorious, and Russia only saved the Servian capital by

compelling an armistice (October 30). A conference of the

representatives of the powers was then held at Constantinople in

a final effort to arrange for a reorganization of the Empire,

which should include the granting of autonomy to Bosnia,

Herzegovina and Bulgaria. These conditions, though subsequently

embodied in a general ultimatum, the London protocol of March 31,

1877, were rejected by the Porte, and Russia, who had determined

to proceed alone in the event of this rejection, immediately

declared war (April 24). Into this war, owing to the horror

excited in England by the Bulgarian massacres, and the altered

policy of France, the Turk was compelled to go without allies,

and thus unassisted his defeat was assured. Then followed the

sanguinary campaigns in Bulgaria, the memories of which are still

recent and unobscured. Plevna, the central point of the Turkish

resistance, fell on December 10th; Adrianople was occupied by the

Russians on January 20th, 1878; and on January 31st., an

armistice was granted.

Great Britain now seemed roused to a sense of the danger to

herself in the Russian approach to Constantinople, and public

opinion at last permitted Lord Beaconsfield to send a fleet to

the Bosporus.

By the Russo-Turkish peace of San Stephano (March 3, 1878) Turkey

recognized the complete independence of Servia, Roumania and

Montenegro, while Bulgaria became what Servia and Roumania had

just ceased to be, an autonomous principality under nominal

Turkish sovereignty. Russia received the Dobrutcha in Europe,

which was to be given by the Czar to Roumania in exchange for the

portion of Bessarabia lost in 1856. Servia and Montenegro

received accessions of territory, the latter securing Antivari on

the coast, but the greatest geographical change was the frontier

assigned to the new Bulgaria, which was to include all the

territory bounded by an irregular line beginning at Midia on the

Black Sea and running north of Adrianople, and, in addition, a

vast realm in Macedonia, bounded on the west only by Albania,

approaching Salonica, and touching the Ægean on either side of

the Chalcidice.

It was evident that the terms of this treaty involved the

interests of other powers, especially of Great Britain. An

ultimate settlement which involved as parties only the conqueror

and conquered was therefore impossible. A general congress of the

Powers was seen to be the only solvent of the difficulty; but

before such a congress was possible it was necessary for Great

Britain and Russia to find at least a tangible basis of

negotiation for the adjustment of their differences.

{xii}

By the secret agreement of May 30th, Russia agreed to abandon the

disputed points--chief among these the creation of a Bulgarian

seaboard on the Ægean--and the congress of Berlin then assembled

(June 13-July 13, 1878).

ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN.

Great Britain was represented at the congress by the Marquis of

Salisbury and the premier, the Earl of Beaconsfield. The treaty

of Berlin modified the conditions of San Stephano by reducing the

Russian acquisitions in Asia Minor and also by curtailing the

cessions of territory to Servia and Montenegro. A recommendation

was also made to the Porte to cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus

to Greece, a transfer which was accomplished in 1881. A more

important provision was the transfer of the administrative

control of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria.

This cession was the outcome of the secret agreement between

Russia and Austria at Reichstadt, in July of the previous year,

by which the former had secured from her rival a free hand in the

Turkish war. These districts were at once occupied by Austria,

despite the resistance of the Mohammedan population, and the

sanjak of Novibazar, the military occupation of which was agreed

to by the Porte, was also entered by Austrian troops in September

of the following year. England secured as her share of the spoil

the control of the island of Cyprus.

The greatest work accomplished at Berlin, however, was the

complete readjustment of the boundaries of the new Bulgarian

principality. This result was achieved through the agency of

Great Britain. The great Bulgarian domain, which by the treaty of

San Stephano would have conformed almost to the limits of the

Bulgarian Empire of the tenth century, was, with the exception of

a small western strip including the capital, Sofia, pushed

entirely north of the Balkans. This new principality was to enjoy

local autonomy; and immediately south of the Balkans was formed a

new province, Eastern Roumelia, also with local autonomy,

although under the military authority of the Sultan.

The result of the Berlin Congress was the apparent triumph of the

Beaconsfield policy. It is doubtful, however, if the idea of this

triumph has been fully sustained by the course of subsequent

events. The idea of Beaconsfield appears to have been that the

new Bulgaria could not become other than a virtual dependency of

Russia, and that in curtailing its boundaries he was checking by

so much the growth of Russian influence. If he could have

foreseen, however, the unexpected spirit with which the

Bulgarians have defended their autonomy, not from Turkish but

from Russian aggression, it is doubtful if he would have lent

himself with such vigor to that portion of his policy which had

for its result the weakening of this "buffer" state. The

determination to resist Russian aggression in the Balkans

continues to form the purpose of English politicians of nearly

all schools; but the idea that this policy is best served by

maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has

been steadily losing adherents since Beaconsfield's day. The one

event of importance in Balkan history since 1878 has served well

to illustrate this fact.

LATER CHANGES.

In September, 1885, the revolt of Eastern Roumelia partially

undid the work of the Berlin treaty. After the usual negotiations

between the Powers, the question at issue was settled by a

conference of ambassadors at Constantinople in November, by which

Eastern Roumelia was placed under the rule of the Bulgarian

prince as vassal of the Sultan. This result was achieved through

the agency of England, and against the opposition of Russia and

other continental powers. England and Russia had in fact

exchanged policies since 1878, now that the real temper of the

Bulgarian people was more generally understood.

The governments of Greece and Servia, alarmed at the predominance

thus given to Bulgaria among the liberated states, sought similar

compensation, but were both foiled.

Servia, which sought this direct from Bulgaria, was worsted in a

short war (Nov.-Dec. 1885), and Greece was checked in her

aspiration for further territorial aggrandizement at the expense

of Turkey by the combined blockade of the Powers in the spring of

1886.

Since then, no geographical change has taken place in the old

lands of European Turkey. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was forced

to abdicate by Russian intrigue in September 1886; but under his

successor, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (crowned in 1887), und

his able minister Stambouloff, Bulgaria has successfully

preserved its autonomy.

THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEM.

A general statement of the Balkan problem as it exists to-day may

be briefly given. The non-_Turkish_ populations of European

Turkey, for the most part Christian, are divided ethnically into

four groups: the _Roumans_ or _Vlachs_, the

_Greeks_, the _Albanians_ and the _Slavs_. The

process of liberation, as it has proceeded during the present

century, has given among these people the following separate

states. The _Vlachs_ are represented in the present kingdom

of Roumania ruled by a Hohenzollern prince; the _Greeks_ are

represented in the little kingdom of Greece ruled by a prince of

the house of Denmark; while the _Slavs_ are represented by

three autonomous realms: Bulgaria under Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg,

Servia under the native dynasty of Obrenovitch, and the little

principality of Montenegro, the only one of all which had never

yielded to Turkish supremacy, under the Petrovic house, which is

likewise native.

The _Albanians_ alone of the four races, owing in part,

perhaps, to their more or less general acceptance of

Mohammedanism, have not as yet made a determined effort for

separate national existence.

To these peoples, under any normal process of development,

belongs the inheritance of the Turkish Empire in Europe. The time

has long passed when any such process can be effectually hindered

on the Turkish side. It will be hindered, if at all, either by

the aggressive and rival ambitions of their two great neighbors,

Austria and Russia, or by the mutual jealousies and opposing

claims of the peoples themselves. The unfortunate part which

these jealousies are likely to play in the history of the future

was dimly foreshadowed in the events of 1885.

{xiii}

It is indeed these rival aspirations, rather than the collapse of

the Turkish power, which are most likely to afford Russia and

even Austria the opportunity for territorial extension over the

Balkan lands. A confederation, or even a tacit understanding

between the Balkan states, would do much to provide against this

danger; but the idea of a confederation, though often suggested

and even planned, belongs at present only to the realm of

possibilities. On the one hand Servia, menaced by the proximity

of Austria, leans upon Russian support; on the other, Bulgaria,

under exactly reverse conditions, yields to the influence of

Austria. It will be seen at once that these are unfavorable

conditions on which to build up any federative action. If at the

next crisis, however, the liberated states are fated to act

independently, it will be seen at once that Greece and Bulgaria

possess the better chance. Not only are they the most remote from

any of the great powers, but they alone possess a geography which

is entirely open on the Turkish side. Moreover, what is of still

greater consequence, it is they who, from an ethnic standpoint,

have the most legitimate interest in the still unliberated

population of European Turkey. The unliberated _Greek_

population predominates in southern Macedonia, the Chalcidian

peninsula and along almost the entire seaboard, both of Thrace

and Asia Minor; on the other hand the ethnographical limits of

the _Bulgarian_ people conform almost exactly to the

boundaries of Bulgaria as provided for at San Stephano. The

creation of a political Bulgaria to correspond to the ethnic

Bulgaria was indeed the purpose of the Russian government in

1878, though with the repetition of the same conditions it would

hardly be its purpose again. Barring, therefore, the Albanians of

the west, who as yet have asserted no clearly defined national

claim, the _Greeks_ and the Bulgarians are the logical heirs

to what remains of European Turkey.

These observations are not intended as a fore-cast; they merely

indicate what would be an inevitable outcome, were the question

permitted a natural settlement.

Concerning the _Turks_ themselves a popular fallacy has ever

been to consider their destiny as a whole. But here again an

important division of the subject intrudes itself.

In Asia Minor, where the Turkish population overwhelmingly

preponderates, the question of their destiny, barring the ever

threatened Russian interference, ought not to arouse great

concern in the present. But in European Turkey the utter lack of

this predominance seems to deprive the Ottoman of his only

legitimate title. The _Turkish_ population in Thrace and the

Balkans never did in fact constitute a majority; and with its

continual decline, measured indeed by the decline of the Ottoman

Empire itself, the greatest of all obstacles to an equitable and

final settlement has been removed. (See the ethnic map of Europe

at the present day.)

The historical geography of the Balkans during the present

century is not so intricate that it may not be understood even

from the current literature of the subject. The best purely

geographical authority is E. Hertslet's "Map of Europe by

Treaty." Of text works A. C. Fyffe's. "History of Modern Europe,"

and J. H. Rose's "A Century of Continental History" afford

excellent general views. The facts concerning the settlement of

the first northern boundary of free Greece are given in Finlay's

"History of Greece," Volume VII. Of excellent works dealing more or

less directly with present Balkan politics there is hardly an

end. It is necessary to mention but a few: E. de Laveleye's "The

Balkan Peninsula," E. A. Freeman's "The Ottoman Power in Europe,"

the Duke of Argyll's "The Eastern Question," and James Baker's

"Turkey." See also the general bibliography of historical

geography.

A. C. Reiley.

{xiv}

APPENDIX D.

NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.

The subject matter contained in this map is of a character so

distinct from that of the other maps of this series that the

reader must expect a corresponding modification in the method of

treatment.

The use of historical maps is confined, for the most part, to the

statement of purely political conditions.

This is in fact almost the only field which admits of exact

portrayal, within the limits of historical knowledge, by this

method. Any other phase of human life, whether religious or

social, which concerns the belief or the thought of the people

rather than the exact extent of their race or their government,

must remain, so far as the limitations of cartography is

concerned, comparatively intangible.

Again, it should be noted that, even in the map treatment of a

subject as comparatively exact as political geography, it is one

condition of exactness that this treatment should be specific in

its relation to a date, or at least to a limited period.

The map which treats a subject in its historical development has

the undoubted merit of greater comprehensiveness; but this

advantage cannot be gained without a certain loss of relation and

proportion. Between the "development" map and the "date" map

there is this difference: In the one, the whole subject passes

before the eye in a sort of moving panorama, the salient points

evident, but with their relation to external facts often

obscured: in the other, the subject stands still at one

particular point and permits itself to be photographed. A

progressive series of such photographs, each forming a perfect

picture by itself, yet each showing the clear relation with what

precedes and follows, affords the method which all must regard as

the most logical and the most exact. But from the very intangible

nature of the subject treated in this map, the date method, with

its demand for exactness, becomes impracticable. These

observations are necessary in explaining the limitations of

cartography in dealing with a subject of this nature. The notes

that follow are intended as a simple elucidation of the plan of

treatment.

The central feature in the early development of Christianity is

soon stated. The new faith spread by churches from city to city

until it became the religion of the Roman Empire; afterwards this

spread was continued from people to people until it became the

religion of Europe. The statement of the general fact in this

crude and untempered form might in an ordinary case provoke

criticism, and its invariable historic truth with reference to

the second period be open to some question; but within the limits

of map presentation it is substantially accurate. It forms,

indeed, the key upon which the entire map is constructed.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCHES.

During the first three centuries of the Christian era, up to the

Constantinian or Nicene period, there is no country, state or

province which can be safely described as Christian; yet as early

as the second century there is hardly a portion of the Empire

which does not number some Christians in its population. The

subject of the historical geography of the Christian church

during the ante-Nicene period is confined, therefore, to the

locating of these Christian bodies wherever they are to be found.

On this portion of the subject the map makes its own statement.

It is possible merely to elucidate this statement, with the

suggestion, in addition, of a few points which the map does not

and cannot contain.

Concerning the ante-Nicene churches there is only one division

attempted. This division, into the "Apostolic" and

"post-Apostolic," concerns merely the period of their foundation.

Concerning the churches founded in the Apostolic period (33-100),

our knowledge is practically limited to the facts culled from the

Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The churches of the

post-Apostolic period afford a much wider field for research,

although the materials for study bearing upon them are almost as

inadequate. According to the estimate of the late Professor R. D.

Hitchcock, there were in the Roman Empire at the close of the

persecutions about 1,800 churches, 1,000 in the East and 800 in

the West. Of this total, the cities in which churches have been

definitely located number only 525. They are distributed as

follows: Europe 188, Asia 214, Africa 123 (see volume I, page 443).

Through the labors of Professor Henry W. Hulbert, the locations of

these 525 cities, so far as established, have been cast in

available cartographic form.

It is much to be regretted that, despite the sanction of the

author, it has been found impossible, owing to the limitations of

space, to locate all of these cities in the present map. The

attempt has been limited therefore to the placing of only the

more prominent cities, or those whose location is subject to the

least dispute.

The Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, as they appear upon

the map, are distinguished by underlines in separate colors. A

special feature has been the insertion of double underlines to

mark the greater centres of diffusion, so far as their special

activity in this respect can be safely assumed. In this class we

have as centres in Apostolic times _Jerusalem, Antioch,

Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica_ and _Corinth_; in

post-Apostolic times, when the widening of the field necessitates

special and limited notices, we may name _Alexandria, Edessa,

Rome_ and _Carthage_.

The city of _Rome_ contains a Christian community in

Apostolic times, but its activity as a great diffusion centre,

prior to early post-Apostolic times, is a point of considerable

historical controversy. In this respect it occupies a peculiar

position, which is suggested by the special underlines in the

map.

{xv}

CONVERSION OF THE EMPIRE.

The above method of treatment carries us in safety up to the

accession in the West of the first Christian Emperor (311). The

attempt, however, to pursue the same method beyond that period

would involve us at once in insurmountable difficulties.